A GALENIC ARGUMENT

There is an incorrectly formulated argument in Galen, De atra bile

5.9 (Corp. Med. Gr 4.1.1 [Berlin 1937] 80.3-6). Immediately preceding
these lines Galen pointed out the effects of yellow and black bile on the
visible parts of the body, and he then went on to say that it is reasonable
(EkXoyov) that the parts deep within the body be similarly affected.
Then comes the sentence:
ov yaQ 6&lnov XokXfS[Ev av0fgs egig ev t o6QLov
xataoXrlTa&o;EQlvoitETexai xaExivog, ovib6iJZOV
6e T&xaLTC
kag yevrToeTaR,
[teXacivg be aVOCeat
T6 (3a6og TOv ocbTo
a[avoL(X
eV?XeT
xaLaoxevivY, CaXXx&xeiva ye
g
ao
xta0eotv.
TOigavToi; vao6xeltaLt

The initial ov y&

a b6irto cannot merely negate the first clause, because
Galen has just stated that yellow and black bile do indeed cause the
affections here mentioned. It must therefore negate the conjunction of
the two clauses: it is not the case that the biles have these effects and
the deep organs are not adamantine. But in Galen's view these two
statements are compatible: it is the case that the biles have these effects, and the deep parts are not adamantine. How then explain the
introductory negative?
Clearly Galen intended here an argument in the form of the Stoics'
third undemonstrated trope: Not both a and ,3; but a; therefore not P.
(See Gal., Instit. log. 6.6, ed. Kalbfleisch [Leipzig 1896] 15.18-21.) The
first premise of such an argument may be obtained here by deleting the
negative that introduces the second clause; for oiv 6blov 6E Ta xaxa
read simply Ta (6E) xaxa: it is not the case both that the biles have these
effects (in the visible parts) and that the deep parts are adamantine. The
second premise would be the affirmation of a, that the biles have these
effects in the visible parts. It may be supplied from the remarks that
Galen makes immediately before this passage. The conclusion that
Galen draws is that the deep parts are also subject to the same affections. From Galen's earlier statement it is apparent that he claims for
this conclusion only that it is reasonable, and rightly so. The predicate
of the conclusion, "subject to the same affections," is not entailed by
what would be the proper predicate, "not adamantine."
But would Galen himself have erroneously added the second negAmerican Journal of Philology 113 (1992) 275-276 ? 1992 by The Johns Hopkins University Press

276

PHILLIP DE LACY

ative in the first premise? It is unlikely. He was familiar with this form of
argument and used it elsewhere. See for example De methodo medendi
i.9, Vol. X, 73.17-74.1 Kiihn. More probably some editor or copyist,
recognizing that the second clause must be false and failing to recognize
the elliptical syllogism, introduced a negative formula patterned after
the formula that introduces the first clause.
PHILLIP DE LACY
BARNEGAT
LIGHT,NEW JERSEY