Galen on the Greek Language of Medicine: Echoes of Sophistic Debates on Atticism and Asianism

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 Dolgorukovskaya str., 4, Moscow, 127006, Russia prolygina99@yandex.ru Other publications by this author

A number of reputable cultural researchers of the second century, such as S. Swain and T. Schmitz, have already noted that Galen was not a strict purist or atticist, since he wrote mainly technical scientific prose ^{[1; 2]}. Nevertheless, in polemical digressions, he repeatedly presented himself as a follower and expert of the classical Attic language, whose role models were the classical Attic authors of the 5th century BC. Galen repeatedly emphasized that thanks to his father, he received a classical Greek education with a focus on the study of exact sciences (De libr. pr. K XIX, 59, 2-12) ^{[3, p. 665]} and he spoke the Attic dialect better than others (Thras. SM, 3, 78, 4-7). It is obvious that the target audience of his writings and speeches were Roman intellectuals with a similar level of education, whom he guided in teaching medicine, which was on the same level as philosophy.

In Galen's Commentary On Hippocrates' book On Fractures, he writes directly about those for whom his comments are intended: "You have been told everything possible about the structure of the hand, which is further explained in detail by Hippocrates, using such a clear and detailed style of presentation that in itself it requires only a small explanation and, above all, for those who received an appropriate education in their youth, or those who read this book under the guidance of teachers, for whom, in fact, the comments are written" (In Hipp. fract., K. XVIII B 335, 1-6). The traditional canon of the authors studied, which was formed in the Alexandrian era, included reading and studying Homer and classical authors of the 5th and 4th centuries BC. Therefore, any young person who received a classical Greek education was familiar with the language of these authors.

Galen's interests included studying the language of science from a theoretical point of view. He devoted several of his lost works on lexicology and grammar to these questions, a list of which Galen gives in his essay "On his own Books" (De libr. pr. XX) ^{[3, p. 673]}. An idea of Galen's views on this problem can be partially formed from his individual remarks about language scattered in the corpus, in particular, from a fragment devoted to a discussion of metaphorical terms, which is preserved in the third book of his essay "On the variety of Pulses."

According to Galen, language exists in order to convey the correct designation of things and events, and the indispensable attributes of this designation should be clarity, unambiguity and literality. Native speakers of Greek use commonly used and understandable words, the literal meaning of which should underlie the language of science (De nomin. med. 16.39-17.9). Thus, a scientist should also be a linguist who first analyzes and selects literal and understandable words, and then through logical and linguistic procedures assigns them scientific definitions or replaces them with more appropriate ones. However, proficiency even in everyday vocabulary should exclude the use of solecisms, barbarisms and dialectisms that hinder clarity (De puls. diff. 2.2; 2.5, K. VIII, 567, 586-588; De meth. med. 1.5; 1.9, K. X, 43, 71). Therefore, in matters of correct word usage, it is necessary to refer to literary examples of classical Greek literature, first of all, to the texts of Plato and Aristophanes, which serve as an example of pure colloquial attic vocabulary ^{[4, p. 20; 5, p. 513, 6, p. 371-388; 7, p. 87-99]}.

A significant part of Galen's corpus of texts consists of his commentaries on the books of Hippocrates, the primary task of which was to clarify outdated terminology and "dark" places caused by both the state of handwritten sources and changes in word usage ^{[8, pp. 85-89]}. Hippocrates was an almost indisputable authority for Galen, therefore, to explain the difficulties associated with his reading, he offers a universal explanation in the form of the concept of "ancient custom" (συνήθεια), which requires interpretation based on other literary sources. Galen uses two main methods here: on the one hand, he uses authoritative "scientific" sources to clarify a difficult point, and on the other, he cites attic synonyms-equivalents from classical literature. As an example, here is an excerpt from his commentary on the Fifth Book of the Epidemics of Hippocrates: "What the Attics call an "eruption" (ἄμβλωσιν), Hippocrates usually calls "death" (ἀποφθοράν) and uses in writing verbs related to this name and the so-called grammarians of the participle corresponding to this word. And "spew" (ἀμβλώσκειν) (because, perhaps, someone does not know this word either) they refer to the miscarriage of an underdeveloped fetus, no matter how it occurs, and the drugs that cause it are called "ejaculating" (ἀμβλωτικά)" (In H ipp. Epid. VI, K. XVIIA, 799, 6,800, 2). Thus, attic usage acts, in fact, as a means of interpreting and translating incomprehensible Hippocratic terms into a language familiar to listeners.

In addition to referring directly to literary sources written in the Attic dialect, Galen most likely also referred to works on lexicography, both by his close predecessors, for example, Erotian (1st century AD), who wrote a glossary to the writings of Hippocrates, and dating back to the Alexandrian tradition. Galen repeatedly mentions his predecessors in the field of exegesis of Hippocratic texts, with whom he often enters into controversy. Consider an excerpt from his commentary "On Hippocrates' book On Fractures" (In Hipp. fract. K. XVIIIB 403, 13-405, 11). Commenting on the expression "light diet" (δίαιτα ὑποφαύλη), Galen explains it as a familiar expression of the ancients, who used the adjective φαῦλος to mean "simple". However, he did not limit himself to this explanation, but added that the opposite concept would be a "strict diet" (δίαιτα ἀκριβής), which the Ionians called σκεθρός, literally "thorough". This term has already been the subject of discussion by Erotian, who supports the same version as Galen (σκεθρός in the sense of ἀκριβής), and disputes other interpretations of this word. Thus, Galen was undoubtedly well acquainted with the scholiographical and lexicographical tradition of interpreting Hippocratic texts ^{[9, p. 165-166]}. However, it is worth paying attention to the fact that he goes beyond commenting on a specific passage and translates the discussion into a broader lexical field, characterizing the term under discussion as Ionian. Galen usually cites the testimony of Herodotus as an authoritative source on the ancient Ionian language (see, for example, In hipp. art. K. XVIIIA 599, 9-14). This once again proves the fact that ancient lexicography, when reconstructing dialects, relied primarily on literary sources.

Galen's sharp objections are met by those terms-neologisms that have come into use among modern doctors based on spoken language and were not confirmed in the texts of ancient authors. In the commentary on the First Book of the Epidemics of Hippocrates, Galen discusses the validity of the term καθημερινός to denote "daily" fever, which was introduced by modern doctors instead of the traditional term ἀμφημερινός (In H ipp. Epid. I, K. XVIIA 221, 1-5). Galen discusses the same term in his treatise On the Differences of Fevers, where he openly accuses his opponents of using the word incorrectly, saying that he had never seen a new term in Greek authors.: "I used to call this daily fever (ἀμφημερινός) and long, for the word "everyday" (καθημερινός) impossible to find any one of the Greek authors, but each and every day they are similarly referred to by the word "daily" ἀμφημερινός" (De diff. febr. K. VII, 354, 12-16). From Galen's subsequent reasoning, it becomes clear that he was concerned not only and not so much about the contrast between the Attic written tradition and modern spoken language, but rather about the violation of medical tradition in the field of language and terminology with the introduction of new concepts, terms and classifications. According to Galen, the terms and usage of the "ancients" dating back to the time of Hippocrates should not be replaced, but considered as part of the normative technical vocabulary.

In addition to the binary oppositions "ancient-modern," "Attic-ancient Ionian," and "literary-colloquial," Galen finds a contrast between "conventional Greek" and "Asian Greek." In the comments to the Hippocratic texts, one can find many examples in which Galen mentions his knowledge of conversational habits common in Asia (e.g., I n Hipp. Epid. VI, K. XVIIB 190, 11; In Hipp. nat. hom. K. XV, 122, 11) (10, p. 224; 11; 12, p. 228-252). In addition, he sharply contrasts the "generally accepted Greek language" and "barbaric languages." Here is an excerpt from his essay "On the Differences of pulses", where Galen discusses the problems of multilingualism in the Roman Empire of that time and advocates the use of koine in the scientific language, which was based on the Attic dialect, and the purity of the language from barbarisms and dialectisms, especially from mixing different dialects: "And so, we chose The dialect called the general dialect (τὴν κοινὴν καλουμένην διάλεκτον), whether it is the same as the Attic dialect (for the Athenian dialect has undergone many changes) or completely different. For I am expressing my opinion on this issue elsewhere. And we try to preserve this dialect, and not to violate its rules in any way, and not to introduce a single artificial word into it, and not to distort it. And if you want to talk to me in this language, try to learn it first, but if you use some other dialect, then let me know about it. After all, if this is one of the Greek dialects, then, of course, we understand it more or less, because we have read the works of the Ionians, the Aeolians and the Dorians. If it's not one of them, but some kind of barbaric language, then tell me about it, just try to keep it pure, whatever it may be, and don't tell me three words from Cilicia, four from Syria, five from Galatia and six from Athens!" (De p uls. diff., K. VIII, 584-585).

It should be noted that the Greek language, which is widespread in Asia, does not have negative connotations in Galen. On the contrary, he sometimes appeals to him in order to justify the correctness of a particular usage, emphasizing the connection between Hippocrates and the modern spoken language of Asia. In the commentary "On the I II book of the Epidemics of Hippocrates" there is such a passage: "He [i.e. Hippocrates – author's note. He said "shady" (σκιῶδες) in the sense of dark (ζοφῶδες), which means dim, opaque and not clear enough. For even today, the Greeks in Asia have a habit of calling "shady" and "shaded" everything that has a shade of black" (Hipp. Epid. III, K. XVIIA 655, 1-3). Thus, the comparison of the Hippocratic language with the modern linguistic habits of the Greeks of Asia serves as an important critical and hermeneutic tool when considering complex linguistic cases.

Apparently, Galen also distinguished between spoken Attic vocabulary (πολιτικά) and local regional dialects (γλωσσηματικά), as shown by one of the excerpts of his commentary "On Hippocrates' book On Joints" (I n H ipp. art. XVIIIA 414, 15-415, 6), in which he compares the style of Hippocrates with that of Xenophon. According to Galen, their style is similar, since Hippocrates, like Xenophon, uses not only spoken words, but also figures of speech and words of local dialects (γλῶσσαι). Thus, in the Hippocratic language, Galen distinguishes between Ionian dialectal forms based on literary tradition and local colloquial forms typical of individual cities. This difference may indicate that the research of dialects in the Hellenistic era was not limited to literary evidence, but extended to the collection of documentary material and surveys of native speakers, as evidenced by the surviving works, for example, Apollonius Discolus and Herodian (13, pp. 74-85).

A large number of references to common Asian language habits are found not only in Galen's commentaries, but also in his writings on pharmacology. The field of botany, zoology, mineralogy and pharmacology contained a large number of synonyms and different names depending on the geography of the place. And, of course, knowledge of a wide range of pharmaceutical terms found in different parts of the Roman Empire was necessary for the doctor in his practice. It is known that the lists of synonyms common in the botanical and zoological written tradition were distributed long before Galen [14].

However, Galen clearly breaks out of this tradition due to his exceptional linguistic curiosity, which was expressed not only in his desire to cite all the Greek synonyms known to him for the names of products, minerals, plants or animals, but also to conduct a comparative analysis with other languages, for example, Latin. Thus, in his essay "On the properties of food" (De alim. fac. K. VI, 483, 13-484, 1), he mentions that the Latin word σίλιγνις (=siligo), "fine wheat flour", cannot be replaced by any Greek equivalent. In the field of pharmacology, the role of personal experience was extremely important, which Galen often refers to to confirm or refute the opinions of his predecessors. In the same treatise, discussing various types of cereals, he quotes an excerpt from the text of the ancient physician Mnesithea, who comments as follows: "I have not seen all the northern countries myself, but I have not heard from anyone who has seen them about the grain, which the locals call spelt. Because this word is found in different forms: in some cases, the first syllable ends in <ε> and <i>, and in others – only on <ε>. And you can see that the Hellenes call this grain in this way, and the barbarians give it its own name. Then, when I saw in Thrace and Macedonia a lot of fields where not only the ear of corn grew, but the whole plant was exactly the same as the spelt in Asia, I asked those residents what it was called. And they all replied that this plant and its grain are called "rye" (βρίζαν), where the first syllable is written and pronounced with three letters. <β>, <p> and <i>", and the next one with the letters <,> and <α> in the nominative case, and it is obvious that with the letter <in the accusative case" (K. VI, 513, 16-514, 15). The mention of the Thracian and Macedonian names of the cereal, which Galen personally verified, serves as confirmation of the text of Mnesithea. Thus, despite the trust of the tradition dating back to ancient doctors, Galen preferred to verify it with his own experience.

The treatise "On the properties of simple medicines" contains Galen's recollection of his trip to the island of Lemnos in search of Lemnos clay, which was used in the treatment of difficult-to-scar wounds, venomous snake bites and wild animals. Explaining its name, he writes the following: "The land of Lemnos is called by some the Lemnos ocher (μίλτον ΛημνίΑν), and by others the seal of Lemnos (σφραγῖδα ΛημνίΑν), because it receives the sacred seal of Artemis. <...> Some call it so, as I have already said, because it is marked with a seal, while others call it Lemnos ocher (ΛημνίΑν μίλτον) because of its color. It has the same color as ochre, with the only difference that it leaves no trace if you touch it, as is the case with ochre, and comes from the hill of Lemnos, which is all yellow and has neither wood, stone, nor plants" (De simpl. med. IX, 1.2, K. XII, 169-170). The reason for the memory of this trip was an excerpt from the Dioscorides recipe, which included goat's blood and Lemnos clay. Galen gives a detailed description of the route for the convenience of future travelers and provides various travel notes along the way, transmits conversations with local residents and reports on local recipes and medicines he obtained ^{[15, p. 17-39]}.

The analysis of representative excerpts from Galen's writings showed that his views on the Greek language of medicine are much more complex and diverse than previously thought. The Greek language was supposed to provide, first of all, clarity and accuracy, which were achieved through the standardization of medical terminology and presentation style. In the debates about the Greek language of the Second Sophistry, Galen took a moderate position, speaking out, on the one hand, against those who created linguistic confusion by mixing languages and dialects, and on the other, against the excessive linguistic purism of sophists who engaged in empty discussions. Like Sextus Empiricus, Galen condemned the extremes of the Atticists, arguing that there are many linguistic "customs" that need to be known and used, adapting them to the context and audience. Galen was well aware not only of classical ancient literature, but also of the Hellenistic lexicological tradition. Due to his Asian origin, he was proficient in the spoken Greek language, common in Asia, the knowledge of which served as an additional criterion for him to use words correctly when commenting on the texts of Hippocrates. The clearly distinguished binary oppositions of different language categories, which cannot be reduced to a simple contrast between Atticism and Asianism, indicate that Galen was one of the active participants in the sophistic debates about the language of his time. This is also confirmed by the large number of currently lost works on lexicology, which he mentions in his bibliographic writings. The analysis of the methodology of commenting on the texts of Hippocrates showed, in turn, that in the historical and philological assessment of a term, the criterion of norm was the "custom" of its use by ancient authors, and an additional argument in the exegesis of the term was its meaning among contemporaries, especially among the Greeks of Asia Minor, taking into account the variety of dialectal forms found in literary texts. sources that Galen knew from personal experience. The constant appeal to Asian usage also served as an indirect sign of Galen's desire to establish his own Greek identity among Roman intellectuals, many of whom also came from wealthy Asian provinces.