280 Late antiquity
indispensable instruments for the acquisition of knowledge and under-
standing.^3 To be sure, he sometimes says that experience merely has to
confirm or check what reason has already expected ( =
) or guessed
( =
).^4 At the same time, he repeatedly stresses the relative predom-
inance of experience over reasoning: experience, he says, is the ‘teacher’
(
) of this subject matter;^5 it is the primary source of knowl-
edge and the ultimate judge.^6 Yet he also frequently insists that experience
should be used correctly, that is, with proper qualification. This applies
in particular to one of the central questions the dietician/pharmacologist
has to face: the quest for the ‘powers’ (
) of foodstuffs or drugs –
their powers to bring about certain effects in the body of the organism to
which they are administered. Galen’s point seems to be that when trying
todiscoverwhat the power of a particular foodstuff or drug is when it is
administered to a patient, or when making a statement about the power a
foodstuff or drug is supposed to have, the pharmacologist should not just
rely on a small number of isolated empirical data related to the substance
in question, collected at random without any underlying principle guid-
ing his search. Moreover, when it comes tojudgingorrefutinga theory or
general statement about the supposed power of a particular foodstuff, the
pharmacologist should not, according to Galen, believe that one random
counter-example is sufficient to discard the theory or statement in question.
Both for heuristic and for critical purposes, Galen stresses, the pharmacol-
ogist’s use of experience should not be"
), that is, ‘unqualified’,
‘without distinctions’, or ‘without proper definition’.^7 It is here that Galen’s
concept of ‘qualified experience’ (
)
# ) enters the discussion.
(^3) See, for example,On the Method of Healing(De methodo medendi, De meth. med.) 3. 1 ( 10. 159 K.);
14. 5 ( 10. 962 K.);On the Composition of Drugs according to Places(De compositione medicamentorum
secundum locus, De comp. med. sec. loc.) 8. 6 ( 13. 188 K.);On the Mixtures and Powers of Simple Drugs
(De simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis ac facultatibus, De simpl. med. fac.) 9. 2 ( 12. 192 – 3 K.).
See also Jacques ( 1997 ).
(^4) See for exampleOn The Composition of Drugs according to Kinds(De compositione medicamentorum
per genera, De comp. med. per gen.) 6. 7 ( 13. 887 K.);De meth. med. 5. 1 ( 10. 306 K.). An interesting
example of theoretical reasoning about the powers of foodstuffs or drugs is found inDe simpl. med.
fac. 1. 13 ( 11. 401 ff. K.); for fallacies in pharmacology cf. 1. 25 ( 11. 424 – 45 K.).
(^5) On the Powers of Foodstuffs(De alimentorum facultatibus, De alim. facult.) 1. 1. 7 (CMGv4, 2 ,p. 204. 3 – 5
Helmreich, 6. 457 K.); see alsoDe simpl. med. fac. 1. 37 ( 11. 449 K.); 2. 1 ( 11. 459 – 62 K.);De comp. med.
sec. gen. 4. 5 ( 13. 706 f. K.); 6. 7 ( 13. 886 ff. K.); 6. 8 ( 13. 891 f. K.). See also Harig ( 1974 ) 78 – 83 ; Fabricius
( 1972 ) 36 ff.
(^6) See Frede ( 1987 c) 295 , who refers, among others, toDe simpl. med. fac. 2. 2 ( 11. 462 K.); 1. 40 ( 11. 456
K.);De meth. med. 2. 6 ( 10. 123 K.); 13. 16 ( 10. 916 K.);On Mixtures(De temperamentis, De temper.) 1. 5
(p. 16 Helmreich, 1. 534 K.);De alim. facult. 1. 1. 3 (CMGv4, 2 ,p. 202. 14 ff. Helmreich, 6. 454 K.);De
comp. med. sec. gen. 1. 4 ( 13. 376 K.);On Antidotes(De antidotis) 1. 2 ( 14. 12 K.).
(^7) Cf.De simpl. med. fac. 1. 3 ( 11. 385 K.); 1. 4 ( 11. 388 K.); 1. 34 ( 11. 441 K.); 6. 1 ( 11. 803 K.);De alim. facult.
- 33 (CMGv4, 2 ,p. 212. 3 Helmreich, 6. 472 K.); 3. 29 (CMGv4, 2 ,p. 370. 5 Helmreich, 6. 723 K.).
I am indebted to Heinrich von Staden for pointing out that Galen’s use of the concept ofdiorismos
- 33 (CMGv4, 2 ,p. 212. 3 Helmreich, 6. 472 K.); 3. 29 (CMGv4, 2 ,p. 370. 5 Helmreich, 6. 723 K.).