OBSERVATIONS ON THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE GALENIC CORPUS

Author(s): DONALD W. PETERSON

Source: Bulletin of the History of Medicine , FALL, 1977, Vol. 51, No. 3, Owsei Temkin
at 75 (FALL, 1977), pp. 484-495
Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/44451271

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

The Johns Hopkins University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Bulletin of the History of Medicine

This content downloaded from

46.222.61.250 on Wed, 12 May 2021 15:57:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 OBSERVATIONS ON THE CHRONOLOGY
OF THE GALENIC CORPUS*

DONALD W. PETERSON

There are still problems in regard to when and in what order

his numerous books. They often stem, not so much from a lack
data, as from an abundance of seemingly contradictory eviden
errors are certainly to blame; so, too, perhaps, is the autho
revising works already completed. Recent gains have been due la
prodigious efforts of Johannes Ilberg1 and to certain modificatio
scheme formulated by Kurt Bardong.2 The present author's in
matter arose in connection with his doctoral analysis of Galen's
Therapeutics to Glaucon ,3 a text that Bardong did not mention, but that
Ilberg placed near the middle of a chronological list of books he believed
Galen to have written between 169 and 180 A.D.4 This paper is meant to
show that Therapeutics to Glaucon can be dated more precisely and that the
years currently assigned to a number of other Galenic works are also in need
of revision.
How late could Therapeutics to Glaucon have been written? Since it is
cited in Crises 5 and De libris propriisy 6 it seems to have been finished by the
time these two texts were undertaken. Although Bardong rightly noted that

* This paper is a slightly revised version of the first chapter of the author's doctoral dissertation, "Galen's
Therapeutics to Glaucon and its Early Commentaries" (1974). Work on the dissertation was supported by the
Josiah Macy, Jr. Foundation and by National Library of Medicine Public Health Service Training Grants.
1 Johannes Ilberg, "Geber die Schriftstellerei des Klaudios Galenos," Rheinisches Muséum für
Philologie, n.s. 1889, 44:207-239; 1892,47: 489-514; 1896,5/: 165-196; 1897, 52: 591-623.
2 Kurt Bardong, "Beiträge zur Hippokrates- und Galenforschung," Nachrichten von der Akademie der
Wissenschaften in Göttingen, Philologisch-historische Klasse, 1942, no. 7, pp. 577-640. See also Bardong' s
introduction to his edition of Galen's De causis procatarcticis, Corpus medicorum graecorum, Supplement 2
(Leipzig: B.G. Teubner, 1937).
3 See asterisked note above.

4 Ilberg, "Schriftstelleri" (1896).

5 xavxa pèv ovv ÓJiávxmv èoxi xoiva orj/ieīa x mv é<pr¡peQa)v jzvqexojv, Lòia ò exáoxov cuieq Eiçrjxai poi xàv
xé JiQwxœ xã)v JtQÒç TXavxœva Oeqcuievxix0)v . De crisibus 2. 13 (Alexanderson 162. 1-3 = Kühn 9: 696. 15-17).
This remark is followed shortly by a long passage that corresponds almost verbatim to a portion of
Therapeutics to Glaucon (i.e. Kühn 11: 10.16-14.9).
6 In De libris propriis 4 (Scripta minora 2: 109.5 f.) Galen lists ôvo . . . tójv tiqòç TXavxcava Qeganevxixoiv
among his therapeutic works.

484
Bulletin Of The history Of medicine 51 484-495 (1 977)
Copyright ® 1977 by The Johns Hopkins University Press
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.

This content downloaded from

46.222.61.250 on Wed, 12 May 2021 15:57:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHRONOLOGY OF THE GALENIC CORPUS 485

Crises was much earlier than De libris propriis ,7 his date for the fo
otherwise unacceptable.
Galen recalls in a well-known passage in Prognosis to Epigenes
wrote many works, both philosophical and medical, when Marcus A
was away from Rome during the war with the Germans - that is, b
169 A.D. and November 176. When the Emperor returned, Galen gav
books to his friends; he would not have done so, had he known that
would then be given out to the unworthy.8 The books contained "th
theory of prognosis by the pulses and by the other prognostic signs
reader (i.e. Epigenes) wished to learn from them a certain point, he c
so by reading Crises .9
It is clear from these remarks that Crises was written before Marcus
Aurelius returned to Rome in November 176 and that Prognosis to Epigenes
was undertaken after he came back. According to Bardong, however, Galen
elsewhere tells Epigenes that Crises was one of three texts he had completed
only recently ( ëvayxoç ). Therefore, Bardong argues, Crises must have been
written just before November 176 and Prognosis to Epigenes just after.10
Bardong was aware, for the most part, of certain difficulties arising from
his conclusion. For example, he noted in the passage summarized above that
between November 176 and the writing of Prognosis to Epigenes the "many
books" Galen completed during the Emperor's absence were finally
released; first they were presented to Galen's friends, and then somehow
they were given out (perhaps "published" - èxòoOfjoaoOai) to the
unworthy.11 His problem, therefore, in setting a date for Prognosis to
Epigenes was that an event earlier than November 176 must still have been
"recent" when the text was written, and yet the text must have followed the
dissemination of Galen's work, which did not start until after November 176.
Bardong concluded that Galen wrote Prognosis to Epigenes at the beginning
of 177 ("Anfang 177"). 12 But whether Galen's numerous books could have
found their way to the unworthy in so brief an interval as November
176 - Anfang 177 is of course open to question.
A second problem has to do with other chronological data that Galen
provided. He told Epigenes that "fifteen years" had passed since he wrote

7 For the relatively late date of De libris propriis see Kurt Bardong, "Beiträge," especially p. 640. The date
of De crisibus is discussed below.

9 De praenotione ad Posthumum 9 (Kühn 14: 650.15-651-2).

9 Ibid. (Kühn 14: 651.5-12).
10 Bardong, "Beiträge," p. 609 f.
11 See note 8 above.

12 Bardong, "Beiträge," p. 610.

This content downloaded from

46.222.61.250 on Wed, 12 May 2021 15:57:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 486 DONALD W. PETERSON

on various matters at the request of a certai

remark Ilberg concluded, not quite correc
was written in 178. 14 The fifteenth year f
completed in the last half of 178, and there
possible.15 In defense of Anfang 177 as a dat
with calculations of his own that were slight
exaggerated the interval.16 If Anfang 177 is
Galen said fifteen years when in fact not e
These two difficulties require a close exam
Galen is alleged to tell Epigenes that he rece
the end of a chapter devoted mainly to th
Commodus. Commodus suffered an attack of fever and tonsillitis when he
was between eight and fourteen years old. Around the third hour of the third
day of his illness, Annia Faustina arrived to find the boy eating in the
company of his foster father, Peitholaos, and Galen. Aware that the fever
had begun in the eighth hour of the first day, she seems to have found it
remarkable that Commodus had been allowed to eat before the eighth hour
of the third day had passed. But Peitholaos told her that this, and still
another, unorthodox measure had been prescribed by Galen; otherwise, he
said (perhaps ironically), they would have waited out the Thessalian
three-day period.17
In a little while Annia Faustina led Galen away by the hand and began to
make fun (naíÇovoa) of one of the Methodist physicians who had
accompanied her on her visit to Commodus. She said in effect that Galen had
in many previous instances contested with deeds rather than words the
Methodist practice of observing the three-day period, and that now his
management of Commodus proved him right. Furthermore, Galen had acted
in this instance with the approval of Peitholaos, who had tested Galen
beforehand, and who was extremely acute in such matters.18
The remainder of the passage must be quoted in the original (for a

13 De praenotione ad Posthumum 5 (Kühn 14: 630.5-11).

14 Johannes Ilberg, "Aus Galens Praxis: Ein Kulturbild aus der römischen Kaiserzeit," Neue Jahrbücher
für das klassische Altertum, 1905, 15: 284-289, including n.2, p. 289.
15 Bardong ("Beiträge," p. 610 n.l) rightly implies that fifteen years must be counted from the summer of
163.

16 Bardong (ibid. p. 610, n.l) implies that "Anfang 177" lies somewhere in the fifteenth year after the
summer of 163, when in fact it is in the fourteenth.
17 De praenotione ad Posthumum 12 (Kühn 14: 661.15-663.10). Galen described Annia Faustina as
crvyyEvrjç ovoa rat avroxgaroQi eyyiora, which suggests Annia Fundiana Faustina, Marcus Aurelius' s
cousin. See Anthony Birley, Marcus Aurelius (Boston-Toronto: Little, Brown and Co., 1966), Appendix 2.
18 De praenotione ad Posthumum 12 (Kühn 14: 663.10-664.10).

This content downloaded from

46.222.61.250 on Wed, 12 May 2021 15:57:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHRONOLOGY OF THE GALENIC CORPUS 487

translation into English see footnote 19 below). f¡ fièv roiavra eXeye

continues, öiaßaöi&voa fiéxgi rov ôxvfiaroç • èyœ ôè fieXXovorjç
emßaiveiv avrov xwQiÇófievoç eínov èizoírjoáç fie tioXv ¡uãXXov rj jtg
vjiò rœv iargœv fiioeloQai. xœgioOeiç re rœ IîeidoX✠òirjyovfirjv avr
fiévroi xai on ôià rovç roiovrovç iargovç èvayxoç èygaxpa
jiQayfiareíaç , fiíav fièv rr¡v Jtegi ràç òiaçogàç rœv jzvgerœv, èrêgav
Tiegì rœv xgioifiœv fffiegœv, xai r gírrjv rrjv Jtegi rœv xgioeœv, èm
vip 9 e Ijtnoxgárovç yeygáçdai rfjv Oeœgiav, ècp 9 fjç àv nç Jtgoyivœ
yevtjaófieva Jtegi rovç âggœcrrovç. oi ô 9 ovrœç eioiv âçveïç, œore fit
rfjç èfifjç è^rfyijaeœç ôvvaodai avrà fiadeīv. avròç yàg ov , 9 Em
(fiXrare, rà yeygafifiéva fioi Jtegi rovrœv àitàvrœv œv êOeào
jiQoXéyovra yivœoxeiç èmòeôeiyfiéva Tigòç * lnnoxgàrovç eigfjodai xr
The question here is, does Galen (as Bardong assumes) tell Epigenes
he recently wrote Crises , or is he still merely repeating what h
Peitholaos? As the passage stands, it is difficult to say just wher
begins to speak directly to Epigenes. But he clearly does not do so unt
after the phrase beginning xai juevroi xai on ("and furthermore, that
Such a transition could have been continued with xai fiévroi xa
furthermore"), but it could not have been initiated with that ph
Moreover, the subsequent on ("that") cannot be accounted for if G
assumed here to begin to address Epigenes directly; and the edito
seems to have assumed just that, has been obliged to ignore on ("tha
his Latin version.21 The Latin translation, and the editor's full stop
avróç ("myself'), have perhaps contributed to the present confusion.
There is other evidence that Galen did not make a transition to Epig
the point in question, but was still repeating what he told Peitholaos. I
of the required direct object for the preceding ôirjyovfirjv ("I told all
there is only the incongruous avróç ("I myself'). The lack of a direct

19 Without changing the editor's punctuation or attempting to correct the obvious errors, the pass
"She was saying the above while going over to her carriage. As she was about to get on it, I
parting, "You have caused me to be hated by the physicians much more than before." Havin
myself (sic) told Peitholaos all about (sic). And furthermore, that on account of such physicians
wrote a work on the differences of fevers, another on critical days, and a third on crises, showin
theory by which one would have foreknowledge of what will happen to patients was written
Hippocrates. But they are so dull as to be incapable of learning such things, even with my own ex
For you, yourself, dear Epigenes, know what I have written, etc."
20 For two examples of Galen's use of xai pévroi xai in the same text see chapter 3 (Kühn 14: 6
chapter 12 (Kühn 14: 663.8). Numerous others can be found by consulting the appropriate indic
Corpus medic orum graecorum.
21 Which is: . . . ac digressus Pitholao ipse narravi. Quinetiam propter hujusmodi medicos opera
unum de febrium differentiis, etc.

This content downloaded from

46.222.61.250 on Wed, 12 May 2021 15:57:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
488 DONALD W. PETERSON

for ôirjyovprjv indicates either that avróç i

exists just after avróç . When a lacuna is
4 4 Having parted, I myself(?) told Peitholao
that on account of such physicians I recen
remark about Crises was addressed to Peitholaos, and not directly to
Epigenes. One discovers that such an interpretation is not new. A somewhat
free Renaissance translation reads: "Me magis abiens dixi quam antea
medicis invisum reddidisti. Digressus ad Pitholaum me contuli, cui et hoc
idem exposui, et ob huiuscemodi medicorum invidiam, me nuper libros tres
composuisse, unum de febrium differentiis, alterum de diebus decretoriis,
tertium de crisi."23
The proper reading of this passage removes the basis for the date Bardong
has assigned to Prognosis to Epigenes as well as the difficulties arising from
his conclusion. Ilberg was almost right: The text was written in 178 or early
179. The alleged date of Crises must also be revised. Since that book was
certainly written before November 176, and since Bardong believed that the
completion of it was a recent event when Galen wrote Prognosis to
Epigenes y Bardong assumed, as noted above, that Crises ought to be placed
shortly before November 176. But Galen could not have told Peitholaos that
he recently wrote Crises later than 19 May 175 when Commodus left Rome
to join his father in the north.24 Bardong to the contrary, De diebus
decretoriis and De febrium differentiis must also be placed before
Commodus ' departure.25
Since 19 May 175 is a terminus ante quern of Crises , so must Therapeutics
to Glauco n have been written before that date. There is, however, a remark
in the latter which allows the text to be moved back still further. Galen
reminds his correspondent that "this year" ( rfjreç ) had been quite hot and
dry between the rising of Sirius and Arcturus.26 Since the rising of Arcturus
was then observed, in the latitude of Rome, around 21 September, Galen
was evidently writing between late summer and the end of the year.27
Regardless of whether he followed Roman custom or that of his homeland

22 One might postulate avxovç ("them"), referring to the Methodist physicians mentioned before, and just
after, the phrase in question.
23 Galen : Omnia quae extant opera ex secunda Juntarum editione ... ,4: 219-220.
24 The date of Commodus's departure is from Birley, Marcus Aurelius, p. 258. Commodus did not return to
Rome before his father did in November 176.
25 See note 19 above.

26 öxav ye äxgißwg fj Oegprļ xaì Ķrjga [sc. rj xov jieQié%ovxog àégog xçãoiç] xadómeg xfjxeç èv xã> /uexaÇv
xvvòç àvaxokfjg xai âgxxovQov. Ad Glauconem de medendi methodo 1.15 (Kühn 11: 44.5).
27 Elias J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World (London: Thames & Hudson, 1968), p. 185.

This content downloaded from

46.222.61.250 on Wed, 12 May 2021 15:57:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHRONOLOGY OF THE GALENIC CORPUS 489

with respect to when he considered the year to end, he mus

occupied with Therapeutics to Glaucon in the autumn.28 Conseq
text cannot be dated later than the end of 174.

To find the earliest possible date for Therapeutics to Glaucon it will be

necessary to review the citations in the text itself. The works, of which
portions, at least, Galen had already completed when he wrote Therapeutics
to Glaucon include, among others, De temperamentis y29 De facultatibus
natur alibus,30 De anatomicis administrationibus ,31 and De simplicium
medicamentorum temperamentis ac facultatibus ,32
On three occasions Galen also cites xolç tceqì oqtvypãv33 by that he
undoubtedly means some or all of the sixteen books on pulses he elsewhere
refers to collectively as f¡ tceqì xœv ocpvypœv Ttgaypaxeía ,34 There is in
addition a partial description of "one book ... on the so-called rheumatic
[sc. diatheses]."35 Ilberg is probably correct in assuming that it refers to a
now lost nēģi xœv QEvpaxixœv ôiaOéoEœv Ãóyoç.36 For the identity of a book

28 A review of Galen's In Hippocratis epidemiarum librum l commentario 1.1 (Corpus medicorum

graecorum 5,10,1: 11.14-17.2) will show the danger of assuming, without specific proof, that Galen followed
Roman custom in his notion of when the year ended. Of special interest is his reference to solar calendars in
use ini te 'Pœpaiœv xaì Maxeôôvœv ' Aoiavœv te xœv tfpexéçœv xal noXXœv àXXœv èdvœv (ibid. 16.23-25).
According to M. P. Nilsson ("Neujahr,' ' Pauly- Wissowa 17: 15 1 . 18 ff.), after the Julian calendar spread to the
East in the reign of Augustus, the division of the year was still not uniform. In Asia Minor the year began on
23 September, Augustus's birthday. In either case, 23 September or 1 January, the year 175 (by current
reckoning) is ruled out.
29 àXXà nàvxœv xovxœv xà pèv èv xolç tceqì ocpvypwv, xà ôè èv xolç tceqì xpàaeœv ôiœçiorai. Ad Glauconem
1.1 (Kühn 11: 5.11).
30 vjiÈQ ov XéXexxai xaì èv xolç xaxà cpvoixœv ôvvâpeœv vTCopvtjpaoi. ibid. 2.12 (Kühn 11. 139.9).
31 œv /(OQÎœv XTļv cpvoiv èv xaîç àvaxopixaîç ëpadeç èyxeiQrjoeoiv. ibid. 2.8 (Kühn 11. 112.7).
32 tceqì ôè X ov . . . œç oîoda, èv x fj jceqî xfjç xœv ârcXœv cpajQpàxœv ôvvâpeœç èTZEOxerpápeda TCQaypaxeìa.
ibid. 2.4 (Kühn 11: 99.15). See also ibid. 2.6 (Kühn 11. 104.w/í) and 2.9 (Kühn 11: 118.4), both of which
indicate that this work was completed at least through the fifth book.
33 See n. 24 above and also Ad Glauconem 1.2 (Kühn 11: lO.ult.) and ibid. 1.15 (Kühn 11: 59.8).
34 That is, the four books De pulsuum differentiis , the four De dignoscendis pulsibus, the four De causis
pulsuum, and the four De praesagitione ex pulsibus. All of these are on occasion referred to collectively as i)
tceqì xœv oçvypœv TCQaypaxeía, xà tceqì oçvypœv, or xà tceqì ocpvypœv vTcopv^paxa. See Ilberg,
"Schrift stellerei" (1889), p. 219.
35 ü)Otceq al ģevpaxixai xaXovpevai, tceqì &v èv tjpiv, œç oloOa, yéyQanxai ßißXiov. Ad Glauconem 2.4
(Kühn 11: 100.11).
36 Ilberg, "Schriftstellerei" (1896), p. 169. Ilberg's conclusion is not without difficulties. In De febrium
differentiis 2.13 (Kühn 7: 380.15) Galen says: õtccdç ôè yívexai rouro, xá% ' hv evQOipev, el tceqì yEvêosœç
cpXEypovrjç xaì xœv xaXovpévœv $Evpaxixœv ôcaOéoEœv ávapvrjcrdEÍrjpEV, õoa ôc ' èxéQœv iļpiv èv xœ tceqì
àvœpàXov ôvoxQaoiaç àrcoôéÔEcxxac. If this passage is not corrupt, it means that Galen's De inaequali
intemperie (Kühn 7: 733-752) is at least partly about the "so-called" rheumatic diatheses, even though the
expression itself is not once used therein. On the other hand, Galen also says (De febrium differentiis 2.14,
Kühn 7: 383. 1) that he "wrote in particular (lòia poi yéyQorcxai) about the so-called rheumatic diathesis," and

This content downloaded from

46.222.61.250 on Wed, 12 May 2021 15:57:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 490 DONALD W. PETERSON

wherein the recognition of tertian, quartan, q

had already been discussed "more clearl
Daremberg has suggested Crises Book 2 an
Another likely possibility is De typls.39 Finall
a group of books already written which may
At the very end of the text Galen tells Gla
complete, saying: "I think the aforesaid to b
you are] for a long stay abroad. If, as I said e
drugs according to genus and affected places
you return. There is, moreover, another large
the whole therapeutic method. If yon are kep
not hesitate to send you each commentary I
Of the first pair of books mentioned in th
medicamentorum per genera and De com
secundum locos - a portion had already bee

later (ibid. 2.18, Kühn 7: 402.2) he refers specifically to ó j

Furthermore, Galen describes how the book in question begins (Ad
description does not fit De inaequali intemperie. It does, howe
Oribasius's long chapter jzeqI QEvpaxixrjç òiadéoewç (Collecti
graecorum, vol. 6.2. 1: p. 1 10.6 ff). Ilberg ("Schriftstellerei" (1896
chapter may contain fragments of Galen's lost work of the same
to have found a surviving Galenic source for the passage in questio
by no means close (see CMG, vol. 6.2.1: p. 110 apparatus font
37 Ad Glauconem 1.4 (Kühn 11: 'l.paen.).
38 Oeuvres anatomiques, physiologiques et médicales de Galien, trans, by Charles Daremberg (Paris:
Baillière, 1854-1856), vol. 2, p.715.
39 Galen's jieqì iazQixãjv òvopáxwv also contains references to a work on fevers. See Galen, Ueber die
medizinischen Namen, ed. and trans. Max Meyerhof and Joseph Schacht (Berlin: Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1931) p. 6.29 ( = p. 16.32-34 of the accompanying German translation) and p. 13.16-21 ( = p.
26.5-16). Of the two such citations, Ilberg ignored one but demonstrated (ibid., p. 26 of the German
translation, n. 1) that the other could be taken to refer to De typls. Note that the book in question is called by
Galen "our book on fevers" - "kitabuna fi'l-hummayat." Like De crisibus and De febrium differentiis, De
typis also lists signs of tertian (chapter 4, Kühn 7: 465.11-13 and 466.9-469 .paen.), quartan (ibid., Kühn 7:
465.14-15 and 469.paen. -470-14 and passim to the end of the work), and quotidian (ibid., Kühn 7: 465.9-11 and
465 .paen. -466.9 ff.) fevers.
40 àXX ' è pol pèv ôoxeï yvœprjç te Jiávv XEJixfjç r¡ xoiavxrj ÔEÎoOai ôiáyvwoiç, èpjiEiQÍaç xe xijç (pvoEtoç
xã)v poQÍtov, rjv eĶ àvaxoprjç xe äpa xaì àxçifiovç èjzioxijprjç èvEQysià iv xe xái xQekòv noQitppEda. jieqì pèv òrj
xovxoxv èv êxÉQaiç EÏQijxai JiçaypaxEÍaiç. Ad Glauconem 2.1 (Kühn 11: 78.1).
41 Galen is referring to AJ Glauconem 2.9 (Kühn 11: 124. 1-10). In the earlier passage he seems to imply that
only De compositione medicamentorum secundum locos remains to be written. Whether or not that is
correct, it is in any case clear that a portion of De compositione medicamentorum per genera had already
been completed.
42 Ibid. 2.13 (Kühn 11: 145.12 ff.).
43 See reference in note 41 above with special attention to the phrase óç èv xoîç jieqì ovvOeoewç cpaQpaxoìv
vjiopvrjpaot XeXexxûi (lines 5-6). Cf. xaì àXXa ôè pvQÍa (pÓQpaxa . . . ëvEOxi croi ovvxidévai, œv xr)v péOoôov

This content downloaded from

46.222.61.250 on Wed, 12 May 2021 15:57:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHRONOLOGY OF THE GALENIC CORPUS 491

section, however, was subsequently destroyed, at least in part,4

much of it, if any, can be seen in the existing work bearing th
therefore problematical. As for the "large work ... on the whole t
method," Ilberg has argued, unconvincingly, that it must alread
in progress.45 It is just as likely that Galen merely had in mind t
methodo medendi at that time.
The few remaining citations are also of a somewhat equivocal nature.
When Galen says that a question "is discussed" or "is being discussed"
(Xéyerai) elsewhere, or that he "is defining" or "defines" ( ôioQiÇófieda ) a
matter in another book, it does not necessarily mean that the other book has
been completed.46 A tieqì Jiadwv Xóyoç is cited in this fashion; the title is
probably a collective one for Galen's four works on the differences and
causes of diseases and symptoms.47 There are two similar references, one
certainly to De diebus decretoriis, the other possibly to the same work, or to
Crises, or to both.48

îijç ovvOéoeotç iv rolę jicqí (pao^íáxwv fiefiáOtpeaç (ibid., 2.2, Kühn 11: 81.7-10) and ôXXà crv ye tovtüiv ijòtì
xœv (pagpàxœv, œv èpvrjpóvevoa xará zò ßißXiov zovzo, zàç ovppezgíaç xe xal oxevaoíaç fyeiç nag ' rfplv
Xaßwv(ibid 2.9, Kühn 11: 124.10). See finally ibid. 2.7 (Kühn 11:110.16-18) and ibid. 2. 10 (Kühn 11: 133.6). In
at least one other work Galen has referred to his books on simple and compound drugs collectively as t] tieqì
xœv (pagpàxœv jiq ay gazeia (see De methodo medendi 14.4, Kühn 10: 955.2).
There are also references to (pagpaxizioi ßißXioig {Ad Glauconem 2.3, Kühn 11: 87.2, and ibid. 2.7, Kühn
11: 108 .paen.) whereby books by other physicians are probably intended. Cf. De compositione
medicamentorum secundum locos 7.1 (Kühn 13: 3.6) where we find özi òè TioXXr¡ zig èoziv f¡ òiacpogà xœv
yeygappévœv èv zaïç (pagpaxixioi ßißXioig vtzò xœv iazgœv.
44 Ilberg, "Schriftstellerei" (1889) pp. 226-227, assumes that the early version of tieqì ovvdéoeœç
(pagpàxœv was two books long and that both were destroyed. Galen, however, does not say precisely that. At
the very beginning of De compositione medicamentorum per genera (Kühn 13:362) he notes: v Hòrj poi xai
tcqóoOev èyéyQarrzo Jigaypazeía, ôvoîv pèv ēĶ avxrjç xœv Jigœzœv ßißXiwv èxôodévzœv, èyxazaXeizpQévzœv ôè
èv zfj xazà xrjv iegàv óôòv ànodijxrj pexà xœv àXXœv, rjví xa zò zfjç EÍQijvr}ç zépevoç ôXov èxavQrj xzX. That is,
Galen once wrote a work on compound drugs, of which two books were published, deposited near the Temple
of Peace, and then destroyed.
45 Ilberg, "Schriftstellerei" (1896) p. 180, argues that if De methodo medendi were not already in progress,
but merely anticipated, we should expect to find in the passage just translated above: ëozai ôè xaì àXXtj . . .
TZQaypaxeía instead of ëozt ôè xaì àXXrj . . . npaypazeia. But e oil is consistent with either possibility. Galen
merely says that his friends have asked him to write another book and implies that Glaucon will eventually
have it.

46 See Bardong, "Beiträge," p. 605, and Ilberg, "Schriftstellerei" (1892) p. 502, n.3.
47 (DOTiEQ ye xai xœv naga ņvoiv éutâvzœv õoai xaz ' eïôij ze xaì yévrj ôiatpoQai zvyxávonoiv o voai, Ttáoaç
èv zw tzeqì Ttadœv ôioQiÇópeda Xóyw. Ad Glauconem 1.1 (Kühn 11: 5.13). In at least one other passage De
symptomatum dijferentiis 1, Kühn 7:42) Galen calls all of these works a single Xóyoç.
48 ijv [sc. çvotv] èv zolę tieqì xQioípmv sc. r¡peQwv ôioQiÇópeda. Ad Glauconem 1 . 16 (Kühn 11: 66.7). Galen
also says Xéyezai ô ' etcì tzXeov pèv ézégwdi návza, where návxa means how to recognize a owpa
xoQaxxópevov vjzò (pvoewç TzaQaoxevaÇojuévrjç èní ze zàç àXXaç èxxQÍoeiç xai ov% rjxioza zàç ôi ' èpézwv ze
xai alpoģģayiag, œv àywQLOzóv èozi or] pelo v i] xetpaXaXyía (ibid. 1.16, Kühn 11: 64.16). Broadly speaking,
that is a pervasive theme of De diebus decretoriis, especially Books 1 and 2. It is dealt with more specifically
in De crisibus, especially Book 3.

This content downloaded from

46.222.61.250 on Wed, 12 May 2021 15:57:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
492 DONALD W. PETERSON

Since all of the works mentioned were written near the end of 169 or
thereafter,49 that date is a terminus post quem for Therapeutics to Glaucon
as well. But it seems that between 169 and the time he began Therapeutics to
Glaucon Galen wrote enough to fill some four thousand or more pages in the
Kühn edition.50 Consequently, the text could not have been completed
before the early 170s.

There are a few difficulties that remain to be noted in regard to the new
dates proposed above. Since Galen evidently had nothing of De methodo
medendi he was able (or willing) to give Glaucon before the latter' s
departure, it is quite remarkable that at the same time he should have
referred to a De diebus decretoriis either completed or anticipated.51
According to Bardong, there were some nine works or portions thereof
written between De diebus decretoriis and De methodo medendi 1-6 (see
table 1).
Here again, however, Bardong proves to be substantially in error. For
example, the most recent of the nine works he believes to separate De diebus
decretoriis and De methodo medendi is Galen's In Hippocratis aphorismos.
Bardong placed the latter before Crises (and hence before De diebus
decretoriis) on the basis of a clearly suspicious passage in the Kühn edition
of Crises that Bardong reproduced as follows: ènei roívvv ànoòéòeixrai pèv
èv rã> JiQ(ín(ü Xóyo) rã) v ' lnjioxo&iovg âcpoQiopãv rjptov è^qyovpévcov.
(literally, "Since it has been shown in the first discourse of the Aphorisms of
Hippocrates we having commented.")52 Does the statement indeed refer to
Galen's formal commentary on the Aphorisms of Hippocrates? Or is it a
reference to the Aphorisms themselves, or to something entirely different?
One of several questions that arise is whether the full stop is in the right
place. The beginning of the "next sentence," cbg xâg avxijg rov vocnjuaxoç
xrjç <pvoea)ç xxX. ("That from the nature of the disease itself etc."), is not
reassuring. Fortunately, there is in this case no need to speculate further
because a critical edition of Crises is now available. Alexanderson' s version
of the passage in question reads: ènei roívvv ànoóéóeixxai uè v èv rã» Ttgórw
Xóyą> xòv ' IjiTzoxQÓTOvg àxpoQiopòv r¡pa)V kĶrļyovpev(ov <bç xaĶ avrfjç rov
voorjparoç rrjç (pvoeeaç o v opixgàv JiQÓyvwoiv ëveori X aß e lv eiç rà

49 Bardong, "Beiträge," especially pp. 633-635.

50 This figure is based on the assumption that Galen had completed no more than five books of De
simplicium medicamentorum temperamentis ac facultatibus (see above) and that Bardong ("Beiträge,"
especially pp. 633-635) has correctly identified what Galen wrote before that work, but after 168 A.D.
51 See note 48 above.

52 "Beiträge," pp. 635-637. The passage is from De crisibus 3.8 (Kühn 9: 671.11).

This content downloaded from

46.222.61.250 on Wed, 12 May 2021 15:57:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHRONOLOGY OF THE GALENIC CORPUS 493

TABLE 1

Chronological Order of Certain Galenic Works According to Bardong*

De methodo medendi 1-6

"etwa Anfang 175" De difflcultate respirationis
De sanitate tuenda 1-3
De marcore

De plenitudine
De sanitate tuenda 4-5
In Hippocratis librum de fracturis
In Hippocratis de articulis librum
In Hippocratis de ulceribus librum
In Hippocratis de capitis vulneribus librum
In Hippocratis aphorismos
De die bus decretoriis
Crises
De febrium differentiis
"Nov. 176"**
De morborum temporibus
In Hippocratis epidemiarum libros 1
"Anfang 177"** Prognosis to Epigenes

* Kurt Bardong, "Beiträge zur Hippokrates- und Galenforschung," espec

637.
** It was demonstrated above that "Anfang 177" in this -table ought to read "178 or early
179" and that "Nov. 176" must be changed to "19 May 175." For additional corrections see
below.

fiéXXovra, xrL ("Since it was shown in the first discourse, in commenting on

the aphorism of Hippocrates, that it is possible to gain no small
foreknowledge of future events from the nature of the disease itself, etc.").53
The remark appears in Book 3 of Crises , and the reference to the "first
discourse" is of course to Book 1 of Crises , where the appropriate passages
are easily found to confirm Alexanderson' s reading.54
Without evidence that Galen's In Hippocratis aphorismos was written
before Crises , there is no good reason to suppose that it was completed
before De diebus decretoriis . Indeed, it is doubtful whether there is a
reference in De diebus decretoriis to any formal "Hippocratic" commentary
whatsoever.55

53£>e crisibus 3.8 (Alexanderson 145.17).

54 Galen explains rov ' IajzoxQáxovç àtpoQiopóv in the aforesaid fashion in De crisibus 1.4 (Alexanderson
75.3-23 = Kühn 9: 560-561). For a subsequent point referred to see ibid. 2.2 (Alexanderson 127. 16 = Kühn 9:
642), which begins: Aexxéov oôv tfôrj jtœç ãv xiç xxX.
55 In De diebus decretoriis 1 . 1 (Kühn 9: 770 .ult.) we read: xará péçoç ôè ôiá re xœv àçpoQiopœv avrœv xal
ôià % ov JtQoyvùXJxixov yQÓppaxoç o vy fj x tor a ôè xal ôià xœv èmôrjpiœv èôiôaÇe [se. 'Ithióxqglxtjç] xíva ò '

This content downloaded from

46.222.61.250 on Wed, 12 May 2021 15:57:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
494 DONALD W. PETERSON

When Galen's In Hippocratis aphorismo

instead of before, Crises , so must the p
commentaries (i.e. the commentaries to Hip
and De ulceribus, the In Hippocratis de arti
librum de fracturis) also be removed fr
assigned them.56 If Bardong has otherwise a
commentaries, and also Galen's/« Hippocrat
still be arranged before De praenotione
Epigenes).57 According to table 1 above, it w
works could have been written between De
Crises. However, when the dates of these
proposed earlier in this paper, there is foun
between them.58
The displacement of the five "Hippocratic" commentaries of course

avxcöv īovtoj póvov ojiXõjç vnooxQÉcpei, xwQÍÇ òXédQov, riva ôè xaì ôvvatòv rjpīv èaxiv èt-iãodaí xe xaì
xœXvoai naXivÒQopfjoai. neçi pèv òr} x ovxíov èv êxéQoiç vnopvrjpaoiv èÇrjyovpeda xř}v yvópijv avxov • jteqì
ôè rœv äpa xoîç Xvxtjqíoiç or] pao io iç navoapévcov, a òr} xaì xexQÍoOai Xéyexai, vvv fjyovfiai XQfjvai òieXdeív.
Here Bardong assumes (1) that è^rjyovpeQa is a present, and (2) that the subsequent èv èxéQoiç vnopvrjpaoiv
refers to Galen's commentaries on Hippocrates's Aphorismi, Prognosticon, and De morbis popularibus.
However, since Bardong also believes that the only one of these three commentaries written before De
crisibus was In Hippocratis aphorismos, he is obliged to interpret the above passage in two different ways: It
"zitiert" In Hippocratis aphorismos, he says, but merely "ankündigt" the commentaries to Prognosticon
and De morbis popularibus ("Beiträge," pp. 617, 637).
One of several other objections to this whole line of argument is that èv êxéQoiç vnopvrļpaoiv need not refer
here to any of Galen's formal "Hippocratic" commentaries. The plural vnopvrjpaxa can of course indicate
nothing more than a single multi-book work like De crisibus (see for example De crisibus 1.20, Alexanderson
124.4 = Kühn 9: 637 .paen.). More important, Galen does not refer to his remarks on all of what Hippocrates
discussed in the above works, but merely to a single broad topic (riva ô ' avrõjv . . . vnooxQêyei xxX.) that
Hippocrates happens to have taken up in various places. The importance of this distinction is further
emphasized by recalling that when Galen finally did undertake to write formal commentaries on the works of
Hippocrates, he considered the task "superfluous" (!) because in everything he had written he had "always
expounded the opinion of Hippocrates and juxtaposed the most important of his sayings." In his own words:
yiyvóoxmv ò ' èpavxòv èv ânaoiv olç éyeypácpeiv èÇrjyrjoápevov àeì xrļv "Innoxçáxovç yvóprjv, âpa xã> xaì
xàç èmxaiQoxáxaç avxov ģrjoecov jxaçaxedeíodai, jzeqlxxòv rjyovprjv eivai ygácpeiv èÇrjyijoeiç èv vjiopvrjpaai
xad ' êxáoxrjv XeĶiv an ' aQxfjç ècoç xéXovç ánávxov avxov xã>v ßißXiwv. ènei òe xai xavxaç exeiv 'eôerjdrjoav
evioi xã)v èxaÍQiov, ânò xwv yvrjoiœxàxcDv xai xQ^o^wá-xtov ' Innoxpáxovç ßißXiiov ^Q^áprjv xxX. (In
Hippocratis epidermiarum librum 3 comm.2 preface, CMG vol. 5.10.2.1: 60.11). Consequently, there is no
good reason to assume that Galen refers to formal "Hippocratic" commentaries in De diebus decretoriis. And
in any case, the work, or works, in question were not necessarily completed.
56 See Bardong, "Beitrage," pp. 617-622. The dependence of the position of the preceding four
"Hippocratic" commentaries on that of In Hippocratis aphorismos is decisive. When the latter is displaced,
so must the others follow.
57 Ibid.

58 The correct date of De praenotione ad Posthumum is 178 or early 179. The terminus ante quern for De
crisibus (as well as De febrium differentiis and De diebus decretoriis) is 19 May 175. See above.

This content downloaded from

46.222.61.250 on Wed, 12 May 2021 15:57:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 CHRONOLOGY OF THE GALENIC CORPUS 495

weakens considerably the position of the four books still remaining

De diebus decretoriis and De methodo medendi. De difficult ate re
is now the only one of the four which can be shown either d
indirectly to have been written before De diebus decretoriis , and i
means certain whether the particular edition of this work cited in
decretoriis is the same as the one written after De methodo medendi ,59 It is
still possible that the first six books of De methodo medendi came after, or
along with, De diebus decretoriis .60 In any case, there remains no
inconsistency of any magnitude in regard to the citations found in
Therapeutics to Glaucon or to the conclusions drawn from them above.61
In summary, changes have been proposed in the dates or relative order of
Galen's Therapeutics to Glaucon , Prognosis to Epigenes, Crises , De diebus
decretoriis , De febrium differentiis , and the "Hippocratic" commentaries.
Problems in regard to the date of De dijficultate respirationis have also been
noted.

59 The position Bardong has assigned to the first edition of De diffìcultate respirationis would be somewhat
stronger if it were not necessary to remove the five "Hippocratic" commentaries which Bardong has placed
shortly after it. Once this alteration is made, a number of difficulties already disturbing become still more so:
(1) De diffìcultate respirationis was anticipated as early as the time of De respirationis usu, and it was cited
in at least four works which Bardong has put before De methodo medendi ("Beiträge," pp. 634-635). To
make good his claim that De diffìcultate respirationis was first written after De methodo medendi, Bardong
assumed that the four early works citing it were all re-edited. Bardong' s resolution of this and similar
problems is based on the quite arbitrary belief that later additions to a text cannot have been substantial (see,
in the present instance, "Beiträge," pp. 606-607). Obviously, the possibility remains that one edition of De
diffìcultate respirationis appeared before De methodo medendi.
(2) Bardong claims repeatedly that, when dealing with a revised book, it is possible, merely by looking at a
citation therein, to tell whether it was also present in the (now lost) first edition, or only added in the (existing)
second edition. If Bardong is not allowed this somewhat doubtful claim, the question of an edition of De
diffìcultate respirationis between De methodo medendi and De diebus decretoriis does not arise. If he is
allowed it, it proves in this case to have a double edge. When the five "Hippocratic" commentaries are
removed, the only citations remaining to suggest an edition of De diffìcultate respirationis during this interval
are those in De marcore 5 (Kühn 7: 685. 10), and De diebus decretoriis 2. 12 (Kühn 9: 890.3), and each of these
meets precisely Bardong' s criteria for the recognition of "Zusätze," or later additions.
60 There is no reference to the first six books of De methodo medendi in De diebus decretoriis.

61 There is also positive evidence of sorts that Ad Glaucone m was never revised. The books Galen wrote
between 169 and November 176 are, as a rule, very difficult to arrange in chronological order. Perhaps that is
due to the fact that Galen held on to them until the end of that period (see above) and thus had the opportunity
to revise. Ad Glaucone m is an exception. It was written for a man who was going abroad and whose departure
was so close at hand that Galen was apparently obliged to omit material he would otherwise have included
(see chapter two of the present author's doctoral dissertation, "Galen's Therapeutics to Glaucon and its Early
Commentaries"). The potential usefulness of Ad Glauconem for the purpose of dating the other texts
mentioned therein has not been fully utilized above.

This content downloaded from

46.222.61.250 on Wed, 12 May 2021 15:57:18 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms