292 Late antiquity
andOn the Sects, rather points in a different direction.^54 The fundamental
difference between Galen and the Empiricists concerns thekindofdior-
ismoiconsidered to be relevant: the Empiricists apparently allowed only
observable entities such as age, sex, hardness or softness of the flesh, and
the ‘distinction made on the basis of the habits of the patient’ (
3
"3 ) to play a part as criteria in order to describe the indi-
vidual condition of each patient and to decide what medicaments should
be prescribed in a particular case.^55 This use ofpeiramust have inevitably
appeared insufficiently specific to Galen,^56 just as the Empiricists’ exclusive
reliance on chance and analogy for the discovery of the powers of drugs
must have looked too haphazard and unsystematic to be taken seriously
as sources for scientific knowledge and understanding.^57 Moreover, Galen’s
use of
)
# , ‘qualified experience’, also provides him with an
answer to the criticism raised by Asclepiades against the Empiricists con-
cerning the non-reproducibility of their applications ofpeira.^58 According
to this criticism, one never knows for certain, at least not within the concept
of knowledge adopted by the Empiricists, whether two empirical tests are
precisely the same. Galen echoes this criticism by repeatedly insisting that
experiments should be reproducible; but in order for them to be repro-
ducible one has to know exactly under what conditions and circumstances
they were carried out and which conditions and circumstances are relevant
and which are not. Galen firmly believes that the set ofdiorismoihe has at
his disposal, and the knowledge of the particular role they play in a certain
(^54) De sectis 2 (p. 4. 12 Helmreich, 1. 68 K.);Subf. emp. 2 (p. 45. 18 Deichgr ̈aber). On thetrivica experientia
of the Empiricists see von Staden ( 1975 ) 191. Even less is known about the notion of
%
with which the Empiricist Theodas is credited (Galen,Subf. emp. 4 ,p. 50. 3 Deichgraber, on ̈
which see Frede ( 1988 ) 95 ), but this, like the
<
% , seems to be related to the principle
of ‘transition to the similar’ on the basis of generally accepted empirical knowledge (see, however,
Menodotus’ use of<Dand<)as attested inSubf. emp. 7 ,p. 65. 8 ff. Deichgraber). ̈
(^55) SeeSubf. emp. 7 (p. 62. 18 ff. Deichgr ̈aber);De meth. med. 3. 7 ( 10. 207 K.);De loc. aff. 3. 3 ( 8. 142 K.).
(^56) The difference in approach appears most clearly inDe simpl. med. fac. 1. 16 ( 11. 412 K.),De meth.
med. 3. 3 ( 10. 181 K.), and 3. 7 ( 10. 204 K.), where it is stated that the Empiricists never arrive at a really
scientific and solid (
#
% <<
) knowledge of the individual patient’s bodily state
(
). See alsoDe simpl. med. fac. 5. 2 ( 11. 712 – 13 K.), andOn the Doctrines of Hippocrates
and Plato(De plac. Hipp. et Plat.) 9. 6. 20 (CMGv4, 1 , 2 ,p. 576. 24 – 5 De Lacy, 5. 767 – 8 K.).
(^57) De comp. med. per gen. 1. 1 ( 13. 366 K.). The provisional nature of these remarks on Galen’s attitude
towards (and indebtedness to) Empiricist pharmacology cannot be overstated. An enormous amount
of work still needs to be done here (just as on his attitude towards the Pneumatists, esp. Archigenes).
For the fragments and testimonies on Empiricist pharmacology see Deichgr ̈aber ( 1965 ) 146 – 62 ;
for a discussion of his excerpts from, among others, Empiricist pharmacological writings, see the
monograph by Fabricius ( 1972 ). See also the general remarks by Harig ( 1974 ) 135 – 6 , who refers for
Galen’s criticism of the Empiricist method of discovery toDe comp. med. per gen. 1. 4 ( 13. 366 K.),
2. 1 ( 13. 463 K.), 3. 2 ( 13. 594 K.), 6. 8 ( 13. 892 K.),De simpl. med. fac. 2. 7 ( 11. 482 K.) andDe comp. med.
sec. loc. 2. 1 ( 12. 524 K.), a passage which very well illustrates the difference between Galen’s method
of ‘indication’ (
D
) and the Empiricists’ use of ‘transition to the similar’ (8 <
).
(^58) De sectis 5 (p. 9. 9 – 13 Helmreich, 1. 75 K.); cf.De exper. med. 1 (pp. 85 f. Walzer).