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 of the 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.[131] Its 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.
[131] Galen (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.[132] The 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:[133] and in the Platonic Timæus, the former might properly be comprised in the 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.[134] This 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, and special 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.
[132] Plato, Phædrus, p. 270; Protagoras, p. 311.
[133] See 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.)
[134] He alludes especially to the Hippokratic treatise Περὶ Φύσιος ἀνθρώπου, see De Hipp. et Plat. Dogm. viii. pp. 674-710, ed. Kühn.