Galen on qualified experience 291
particular kind of pain (this raises the question of the empirical basis of
Galen’s physiology).^49
3 the originality of galen’s position
We have seen that Galen is aware that knowledge of the relevant
to be considered by the pharmacologist is, at least partly, of a theoretical
nature: an empirical test of a substance’s power or a search for the relevant
empirical data that isnotguided by ana prioriexpectation founded on
reason is likely to be fruitless or even misleading. In this respect a major
difference manifests itself between Galen’s set of
and those of
the Empiricists, who also frequently used the term (although we are told
that they preferred the term
in order to avoid confusion with
the Dogmatists’ notion of
!),^50 and who also allowedepilogismos,
a kind of common sense reasoning, to play a part in the acquisition of
medical knowledge.^51 To be sure, it would be grossly unfair to suggest –
as Galen occasionally does^52 – that the Empiricists had an unqualified
concept of experience. Yet none of the various types ofpeirathey dis-
tinguished (
)
% 0 (
% and #
%
)^53 seem to approximate Galen’s concept of
)
# ; and
as for their notion of ‘practised experience’ (
<
% ), which would
at first sight seem to be a promising equivalent, the scanty information on
this, derived exclusively from Galen’s own reports inOutline of Empiricism
(^49) De alim. facult. 1. 1. 9 (CMGv4, 2 ,p. 205. 3 – 5 Helmreich, 6. 459 K.).
(^50) See Galen,Outline of Empiricism(Subfiguratio empirica, Subf. emp.) 6 – 7 (pp. 54 – 65 Deichgr ̈aber);
the distinction between
!and
occurs at p. 59. 2 Deichgr ̈aber and p. 62. 12 – 13
Deichgr ̈aber; cf. alsoIn Hipp. Acut. comment. 1. 17 (CMGv9, 1 ,p. 134. 13 – 15 Helmreich, 15. 454 K.).
On the Empiricists’ notion of
!see Deichgr ̈aber ( 1965 ), 305 f.
(^51) On this see Frede ( 1985 ) xxiii, and ( 1987 c) 248 ; see also his ( 1988 ). SeeDe simpl. med. fac. 2. 7 (quoted
above, n. 11 ), where Galen says that we need not many
, but accurate ones.
(^52) For example inDe meth. med. 3. 3 ( 10. 181 K.); cf.De sectis 5 (p. 9. 21 – 2 Helmreich, 1. 75 K.). A much
more nuanced characterisation of the Empiricists is found inSubf. emp. 7 (p. 64. 22 ff. Deichgr ̈aber):
‘If, then, they had discovered each of the things they have written about before they wrote about
them, so that the empiricist who uses qualification could discover these, at least all things would
be true exactly in the way they have described, yet since some of them have relied on unqualified
experience, and since some have not observed many times what they describe, while others have
followed theoretical conjectures and have written things not according to truth, for these reasons... ’
(‘si itaque ita inuenissent prius singula eorum que scripserunt antequam scriberent, ut inuenire posset
ea empericus qui utitur determinatione( n
n
!),omnia essent uera
utique que scribuntur ab eis, sed quia quidam quippe indeterminate experientie credentes(
. . %
n "
*n n
- ),quidam uero quia non uiderunt multotiens ea que scripserunt,
quidam uero logicas suspitiones secuti non scripserunt secundum ueritatem quedam, propter ea...’).
(^53) Galen,De sectis 2 (p. 3. 1 ff. Helmreich, 1. 67 K.);Subf. emp. 2 (p. 44. 13 ff. Deichgr ̈aber).