Types and markers of narrative discourse in Galen's Anatomical Writings

Prolygina Irina Viktorovna ORCID: 0000-0001-7492-9750 PhD in Philology Head of the Department; Department of Latin Language and Fundamentals of Terminology; Russian University of Medicine 53 Nizhnyaya Pervomayskaya str., 395 sq., Moscow, 105203, Russia prolygina99@yandex.ru

Galen's narrative style, whose writings make up one of the most voluminous bodies of ancient texts, was the subject of discussion already in the Middle Ages, as it had a significant impact both on the development of medical discourse and medical terminology in the eastern Greek-speaking part of the Roman Empire, and subsequently in Byzantium, and on the formation of the Latin language of medicine in the West, starting with the first translations of his texts into Latin in the 12th century. In a number of scientific papers to this day, Galen's style is criticized for verbosity, self-praise, self-confident, excessively polemical and harsh tone ^{[1, p. 316; 2; 3; 4, p. 9-25; 5, p. 59-63; 6, p. 138-40]}. However, recently there have been studies that convincingly prove that Galen's style largely reflects aesthetic tastes and adherence to the literary tradition characteristic of the prose of the late Roman Empire ^[7].

In this article, we will look at the types of narrative discourse and their markers using the example of Galen's anatomical work De ossibus ad tirones, "On Bones for Beginners" ^[8], which is characterized by a small number of polemical digressions. For the research model, we took the work of K. Kroon ^[9] and D. Langslow ^[10], who developed a methodology for analyzing discourse and discursive particles in the texts of Latin ancient authors, and K. Petit ^[2], who studied Galen's narrative style in general. K. Kroon suggests distinguishing the following types of discourse in the narrative genre: monologue, dialogue, and polylogue (9, pp. 109-15). Most of the ancient Greek-medical texts refer, according to K. Petit, to the monological type of discourse with dialogical digressions. In the case when the author addresses a fictional interlocutor or transmits someone else's speech without receiving a response, we can talk about the so-called diaphonic type of discourse ^{[2, p. 58-65]}. The markers of narrative discourse, according to the researcher, are similar in Latin and Greek, and the approximately equal frequency of their use by authors of the II-III centuries, such as Apuleius, Aulus Gellius and Galen, testifies to the common rhetorical practice of intellectuals of this period.

Of course, Galen can only be placed on a par with authors who are traditionally classified as "Second Sophistry" with reservations. The prose of other medical authors of the same time, such as Rufus of Ephesus, Soran, or the authors of the Pseudo-Galenic Corpus, differs greatly from Galen's narrative style with its structured argumentation system and a large number of rhetorical devices. Galen's similarity to the style of the sophists of his time is explained, apparently, not only by the community of schooling, but also by the publicity of Galen's own figure, as well as the high competitiveness of the medical profession in Roman society, which for this reason was agonistic. The need to prove their professionalism during public debates with competitors and anatomical demonstrations required doctors to have thorough rhetorical training and knowledge of medical, philosophical and, in general, classical literature. In addition, it should not be forgotten that doctors were often accused of quackery and magic, which led to exile from Rome, and therefore were sometimes forced to publicly explain their methods of diagnosis and treatment of patients.

Galen's markers of narrative discourse include: a) verbs, sometimes together with personal pronouns, in the first person; b) self-references and transitions from the past tense to the present and future; c) metadiscursive expressions that affect interaction with the reader, for example, addressing the reader using verba dicendi, putandi and sentiendi in the second person; d) expressions subjective value judgments, for example, the expression of an author's opinion, beliefs, etc.; e) the use of extracausal components, such as interjections or particles.

Before turning to the analysis of markers, you should make some introductory remarks about the essay "On bones for beginners." Over the years of his medical practice, Galen wrote several works on anatomy, which, along with physiology, formed the basis of medical knowledge ^[11]. He suggests starting the study of anatomy with small "pedagogical" essays for beginners (εἰσαγόμενοι), which in an accessible form for beginners contain basic information about the structure of the body in various body systems – osteology, myology, neurology, etc. These essays served as an introduction to a more complete and voluminous essay, "On Anatomical Procedures" (D e anatomicis administrationibus), written for specialists who already had preliminary theoretical and practical training and had the means and time to receive a more complete education ^[12]. According to Galen, in the treatises "On his Own Books" and "On the Order of his Own Books," such writings were originally written at the request of his friends and students and were intended for personal use, but later he collected all the writings "for beginners" into a single corpus of texts, the reading of which served as an introduction to the study of medicine (De libr. propr., prol. 6, 8-9; I, 5; De ord. libr. I, 2) ^{[13; 14; 8, c. 141]}. Galen's treatise On Bones for Beginners (c. 180 AD) also belongs to this so-called "Small Anatomy", which, despite a number of erroneous statements (for example, in describing the structure of the skull or sacrum), is one of the first anatomical nomenclatures, the terminology of which underlies modern osteology. and in many ways it has not lost its relevance to this day. Unlike most of his other treatises, Galen does not quote other authors in this text and practically does not enter into polemics with opponents, offering beginners to study medicine comprehensive and detailed information about the structure of the human skeleton. Therefore, it provides convenient material for analyzing his narrative discourse.

The treatise begins with a justification of the purpose of studying bones, which are useful to know for the treatment of fractures and dislocations. The first sentence of the text begins with a statement in the first person: "I affirm (φημί) that a doctor must know what each of the bones is in itself and how it connects to other bones if he wants to properly treat their fractures and dislocations" (Ia, 1). Thus, the first sentence of the treatise is already It was intended to impress the reader with an indisputable authority and confidence in the immutability of his opinion. Further the narrative develops with alternating transitions from 1 person singular "I": for example, σοι δίειμι, "I'll tell you" (Ib, 9); ἐγὼ ... καλῶ, "I called ..." (Ib. 18, Ms. Ia, 16); καταλέξω, "I will list" (IV, 6); ἐφεξῆς ἐρῶ, "I say next" (VIII, 6), to the 1st person plural, "we", for example, χρησόμεθα – "we will use" (Ia, 5); σαφηνίζειν προαιρουμένων ἡμῶν "we want to explain", (Ia, 5); προσαγορεύομεν, "we call a" (Ia, 24); καὶ ἡμῖν δὲ καλείσθωσαν ῥαφαί – "we let the seams are called" (Ib, 7); ἡμεῖς μέντοι ... εὕρομεν, "however, we found ourselves ..." (III, 1).

Some of Galen's statements in the 1st person relate to the correct use of anatomical terms. In the first chapter of the treatise, Galen draws the reader's attention to the fact that before expounding the teaching itself, it is necessary to clarify the terms that he will use in the treatise, "so that when they are used in the course of the narrative (διηγήσεως), what is said does not turn out to be unclear (ἀσαφές) and the coherence of the presentation is not disrupted whenever we want to clarify (a new [concept]" (Ia, 5). As is well known, clarity and coherence of presentation were an integral part of any text organized in accordance with the ancient rhetorical doctrine of style, both in oral public speech and in written prose. Clarity implied the use of terms in precise meanings that did not allow ambiguity and was intended to make speech understandable and convincing. And coherence made it possible to build a clear and consistent narrative logic (R het. ad Herren., IV, 12, 17; Cicero, De orat. III, 13, 14-49; Demetr. 191-192, 193, 196).

Most anatomical terms in Galen's time required clarification, since some terms went back to the time of Hippocrates and the "ancient doctors" (παλαιοὶ ἰατροί) and were either outdated or incomprehensible at all; others came into use by modern doctors (vεώτεροι ἰατροί) and were not known to everyone, and others were neologisms of Galen himself, because according to according to his own remark, "there is nothing inappropriate in creating new terms for the sake of clarity of teaching, based on existing words" (Ia, 14). Therefore, before giving his own definition of the term, Galen often refers to the usage of "some" or "some of the anatomists" (Ia, 6; Ib, 7; III, 7; IV, 3; VIII, 4; XIII, 5; XIV, 2; XIX, 1), "some of the sophists" (V, 1), "all doctors" (Ia, 17), "striving for clarity" (Ia, 18) or Hippocrates (Ia, 9; VIII, 4), and cites "old" (Ia, 21) and "modern" names (Ia, 21; III, 1) of various anatomical formations.

Despite the fact that the treatise was compiled at the request of friends and students, it does not have a specific addressee, like some other works of Galen, for example, his anatomical treatise "On anatomical measures", which is addressed to Flavius Boet. Nevertheless, in the text of the treatise there are constant references to the intended interlocutor in the 2nd person singular of the imperative mood or in a conditional sentence with verba dicendi, sentiendi and putandi. Such diaphonic inserts usually appear between semantic sections of the text to clarify one's own opinion on controversial terminological issues or to draw the reader's attention to some problem. So, talking about different kinds and names of the processes of the cervical bones, he writes: οὐδὲν διαφέρει δὲ οὐδ εἰ κορωνὸν εἴποις, "and there is no difference, if you could call him [i.e. process – approx. ed.] the crown" (Ia, 16). Describing the location of the lambdoid suture of the skull, he invites the reader to imagine its topography: When explaining the structure of the lumbar vertebrae, he notices that they contain openings for veins that are not found in other vertebrae: "you would not see" (X, 3). The last phrase refers us directly to an imaginary anatomical demonstration, the details of which Galen twice reports in this essay. As is known, Galen's osteology was based mainly on the structure of the monkey's skeleton, which required pretreatment and removal of fibers by digestion. Galen mentions this procedure when describing the mandible bone, the structure of which differs from that of the human bone (VI, 1), and the sacrum (XI, 2).

The features of Galen's narrative discourse include constant self-references with transitions from the past tense to the present and future, which, according to G. von Staden ^{[15, p. 110-11]}, serve as a tool for managing the entire structure of the narrative and its connecting elements. Some of them are expressed by verbs in the 1st person, and some are used in indefinite-personal constructions. Galen refers to the fact, as he starts talking what he said or what has mentioned previously that he would tell you later why he says what he says, etc.: ἐπεὶ δὲ ... εἴπομεν ἐφεξῆς ἄν εἴη ... εἰπεῖν, "as we said, next would have to say ..." (Ia, 20); ἐπεὶ δὲ ... ἐμνημονεύσαμεν, "because we have mentioned" (Ia, 22); εἴρηται μὲν ἤδη καὶ πρόσθεν οὐδέπω μὲν ... εἴρηται πρόσθεν, εἰρήσεται δὲ ἐν τῷδε, "we said ... said not yet exist, but will be said next," (Ib, 1); προείρηται ... ἐν τῷδε λεχθήσεται, "was said above ... more will be said" (III, 1); ἔμπροσθεν ὡς εἴρηται, "as mentioned above" (IV, 7; IX, 1; X, 2); περὶ ὧν ἐφεξῆς ἐρῶ, "about which I will speak further" (VIII, 6); ἤδη προείρηται, "mentioned above" (X, 1).

The colloquial features found in this short essay for beginners deprive it of its situational context. The narrative lacks any hint of a spatiotemporal relationship with the reader beyond the anatomical issues being discussed. Sometimes Galen is distracted by terminological explanations or explanations of the structure of a particular bone, which is confirmed by its appropriate dissection; sometimes he calls readers to witness the obvious absurdity of the claims of some opponents, whom he ridicules in a rather harsh form. So, talking about what parts of the body should include the teeth, he writes: "To the bones should be considered and teeth, even if some of the sophists different opinion (εἰ καί τισι τῶν οὐ δοκεῖ σοφιστῶν). However, they would be right if they urged us to call them something else, but to give them some other name. However, it is quite obvious that it is inappropriate to call them cartilages, or arteries, or veins, or veins, and even more so, fat, or hair, or flesh, or glands, or any other part of the body in general. But if we fail to speak of them either in veins anatomy or the anatomy of the arteries, nerves, muscles and viscera, nor in the present treatise on the bones, we tell about them ever (οὐδ' ὅλως ἐροῦμεν οὐδέποτε). Therefore, it should send the sophists to hell (σοφισταῖς μὲν δὴ τοῖς μακρὰν χαίρειν ῥητέον) (V 1-3)".

Another marker of Galen's narrative discourse is the transmission of the author's opinion, personal attitude to the statement or its subjective assessment. Quite often, introductory words or particles are found in his text, which should convince the reader and create the impression that the author is obvious and completely right. Such introduction can be attributed to the expression ἴσως, "maybe" (Ia, 5, 14; III, 1), δοκεῖ μοι, "I think", "in my opinion" (Ia, 5; XXIV, 10); ἄντικρυς δῆλον, "it is obvious" (Ia, 12; V, 2); ἴσως οὐδὲν ἄτοπον..., "and perhaps nothing is out of place ..." (Ia, 14); δῆλον ἤδη γέγονεν, it was already clear (IV, 3), οἶμαι, "I think" (V, 4); εἰκότως, "it is quite true" (VIII, 5); γὰρ οὐδὲν διαφέρει ... προσαγορεύειν, "no matter how to call ..." (VII, 3); the εὐλόγως ἄν εἶναι φήσειε, "it would be fair to say" (XIX, 3); ὥσπερ καὶ φαίνεται, "as you can see" (XXII, 4).

Finally, it is worth paying attention to the particles in Galen's text, which also serve as a sign of spoken language when the author wants to emphasize his point of view, move from one topic to another, or communicate his intentions, thus maintaining constant communication with the reader and building a coherent argument.

The use of particles is known to be a distinctive feature of the ancient Greek language. At the same time, their study by ancient authors is one of the most difficult tasks. After the seminal work of J. Daniston's "Greek Particles" (classic second edition 1954 with index locorum ^[16]), which studied particles in Greek authors mainly until the middle of the IV century BC, 40 years later more complete studies began to appear ^{[9; 17; 18]}, however, Galen's texts remained for a long time without proper scientific attention until the publication of K.'s article in 2021. Petit ^[19], who examined the argumentative particles that serve as a sign of his attic style using the example of several excerpts from his writings. In her opinion, "the number, range and frequency of particles used by Galen distinguish him from the so-called authors of technical prose" ^{[19, p. 97]}. Unlike Galen, most Greek medical authors of the imperial period did not use particles, especially rare and complex ones. In many ways, Galen stands closer to the great examples of the past and to such classical authors as Plato, Thucydides, or Demosthenes than to his fellow physicians of the Roman Empire: Rufus of Ephesus, Soran, or the authors of the Pseudo-Galenic Corpus, whose texts are stylistically markedly different from Galen's texts. Among Galen's contemporaries, examples of similar writing can be found only in the sophists Aelius Aristides, Lucian, or in the polemical writings of Sextus Empiricus.

The difficulty of studying particles lies in the fact that using the same particle can serve different purposes in different contexts. In this regard, K. Kroon proposed to distinguish between the semantic and syntactic approach in particle analysis. When analyzing the particles in the treatise "On Bones for Beginners", we identified two enlarged types of particles: connective and deductive particles. Connecting particles include the particles δέ, μέν, δή, μήν, γε. They are found throughout the text, and often form the Galena complex chains of different combinations with other particles, for example, καὶ μὲν καὶ δή (Ib, 6; IX, 2; XIII, 2; XVI, 1; XXI, 2), καὶ μέν γε καὶ (XI, 1). The nuances of the values of such combinations is not always easy to catch, especially if you rely on semantics. Mainly, they are designed either to strengthen and emphasize the statement, or to provide a logical transition to a new topic, or to substantiate the evidence of a particular statement. Deductive particles include the particles τοι, γάρ, οὖν and sometimes δή, which summarize the previous statement, provide a transition from one thought to another and justify the further course of the narrative. Several times in this treatise (Ia, 22; X, 3), the particle τοίνυν occurs, which, according to the observations of J. Daniston's ^{[16, p. 568-569]} was characteristic of attic prose, especially for the dialogues of Plato and the comedies of Aristophanes, where it is often found together with the imperative or subjunctive mood.

The study of narrative discourse using the example of Galen's anatomical work "On Bones for Beginners" allowed us to draw several important conclusions, which should be considered preliminary for now, since the coverage of the texts was not representative enough. Galen's narrative in this work contains features of a diaphonic discourse focused on dialogue with the reader, and has a number of pronounced author's stylistic features. Galen narrates from the 1st person with constant self-references to what was said earlier or what is yet to be said, constantly inserts the author's opinion or gives his own assessment, addressing the reader in the 2nd person as an interlocutor. A large number of diverse particles indicate the author's excellent knowledge and easy command of the classical attic language of Plato and Aristophanes, which suggests that Galen's prose has more in common with the writings of sophists of his time, who belonged to the circle of Second Sophistry, than with the prose of his medical contemporaries. Undoubtedly, particles play an important role in his argumentation system. Modal particles that convey intent, intonation, and sometimes irony can help shed light on the complex logic of his texts. Further study of the narrative discourse in his texts opens up broad prospects for analyzing and mapping his texts, which will allow us to see the intertextual layers hidden today, as well as to understand the specifics of the Greek prose of the imperial period.