294 Late antiquity
distinction Galen makes between foodstuff, drug and poison depends on
this very issue, for this is afunctionaldistinction depending on whether a
substance just preserves the body in the state it already has, or whether it
brings about a change in the state of the body.^64 Thus the whole corpus of
dietetic and pharmacological knowledge would consist of a systematic set
of statements ( !
) defining precisely what acertainsubstance, under
certaincircumstances, when applied to acertainkind of patients and in the
case of acertainkind of bodily affection may bring about, thus covering
and explaining all effects a substance may bring about in various types of
cases.^65
However, this does raise a problem concerning the philosophical concep-
tualisation of what is going on in these different cases. Since the primary
question the pharmacologist has to face is that of the power (-
)
a particular substance has, one might ask how the power of a substance
producing different results under different circumstances is to be defined:
should we speak ofonepower present in the substance but not always be-
ing realised, that, is ofonepower whose realisation is impeded or disturbed
by interfering circumstances? Or should we rather speak ofseveral differ-
ent,evenopposedpowers in one and the same substance, that is, different
(^64) See Harig ( 1974 ) 92 : ‘In Abh ̈angigkeit von der Eigent ̈umlichkeit der verschiedenen Physeis kann
darum jede eingenommene Substanz entweder die Eigenschaft des Pharmakons oder die der Nahrung
oder die von beiden haben.’ As Harig points out (pp. 93 – 4 ), there is, again, heavy Aristotelian (or
at least Peripatetic) influence to be recorded here (he refers to Ps.-Arist.Plant. 820 b 5 f.;Pr. 864 a
26 – 30 ;b 8 – 11 ; 865 a 6 f.; 9 – 18 ;Oec. 1344 b 10 f.).
(^65) For an example of such statements seeDe simpl. med. fac. 1. 4 ( 11. 388 K.), where we can actually
follow Galen tentatively formulating a statement with a growing degree of exactness, using the verb
to denote the addition of important specifications: ‘But if we do not at some point in
one’s statement add the word “fresh”, but simply say “in so far as water is cold in itself ”, one should
not be pedantic and criticise us for having made a statement that is deficient or lacking qualification’
K
. % ' C !)n 3 !
0 " ’ A
’73
:3 ,
3 2)0 ( % P- B$
'
#!L. For another
example seeDe alim. facult. 1. 1. 33 (CMGv4, 2 ,p. 212. 2 – 11 Helmreich, 6. 472 K.): ‘One cannot forgive
doctors who leave many of their most useful theoretical points without qualification. For they should
not state without qualification that rock fish are easily digestible for most people although some
people are found to digest beef more easily, but one should qualify both groups, just as with honey
one should not make statements without qualification, but with the addition to which age-groups
and which natural constitutions it is beneficial or harmful, and in which seasons or places or modes
of life. For example, one would have to say that it is most damaging to dry and hot people, and
most beneficial to those who are moist and cold, whether they have such a temperament through
age, or natural constitution, or place, or season, or mode of life, etc.’K ’
( '
#
$
$
' 1 #
) ) )# )> ( 1
(-0 ( . ,
" 'R
-0 H
,E 1 <!
O+C
0 " 5 7
#',
(
0 " 1 1 $ '"
,
8
-
?
<
e
B < < !T `
. D#
0
e
. H : 0 A
’8
B
1 -
B B ? B
# -
$
% +
, L.Cf.De comp. med. sec. loc. 5. 1 ( 12. 807 K.).