in the history of natural science. It emerged in the early 3rd century and assumed a dominant position surprisingly quickly. I would like to make a critical methodological observation: the expressions “scientific theory”, “scientific knowledge” do not sound quite appropriate with respect to this time—I am certainly referring to the pre-scientific period of the development of natural science, protoscience. Taking into account this adjustment, which introduces the necessary semantic and notional boundaries, for the sake of convenience, I will employ the concepts of “scientific-practical system” and “theory of rational knowledge” with respect to Galenism.
The triumph of Galenism is a truly unprecedented fact in the history of science. G. Ferngren argues that the Galenic system dominates as early as the mid 3rd century, wittily describing the remaining opponents of Galen as a “post-Galenic sect”.23 V. Nutton takes a more cautious position, pointing to a longer period during which Galenism becomes the universally recognised foundation of medicine—for up to 150 years after the death of Galen.24 Furthermore, V. Nutton draws attention to the strong influence of methodists on the territories of the Western Rome Empire for a long period of time (up to the 5th century). In my opinion, whether it took 50 or 150 years for Galenism to finally triumph is not important. We shall focus on other figures: Galenism remains dominant at least until the 17th century (1500 years) and remains relevant until the early 19th century. After all, it is well-known that K. Kühn’s publication of a corpus of Galen’s works in 1829 was primarily intended for doctors and not historians, and had a practical meaning.
Galen’s natural philosophy is based on opposing judgements: the physical world is not eternal, and was created by a higher being—God (Galen sometimes uses this expression, more often in the Platonic tradition of the word “Demiurge”); creation is based on defined, practical laws of its functioning; there is unity in the act of creation of all living beings. From these positions, Galen is extremely interested in comparative anatomy, where the human being becomes a higher being, the pinnacle of the work of the Demiurge. Galen’s world view allows for obtaining evidence-based knowledge and ultimate understanding of anatomical and physiological processes. His system is distinguished by great openness and internal evolution. The potential for longevity of a scientific paradigm directly depends on its ability to sustain the process of accumulating new knowledge; it is necessary as long as it is able to summarise said knowledge into a system. The preconditions for a scientific revolution arise once a certain critical amount of proven facts that do not fit into the old theoretical system is accumulated. As an example, let us consider the crisis of Galenism in the 17th century: ideas about the hematopoietic function of the liver are refuted by W. Harvey, who discovered the closed blood circulatory system. Facts gathered by W. Harvey, M. Malpighi and others are so clearly substantiated and obviously contradict Galen’s anatomical and physiological system that, naturally, they lead to its criticism and rethinking. In contrast, with all of its significance, A. Vesalius’ work excellently fits in with Galenism.
Considering Galen only as a physician and his legacy solely as a collection of practical anatomical and clinical works, it is impossible to properly assess the figure of the great physician himself and explain the historical fate and significance of his doctrine.
Galen—a Platonist—is guided by the principle which determines the importance of practical knowledge of the living—nature and the human being, supported by rationalist reformists in natural philosophy—Hippocrates and Plato.25 His system of natural philosophy defines the area of scientific and practical search and vice versa. Empirically obtained extensive data refine Galen’s views on natural philosophy. A key place in Galen’s work in natural philosophy is taken by his dispute with epicureans over their views on the nature of matter, according to which matter consists of fine indivisible particles—“atoms” that are in constant motion. Motion was crucial. They considered it chaotic, occurring by happenstance. The controversy over this theory accompanied the development of natural science throughout its prescientific stage until the scientific revolution in the 17th century. From time to time, this dispute escalated and died down. It was exceptionally intense in the 2nd-3rd centuries. For natural philosophers, this theory was absolutely unacceptable as evidenced by its sharp critique from Galen and other natural philosophers. The explanation of the motion of atoms as the chaotic direction of a game of chance essentially meant the lack of any scientific explanation. This directly led to the idea of the unknowability of the physical world, which did not sit well with practical scientists (doctors, physicists, engineers, etc). Successful cognitive work was possible only based on a religious and philosophical system which positively answered the question of the cognisability of nature and the human body as its part.
In this book I try to estimate the exact influence of different philosophical schools on modal theory and practice; to demonstrate this influence on the features of Galen’s scientific-practical system and to analyze Galen’s research methodology, identify the essence of the apodictic method in his works and the structure of his doctrine in the context of commensurability with modern-day medical ideas.
1 Borodulin, V.I., History of Russian medicine. Clinical practice of internal diseases in the second half of the 19th century–first half of the 20th century (Moscow: MedPress, 2011), 140. (In Russ.)
2 Russell, B., Dictionary of Mind, Matter and Morals (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1993), 290.
3 Comte-Sponville, A., Philosophical Dictionary (Barcelona: Paidos Iberica Ediciones S A, 2003), 576.
4 Popper, K.R., Conjectures and refutations. The growth of scientific knowledge (London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1989).
5 See: Stepin, V.S., Chelovecheskoe poznanie i kultura [Human cognition and culture] (Saint Petersburg: SPbGUP, 2013), 96-97. (In Russ.); Stepin, V.S., Filosofiya nauki. Obshchie problemy (Philosophy of science. Common problems) (Moscow: Gardariki, 2006), 134–135. (In Russ.)
6 See: Lloyd, G.E.R., “Experiment in early Greek philosophy and medicine”, in Proceeding of the Cambridge Philological Society (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1964), 50-72; Lloyd, G.E.R., Magic, Reason and Experience. Studies in the Origin and Development of Greek Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).
7 Jouanna, J., Hippocrates (Medicine and Culture) (Baltimore, London: The John Hopkins University Press, 2001).
8 For more, I strongly recommend: Nutton, V., “Galen of Pergamum”. Farrago. 5 (1969): 5–9; Nutton, V., Galen’s library. Galen and the World of Knowledge, eds. Gill, C., Whitmarsh, T., Wilkins, J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 19‒34; Nutton, V., The fortunes of Galen. The Cambridge Companion to Galen, ed. Hankinson, R.J. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 355–390; Nutton, V., God, Galen, and the depaganisation of ancient medicine. Religion and medicine in the Middle Ages, eds. Biller, P. and Ziegler, J. (York: York Medieval Press, 2001), 15–32; Nutton, V., “The Fatal Embrace: Galen and the History of Ancient Medicine”, in Science in Context 18 (1) (2005): 111–121; Nutton, V., “Roman medicine, 250 BC to AD 200”, in The Western Medical Tradition: 800 B.C.-1800 A.D., ed Conrad, L.I., et. al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 39–70; Nutton, V., Bos, G., Galen: On Problematical Movements (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
