CHAPTER FOUR DIGESTION AND RESPIRATION DIOGENES OF BABYLON AND OTHERS (PHPII 8.29-51) 4.1. Introduction The last section of PHPII (8.29-51) deals with a group of arguments which infer the seat of the intellect from physiological theories on digestion and respiration, processes which were often linked with each other. These arguments, Galen says, were advanced by 'by almost everyone' who advocated the cardiocentric position (29). Most notable are two syllogisms of the fifth Stoic scholarch Diogenes of Babylon (c. 240-150 BCE),1 quoted verbatim at PHP II 8.40 and 44 (SWill Diogenes fr. 30).2 We need not doubt that these fragments derive from Diogenes' tract On the Regent Part of the Sou~ from which Galen had earlier presented a long excerpt, contain­ ing both Zeno's celebrated speech argument as cited by Diogenes as well as the latter's more elaborate version thereof (PHPII 4.7-14 = SVF III Diog. fr. 29). The two arguments by Diogenes presented at PHP II 8.40 and 44 were also designed to support the cardiocentric position. Diogenes, then, appears to have written a kind of sequel to the demonstration offered by his (presumed) teacher Chrysippus in the first book of the On the Soul. Galen, it seems, had direct access to Diogenes' treatise.3 Apparently, it still was read and influential among Stoics and others in his day.4 1 These traditional dates have recently been called into question: see in particular T. Dorandi, Richerche sulla cronologia dei filosofi ellenistici (Stuttgart 1991) 29 f., 61, 69 ff. 76, who argues that Diogenes lived on until ca. 140. If we credit Lucian, Macr. 20 that Diogenes died at the age of eighty-eight, this would push his birthdate forward to around 228 CE. 2 Also containing II 8.47-48, printed, in SVF l, as (Zeno) fr. 140 and (Cleanthes) fr. 521. This passage mentions Chrysippus too but is not to be found among the Chrysippean fragments assembled in vol. II of the SW. 3 At PHP II 5.21 Galen tells us that he would not have presented Diogenes' version of Zeno's speech argument (nor for that matter Chrysippus', II 5.15- 20) were it not for a Stoic (no name given) who disagreed with him over the meaning of the word xrope1 in this argument; see esp. ibid. 24 ftvayKacr8'Jlv oi'lv a:i:rtip ta tffiv aA.A.rov ltrotKOOV napavaytVWGK:E!V f3£f3A,w ... On this passage see also supra, p. 42. 4 For general evaluations of the impact of Diogenes' work in antiquity, see DIGESTION AND RESPIRATION 67 The Diogenes fragments are not among the texts most assidu­ ously studied by modern scholars-unjustifiably so.5 In the follow­ ing pages I shall attempt to uncover their original purport with a constant eye on Galen's mode of argument. As regards three argu­ ments that have not been taken from Diogenes (8.30, 33, 36), we face the additional task of identifying their proponents, on whom Galen is tantalizingly reticent. Their arguments are clearly not given in verbatim quotation, so we also have to assess the authen­ ticity of their wording in order to determine the extent of distortion involved. As far as Galen is concerned, my account in the main body of this chapter will be predominantly descriptive (§§ 2- 4): it charts his procedures without probing deeper for underlying motives and without drawing general conclusions about his method. This appears at first blush to differ in certain interesting ways from that applied in the preceding sections of book II. In particular, Galen abandons the list of perceptible attributes he had used as his scheme of reference throughout. So how far is he following a different procedure and what is its nature and purpose? Having surveyed his argument, I shall attempt to give an answer to these questions in the closing section of this chapter (§ 5). 4.2. Two Peripatetic (and Stoic?) arguments Galen starts this part of his discussion as follows (PHP II 8.30): They say that in the part from which the principle of nourishment (il 'tOll 'tpE<pEcr8at ... apxfJ) is for animals, in that part is also the reasoning element ( 1:0 AOytSOJ..LEVOV) of the soul; but the principle of nourishment is in the heart; therefore the reasoning and thinking element ('to AO"flSOJlEVOV 'tE Kat Ot<XVOOUJlEVOV) is located in the heart. Like the other arguments in this section, this syllogism, given in paraphrase rather than direct quotation, is introduced as having been employed by 'almost everyone' (8.29, p.l62.18). Von Arnim quoted it as a fragment of Chrysippus' On the Soul ( SW II 889), Von Arnim, REV (1905) cols. 773-76; Tieleman (1991) 123; D. Obbink & P. A. Vander Waerdt, 'Diogenes of Babylon: The Stoic Sage in the City of Fools', GRBS 32 (1991) 355 f. with further references. 5 But cf. Stein (1886) vol. 1, 179 f. Ganter (1894) 474 f. Rusche (1930/1968) 256 ff., 272 ff.; Stecker! (1958) 38 (on 164.21-3); Schofield (1983) 40. Cf. also Bonhoffer (1890/1968) 44; Von Arnim, REV col. 775 (45-51) (only on p.l64.32 ff.); Pohlenz (1980) 51; Ph. De Lacy, ad p.l62.30-2; ad 164.32-166.16; Fillion­ Lahille (1984) 53. .