Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T02:47:29.891Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

GALEN, DIVINATION AND THE STATUS OF MEDICINE1

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 April 2014

Peter van Nuffelen
Peter van Nuffelen*
Affiliation:
Ghent University, Belgium
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Galen's stories about his successes in predicting the development of an illness belong to the best-known anecdotes drawn from his writings. Brilliant pieces of self-presentation, they set Galen apart from his peers, who tried to cover up their ignorance by levelling accusations of magic and divination against their superior colleague. These accusations are usually interpreted as very real threats, as Roman law punished illicit magic and divination. Pointing out that Galen sometimes likes to present himself as a mantis and a prophet, others have suggested that the accusations against Galen and his own self-presentation indicate that the border line between medicine and religion was still fluid. Both approaches correctly draw attention to the social reality that the accusations betray: they suggest that Galen belongs to a group of healers of dubious standing that populated the empire and thus show that medicine did not have a monopoly on healing. Yet such a socio-historical approach may not be sufficient. For one thing, both explanations have their limitations. Regarding the former, it can be said that Augustus' prohibition of divination aimed at controlling prediction about the emperor and one can doubt that a widespread clampdown of all forms of divination ever was intended. A possible objection to the second view is that throughout his oeuvre Galen emphasizes his medicine as a rational undertaking, even as a science (epistêmê). If one takes his self-presentation as a mantis to be more than metaphorical and to indicate the not yet fully crystallized identity of medicine as a separate scientific discipline, then Galen's usual way of understanding his own craft as a ‘science’ is in need of explanation. Besides such possible objections, a different set of questions still needs to be asked: why precisely were accusations of practising magic and divination levelled against Galen and why do they recur so frequently in his writings? Why divination and not, say, poisoning?

Type
Research Article
Information
The Classical Quarterly , Volume 64 , Issue 1 , May 2014 , pp. 337 - 352
Copyright
Copyright © The Classical Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

1

I wish to thank John Wilkins for luring me into dealing with Galen, the audience in Exeter for questions and remarks, and the anonymous reviewer for very useful comments.

References

2 Praen. 3.7 p. 84.6–10, 3.17 p. 88.1–7, 10.15–19 p. 124.16–29 Nutton; Hipp. Prog. 3.7 p. 337.14, 3.42 p. 369.9 Heeg; CP 3.18 Hankinson; Loc. Aff. 5.8 361.12–366.5 Kühn; Diff. Feb. 2.7 p. 354 Kühn; Opt. Med. 1.5 p. 285.17–18 Boudon-Millot. References to the works and editions of Galen follow the conventions set out in Hankinson, R.J. (ed.), The Cambridge Companion to Galen (Cambridge, 2008), 391–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

3 V. Nutton, Galen. On Prognosis. Edition, Translation, and Commentary. CMG V 8, 1 (Berlin, 1979), 150; Hankinson, R.J., ‘Prédiction, prophétie, pronostic: la gnoséologie de l'avenir dans la divination et la médecine antique’, in Kany-Turpin, R. (ed.), Signes et prédiction dans l'antiquité (Saint-Étienne, 2005), 147–62Google Scholar, at 158.

4 Boudon, V., ‘Aux marges de la médecine rationnelle: médecins et charlatans à Rome au temps de Galien (IIe s. de notre ère)’, REG 116 (2000), 109–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 131; see also ead., ‘Galien et le sacré’, BAGB (1988), 327–37Google Scholar, at 335.

5 See the advice given by Firm. Mat., Math. 2.30.3–4, and the discussion by MacMullen, R., Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire (Cambridge, MA, 1966), 131–2CrossRefGoogle Scholar; North, J., ‘Diviners and divination at Rome’, in Beard, M. and North, J. (edd.), Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World (London, 1990), 49–71Google Scholar; Rives, J., ‘Magic in Roman law: the reconstruction of a crime’, ClAnt 22 (2003), 313–39Google Scholar, reprinted with an afterword in North, J.A. and Price, S.R.F. (edd.), The Religious History of the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians (Oxford, 2011), 71–108Google Scholar; Ripat, P., ‘Expelling misconceptions: astrologers at Rome’, CPh 106 (2011), 115–54Google Scholar.

6 e.g. Ars Med. 1b.1 p. 276.6–7 Boudon. Further references and discussion in Boudon, V., ‘Art, science et conjecture chez Galien’, in Barnes, J. and Jouanna, J. (edd.), Galien et la philosophie (Vandoeuvres and Geneva, 2002), 269–98Google Scholar, at 277–83.

7 Flemming, R., ‘Galen's imperial order of knowledge’, in König, J. and Whitmarsh, T. (edd.), Ordering Knowledge in the Roman Empire (Cambridge, 2007), 241–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gill, C., Whitmarsh, T. and Wilkins, J. (edd.), Galen and the World of Knowledge (Cambridge, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Strohmaier, G., ‘Galen als Vertreter der Gebildetenreligion seiner Zeit’, in Welskopf, E.C. (ed.), Neue Beiträge zur Geschichte der alten Welt (Berlin, 1965), 2.375–9Google Scholar; Kudlien, F., ‘Galen's religious beliefs’, in Nutton, V. (ed.), Galen: Problems and Prospects (London, 1981), 117–30Google Scholar; Schlange-Schöningen, H., Die römische Gesellschaft bei Galen (Berlin, 2003), 224–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; M. Frede, ‘Galen's theology’, in Barnes and Jouanna (n. 6), 73–126.

9 Edelstein, L., ‘Greek medicine in its relation to religion and medicine’, Bulletin of the Institute of the History of Medicine 5 (1937), 201–46Google Scholar; Longrigg, J., Greek Rational Medicine: Philosophy and Medicine from Alcmaeon to the Alexandrians (London, 1993), 1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Nutton, V., ‘God, Galen, and the depaganization of ancient medicine’, in Biller, P. and Ziegler, J. (edd.), Religion and Medicine in the Middle Ages (York, 2001), 17–32Google Scholar, at 19 (implicitly); Boudon (n. 4 [2000]). See the nuances (for the Hippocratic period) of Jouanna, J., Hippocrate (Paris, 1992), 279Google Scholar. Nutton, V., Ancient Medicine (London, 2004), 293Google Scholar rightly stresses the complexity of the relationship between religion and medicine.

10 Kudlien (n. 8); see also Nutton (n. 9 [2004]), 279.

11 For a critique of traditional models and the various possible constellations of the relationship between medicine and religion, see Amundsen, D.W., Medicine, Society, and Faith in the Ancient and Medieval Worlds (Baltimore and London, 1996), 2–4Google Scholar.

12 Praen. 1.14 p. 73.30–74.2 Nutton. Tr. Nutton (n. 3), 75.

13 On Cic. Div. see Beard, M., ‘Cicero and divination: the formation of a Latin discourse’, JRS 76 (1986), 33–46Google Scholar; M. Schofield, ‘Cicero for and against divination’, ibid. 47–65; Blänsdorf, J., ‘“Augurenlächlen” – Ciceros Kritik an der römischen Mantik’ in Wissmann, H. (ed.), Zur Erschliessung von Zunkunft in den Religionen (Würzburg, 1991), 45–65Google Scholar; Krostenko, B.A., ‘Beyond (dis)belief: rhetorical form and religious symbol in Cicero's de Divinatione’, TAPhA 130 (2000), 353–91Google Scholar.

14 Critique on divination or questions about its possibility can be found in Oenomaus, frr. 5–6 (cf. Hammerstaedt, J., Die Orakelkritik des Kynikers Oenomaeos [Frankfurt, 1988], 38–40Google Scholar); Diogenes of Oenoanda frf. 8.III.7 and 32.II.1 Chilton; Alexander of Aphrodisias, De fato 17, 31; Plut. De Pyth. or. 25.407C and Vit. Cic. 17.4. Gal., Inst.Log. 17.8 pp. 44–5 Kalbfleisch envisages the possibility that mantikê does not exist. See Johnston, S. Iles, ‘Introduction: divining divination’, in ead. and Struck, P. (edd.), Mantikê: Studies in Ancient Divination (Leiden, 2005), 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar and W. Burkert, ‘Signs, commands, and knowledge: ancient divination between enigma and epiphany’, ibid. 29–49.

15 Kany-Turpin, J., ‘La divination augurale romaine, une science des signes?’, in Lévy, C., Besnier, B. and Gigandet, A. (edd.), Ars et ratio. Science, art et métier dans la philosophie hellénistique et romaine. Coll. Latomus 273 (Brussels, 2003), 61–74Google Scholar; Klingshirn, W.E., ‘Divination and the disciplines of knowledge according to Augustine’, in Pollmann, K. and Vessey, M. (edd.), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions (Oxford, 2005), 113–40Google Scholar.

16 Cic. Div. 1.24: ‘At non numquam ea, quae praedicta sunt, minus eveniunt.’ Quae tandem id ars non habet? earum dico artium, quae coniectura continentur et sunt opinabiles. an medicina ars non putanda est? quam tamen multa fallunt. See also Cic. Nat. D. 2.12, 3.5; Sext. Emp., Math. 1.72, 2.13; Diog. Laert. 7.149; Ammon. 21.1.14; Serv. ad Aen. 10.75; Mart. Cap. 9.892 K. See D. Wardle, Cicero. On Divination. Book 1 (Oxford, 2006), 165; Guillaumont, F., Le De divinatione de Cicéron et les théories antiques de la divination (Brussels, 2006)Google Scholar. For a Christian example of treating medicine and divination as parallel arts, see Augustine, De divinatione daemonum (Bardy, G., Beckaert, J.-A. and Boutet, J., Oeuvres de Saint Augustin. 10. Mélanges doctrinaux [Paris, 1952], 647Google Scholar).

17 Boudon (n. 6 [2002]), 289–90. See e.g. Loc. Aff. 1.1 p. 14.7–12 Kühn. For the difference between Galen's definition of medicine as a stochastic art and that of Alexander of Aphrodisias, see Ierodiakonou, K., ‘Alexander of Aphrodisias on medicine as a stochastic art’, in van der Eijk, P.J., Horstmanshoff, H.F.J. and Schrijvers, P.H. (edd.), Ancient Medicine in its Socio-Cultural Context (Amsterdam, 1995), 473–85Google Scholar, esp. 481–3.

18 Hipp. Aph. 1.12 p. 382.7–18 Kühn.

19 Hankinson (n. 3), 161.

20 Hankinson (n. 3), 158: ‘rejet de la divination’.

21 Gal. HVA 1.15 p. 129.13–4 Helmreich.

22 Gal. HVA 1.15 p. 131.31 Helmreich.

23 Hankinson, (n. 3), 156: ‘statut douteux de la divination’.

24 Nutton (n. 3), 170. von Staden, H., ‘Galen's daimon: reflections on “irrational” and “rational”’, in Palmieri, N. (ed.), Rationnel et irrationnel dans la médecine ancienne et médiévale: aspects historiques, scientifiques et culturels (Saint-Étienne, 2003), 15–43Google Scholar, 26 sees it as an example of Galen's contradictory attitudes.

25 Gal. HVA 1.15 p. 130.31–2 Helmreich.

26 Gal. CAM 17.8 p. 117.1–2 Fortuna: τὸ δ᾿ οἴεσθαι τοιαύτην εἰναι τοῖς ἰατροῖς τὴν πρόγνωσιν, οἷον οἱ μάντεις ἐπαγγέλονται, γελοῖον.

27 Gal. CAM 17.8–13 pp. 117.1–118.3. Cf. Gal. Di. Dec. 1.12 p. 833.6–12 Kühn; Hipp. Epid. II, comm. III p. 282.10–13 Wenkebach. Galen's critique echoes a general critique on divination, namely that it does not enquire into the causes (cf. Cic. Div. 2.17–18, 1.16). But that does not disqualify it as an art.

28 Gal. Praen. 3.7 p. 84.5–10 Nutton; Hipp. Epid. VII, comm. IV.27 p. 244.5–23 Wenkebach. See the comments by Nutton, V., Galen. On My Own Opinions. Edition, Translation, and Commentary. CMG V 3, 2 (Berlin, 1999), 136–7Google Scholar.

29 Gal. Hipp. Epid. I comm. III.17 p. 125.25–7 Wenkebach. For the activity of diviners in healing, see the discussion by Johnston, S.I., Ancient Greek Divination (Malden, MA and Oxford, 2008), 119–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

30 Swain, S., Hellenism and Empire: Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World AD 50–250 (Oxford, 1996), 359Google Scholar.

31 G.E.R. Lloyd, ‘Galen's un-Hippocratic case-histories’, in Gill, Whitmarsh and Wilkins (n. 7), 115–31, at 126.

32 Gal. Praen. 3.7 p. 84.7–8 Nutton. For further references, see n. 2.

33 The discussion can be seen as inspired or backed up by Plato: the Platonic references listed by Nutton (n. 3), 147 are about the status of rhetoric: cf. Pl. Grg. 502e, 517a, Resp. 491a–494d.

34 Gal. Praen. 1.1 p. 68.3–4 Nutton. Tr. Nutton (n. 3), 69.

35 Gal. Praen. 1.6 p. 70.6–7 Nutton. Tr. Nutton (n. 3), 71.

36 Cf. Gal. Ut. Diss. 10 p. 906.2 Kühn, Syn. Puls. 6 p. 447.5 Kühn, SMT 6 p. 263.10 Kühn. V. Nutton, ‘Murder and miracles: lay attitudes towards medicine in classical antiquity’, in R. Porter (ed.), Patients and Practioners. Lay Perceptions of Medicine in Pre-Industrial Society (Cambridge, 1985), 23–53, at 46 notes that boundaries were delimited, ‘but there was not total annexation’.

37 Gal. Praen. 7.8 p. 107.32, 8.1 p. 111.13–18, 10.16 p. 124.18–20 Nutton. See also Dig. Puls. 2.1 p. 825 Kühn; Loc. Aff. 5.8 p. 365.10–366.5 Kühn; Cris. 3.8 p. 737.6–738.6 Kühn.

38 This is the purpose of Opt. Med. On the debates between medicine and philosophy in this period, see Van Hoof, L., Plutarch's Practical Ethics: The Social Dynamics of Philosophy (Oxford, 2010), 211–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

39 Toomer, G.J., ‘Galen on the astronomers and astrologers’, Archive for History of Exact Sciences 32 (1985), 193–206CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed; Cooper, G.W., ‘Galen and astrology: a match made in heaven?’ Early Science and Medicine 16 (2011), 110–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 Stephanus, Comm. Progn. pr p. 30.24–6. Tr. Duffy, J.M., Stephanus the Philosopher. A Commentary on the Prognosticon of Hippocrates (Berlin, 1983), 31Google Scholar.

41 Stephanus, Comm. Progn. 1.1.1 p. 36.7–19. Tr. Duffy (n. 40), 37. See Edelstein, L., Ancient Medicine (Baltimore, 1967), 65–85Google Scholar.

42 Stephanus, Comm. Progn. 1.13 p. 50.4–16.

43 Gal. Hipp. Progn. 1.1 p. 197.12 Heeg; Nat. Fac. 1.12 p. 29.7 Kühn.

44 Gal. Adv. Typ. Scr. 2 p. 479.16–480.2 Kühn; CAM 17 p. 112.13–26 Fortuna; Opt. Med. Cogn. 1.2–6 p. 49–50 Iskandar; ibid. 4.5 p. 65.6–18 Iskandar; Loc. Aff. 3.4 p. 145–7 Kühn; Dig. Insomn. p. 833.10 Kühn. As noted by Lloyd (n. 31), 124–5, Galen only focusses in Prognosis on successful outcomes, in clear contrast with Hippocratic treatises on prognosis. See Nutton (n. 9 [2004]), 237–9; Lehoux, D., What Did the Romans Know? An Inquiry into Science and Worldmaking (Chicago, 2012), 112–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar on prognosis in Galen.

45 Lehoux (n. 44), 37.

46 See the works referred to in nn. 8 and 9 above and Oberhelman, S.M., ‘Galen, On diagnosis from dreams’, Journal for the History of Medicine 38 (1983), 36–47Google ScholarPubMed.

47 Boys-Stones, G.R., Post-Hellenistic Philosophy: A Study of its Development from the Stoics to Origen (Oxford, 2001)Google Scholar. The implications of this for religion are developed in Nuffelen, P. Van, Rethinking the Gods: Philosophical Readings of Religion in the Post-Hellenistic Period (Cambridge, 2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Meyerhof, M., ‘Autobiographische Bruchstücke Galens aus arabischen Quellen’, Sudhoffs Archiv für Geschichte der Medizin 22 (1929), 72–86Google Scholar, at 73.

49 Nutton, V., ‘The patient's choice : a new treatise by Galen’, CQ 40 (1990), 236–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar, at 254; id., ‘Galen's library’, in Gill, Whitmarsh and Wilkins (n. 7), 19–34, at 26; id. (n. 9 [2004]), 279.

50 Rosenthal, F., ‘An ancient commentary on the Hippocratic Oath’, Bulletin of the History of Medicine 30 (1956), 52–87Google ScholarPubMed, at 56.

51 Ibid. 59.

52 Ibid. 60. The reference to ‘my own city’ suggests that Galen is indeed reporting his own views, and not those of someone else.

53 Kudlien (n. 8), 118; Schlange-Schönigen (n. 8), 228–30. Cf. Gal. UP 2 p. 92.3 Helmreich = p. 812–3 Kühn; Cur. Rat. Ven. Sect. 23 p. 314–5 Kühn; MM 3.7 p. 207.1–5 Kühn. The principle is also clearly enunciated by Artem. Onir. 4.22. See also Prop. Plac. 2 p. 58.4–7 Nutton: Sed quod ipsae sunt, scio per operationes earum quoniam ab ipsis est regimen animalium et inveniuntur in divinationibus et in somniis. On dreams in medicine, see Oberhelman, S.M., ‘Dreams in Graeco-Roman medicine’, ANRW 2.37.1 (1993), 121–56Google Scholar; Versnel, H., Coping with the Gods: Wayward Readings in Greek Theology (Leiden, 2011), 406, 416CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

54 It is unclear what the egg refers to. Pausanias describes a statue in Sicyon which holds a pine cone (2.10.3). Many statues had an omphalos at their feet. A misinterpretation of any of these objects may lie at the basis of Galen's assertion, or the text may preserve an unknown tradition. See E.J. and Edelstein, L., Asclepius. A Collection and Interpretation of the Testimonia (Baltimore, 1945), 2.226Google Scholar; Schouten, J., The Rod and the Serpent of Asklepios (Amsterdam, London and New York, 1967)Google Scholar; Strohmeier, G., ‘Asklepios und das Ei’, Festschrift Franz Altheim (Berlin, 1970), 143–53Google Scholar, 448–54.

55 Rosenthal (n. 50), 66–7.

56 Ibid. 70.

57 Ibid. 71.

58 Ibid. 73.

59 Frede, M., ‘Numenius’, ANRW 2.36.2 (1987), 1034–75Google Scholar and ‘Celsus philosophus Platonicus’, ANRW 2.36.7 (1994), 5183–213Google Scholar.

60 Boys-Stones (n. 47), with the modifications proposed in Nuffelen, P. Van, ‘Varro's divine antiquities: Roman religion as an image of truth’, CPh 105 (2010), 162–88Google Scholar and L. Van Hoof and P. Van Nuffelen, ‘Posidonius and the Golden Age: a note on Seneca, Epistulae morales 90’, Latomus 72 (2013), 186–95.

61 Van Nuffelen (n. 47), 27–100.

62 Plut. De Is. et Os. 45.369B.

63 August. De civ. D. 7.5 p. 280 lines 8–21 = Varro, ARD fr. 225 and August. De civ. D. 7.28 p. 311 lines 7–15 = Varro, ARD fr. 206; Chaeremon, frr. 2, 5, 12; Cornutus, Theol. graec. 17 p. 28 line 1 and p. 31 lines 12–16, and 35 p. 75 line 18–76 line 5. On these texts, see Van Nuffelen (n. 47), 27–47.

64 Rosenthal (n. 50), 80.

65 Eus. Praep. evang. 9.7.1 = Numenius, fr. 1a.

66 Rosenthal (n. 50), 78 dates Hippocrates to the reign of Artaxerxes I (465–425 b.c.).

67 See Gal. Praen. 10.16 124.19–20 Nutton.

68 See already the brief comments by Boys-Stones (n. 47), 149. The problem of contradiction is made explicit, e.g. in Gal. Lib. Prop. 14.1–7 p. 164–5 Boudon-Millot. On Galen's emphasis on moral failure as the cause of intellectual mistakes, see Lloyd, G.E.R., ‘Galen on Hellenistics and Hippocrateans. Contemporary battles and past authorities’, in id., Methods and Problems in Greek Science (Cambridge, 1991), 398–416Google Scholar, at 400 n. 8, with references.

69 Eus. Praep. evang. 14.5 = Numenius, fr. 24; Eus. Praep. evang. 11.10.9–11 = Numenius, fr. 7: cf. Athanassiadi, P., La lutte pour l'orthodoxie dans le platonisme tardif de Numénius à Damascius (Paris, 2006), 80–90Google Scholar.

70 Galen repeatedly laments the lack of respect for Hippocrates and the ancients: Praen. 1.8 p. 70.16 Nutton; Opt. Med. Cogn. 2.1 p. 47.15–19, 3.4 p. 52.22 Iskandar; CP 1.1 Hankinson; MM 1 p. 4–6 Kühn. See Nutton (n. 49 [1990]), 245–6.

71 In general, see Trapp, M., Philosophy in the Roman Empire: Ethics, Politics and Society (Aldershot, 2007), 13Google Scholar.

72 Boys-Stones (n. 47).

73 H. von Staden, ‘Staging the past, staging oneself: Galen on Hellenistic exegetical traditions’, in Gill, Whitmarsh and Wilkins (n. 7), 132–56, at 134. See also Hankinson, R.J., ‘Galen's philosophical eclecticism’, ANRW 2.36.5 (1992), 3505–22Google Scholar. Nutton (n. 9 [2004]), 222. As has been noted, the choice of Hippocrates as a figure of authority was less obvious than it now seems in hindsight; see Lloyd (n. 68). There were also many different accounts of the history of medicine in circulation which clearly deviated from the one offered by Galen: Celsus, De med. Pr; Plin. HN 29.2.

74 Lloyd (n. 31), 116.

75 J. Jouanna, ‘La notion de nature chez Galien’, in Barnes and Jouanna (n. 6), 229–68, noting that Galen depicts Hippocrates as the founder of the doctrine of elementary qualities and Aristotle as the interpreter of views already set out by Hippocrates, even if he is more dependent on Aristotle than Hippocrates. See also P. van der Eijk, ‘“Aristotle! What a thing for you to say!” Galen's engagement with Aristotle and Aristotelians’, in Gill, Whitmarsh and Wilkins (n. 7), 261–81, at 273.

76 This becomes clear in Galen's attitude towards the Stoics: T. Tieleman, ‘Galen and the Stoics, or: the art of not naming’, in Gill, Whitmarsh and Wilkins (n. 7), 282–99; but also in his acceptance that most medical schools (except for Methodists) have something useful to contribute: Hankinson (n. 73), 3507.

77 Béguin, D., ‘Le problème de la connaissance dans le De optima doctrina de Galien’, REG 108 (1995), 107–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar; R.J. Hankinson, ‘Galen on the limitations of knowledge’, in Gill, Whitmarsh and Wilkins (n. 7), 206–42, at 207.

78 Hankinson (n. 77), 240. I am not convinced by the argument of Vegetti, M., ‘Tradition and truth: forms of philosophical-scientific historiography in Galen's De placitis’, in van der Eijk, P. (ed.), Ancient Histories of Medicine: Essays in Medical Doxography and Historiography in Classical Antiquity (Leiden, 1999), 333–57Google Scholar, that Galen liberates truth from tradition. Tradition is a crucial argument for Galen.

79 For a famous critique of such a self-understanding of science, see Feyerabend, P., Against Method (London, 1975)Google Scholar.

80 The problem is discussed in and illustrated by von Staden (n. 24), who extensively uses inverted commas to qualify ‘rational’.

81 On those lines also Schlange-Schönigen (n. 8), 225; von Staden (n. 24), 34–8. It is often assumed that from the second century we witness an increased interest in the irrational. The classic argument is that of Dodds, E.R., Pagans and Christians in an Age of Anxiety (Cambridge, 1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a critique of Dodds, see Smith, R.C. and Lounibos, J. (edd.) Pagan and Christian Anxiety: A Response to E.R. Dodds (Lanham, MD, 1984)Google Scholar. I have also argued against this view in Van Nuffelen (n. 47), 233–41.

82 Lehoux (n. 44), 12, 246; Beard, M., ‘Cicero's “Response of the haruspices” and the voice of the gods’, JRS 102 (2012), 20–39Google Scholar.

83 The example is Galen's: Gal. Opt. Med. Cogn. 1.1–2, 1.4 pp. 41–3 Iskandar with Nutton (n. 49 [1990]), 254.

84 Plut. De superst. 171A–B, 168C.

85 On this, see Van Nuffelen (n. 47), 65–71, 217–20.

86 Nutton (n. 36), 37; id., ‘Healers in the medical market place: towards a social history of Graeco-Roman medicine’, in Wear, A. (ed.), Medicine in Society: Historical Essays (Cambridge, 1992), 15–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 See most recently Johnson, W.A., Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire: A Study in Elite Communication (Oxford, 2010), 74–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See the earlier studies of J. Kollesch, ‘Galen und die zweite Sophistik’, in Nutton (n. 8), 1–11 and Von Staden, H., ‘Galen and the Second Sophistic’, in Sorabji, R. (ed.), Aristotle and After, BICS Supplement 68 (London, 1997), 33–54Google Scholar.