Chapter 23

111Plato, Timæus, p. 90 C. ἄν περ ἀληθείας ἐφάπτηται.

112Plato, Timæus, p. 90 B-D. ἔχοντά τε αὐτὸν εὖ μάλα κεκοσμημένον τὸν δαίμονα ξύνοικον ἐν αὑτῷ, διαφερόντως εὐδαίμονα εἶναι.It is hardly possible to translate this play upon the word εὐδαίμων.

112Plato, Timæus, p. 90 B-D. ἔχοντά τε αὐτὸν εὖ μάλα κεκοσμημένον τὸν δαίμονα ξύνοικον ἐν αὑτῷ, διαφερόντως εὐδαίμονα εἶναι.

It is hardly possible to translate this play upon the word εὐδαίμων.

We must study and understand the rotations of the Kosmos — this is the way to amend the rotations of the rational soul.

The mode of cultivating or developing each soul is the same — to assign to each the nourishment and the movement which is suitable to it. Now the movements which are kindred and congenial to our divine encephalic soul, are — the rotations of the Kosmos and the intellections traversing the Kosmical soul. It is these that we ought to follow and study. By learning and embracing in our minds the rotations and proportions of the Kosmos, we shall assimilate the comprehending subject to the comprehended object, and shall rectify that derangement of our own intra-cranial rotations, which was entailed upon us by our birth into a body. By such assimilation, we shall attain the perfection of the life allotted to us, both at present and for the future.113

113Plato, Timæus, pp. 90 D, 91 C-D. The phrase of Plato in describing the newly introduced mode of procreation — ὡς εἰς ἄρουραν τὴν μήτραν ἀόρατα ὑπὸ σμικρότητος καὶ ἀδιάπλαστα ζῶα κατασπείραντες — is remarkable, as it might be applied to the spermatozoa, which nevertheless he cannot have known.

Construction of women, birds, quadrupeds, fishes, &c., all from the degradation of primitive man.

We have thus — says the Platonic Timæus in approaching his conclusion — gone through all those matters which we promised at the beginning, from the first construction of the Kosmos to the genesis of man. We must now devote a few words to the other animals.All of these derive their origin from man, by successive degradations. The first transition is from man into woman. Men whose lives had been characterised by cowardice or injustice, were after death and in their second birth born again as women. It was then that the Gods planted in us the sexual impulse, reconstructing the bodily organism with suitable adjustment, on the double pattern, male and female.114

114Plat. Tim. p. 91 D. Whoever compares the step of marked degeneration here indicated — in passing from men to women — with that which is affirmed by Plato in the fifth book of the Republic about the character, attributes, and capacities of women, will recognise a material difference between the two.

Such was the genesis of women, by a partial transformation and diversification of the male structure.

We next come to birds; who are likewise a degraded birth or formation, derived from one peculiar mode of degeneracy in man: hair being transmuted into feathers and wings. Birds were formed from the harmless, but light, airy, and superficial men; who, though carrying their minds aloft to the study of kosmical phenomena, studied them by visual observation and not by reason, foolishly imagining that they had discovered the way of reaching truth.115

115Plato, Timæus, p. 91 E.

The more brutal land animals proceeded from men totally destitute of philosophy, who neither looked up to the heavens nor cared for celestial objects: from men making no use whatever of the rotations of their encephalic soul, but following exclusively the guidance of the lower soul in the trunk. Through such tastes and occupations, both their heads and their anterior limbs became dragged down to the earth by the force of affinity. Moreover, when the rotations of the encephalic soul, from want of exercise, became slackened and fell into desuetude, the round form of the cranium was lost, and converted into an oblong or some other form. These men thus degenerated into quadrupeds and multipeds: the Gods furnishing a greater number of feet in proportion to the stupidity of each, in order that its approximations to earth might be multiplied. To some of the more stupid, however, the Gods gave no feet nor limbs at all; constraining them to drag the whole length of their bodies along the ground, and to become Reptiles.116

116Plato, Timæus, pp. 91-92.

Out of the most stupid and senseless of mankind, by still greater degeneracy, the Gods formed Fishes or Aquatic Animals:— the fourth and lowest genus, after Men, Birds, Land-Animals. This race of beings, from their extreme want of mind, were not considered worthy to live on earth, or to respire thin and pure air. They were condemned to respire nothing but deep and turbid water, many of them, as oysters, and other descriptions of shellfish, being fixed down at the lowest depth or bottom.117

117Plato, Timæus, p. 92 B.

It is by such transitions (concludes the Platonic Timæus) that the different races of animals passed originally, and still continue to pass, into each other. The interchange is determined by the acquisition or loss of reason or irrationality.118

118Plato, Timæus, p. 92 B. καὶ κατὰ ταῦτα δὴ πάντατότε καὶ νῦν διαμείβεται τὰ ζῶα εἰς ἄλληλα, νοῦ καὶ ἀνοίας ἀποβολῇ καὶ κτήσει μεταβαλλόμενα.

Large range of topics introduced in the Timæus.

The vast range of topics, included in this curious exposition, is truly remarkable: Kosmogony or Theogony, First Philosophy, Physics (resting upon Geometry and Arithmetic), Zoology, Physiology, Anatomy, Pathology, Therapeutics, mental as well as physical. Of all these, I have not been able to furnish more than scanty illustrations; but the whole are well worthy of study, as the conjectures of a great and ingenious mind in the existing state of knowledge and belief among the Greeks: and all the more worthy, because they form in many respects a striking contrast with the points of view prevalent in more recent times.

The Demiurgus of the Platonic Timæus — how conceived by other philosophers of the same century.

The position and functions of the Demiurgus, in the Timæus, form a peculiar phase in Grecian Philosophy, and even in the doctrine of Plato himself: for the theology and kosmology of the Timæus differ considerably from what we read in the Phædrus, Politikus, Republic, Leges, &c. The Demiurgus is presented in Timæus as a personal agent, pre-kosmical and extra-kosmical: but he appears only as initiating; he begets or fabricates, once for all, a most beautifulKosmos (employing all the available material, so that nothing more could afterwards be added). The Kosmos having body and soul, is itself a God, but with many separate Gods resident within it, or attached to it. The Demiurgus then retires, leaving it to be peopled and administered by the Gods thus generated, or by its own soul. His acting and speaking is recounted in the manner of the ancient mythes: and many critics, ancient as well as modern, have supposed that he is intended by Plato only as a mythical personification of the Idea Boni: the construction described being only an ideal process, like the generation of a geometrical figure.119Whatever may have been Plato’s own intention, in this last sense his hypothesis was interpreted by his immediate successors, Speusippus and Xenokrates, as well as by Eudêmus.120Aristotle in his comments upon Plato takes little notice of the Demiurgus: the hypothesis (of a distinct personal constructive agent) did not fit into hisprincipiaof the Kosmos, and he probably ranked it among those mythical modes of philosophising which he expressly pronounces to be unworthy of serious criticism.121Various succeeding philosophersalso, especially the Stoics, while they insisted much upon Providence, conceived this as residing in the Kosmos itself, and in the divine intra-kosmical agencies.

119Stallbaum, Proleg. ad Timæum, p. 47.Zeller, Platonische Studien, pp. 207-215; also his Gesch. d. Phil. d. Griech. vol. ii. p. 508 seq. ed. 2nd; and Susemihl, Genetische Entwicklung der Platon. Philosophie, vol. ii. pp. 322-340. Ueberweg, Ueber die Platon. Welt-seele, p. 69; Brandis, Gesch. der Griech. Philos. ii. cx. pp. 357-365.A good note of Ast (Platon’s Leben und Schriften, p. 363 seq. ) illustrates the analogy between the Platonic Timæus and the old Greek cosmogonic poems.

119Stallbaum, Proleg. ad Timæum, p. 47.

Zeller, Platonische Studien, pp. 207-215; also his Gesch. d. Phil. d. Griech. vol. ii. p. 508 seq. ed. 2nd; and Susemihl, Genetische Entwicklung der Platon. Philosophie, vol. ii. pp. 322-340. Ueberweg, Ueber die Platon. Welt-seele, p. 69; Brandis, Gesch. der Griech. Philos. ii. cx. pp. 357-365.

A good note of Ast (Platon’s Leben und Schriften, p. 363 seq. ) illustrates the analogy between the Platonic Timæus and the old Greek cosmogonic poems.

120Respecting Speusippus and Xenokrates, see Aristotel. De Cœlo, i. 10, pp. 279-280, with Scholia, 487, b. 37, 488, b. 15, 489, a. 10, Brandis. Respecting Eudemus, Krantor, Eudorus, and the majority of the Platonic followers, see Plutarch, De Animæ Procreatione in Timæo, 1012 D, 1013 A, 1015 D, 1017 B, 1028 B.Plutarch reasons against them; but he recognises their interpretation as the predominant one.See also the view ascribed to Speusippus and the Pythagoreans by Aristotle (Metaphys. A. 1072, a. 1, b. 30).

Plutarch reasons against them; but he recognises their interpretation as the predominant one.

See also the view ascribed to Speusippus and the Pythagoreans by Aristotle (Metaphys. A. 1072, a. 1, b. 30).

121Proklus ad Platon. Tim. ii. pp. 138 E, 328, ed. Schn.: ἢ γὰρ μόνος ἢ μάλιστα, Πλάτων τῇ ἀπὸ τοῦ προνοοῦντος αἰτίᾳ κατεχρήσατο, φησὶν ὁ Θεόφραστος, τοῦτό γε καλῶς αὐτῷ μαρτυρῶν. And another reference to Theophrastus, in Proklus, pp. 117, 417 Schn. Also pp. 118 E-F, 279 Schn.: Ἀριστοτέλης μὲν οὖν τὴν ἐν τῷ δημιουργῷ τάξιν οὐκ οἶδεν … ὁ δὲ Πλάτων Ὀρφεῖ συνεπόμενος ἐν τῷ δημιουργῷ πρῶτον εἶναι φησι τὴν τάξιν, καὶ τὸ πρὸ τῶν μερῶν ὅλον. For further coincidences between the Platonic Timæus and Orpheus (ὁ θεολόγος) see Proklus ad Timæ. pp. 233-235, Schn. The passage of Aristotle respecting those who blended mythe and philosophy is remarkable, Metaphys. B. 1000, a. 9-20. Οἱ μὲν οὖν περὶ Ἡσίοδον, καὶ πάντες ὅσοι θεολόγοι, μόνον ἐφρόντισαν τοῦ πιθανοῦ τοῦ πρὸς αὐτούς, ἡμῶν δ’ ὠλιγώρησαν … Ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῶν μυθικῶς σοφιζομένων οὐκ ἄξιον μετὰ σπουδῆς σκοπεῖν· παρὰ δὲ τῶν δι’ ἀποδείξεως λεγόντων δεῖ πυνθάνεσθαι διερωτῶντας, &c. About those whom Aristotle calls οἱ μεμιγμένοι (partly mythe, partly philosophy), see Metaphys. N. 1091, b. 8.Compare, on Aristotle’s non-recognition of the Platonic Demiurgus, a remarkable note of Prantl, ad Aristot. Physica, viii. p. 524, also p. 478, in his edition of that treatise, Leipsic, 1854. Weisse speaks to the same effect in his translation of the Physica of Aristotle, pp. 350-356, Leips. 1829.Lichtenstädt, in his ingenious work, (Ueber Platon’s Lehren auf dem Gebiete der Natur-Forschung und der Heilkunde, Leipsic, 1826), ranks several of the characteristic tenets of the Timæus as only mythical: the pre-existent Chaos, the divinity of the entire Kosmos, even the metempsychosis, though it is affirmed most directly, — see pp. 24, 46, 48, 86, &c. How much of all this Plato intended as purely mythical, appears to me impossible to determine. I agree with the opinion of Ueberweg, that Plato did not draw any clear line in his own mind between the mythical and the real (Ueber die Platon. Weltseele, pp. 70-71).

Compare, on Aristotle’s non-recognition of the Platonic Demiurgus, a remarkable note of Prantl, ad Aristot. Physica, viii. p. 524, also p. 478, in his edition of that treatise, Leipsic, 1854. Weisse speaks to the same effect in his translation of the Physica of Aristotle, pp. 350-356, Leips. 1829.

Lichtenstädt, in his ingenious work, (Ueber Platon’s Lehren auf dem Gebiete der Natur-Forschung und der Heilkunde, Leipsic, 1826), ranks several of the characteristic tenets of the Timæus as only mythical: the pre-existent Chaos, the divinity of the entire Kosmos, even the metempsychosis, though it is affirmed most directly, — see pp. 24, 46, 48, 86, &c. How much of all this Plato intended as purely mythical, appears to me impossible to determine. I agree with the opinion of Ueberweg, that Plato did not draw any clear line in his own mind between the mythical and the real (Ueber die Platon. Weltseele, pp. 70-71).

Adopted and welcomed by the Alexandrine Jews, as a parallel to the Mosaic Genesis.

But though the idea of a pre-kosmic Demiurgus found little favour among the Grecian schools of philosophy, before the Christian era — it was greatly welcomed among the Hellenising Jews at Alexandria, from Aristobulus (aboutB. C.150) down to Philo. It formed the suitable point of conjunction, between Hellenic and Judaic speculation. The marked distinction drawn by Plato between the Demiurgus, and the constructed or generated Kosmos, with its in-dwelling Gods — provided a suitable place for the Supreme God of the Jews, degrading the Pagan Gods in comparison. The Timæus was compared with the book of Genesis, from which it was even affirmed that Plato had copied. He received the denomination of the atticising Moses: Moses writing in Attic Greek.122It was thus that the Platonic Timæus became the medium of transition, from the Polytheistic theology which served as philosophy amongthe early ages of Greece, to the omnipotent Monotheism to which philosophy became subordinated after the Christian era.

122The learned work of Gfrörer — Philo und die Jüdisch-Alexandrin. Theosophie — illustrates well this coalescence of Platonism with the Pentateuch in the minds of the Hellenising Jews at Alexandria. “Aristobulus maintained, 150 years earlier than Philo, that not only the oldest Grecian poets, Homer, Hesiod, Orpheus, &c., but also the most celebrated thinkers, especially Plato, had acquired all their wisdom from a very old translation of the Pentateuch” (Gfrörer, i. p. 308, also ii. 111-118). The first form of Grecian philosophy which found favour among the Alexandrine Jews was the Platonic:— “since a Jew could not fail to be pleased — besides the magnificent style and high moral tone — with a certain likeness between the Oriental Kosmogonies and the Timæus, the favourite treatise of all Theosophists,” see p. 72. Compare the same work, pp. 78-80-167-184-314.Philo calls Sokrates ἀνὴρ παρὰ Μωϋσεῖ τὰ προτέλεια τῆς σοφίας ἀναδιδαχθείς: he refers to the terminology of the Platonic Timæus (Gfrörer, 308-327-328).Eusebius (Præp. Ev. ix. 6, xi. 10), citing Aristobulus and Numenius, says Τί γὰρ ἔστι Πλάτων, ἢ Μωϋσὴς ἀττικίζων; Compare also the same work, xi. 16-25-29, and xiii. 18, where the harmony between Plato and Moses, and the preference of the author for Plato over other Greek philosophers, are earnestly declared.See also Vacherot, Histoire Critique de l’École d’Alexandrie, vol. i. pp. 110-163-319-335.

Philo calls Sokrates ἀνὴρ παρὰ Μωϋσεῖ τὰ προτέλεια τῆς σοφίας ἀναδιδαχθείς: he refers to the terminology of the Platonic Timæus (Gfrörer, 308-327-328).

Eusebius (Præp. Ev. ix. 6, xi. 10), citing Aristobulus and Numenius, says Τί γὰρ ἔστι Πλάτων, ἢ Μωϋσὴς ἀττικίζων; Compare also the same work, xi. 16-25-29, and xiii. 18, where the harmony between Plato and Moses, and the preference of the author for Plato over other Greek philosophers, are earnestly declared.

See also Vacherot, Histoire Critique de l’École d’Alexandrie, vol. i. pp. 110-163-319-335.

Physiology of the Platonic Timæus — subordinate to Plato’s views of ethical teleology. Triple soul — each soul at once material and mental.

Of the vast outline sketched in the Timæus, no part illustrates better the point of view of the author, than what is said about human anatomy and physiology. The human body is conceived altogether as subservient to an ethical and æsthetical teleology: it is (like the Praxitelean statue of Eros123) a work adapted to an archetypal model in Plato’s own heart — his emotions, preferences, antipathies.124The leading idea in his mind is, What purposes would be most suitable to the presumed character of the Demiurgus, and to those generated Gods who are assumed to act as his ministers? The purposes which Plato ascribes, both to the one and to the others, emanate from his own feelings: they are such as he would himself have aimed at accomplishing, if he had possessed demiurgic power: just as the Republic describes the principles on which he would have constituted a Commonwealth, had he been lawgiver or Oekist. His inventive fancy depicts the interior structure, both of the great Kosmos and of its little human miniature, in a way corresponding to these sublime purposes. The three souls, each with its appropriate place and functions, form the cardinal principle of the organism:125the unity of which is maintained bythe spinal marrow in continuity with, the brain; all the three souls having their roots in different parts of this continuous line. Neither of these three souls is immaterial, in the sense which that word now bears: even the encephalic rational soul — the most exalted in function, and commander of the other two — has its own extension and rotatory motion: as the kosmical soul has also, though yet more exalted in its endowments. All these souls have material properties, and are implicated essentially with other material agents:126all are at once material and mental. The encephalic or rational soul has its share in material properties, while the abdominal or appetitive soul also has its share in mental properties: even the liver has for its function to exhibit images impressed by the rational soul, and to serve as the theatre of prophetic representations.127

123Πραξιτέλης ὃν ἔπασχε διηκρίβωσεν Ἔρωταἐξ ἰδίης ἕλκων ἀρχέτυπον κραδίης — (Anthologia).

123

Πραξιτέλης ὃν ἔπασχε διηκρίβωσεν Ἔρωταἐξ ἰδίης ἕλκων ἀρχέτυπον κραδίης — (Anthologia).

124Plato says (Tim. p. 53 E) that in investigating the fundamental configuration of the elements you must search for the most beautiful: these will of course be the true ones. Again, p. 72 E, ἐκ δὴ λογισμοῦ τοίουδε ξυνίστασθαι μάλιστ’ ἂν αὑτῷ πάντων πρέποι. Galen applies an analogous principle of reasoning to explain the structure of apes, whom he pronounces to be a caricature of man. Man having a rational and intelligent soul, Nature has properly attached to it an admirable bodily organism: with equal propriety she has assigned to the ape a ridiculous bodily organism, because he has a ridiculous soul — λέξειεν ἂν ἡ φύσις, γελοίῳ τὴν ψυχὴν ζώῳ γελοίαν ἐχρῆν δοθῆναι σώματος κατασκευήν (De Usu Partium, i. c. 13, pp. 80-81, iii. 16, p. 284, xiii. 2, p. 127, xv. 8, p. 252, Kühn).

125Respecting a view analogous to that of Plato, M. Littré observes, in his Proleg. to the Hippokratic treatise Περὶ Καρδίης (Œuvres d’Hippocrate T. ix. p. 77):— “Deux fois l’auteur s’occupe des fins de la structure (du cœur) et admire avec quelle habileté elles sont atteintes. La première, c’est à propos des valvules sigmöides: il est instruit de leur usage, qui est de fermer le cœur du côté de l’artère; et dès-lors, son admiration ne se méprend pas, quand il fait remarquer avec quelle exactitude ils accomplissent leur office. Mais elle se méprend quand, se tournant vers les oreillettes, elle loue la main de l’artiste habile qui les a si bien arrangées pour souffler l’air dans le cœur. Ces déceptions de la téléologie sont perpétuelles dans l’histoire de la science; à chaque instant, on s’est extasié devant des structures que l’imagination seule appropriait à certaines fonctions. ‘Cet optimisme’ (dit Condorcet dans son Fragment sur l’Atlantide) ‘qui consiste à trouver tout à merveille dans la nature telle qu’on l’invente, à condition d’admirer également sa sagesse, si par malheur on avait découvert qu’elle a suivi d’autres combinaisons; cet optimisme de détail doit être banni de la philosophie, dont le but n’est pas d’admirer, mais de connaître; qui, dans l’étude, cherche la vérité, et non des motifs de reconnaissance.’”

126Proklus could hardly make out that Plato recognised any ψυχὴν ἀμέθεκτον, ad Tim. ii. pp. 220, 94 A.

127Plat. Tim. p. 71 B-C. The criticism of Aristotle (De Partibus Animal. iv. 2, 676, b. 21) is directed against this doctrine, but without naming Plato. But when Aristotle says Οἱ λέγοντες τὴν φύσιν τῆς χολῆς αἰσθήσεως τινὸς εἶναι σημεῖον, οὐ καλῶς λέγουσιν, he substitutes thebilein place of the liver. In Aristotle’s mind the two are intimately associated.

Triplicity of the soul — espoused afterwards by Galen.

The Platonic doctrine, of three souls in one organism, derives a peculiar interest from the earnest way in which it is espoused afterwards by Galen. This last author represents Plato as agreeing in main doctrines with Hippokrates. He has composed nine distinct Dissertations or Books, for the purpose of upholding their joint doctrines. But the agreement which he shows between Hippokrates and Plato is very vague, and his own agreement with Plato is rather ethical than physiological. What is the essence of the three souls, and whether they are immortal or not, Galen leaves undecided:128but that there must be three distinct souls in each human body, and that the supposition of one soul only is an absurdity — he considers Plato to have positively demonstrated.He rejects the doctrine of Aristotle, Theophrastus, Poseidonius, and others, who acknowledged only one soul, lodged in the heart, but with distinct co-existent powers.129

128Galen, De Fœtuum Formatione, p. 701, Kühn. Περὶ Οὐσίας τῶν φυσικῶν δυνάμεων, p. 763. Περὶ τῶν τῆς ψυχῆς Ἠθῶν, p. 773.

129Galen, De Hipp. et Plat. Dogm. iii. pp. 337-347, Kühn, vi. pp. 515-516, i. p. 200, iv. p. 363, ix. p. 727.

Admiration of Galen for Plato — his agreement with Plato, and his dissension from Plato — his improved physiology.

So far Galen concurs with Plato. But he connects this triplicity of soul with a physiological theory of his own, which he professes to derive from, or at least to hold in common with, Hippokrates and Plato. Galen recognises three ἀρχὰς —principia, beginnings, originating and governing organs — in the body: the brain, which is the origin of all the nerves, both of sensation and motion: the heart, the origin of the arteries: the liver, the sanguifacient organ, and the origin of the veins which distribute nourishment to all parts of the body. These three are respectively the organs of the rational, the energetic, and the appetitive soul.130

130Galen, Hipp. et Plat. Dogm. viii. pp. 656-657, Kühn. ἐξ ὧν ἐπεραίνετο ἡ τῶν φλεβῶν ἀρχὴ τὸ ἧπαρ ὑπάρχειν· ᾧ πάλιν εἵπετο, καὶ τῆς κοινῆς πρὸς τὰ φυτὰ δυνάμεως ἀρχὴν εἶναι τοῦτο τὸ σπλάγχνον, ἥντινα δύναμιν ὁ Πλάτων ἐπιθυμητικὴν ὀνομάζει. Compare vi. 519-572, vii. 600-601.The same triplicity of ἀρχαὶ in the organism had been recognised by Erasistratus, later than Aristotle, though long before Galen. Καὶ Ἐρασίστρατος δὲ ὡς ἀρχὰς καὶ στοιχεῖα ὅλου σώματος ὑποτιθέμενος τὴν τριπλοκίαν τῶν ἀγγείων, νεῦρα, καὶ φλέβας, καὶ ἀρτηρίας (Galen, T. iv. p. 375, ed. Basil). See Littré, Introduction aux Œuvres d’Hippocrate, T. i. p. 203.Plato does not say, as Galen declares him to say, that the appetitive soul has its primary seat or ἀρχὴ in the liver. It has its seat between the diaphragm and the navel; the liver is placed in this region as an outlying fort, occupied by the rational soul, and used for the purpose of controuling the rebellious tendencies of the appetitive soul. Chrysippus (ap. Galen, Hipp. et Plat. Dogm. iii. p. 288, Kühn) stated Plato’s doctrine about the τριμερὴς ψυχὴ more simply and faithfully than Galen himself. Compare his words ib. viii. p. 651, vi. p. 519. Galen represents Plato as saying that nourishment is furnished by the stomach first to the liver, to be there made into blood and sent round the body through the veins (pp. 576-578). This is Galen’s own theory (De Usu Partium, iv. p. 268, Kühn), but it is not to be found in Plato. Whoever reads the Timæus, pp. 77-78, will see that Plato’s theory of the conversion of food into blood, and its transmission as blood through the veins, is altogether different. It is here that he propounds his singular hypothesis — the interior network of air and fire, and the oscillating ebb and flow of these intense agencies in the cavity of the abdomen. The liver has nothing to do with the process.So again Galen (p. 573) puts upon the words of Plato about the heart — πηγὴν τοῦ περιφερομένου σφοδρῶς αἵματος — an interpretation conformable to the Galenian theory, but noway consistent with the statements of the Timæus itself. And he treats the comparison of the cranium and the rotations of the brain within, to the rotations of the spherical Kosmos — which comparison weighed greatly in Plato’s mind — as an illustrative simile without any philosophical value (Galen, H. et P. D. ii. 4, p. 230, Kühn; Plato, Tim. pp. 41 B, 90 A).

The same triplicity of ἀρχαὶ in the organism had been recognised by Erasistratus, later than Aristotle, though long before Galen. Καὶ Ἐρασίστρατος δὲ ὡς ἀρχὰς καὶ στοιχεῖα ὅλου σώματος ὑποτιθέμενος τὴν τριπλοκίαν τῶν ἀγγείων, νεῦρα, καὶ φλέβας, καὶ ἀρτηρίας (Galen, T. iv. p. 375, ed. Basil). See Littré, Introduction aux Œuvres d’Hippocrate, T. i. p. 203.

Plato does not say, as Galen declares him to say, that the appetitive soul has its primary seat or ἀρχὴ in the liver. It has its seat between the diaphragm and the navel; the liver is placed in this region as an outlying fort, occupied by the rational soul, and used for the purpose of controuling the rebellious tendencies of the appetitive soul. Chrysippus (ap. Galen, Hipp. et Plat. Dogm. iii. p. 288, Kühn) stated Plato’s doctrine about the τριμερὴς ψυχὴ more simply and faithfully than Galen himself. Compare his words ib. viii. p. 651, vi. p. 519. Galen represents Plato as saying that nourishment is furnished by the stomach first to the liver, to be there made into blood and sent round the body through the veins (pp. 576-578). This is Galen’s own theory (De Usu Partium, iv. p. 268, Kühn), but it is not to be found in Plato. Whoever reads the Timæus, pp. 77-78, will see that Plato’s theory of the conversion of food into blood, and its transmission as blood through the veins, is altogether different. It is here that he propounds his singular hypothesis — the interior network of air and fire, and the oscillating ebb and flow of these intense agencies in the cavity of the abdomen. The liver has nothing to do with the process.

So again Galen (p. 573) puts upon the words of Plato about the heart — πηγὴν τοῦ περιφερομένου σφοδρῶς αἵματος — an interpretation conformable to the Galenian theory, but noway consistent with the statements of the Timæus itself. And he treats the comparison of the cranium and the rotations of the brain within, to the rotations of the spherical Kosmos — which comparison weighed greatly in Plato’s mind — as an illustrative simile without any philosophical value (Galen, H. et P. D. ii. 4, p. 230, Kühn; Plato, Tim. pp. 41 B, 90 A).

The Galenian theory here propounded (which held its place in physiology until Harvey’s great discovery of the circulation ofthe blood in the seventeenth century), though proved by fuller investigation to be altogether erroneous as to the liver — and partially erroneous as to the heart — is nevertheless made by its author to rest upon plausible reasons, as well as upon many anatomical facts, and results of experiments on the animal body, by tying or cutting nerves and arteries.131Its resemblance with the Platonic theory is altogether superficial: while the Galenian reasoning, so far from resembling the Platonic, stands in striking contrast with it. Anxious as Galen is to extol Plato, his manner of expounding and defending the Platonic thesis is such as to mark the scientific progress realised during the five centuries intervening between the two. Plato himself, in the Timæus, displays little interest or curiosity about the facts of physiology: the connecting principles, whereby he explains to himself the mechanism of the organs as known by ordinary experience, are altogether psychological, ethical, teleological. In the praise which Galen, with his very superior knowledge of the human organism, bestows upon the Timæus, he unconsciously substitutes a new doctrine of his own, differing materially from that of Plato.

131Galen (Hipp. et Plat. Dogm. ii. p. 233, Kühn). καίτοι γε ἡμεῖς, ἅπερ ἐπαγγελλόμεθα λόγῳ, ταῦτα ἐπὶ ταῖς τῶν ζῶων ἀνατομαῖς ἐπιδείκνυμεν, &c. P. 220: Πόθεν οὖν τοῦτο δειχθήσεται; πόθεν ἄλλοθεν ἢ ἐκ τῶν ἀνατομῶν;

Physiology and pathology of Plato — compared with that of Aristotle and the Hippokratic treatises.

I have no space here to touch on the interesting comparisons which might be made between the physiology and pathology of the Timæus — and that which we read in other authors of the same century — Aristotle and the Hippokratic treatises. More than one allusion is made in the Timæus to physicians: and Plato cites Hippokrates in other dialogues with respect.132The study and practice of medicine was at that time greatly affected by the current speculations respecting Nature as a whole: accomplished physicians combined both lines of study, implicating kosmical and biological theories:133and in the Platonic Timæus, the former might properly be comprised inthe latter, since the entire Kosmos is regarded as one animated and rational being. Among the sixty treatises in the Hippokratic collection, composed by different authors, there are material differences — sometimes even positive opposition — both of doctrine and spirit. Some of them are the work of practitioners, familiar with the details of sickness and bodily injuries, as well as with the various modes of treatment: others again proceed from pure theorists, following out some speculative dogmas more or less plausible, but usually vague and indeterminate. It is to one of this last class of treatises that Galen chiefly refers, when he dwells upon the agreement between Plato and Hippokrates.134This is the point which the Platonic Timæus has in common with both Hippokrates and Aristotle. But on the other hand, Timæus appears entirely wanting in that element of observation, andspecial care about matters of fact, which these two last-mentioned authors very frequently display, even while confusing themselves by much vagueness of dogmatising theory. The Timæus evinces no special study of matters of fact: it contains ingenious and fanciful combinations, dictated chiefly from the ethical and theological point of view, but brought to bear upon such limited amount of knowledge as an accomplished man of Plato’s day could hardly fail to acquire without special study. In the extreme importance which it assigns to diet, regimen, and bodily discipline, it agrees generally with Hippokrates: but for the most part, the points of contrast are more notable than those of agreement.

132Plato, Phædrus, p. 270; Protagoras, p. 311.

133See a remarkable passage, Aristotel. De Sensu, 436, a. 21, τῶν ἰατρῶν οἱ φιλοσοφωτέρως τὴν τέχνην μετιόντες, &c.: also De Respiratione, ad finem, 480, b. 21, and Περὶ τῆς καθ’ ὕπνον μαντικῆς, i. p. 463, a. 5. τῶν ἰατρῶν οἱ χαριέντες. Compare Hippokrat. De Aere, Locis, &c., c. 2.M. Littré observes:—“La science antique, et par conséquent la médecine qui en formait une branche, était essentiellement synthétique. Platon, dans le Charmide, dit qu’on ne peut guérir la partie sans le tout. Le philosophe avait pris cette idée à l’enseignement médical qui se donnait de son temps: cet enseignement partait donc du tout, de l’ensemble; nous en avons la preuve dans le livre même du Pronostic, qui nous montre d’une manière frappante comment la composition des écrits particuliers se subordonne à la conception générale de la science; ce livre, tel qu’Hippocrate l’a composé, ne pouvait se faire qu’à une époque où la médecine conservait encore l’empreinte des doctrines encyclopédiques qui avaient constitué le fond de tout l’enseignement oriental.” (Littré, Œuvres D’Hippocrate, T. ii. p. 96. Argument prefixed to the Prognostikon.)

M. Littré observes:—

“La science antique, et par conséquent la médecine qui en formait une branche, était essentiellement synthétique. Platon, dans le Charmide, dit qu’on ne peut guérir la partie sans le tout. Le philosophe avait pris cette idée à l’enseignement médical qui se donnait de son temps: cet enseignement partait donc du tout, de l’ensemble; nous en avons la preuve dans le livre même du Pronostic, qui nous montre d’une manière frappante comment la composition des écrits particuliers se subordonne à la conception générale de la science; ce livre, tel qu’Hippocrate l’a composé, ne pouvait se faire qu’à une époque où la médecine conservait encore l’empreinte des doctrines encyclopédiques qui avaient constitué le fond de tout l’enseignement oriental.” (Littré, Œuvres D’Hippocrate, T. ii. p. 96. Argument prefixed to the Prognostikon.)

134He alludes especially to the Hippokratic treatise Περὶ Φύσιος ἀνθρώπου, see De Hipp. et Plat. Dogm. viii. pp. 674-710, ed. Kühn.In the valuable Hippokratic composition — Περὶ Ἀρχαίης Ἰητρικῆς — (vol. i. pp. 570-636, ed. Littré) the author distinguished ἰητροί, properly so-called, from σοφισταί, who merely laid down general principles about medicine. He enters a protest against the employment, in reference to medicine, of those large and indefinite assumptions which characterised the works of Sophists or physical philosophers such as Empedokles (pp. 570-620, Littré). “Such compositions,” he says, “belong less to the medical art than to the art of literary composition” — ἐγὼ δὲ τουτέων μὲν ὅσα τινὶ εἴρηται σοφιστῇ ἢ ἰητρῷ, ἢ γέγραπται περὶ φύσιος, ἧσσον νομίζω τῇ ἰητρικῇ τέχνῃ προσήκειν ἢ τῇ γραφικῇ (p. 620). Such men cannot (he says) deal with a case of actual sickness: they ought to speak intelligible language — γνωστὰ λέγειν τοῖσι δημότῃσι (p. 572). Again, in the Treatise De Aere, Locis, et Aquis, Hippokrates defends himself against the charge of entering upon topics which are μετεωρολόγα (vol. ii. p. 14, Littré).The Platonic Timæus would have been considered by Hippokrates as the work of a σοφιστής. It was composed not for professional readers alone, but for the public — ἐπίστασθαι ἐς ὅσον εἰκὸς ἰδιώτην — (Hippokrat. Περὶ Παθῶν, vol. vi. p. 208, Littré).The Hippokratic treatises afford evidence of an established art, with traditions of tolerably long standing, a considerable medical literature, and even much oral debate on medical subjects — ἐναντίον ἀκροατέων (Hipp. Περὶ Νούσων, vol. vi. pp. 140-142-150, Littré). Ὃς ἂν περὶ ἰήσιος ἐθέλῃ ἐρωτᾷν τε ὀρθῶς, καὶ ἐρωτῶντι ἀποκρίνεσθαι, καὶ ἀντιλέγειν ὀρθῶς, ἐνθυμέεσθαι χρὴ τάδε (p. 140) … Ταῦτα ἐνθυμηθέντα διαφυλάσσειν δεῖ ἐν τοῖσι λόγοισιν· ὅ, τι ἂν δέ τις τούτων ἁμαρτάνῃ, ἢ λέγων ἢ ἐρωτῶν ἢ ἀποκρινόμενος, … ταύτῃ φυλάσσοντα χρὴ ἐπιτίθεσθαι ἐν τῇ ἀντιλογίῃ (p. 142).The method, which Sokrates and Plato applied to ethical topics was thus applied by others to medicine and medical dogmas. How the dogmas of the Platonic Timæus would have fared, if scrutinised with oral interrogations in this spirit, by men even far inferior to Sokrates himself in acuteness — I will not say.

134He alludes especially to the Hippokratic treatise Περὶ Φύσιος ἀνθρώπου, see De Hipp. et Plat. Dogm. viii. pp. 674-710, ed. Kühn.

In the valuable Hippokratic composition — Περὶ Ἀρχαίης Ἰητρικῆς — (vol. i. pp. 570-636, ed. Littré) the author distinguished ἰητροί, properly so-called, from σοφισταί, who merely laid down general principles about medicine. He enters a protest against the employment, in reference to medicine, of those large and indefinite assumptions which characterised the works of Sophists or physical philosophers such as Empedokles (pp. 570-620, Littré). “Such compositions,” he says, “belong less to the medical art than to the art of literary composition” — ἐγὼ δὲ τουτέων μὲν ὅσα τινὶ εἴρηται σοφιστῇ ἢ ἰητρῷ, ἢ γέγραπται περὶ φύσιος, ἧσσον νομίζω τῇ ἰητρικῇ τέχνῃ προσήκειν ἢ τῇ γραφικῇ (p. 620). Such men cannot (he says) deal with a case of actual sickness: they ought to speak intelligible language — γνωστὰ λέγειν τοῖσι δημότῃσι (p. 572). Again, in the Treatise De Aere, Locis, et Aquis, Hippokrates defends himself against the charge of entering upon topics which are μετεωρολόγα (vol. ii. p. 14, Littré).

The Platonic Timæus would have been considered by Hippokrates as the work of a σοφιστής. It was composed not for professional readers alone, but for the public — ἐπίστασθαι ἐς ὅσον εἰκὸς ἰδιώτην — (Hippokrat. Περὶ Παθῶν, vol. vi. p. 208, Littré).

The Hippokratic treatises afford evidence of an established art, with traditions of tolerably long standing, a considerable medical literature, and even much oral debate on medical subjects — ἐναντίον ἀκροατέων (Hipp. Περὶ Νούσων, vol. vi. pp. 140-142-150, Littré). Ὃς ἂν περὶ ἰήσιος ἐθέλῃ ἐρωτᾷν τε ὀρθῶς, καὶ ἐρωτῶντι ἀποκρίνεσθαι, καὶ ἀντιλέγειν ὀρθῶς, ἐνθυμέεσθαι χρὴ τάδε (p. 140) … Ταῦτα ἐνθυμηθέντα διαφυλάσσειν δεῖ ἐν τοῖσι λόγοισιν· ὅ, τι ἂν δέ τις τούτων ἁμαρτάνῃ, ἢ λέγων ἢ ἐρωτῶν ἢ ἀποκρινόμενος, … ταύτῃ φυλάσσοντα χρὴ ἐπιτίθεσθαι ἐν τῇ ἀντιλογίῃ (p. 142).

The method, which Sokrates and Plato applied to ethical topics was thus applied by others to medicine and medical dogmas. How the dogmas of the Platonic Timæus would have fared, if scrutinised with oral interrogations in this spirit, by men even far inferior to Sokrates himself in acuteness — I will not say.

Contrast between the admiration of Plato for the constructors of the Kosmos, and the defective results which he describes.

From the glowing terms in which Plato describes the architectonic skill and foresight of those Gods who put together the three souls and the body of man, we should anticipate that the fabric would be perfect, and efficacious for all intended purposes, in spite of interruptions or accidents. But Plato, when he passes from purposes to results, is constrained to draw a far darker picture. He tells us that the mechanism of the human body will work well, only so long as the juncture of the constituent triangles is fresh and tight: after that period of freshness has passed, it begins to fail.135But besides this, there exist a formidable catalogue of diseases, attacking both body and mind: the cause of which (Plato says) “is plain to every one”: they proceed from excess, or deficiency, or displacement, of some one among the four constituent elements of the human body.136If we enquire why the wise Constructors put together their materials in so faulty a manner, the only reply to be made is, that the counteracting hand of Necessity was too strong for them. In the Hesiodic and other legends respecting anthropogony we find at least a happy commencement, and the deterioration gradually supervening after it. But Plato opens the scene at once with all the suffering reality of the iron age —

Πλείη μὲν γὰρ γαῖα κακῶν, πλείη δὲ θάλασσα·Νοῦσοι δ’ ἀνθρώποισιν ἐφ’ ἡμέρῃ ἢδ’ ἐπὶ νυκτὶΑὐτόματοι φοιτῶσι —137

135Plat. Tim. pp. 81-89 B.

136Plat. Tim. p. 82. δῆλόν που καὶ παντί.

137Compare what Plato says in Republic, ii. p. 379 C, about the prodigious preponderance of κακὰ over ἀγαθὰ in the life of man.

Degeneration of the real tenants of Earth from their primitive type.

When Plato tells us that most part of the tenants of earth, air, and water — all women, birds, quadrupeds, reptiles, and fishes — are the deteriorated representatives of primitive men, constructed at the beginning with the most provident skill, but debased by degeneracy in various directions — this doctrine (something analogous to the theory of Darwin with its steps inverted) indicates that the original scheme of the Demiurgus, though magnificent in itsensemblewith reference to the entire Kosmos, was certain from the beginning to fail in its details. For we are told that the introduction of birds, quadrupeds, &c., as among the constituents of the Auto-zôon, was an essential part of the original scheme.138The constructing Gods, while forming men upon a pure non-sexual type (such as that invoked by the austere Hippolytus) exempt from the temptations of the most violent appetite,139foresaw that such an angelic type could not maintain itself:— that they would be obliged to reconstruct the whole human organism upon the bi-sexual principle, introducing the comparatively lower type of woman:— and that they must make preparation for the still more degenerate varieties of birds and quadrupeds, into which the corrupt and stupid portion of mankind would sink.140Plato does indeed tell us, that the primitive non-sexual type had the option of maintaining itself; and that it perished by its own fault alone.141But since we find that not one representative of it has been able to hold his ground:— and since we also read in Plato, that no man is willingly corrupt, but that corruption and stupidity of mind are like fevers and other diseases, under which a man suffers against his own consent142:— we see that the option was surrounded with insurmountable difficulties: and that the steady and continued degradation, under which the human race has sunk from its original perfection into the lower endowments of the animal world, can be ascribed only to the impracticability of the original scheme: thatis, in other words, to the obstacles interposed by implacable Necessity, frustrating the benevolent purposes of the Constructors.

Back to Index Next