Theory and Terminology of Mixture in Galen. The concepts of krasis and mixis in Galen’s thought Dissertation zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktorin der Philosophie (Dr. phil.) eingereicht an der Philosophischen Fakultät II der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin von MA Claudia Mirrione Datum der Verteidigung: 13/02/2017 Präsidentin der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin Prof. Dr. -Ing. Dr. Sabine Kunst Dekanin der Philosophischen Fakultät II Prof. Dr. Ulrike Vedder 1. Gutachter Prof. Dr. Philip van der Eijk 2. Gutachterin Dr. Inna Kupreeva 1 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS …………………………………………………………………………………6 INTRODUCTION I – GALEN’S THEORY OF MIXTURE 1.1 Galen’s adoption of the model of mixture of primary elements as theoretical basis for medical investigation: an “archaic” or a modern and up-to-date choice? Introductive overview and general setting of the thesis objective ...........................................................................................................................10 1.2 Primary sources ...........................................................................................................................24 1.3 Forschungsstand concerning Galen’s theory of primary elements ………………………………………………………………………………...26 INTRODUCTION II – GALEN’S TERMINOLOGY OF MIXTURE 2.1 Status quaestionis ……………………………………………………………………………….40 2.2 Methodology ……………………………………………………………………………...…41 2.3 Research objectives ……………………………………………………………………………...…42 PART ONE ……………...…………………………………………………………………44 Chapter I. Between Stoicism and Peripatetic tradition. Galen’s theory of mixture of primary elements …………………………………………………………………………..…….45 1. Galen’s theory of mixture of primary elements against the background of the Stoic/Peripatetic controversy ………………………………..…………………………………..…….…......45 3 1.1 The Stoic theory of δι᾿ὅλων κρᾶσις (total mixture) from Zeno to Chrysippus. Textual evidence, aim and justification of the theory …………………………………………………………..…………..………...49 1.2 Alexander’s criticism of the Stoic theory of total mixture. Alexander’s account of mixture in his De mixtione, aim and justification of the theory ………………………………………………………………………………...63 1.3 Galen’s account of the mixture of primary elements ……………………………………………………………..……………...…..79 1.3.1 Syncretistic approach ………………………………….……………………………………………..80 1.3.2 Galen and the Stoic/Peripatetic controversy. Qualities or bodies? …………………………………………………………………………….......86 1.3.3 Galen’s κρᾶσις as a progressive division of bodies ……………………………………………………………..……….…………96 1.3.4 Mixture, change and the ontological status of the primary elements in the mixture (actuality or potentiality?). The example of the τετραφάρμακος and the generation of a tertium quid ……………………………………………...………………………..………100 1.3.5 Mixture and generation. Humours or homoeomerous parts? .........................................................................................................................127 1.3.6 Mixture and symmetry. Galen and the Hippocratic legacy …………………………………………………………………………….…137 1.3.7 The reversibility of the process of mixture ……………………………………………………………………………….174 Chapter II. From the mixture to the mixtures. Galen’s system of nine mixtures …………..…………………………………………………………………...188 2.1 Galen’s De temperamentis book I and his system of nine mixtures …………………………………………………………………………….…188 2.2 Galen against his predecessors and contemporaries and his criticism of Athenaeus of Attalia and his followers in De temperamentis book I …….................................................................................................................189 4 2.3 Galen's additions to the theories of the predecessors. The good mixture and the simple mixtures ……………………...…………………………………………….………….210 2.4 A twofold εὐκρασία (good mixture). The midpoint according to substance, genus and species, its consequences and teleological implications .........................................................................................................................219 PART TWO ……………....……………………………………………………………….240 Chapter III. The terminology of mixture. Galen’s words for mixture: κρᾶσις and μίξις ……….………………………………………………………………………241 3.1 A vexata quaestio. Κρᾶσις versus μίξις ……………………………………………...…………………………..........241 3.2 Terminologies for mixtures: the Hippocratic authors, Aristotle and Peripatetics, the Stoics ……………………………………………………………………………….254 3.3 Galen’s usage of κρᾶσις ………………………………………….….……………...………………....260 3.4 Galen’s usage of μίξις ……………………………….………………………….………………...…267 3.5 Problems of translation ……………………………...………………...…………………...…………277 CONCLUSION …………………..……………………………...……………………………280 1.Conclusion – part I ………………………….…………………………………………………....280 2.Conclusion - part II ………………………..……………………..……………………………….290 BIBLIOGRAPHY ……………………………………………………………………………….296 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This doctoral dissertation has a long history, dating back to my previous Galenic studies conducted at the University of Palermo during my 2011 master’s degree in classical studies, and my having attended, years before, a course on Ancient Greek scientific and philosophical texts. I then had the privilege of continuing my studies from 2012 at the Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin under the supervision of Prof. Dr. Philip Van der Eijk, which culminated in the doctoral thesis that I am presenting today and which now bears the title “Theory and Terminology of Mixture in Galen. The concepts of krasis and mixis in Galen’s thought”. To my supervisor I owe the most gratitude: almost every page of this dissertation profited from his corrections, reflections, and suggestions. Besides this, I am very grateful to him for his rare dialectical scholarly outlook, his invaluable generosity, and his irreplaceable human qualities. During my studies, from February to March 2014, I was a visiting student at the Department of Philosophy of the University of Edinburgh, where I met and studied with Dr. Inna Kupreeva. I am very grateful to Dr. Kupreeva for dedicating a great deal of her time to me: during our regular weekly meetings, I made fruitful progresses in the study of ancient natural, Stoic, and Peripatetic philosophy. Special thanks go to Professors David Konstan, Stephen Menn, and Teun Tieleman. Each patiently read and annotated my work and contributed to my studies, leaving unmistakable traces and transmitting personal and scholarly values: including a great passion for classical studies broadly conceived and for Hellenistic natural philosophy, rigorous reasoning and obstinacy towards objection and self-objection, as well as an accurate and unitary philosophical- cum-philological approach to the study of ancient philosophical texts. 6 Moreover, my post-graduate research stay in Hamburg during the Summer semester of 2011 was particularly helpful for this dissertation. I studied under the careful supervision of Prof. Dr. Christian Brockmann and Prof. Dr. Klaus Corcilius, to whom I am very grateful for helping me sketch the research project that now takes the shape of a doctoral thesis. I would also like to use this occasion to thank Dr. Sabrina Grimaudo, the supervisor of my master’s degree thesis: Dr. Grimaudo introduced me to the Ancient Greek medical texts and it is to her that I owe much of my interest in Galen. Moreover, I also wish to thank the numerous members of the international research group of the Alexander von Humboldt Professorship Programme “Medicine of the Mind, Philosophy of the Body. Discourses of Health and Well- Being in the Ancient World”, with whom I spent my research period in Berlin from 2012 to 2014: I learnt a great deal from them. In any case, errors and imprecisions unescapably remain and for these I am solely responsible. I would also like to thank the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation and the Institut für Klassische Philologie der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, here gratefully acknowledged, for having funded the main part of this work. Finally, but above all, I would like to wholeheartedly thank my family, Vincenza Lipari and Matteo Mirrione, for their patience, affection, and unending support throughout every phase of this long process: this dissertation is dedicated to them. 7 νομίζεται δὲ ὑπὸ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τὸ μὲν ἐξ Ἅιδου ἐς φάος αὐξηθὲν γενέσθαι, τὸ δὲ ἐκ τοῦ φάεος ἐς Ἅιδην μειωθὲν ἀπολέσθαι· ὀφθαλμοῖσι γὰρ πιστεύουσι μᾶλλον ἢ γνώμῃ, οὐχ ἱκανοῖς ἐοῦσιν οὐδὲ περὶ τῶν ὁρεομένων κρῖναι· ἐγὼ δὲ τάδε γνώμῃ ἐξηγέομαι. ζῷα γὰρ κἀκεῖνα καὶ τάδε· καὶ οὔτε, εἰ ζῷον, ἀποθανεῖν οἷόν τε, εἰ μὴ μετὰ πάντων· ποῖ γὰρ ἀποθανεῖται; οὔτε τὸ μὴ ἐόν γενέσθαι, πόθεν γὰρ ἔσται; ἀλλ' αὔξεται πάντα καὶ μειοῦται ἐς τὸ μήκιστον καὶ ἐς τὸ ἐλάχιστον, τῶν γε δυνατῶν. Ὅ τι δ' ἂν διαλέγωμαι γενέσθαι ἢ ἀπολέσθαι, τῶν πολλῶν εἵνεκεν ἑρμηνεύω· ταῦτα δὲ συμμίσγεσθαι καὶ διακρίνεσθαι δηλῶ· ἔχει δὲ καὶ ὧδε· γενέσθαι καὶ ἀπολέσθαι τωὐτὸ, συμμιγῆναι καὶ διακριθῆναι τωὐτὸ, αὐξηθῆναι καὶ μειωθῆναι τωὐτὸ, γενέσθαι, συμμιγῆναι τωὐτὸ, ἀπολέσθαι, [μειωθῆναι,] διακριθῆναι τωὐτὸ, ἕκαστον πρὸς πάντα καὶ πάντα πρὸς ἕκαστον τωὐτὸ, καὶ οὐδὲν πάντων τωὐτό· ὁ νόμος γὰρ τῇ φύσει περὶ τούτων ἐναντίος. De victu CMG I 2.4 pp. 126.29-128,11 Joly But the current belief is that one thing increases and comes to light from Hades, while another thing diminishes and perishes from the light into Hades. For they trust eyes rather than mind, though these are not competent to judge even things that are seen. But I use mind to expound thus. For there is life in the things of the other world, as well as in those of this. If there be life, there cannot be death, unless all the things die with it. For whither will death take place?