marcelo boeri - alejandro de afrodisias como lector de aristóteles

8102019 Marcelo Boeri - Alejandro de Afrodisias Como Lector de Aristoacuteteles

httpslidepdfcomreaderfullmarcelo-boeri-alejandro-de-afrodisias-como-lector-de-aristoteles 133

wwwbrillnlphro

Galen and the StoicsMortal Enemies or Blood Brothers

Christopher Gill Department o Classics and Ancient History School o Humanities

and Social Sciences University o Exeter Exeter UK CJGillexeteracuk

AbstractGalen is well known as a critic o Stoicism mainly or his massive attack on Stoic least Chrysippean) psychology inOn the Doctrines o Hippocrates and Plato ( PHP ) 2-5Galen attacks both Chrysippusrsquo location o the ruling part o the psyche in the heart his uni ed or monistic picture o human psychology However i we consider Gathought more broadly this has a good deal in common with Stoicism including(largely) physicalist conception o psychology and a strongly teleological view o nentities shared eatures which are acknowledged in several treatises outside PHP Why

then is Galen such a remorseless and negative critic o Stoicism in PHP Various actorsare relevant including the shaping in uence on Galen o the Platonic-Aristotelian (pabased) psychological ramework But it is suggested here an important underlying tor is the contrast between two ways o thinking about the part-whole relationshiplsquocompositionrsquo and a lsquostructurersquo approach or an atomistic and holistic approach Tcontrast is most evident and explicit in one section o PHP 5 where Galen criticisingChrysippusrsquo holistic psychology denies that the Stoic thinker is entitled to use the cocept o part at all But the contrast is also seen as pervading Galenrsquos response to Stthought more generally in PHP and elsewhere in ways that in orm his explicit disagrements with Stoic theory Stoicism is presented here as having a consistently lsquostructurersquoholistic) approach Galenrsquos approach is seen as more mixed sometimes sharing or asing towards a holistic picture and yet sometimes (especially in PHP 5) adopting astrongly lsquocompositionrsquo or atomistic standpoint Tis (partial) contrast in conceptual

rameworks is presented as offering a new perspective on Galenrsquos critique o Stoicchology in PHP and on his relationship to Stoic thought more generally

Keywords psychology Stoicism Galen holism part-whole relationship

Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 89

Introduction

Te aim o this discussion is to explore key eatures o the concept

relationship between Galen and Stoicism starting rom Galenrsquos explicomments on Stoic ideas In particular I want to place Galenrsquos moextended and negative critique o Stoic thought (inde Placitis Hippocratiset Platonis PHP Books 2-5) within a larger outline o the relationship between the two systems o thought Te ocus o this discussiis on (embodied) psychology but this is considered in conjunction witrelated aspects o the two theories Te ocus here is on leading conceor ideas rather than methodology o enquiry in so ar so the two canseparated1

I want especially to bring out certain intriguing even tantalising tures o the relationship In spite o Galenrsquos hostile treatment o S psychology in PHP the theories share a broadly naturalistic approach with several common eatures Both theories combine a (largely) ph

calist approach to psychology with a conception o animals includihumans as teleologically shaped biological entities Teir shared approaccan be contrasted or instance with the non-naturalistic mind-boddualism prevalent in Middle Platonism o the rst and second centuriAD Galen sometimes explicitly recognises this resemblance whichalso implied even in some o his more critical responses to Stoic idHowever this prompts the question why Galen does not acknowledgthis affinity more ully and why he does not build on it intellectuallyhe does with some other earlier theories Tere are various possible wayo explaining Galenrsquos relatively cool response to Stoicism Te main expnation considered here centres on the contrast between the systematicaluni ed or holistic approach o Stoicism and Galenrsquos (relatively) m part-based approach a contrast which bears both on their respective co

ceptions o psychology and their larger world-views Tis contrast emergmost clearly in PHP 5 and in a more quali ed orm in comments onStoicism in other Galenic works

1)

In a book in progress I explore both aspects o this question (ideas and methodoloo enquiry)



90 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

Overview

So Galen and Stoicism ndash mortal enemies or blood brothers I consid

the question rst in general terms and then in connection with a numbeo passages in which Galen responds to Stoic ideasI we con ne our attention to PHP the question answers itsel Tere

Galen is remorsely negative about Stoic ideas particularly as statedChrysippus or two particular reasons One examined especiallyBooks 2-3 is the Stoic ailure to give (what Galen sees as) the right anto the question o the location o the ruling or directive part o the psyTe right answer or him is the brain as shown by anatomical experments by the Hellenistic doctor Herophilus and by Galen himsel BChrysippus in particular despite ormulating his theories afer Herophlusrsquo discoveries continued to champion the claims o the heart to houthe ruling part Galenrsquos second complaint in Books 4-5 is that Chrysi pus coupled his mistake about the workings o the body with a misgui

account o human psychology Chrysippus according to Galen onrecognises a single part o the psyche namely the rational (logikon) part which he locates in the heart and thus rejects the more plausible tripatite psychology which Galen adopts ollowing Plato especially2

Tus in PHP the Stoics especially their main theorist Chrysippusappear as Galenrsquos principal antagonists and are seen as an obstacleGalenrsquos project there o combining salient aspects o Platonic and medthought on psychology But how typical o Galenrsquos overall thought is attitude In act as I bring out shortly in some other works (written various stages o his li e)3 Galen embraces aspects o Stoic thought andregards them as supporting the thesis he is maintaining in the relevatreatise aken together the Stoic eatures highlighted as congenial Galen add up to a largely coherent and broadly naturalistic picture

embodied psychology Also Galenrsquos use o Stoic theory as a oil or tin PHP can be taken as part o a recurrent pattern in his treatises Galerepeatedly draws on the ideas o earlier thinkers medical or philosophi

2) See two very important studies ieleman 1996 (on PHP 2-3) and 2003a (on PHP 4-5) also von Staden 2000 (on Stoic medical and Galenic psychology) ielem1996 examines contrasting Galenic and Stoic methods o enquiry into psychology wh

I do not consider here3) On the dating o Galenrsquos treatises see in outline Singer 1997 l-lii



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 91

or support in raming and maintaining a speci c claim or line o thouand takes other thinkers as targets or criticism Te role allocated to angiven thinker varies in different works and the Stoics including Chrys pus gure in some cases as allies rather than opponents Also being taas an opponent by Galen in a given work does not mean that the thinkeconcerned is seen as completely alien in approach Rather Galen aston some aspect o the opponentrsquos ideas or method as a way o de ninown approach Tus Galenrsquos use o Stoicism as an intellectual target PHP and sometimes elsewhere should not be taken as re ecting the vie

that Stoic ideas are wholly or consistently incompatible with his owun olding medico-philosophical projectFor instance inde Usu Partium (UP ) o which Book 1 was written at

the same time as PHP 1-6 Galen advances a strongly teleological accouno the unctions and structure o the bodily parts Plato and Aristoare power ul and explicit in uences although the Stoics are not metioned as such Galenrsquos overall approach is very similar to theirs On tother side Galen takes as his main targets thinkers who are presented exponents o a non-teleological (or incompletely teleological) and meanistic version o materialism including Epicurus Erasistratus and As piades o Bithynia Inde Facultatibus Naturalibus ( Nat Fac ) writtenslightly later than PHP 1-6 Galen re ers to Stoic thinking on physiolog(alongside Hippocratic and Aristotelian ideas) seen as re ecting a

organic or biological conception o the processes and capacities o lithings Tis is again constrasted with the allegedly mechanistic materiaism o Erasistratus and Asclepiades4 In a late work Quod Animi Mores ( QAM ) Galen cites the Stoics alongside Aristotle and the more physicist strands in Platorsquos thought in support o his thesis lsquothat the capaciti(or acultiesdunameis) o the psyche ollow the mixtures (kraseis) o thebodyrsquo Te role o intellectual oil is taken in this case by Platonic psycbody dualism either as ormulated by Plato himsel or by some MidPlatonic ollowers In another late workde Foetuum Formatione ( Foet Form) Galen is critical o Stoic (and Aristotelian) heart-centred thinking about the development o the embryo But it is also clear that thdisagreement gures within a largely shared view o the embryo a

4)

On Galenrsquos use o other theories to de ne his own position in these works s Vegetti 1997



92 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

precursor o the animal as a coherent psychophysical organic entity teleological structure5 Tis survey indicates rst that Galen does nothave a wholly xed set o riends and enemies to some extent at leaconstructs shifing patterns o intellectual alliance and hostility accordito the speci c thesis maintained in each treatise But more speci cathe survey shows that on some quite major and recurrent themes in h work Galen sees himsel as sharing common ground with the Stoics physiology and psychology Tis in turn suggests that his con ict withe Stoics especially Chrysippus in PHP at least in Books 2-3 is a

localised disagreement conducted romwithin a partly common concep-tual rameworkHow ar can we give a general analysis o this shared outlook In b

terms at least the two theories have several important ideas in commo which distinguish them rom some other approaches in the period psychology both theories operate with what amounts to a type o phycalism For Galen the study o psychology within the ramework o ical (in modern terms empirical and scienti c) enquiry is in effe physicalist in approach Tis is so even though Galen repeatedly re ra

rom pronouncing on the question which he sees as belonging to purspeculative philosophical enquiry whether or not the psyche is materi(or mortal) in its essence or substance (ousia)6 Te Stoics argue explicitly

or the corporeality o the psyche and ofen characterise psychologi

processes such as perception or passions in physical terms7

Tere is asharp contrast underlined in Galenrsquos QAM between this shared physical-ist approach and the kind o psyche-body dualism we nd in Platorsquos Phaedo or some roughly contemporary Platonists such as Plutarch8 Secondly

5) On the works noted brie y here see the next section6) See eg PHP 9917-9 793-4Kde Propriis Placitis ( Prop Plac ) 71-2 7625-7810Nutton (Re erences to Galen works are to book chapter paragraph or line divisionsthe most recent editions eg De Lacy or PHP and Nutton or Prop Plac the Re er-ences below give details o all Galen editions cited Where the work cited is includeKuumlhnrsquos standard edition his page re is also given eg 793-4K) See urther Hanki1991a 202-6 2006 236-9 von Staden 2000 111 ieleman 2002b 134-67) See Long and Sedley 1987 (=LS) 45 C-D 53 B(5-9) 65 B-D (re s to LS sections paragraphs) also Long 1996 ch 10 von Staden 2000 96-1058)

See eg QAM 3 Marquardt et al vol 2 3726-3818 775K Galen does not criticisPlatonists by name On Plutarchrsquos dualism (including psychendashbody dualism) see Dill



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 93

1977 202-14 In this article I generally treat lsquopsychersquo as a naturalised English termis ofen noted standard English translations (eg lsquosoulrsquo lsquomindrsquo) have partly differconnotations9) Te link is roughly that living things ul l their naturaltelos by expressing their

(biologically grounded) natural aculties10) Tere is o course the general point o contrast that Galenrsquos philosophical enquirare ultimately practical in that they subserve his medical objectives a difference I doexplore here11) On Galenrsquos high evaluation ndash and independent or creative interpretation ndash o

the teachings o Hippocrates and Plato see De Lacy 1972 Hankinson 1992 3505-Lloyd 1993

bodies including human ones are seen in Galenic and Stoic theories constituting coherent psychophysical systems or structures though therare important differences (underlined shortly) in the kind and degree ounity seen within these systems Tirdly embodied psychology and anmal physiology are located in both theories within an overall account the core principles or elements o nature Teir respective accounts havimportant common eatures notably the idea that material objectincluding human beings constitute lsquomixturesrsquo (kraseis) o the basic ele-ments or opposites (hot cold dry wet) In addition as noted earlier bo

the Stoics and Galen can be seen as sharing both an organic or biologiconception o the properties o living things and a view o the ani(including human) body as a teleologically shaped structure ndash two ide which can themselves be seen as interrelated9 Tis is on the ace o it arather large set o shared characteristics which also adds up to a relaticoherent (naturalistic) way o thinking about psychology10

Given these rather substantial points o conceptual affinity the quetion arises why Galen does not make more o the relationship with Sicism than he does Galen makes much ndash it sometimes seemstoo much ndasho his closeness to Plato or Hippocrates11 But although signi cant pointso affinity with the Stoics are signalled at various points (especially Nat Fac and QAM ) the most extended treatments o Stoic ideas arecritical ones in Foet Form and above all PHP 2-5 Nor does Galen con-

struct his own ideas through interpretative adoption and modi cation oStoic ideas in the way that he does in the case o Hippocrates Plato aAristotle or instance Tis is so even though there could have been som



94 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

substantial bene ts rom an intellectual merger with aspects o Stthought as I bring out later12

How should we explain why Galen does not engage more closely thhe does with Stoic ideas given their partly shared outlook Tere are aleast three possible types o explanation o which I think that the thirthe most suggestive Te rst explanation is that Galenrsquos typical philosophical affiliation as a Platonist makes closer engagement with Stoicunlikely Te combination o attitudes we nd in Galen (criticising thStoics while adopting a lsquoconsensusrsquo view which includes certain St

ideas) can be traced back to Antiochus13

Tis actor may explain whyGalen like Plutarch or instance presupposes the validity o a PlatoAristotelian part-based approach to human psychology in PHP 4-514 rather than the uni ed approach ound in Stoicism ndash though this maalso re ect a larger conceptual difference to be considered shortly Hoever in general explanation by intellectual affiliation is o rather lim

orce in Galenrsquos case Galen himsel is sometimes dismissive o the itance o this type o allegiance15 and the preceding survey o his viewbrings out the rather uid character o his affinity and antagonism any case allegiance to Platonism could be combined with a high dego engagement with Stoicism as we see or instance in the casEudorus and Philo o Alexandria16 Overall Galen is probably betterseen as an independent thinker with a unique medico-philosophica

project though one which is carried orward in part through consider

12) As indicated in text to n 1 my ocus here is on ideas rather than methodologyenquiry in the latter respect the in uence o Stoic logic is important and explicit13) On Antiochusrsquo attitude to Stoicism see eg Cic Fin 45-26 also Dillon 197758-9 70-5 On Galen as Platonist see De Lacy 1972 Dillon 1977 339-40 (David Sley has underlined this consideration in commenting on the SAAP paper on philosopical allegiance in this period see Sedley 1989)14) C Plutarchrsquosde Virtute Morali ( Moralia 440D-452D) see urther Gill 2006216-38 A urther actor underlining the opposition between Stoic monism in psychogy and Platonic-Aristotelian part-based psychology may be the in uence o dographical accounts as suggested by ieleman 2003a ch 2 esp 80-815) de Ordine Librorum Suorum 1 Marquardt et al vol 2 8011-815 50K also De Lacy1972 27 Chiaradonna orthcoming brings out clearly that Galenrsquos approach isnot typi-

cal o Middle Platonism in several salient ways16) See Dillon 1977 121-35 143-4 145-52 163



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 95

engagement with speci c aspects o a broad range o previous theoand approaches17

A second line o explanation is that Galenrsquos disagreement with the Sics especially Chrysippus over the location o the ruling part o psyche was so substantial that it ruled out the possibility o allian with Stoicism on other subjects Tis disagreement the main theme o PHP 2-3 underpins the related critique o Stoic psychology in PHP 4-5Coming relatively early in Galenrsquos intellectual career this con ict mhave exercised a continuing in uence that made it unlikely that Gale

would build on the other (shared) eatures o their thought18

(HoweverGalenrsquos disagreement with Aristotle on the location o the ruling part dnot have the same result on the contrary there is strong and continuinengagement by Galen with Aristotelian ideas)19

Te third line o explanation relates to certain larger differences whiccan be seen as underlying (or interrelated with) the two previous explantions Tese differences can be explained by re erence to a broad concetual contrast between divergent ways o understanding the part-whorelationship I outline the contrast rst and then discuss where the twtheories stand in this respect In de ning these contrasting patterns draw on terminology used in Verity Hartersquos recent discussion o Platonthinking on this subject In one pattern to put it very generally the ocis on the parts and in the other on the whole More precisely the contra

is between seeing the whole as identical with and de ned by the comnation o its parts and seeing the whole as the primary locus o idenand content to which the parts are subordinate In one pattern the partsare identi able independently o the whole and in the other the parare identi able only in the context o the whole In one pattern we csay that the wholehas structure (understood as the combination o the

17) For this view see Hankinson 1992 3519-2018) On the disagreement see esp ieleman 1996 part 1 ieleman (2003a 149 n 4notes that Galenrsquos quotations suggest that he examined ChrysippusrsquoOn the Soul andOn Passions intensively while composing PHP 1-6 but then relied on his memory or notes(or indirect sources) rather than continuing detailed study o Chrysippusrsquo works19) See PHP 181-15 200-3K and discussion o Foet Form below or the shared car-

diocentric psychology o Aristotle and the Stoics On Galenrsquos engagement with Aristosee Moraux 1984 part 5



96 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

parts) in the other the wholeis structure (which gives the parts theiridentity) Put differently again the rst pattern represents an atomistic obottom-up approach to composition the second a holistic or top-downapproach20 Tis contrast can be used in various ways or instance in metaphysical way i the ocus is on de ning categories o being orepistemological way i the ocus is on knowing how to identi y the so entities in relation to the part-whole distinction In Hartersquos study th

ocus is metaphysical here on the other hand the contrast is mainexplanatory or analytic Te contrast is used to characterise differen

orms o explanation or analysis which are applied to the psyche onatural kinds though these explanations have metaphysical implicatioin so ar as they imply different pictures o nature or reality

Why is this contrast help ul as a way o analysing Galenrsquos responStoic thinking especially on psychology Te relevance o this distintion comes out most clearly in the nal section o this article Hereexamine a discussion in PHP 5 in which Galen disputes Chrysippusrsquoanalysis o psychic health as the proportion or harmony ( summetria) othe parts o the psyche In act Galen denies that Chrysippus is entitto use the notion o parts altogether given his strongly uni ed view othe psyche I suggest that what underlies this debate are the two contraing conceptions o the part-whole relationship which we can character(deploying Hartersquos terminology or this purpose) as lsquocompositionrsquo and lsquost

turersquo approaches Galen responds negatively to ndash or ails to understanChrysippusrsquo view because he brings to the topic a different way understanding the part-whole relationship I also suggest that a similconceptual contrast underlies Galenrsquos critique o Stoic psychology mgenerally in PHP 2-5 More precisely there are eatures o Galenrsquos pchological theory as presented there (notably his view o embodi psychic parts as independent and potentially con icting sources o m vation) that express a lsquocompositionrsquo approach Te presence o these tures and o the correlated approach to the part-whole relationship regards psychology helps to explain why Galen does not engage mclosely than he does with Stoic ideas which exhibit a strong version olsquostructurersquo approach

20) Tis summary combines various ormulations and distinctions discussed in Hart2002 158-67 267-81





98 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

My comments so ar may suggest that Galenrsquos thought expresses a uormly lsquocompositionrsquo approach whereas Stoicism exhibits a consiste

lsquostructurersquo approach As ar as Stoicism is concerned I think this is a rect picture However Galenic thought can be seen as displaying a mixcharacter For instance as I bring out in the last section his thinking o psychophysiology contains a combination o a strongly uni ed (bracentred) anatomical model with an emphasis on parts as independensources o motivation Tis combination arguably generates internal tesions thus Galenrsquos thought on this subject can be seen as containing

uneasy mixture o lsquostructurersquo and lsquocompositionrsquo approaches (Tis istopic on which Galen might have done well to adopt the more consitently uni ed Stoic approach) Other aspects o Galenrsquos thought illutrated here also express at least a partial move towards a lsquostructuapproach or instance his analysis (shared with Stoicism) o all matentities by re erence to lsquomixturesrsquo (kraseis) o undamental elementsHowever this is quali ed as just noted by the weight placed in Galeanalysis on the distinction between living and non-living entities as was body and psyche (taken as primary parts o the natural world or o liv-ing entities) Tus the relationship between Galenic and Stoic thoughttaken as a whole might be seen as that between a mixed approach anconsistently lsquostructurersquo-based one though certain aspects o this relatiship express a straight orward con rontation between lsquocompositionrsquo

lsquostructurersquo approaches23

Examples of Common Ground and Difference (outside PHP )

I now illustrate these two recurrent eatures o Galenrsquos relationship wStoicism (their shared naturalism and their partial difference in conceptual approach) by re erence to a selection o passages in which Gcomments explicitly on Stoic ideas beginning with three passages on material composition o entities including human beings

and holistic approaches in Hellenistic-Roman thought discussed in Gill 2006 esch 123) Other aspects o his thought that express a move towards a lsquostructurersquo approach (

which have close parallels in Stoicism) include his systematic and comprehensive telogical view o the natural world and his application o a uni ed ramework o explanation on these aspects see Hankinson 1989 and 2002



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 99

For it was Hippocrates who rst o all introduced the doctrine o the Hot the Colthe Dry and the Wet later Aristotle gave a demonstration o it Chrysippus anhis ollowers took it over ready-made and did not indulge in utile stri e but

that everything is blended (kekrasthai) rom these things and that they act andreact upon each other and that nature is constructive (technikecircn phusin) and theyaccept all the other Hippocratic doctrines except in one small matter in which thediffer rom Aristotle (de Methodo Medendi ( MM ) 1210 16K trans Hankinson1991b)24

Tus the well-balanced individual must enjoy a combination o heat and moisturin his nature and good balance in act consists in nothing other than the domintion o these two qualities Te same appears to be the opinion o the philosophAristotle o Teophrastus and subsequently also o the Stoics (de emperamentis ( emp) 13 523K trans Singer 1997 208)

Hippocrates was the rst o all the doctors and philosophers we know who undtook to demonstrate that there are in all our mutually interacting qualities ( poiotecirc-tas) and that to the operation o these is due the genesis and destruction o all thinthat come into and pass out o being that all these qualities undergo a complblending with one another (kerannusthai holas dirsquoholocircn) [Zeno is noted asholding the view] that the substances (ousias) as well as their qualities ( poiotecirctas)undergo this complete blending ( Nat Fac 12 5K trans Brock 1916 modi ed)

Tese passages bring out several relevant points First they highlight tures that are on any interpretation genuinely shared by the Galenic anStoic theories notably the idea that the our elements or opposites an

their mixture or blendingkrasis are undamental principles or under-standing the natural universe and speci c entities within the universincluding human beings25 Second they show that Galen is prepared toinclude the Stoics as part o a broad intellectual alliance supporting conception o natural entities26 Although these passages taken together

24) See also MM 1213 18K linking lsquoPlato Aristotle and Chrysippusrsquo25) For the relevant Stoic theories see LS 47 esp A-E 48 or Galenrsquos thinking see renn 26 28 below26) Te last passage cited re ers to a partial difference between Aristotelian and Sto ways o characterising this idea ollowers o Aristotle conceive the blending only o qualities and the Stoics as the complete blending o substances But Galen w

sometimes adopting the Aristotelian ormulation does not regard this difference as damental and is ready to recruit the Stoics in support o the approach he advocates heSee eg Nat Fac 24 92K also Moraux 1984 740-2 Kupreeva 2004 81-2



100 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

bring out common ground between Galen and Stoicism they also indcate the contrast between lsquostructurersquo and lsquocompositionrsquo approaches (the sense outlined earlier) which is most evident in Nat Fac Here Galenincludes the Stoics on one side o a broad intellectual divide which is cstructed to underpin his ndash highly innovative ndash project there (112) Tecon ict is presented as being rst between continuist and atomic theries o matter27 Tis is linked with a contrast between those who conceivenatural entities in organic or biological as opposed to mechanistic termTis in turn orms a basis or Galenrsquos main aim o analysing living e

ties as complexes o natural aculties or capacities ( phusikai dunameis) which constitute the basis o their li e as living beings28

How appropriate is Galenrsquos inclusion o Stoicism in this schema some extent Stoic theory ts rather well As well as holding (what Gasees as) a continuist theory o matter in their ideas about total blendinthe Stoic distinction between phusis andhexis and their view o animalsas structured psychophysical entities can be seen as orming part o alogical or organic conception o living things However in some respethe Stoic theory ts uneasily in this context For one thing the releva

eatures o Stoic theory (the idea o elements and total blending) part o an over-arching analysis o principles and causes the scop which goes beyond de ning the material basis oliving entities which isGalenrsquos concern here Te two undamental principles are presented a

being an active cause (sometimes identi ed with pneuma) and a passiveone (hulecirc ) both o which are conceived as material or bodily in naturTese principles are used as the basis o an explanatory ramework baon the type or degree o lsquotensionrsquo (tonos) in the blending o active and passive causes Tis ramework provides the basis or analysing unitstructure in different kinds o entity the spectrum o tension runs rhexis in li eless objects to phusis in plants psyche in animals and rational-ity in adult humans and gods29 Tis summary by Philo o Alexandriaencapsulates some o the radical implications o this idea

27) Te assumption is that i matter consists o indivisible particles (eg atoms) it wnot be capable o the (in modern terms) lsquochemicalrsquo usion o qualities that Galen see prerequisite orliving entities28)

See Vegetti 1999 389-95 Kupreeva 2004 77-8429) See LS 44 B 45 G-H 47 passim also LS vol 1 270-1 286-9



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 101

Intelligence (or mindnous) has many powers the tenor kind the physical the psy-chic the rational the calculative enor (hexis) is also shared by li eless thingsstones and logs and our bones which resemble stones also participate in it Phusis

also extends to plants and in us too there are things like plants ndash nails and ha Phusis ishexis in actual motion Psyche is phusis which has also acquired impres-sion and impulse Tis is also shared by irrational animals (Philo Allegories o the Laws 222-3 trans LS 47 P slightly modi ed)

One o the implications o the Stoic theory is that all entities both natu-ral and non-natural can be understood as mani estations o the lsquocompl

blendingrsquo o god (or the active principle or re) with matter (or the psive principle or the other elements)30 Tis difference comes out i we juxtapose Galen MM 1210 16K (cited in text to n 24 above) with the

ollowing summary o the Stoic theory

Te Stoics made god out to be intelligent a designing re ( pur technikon) whichmethodically proceeds towards creation o the world and encompasses all the se

nal principles according to which everything comes about according to ate anbreath pervading the whole world which takes on different names owing to thalterations o the matter through which it passes (Aeumltius 1733 trans LS 46 A)

Te contrast between the two conceptions can be exempli ed by thedifference between two seemingly similar phrases Galenrsquos lsquoconstruct(or craf-like) naturersquo (technikecircn phusin) and the Stoic lsquodesigning rersquo ( pur

technikon) Galenrsquos concern is with showing how the blending o the oelements provides the basis or understanding the nature o living thinespecially their in-built teleological (lsquocraf-likersquo) unctions Te Stoic thory is intended to show how the blending o god or designing re wmatter provides a uni ed explanatory ramework or all entities includ-ing those which are structured byhexis rather than phusis Tis point odifference exempli es the conceptual contrast outlined earlier Althougboth these Galenic and Stoic theories aim at a uni ed or holistic accounthe Stoic analysis is more ndash or more systematically ndash holistic or instain cutting across the standard distinction between natural and non-naturaentities which remains important in Galenrsquos ramework

A similar combination o eatures (shared naturalism o viewpocoupled with a partial contrast in conceptual approaches) is evident i30) See urther Long 1996 227-9 and LS vol 1 270-2 286-9 292-4



102 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

Galenrsquos characterisation o Stoic thinking on the psyche-body relatioship in QAM

[Te Stoics] hold that the psyche like nature ( phusis) is a kind o breath ( pneuma)but that [ pneuma] o nature is more humid and colder whereas that o the psychedrier and hotter Tat is why this pneuma too is a kind o matter (hulecirc ) appropriateto the psyche and the orm (eidos) o the matter is such-and-such a mixture (krasis)consisting in a proportion o the airy and ery substance (ousia) It has thenbecome clear to you now that in the view o the Stoics the substance o the psycomes to be ( gignetai) according to a particular mixture (krasis) o air and re And

Chrysippus has been made intelligent because o the well-tempered mixture o thtwo [elements] while the sons o Hippocrates [have been made] swinish beco the boundless heat ( QAM 4 Marquardt et al vol 2 455-11 21-4 783-4K (parto SVF 2787) trans ieleman 2003a 149-50 slightly modi ed)

Here as in the earlier passages Galen recruits the Stoics alongside otthinkers (including Plato and Aristotle) in support o his main thesis

QAM Galen does not only argue as elsewhere that medical enquiry c yield de nite conclusions about the physical mani estations o psyclogical li e He also comes very close at least (despite his customarytion on this point) to maintaining that the psyche is physical or materiain nature or essence (ousia)31 More speci cally he claims that the lsquothecapacities (or acultiesdunameis) o the psyche ollow the mixtures (kraseis) o the bodyrsquo a thesis which is taken in this treatise to have substanimplications or ethical judgement o human actions32

How appropriate is Galenrsquos inclusion o Stoic ideas in support o thesis Galen certainly highlights a number o themes which are bogenuinely Stoic and relevant to the topic the role o pneuma and hulecirc as explanatory principles or causes the spectrum o types o lsquotensincluding psyche and phusis the idea o the total blending o elements

Tese Stoic themes are also included in or instance A A Longrsquos disc31) See esp QAM 4 Marquardt et al vol 2 442-452 782-3K also 4 Marquardt et a vol 2 24722-4825 777-8K On his caution on this subject see text to n 6 above

urther Hankinson 1991a 202-3 ieleman 2002 150-1 Hankinson 2006 and Doninorthcoming

32) See eg QAM 4 Marquardt et al vol 2461-7 784K and QAM 11 passim On

Galenrsquos thesis esp the problem in determining what is implied by lsquo ollowrsquo see L1988 33-4



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103

sion o Stoic psychology though Longrsquos analysis is presented ratherthat o a conceptual ramework introduced by the Stoics to revise standard Platonic-Aristotelian psyche-body distinction rather thanbeing simply their version or restatement o this distinction33 Tere arealso parallels as eun ieleman has underlined or the Galenic clamade here that individual long-term characteristics have a physical baand that occurrent psychological states mani est themselves as exceptiodegrees o heat or cold34 However his presentation also recasts the Stoictheory in a way that quali es or distorts its distinctive character

Te process can be illustrated by re erence to Galenrsquos presentation oAristotlersquos theory earlier in the treatise Galen argues that i we combAristotlersquos standard de nition o psyche as the lsquo ormrsquo (eidos) o the body with Aristotlersquos view that lsquothe physical body comes through the preseno the our qualities in matterrsquo we are entitled to take bodily lsquo ormthe lsquosubstancersquoousia o the psyche) as being lsquosome mixture o these qualitiesrsquo35 In effect Galen maintains that Aristotlersquos thinking in differencontexts entails Galenrsquos view rather than that Aristotle explicitly argu

or this claim inde Anima or instance36 In his characterisation o Stoicthinking cited above Galen builds on this treatment o Aristotle thStoic theory is recast in more Aristotelian terms to show that the Stoicalso subscribe to the Galenic thesis Te lsquo ormrsquo (eidos) o the psyche islsquosuch-and-such a mixture (krasis)rsquo namely a proportion o mixed re and

air Subsequently the lsquosubstancersquo (ousia) o psyche is presented as being (oroccurring gignetai) lsquoaccording to a particular mixture o air and rersquo37

As in his comments on Aristotle Galenrsquos treatment o the Stoiinvolves some interpretative reshaping o their thought For instanc pneuma is typically associated in Stoic theory with the lsquoactiversquo cause

33) Long 1996 227-39 esp 227-8 also von Staden 2000 100-434) ieleman 2003 ch 4 eg 194 re erring to Cicerode Fato 7-9 (environmentalin uences on character- ormation) and 157-8 re erring to Gal PHP 3125 291K(SVF 2886) (anger as occurrent heat)35) QAM 3 774K Marquardt et al vol 2 3716-22 cited phrases trans Singer 1997 15336) Galen combines the de nition o psyche in Aristde Anima 21 esp 412a19-21 27-8(as Galen interprets this) with Aristotlersquos account o elemental trans ormation inGC 22-4 (c Kupreeva 2004 81) On Galenrsquos reading o Aristotlersquos theory see Lloyd 19

24-837) QAM 4 Marquardt et al vol 2 459-11 21-4783-4K



104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

god) by contrast with the passive cause orhulecirc Here however pneuma is presented as the lsquomatterrsquo o psyche (withkrasis unctioning as the lsquo ormrsquo)38 More broadly Galenrsquos report o the Stoic theory ails to bring out the that the psyche-body contrast ceases to be undamental Tis distinctionis in effect replaced by a more universal causal and categorical ra work in which each entity is seen as a modality o types o lsquotensionrsquoning romhexis to logos and including phusis and psyche as stages ocomplexity39 Galen by implication at least alludes to this revised ram work early in the passage cited earlier in that he re ers to the Stoic ide

phusis and psyche as variant orms o mixture o elements40

But thistheme is then submerged in the de nition o psyche in terms o ormmatter Aristotelian terms which are given a revised meaning by GaleTe passage thus illustrates both the general eatures about Galenresponse to Stoicism emphasised here Galen alludes to aspects o Stheory which support the claim that both theories broadly speakingadopt a physicalist or materialist conception o psyche But the way tGalen presents the Stoic theory redescribes it in a way that understates systematic ndash or radical ndash holism o approach and assimilates it to the m

amiliar (Platonic-Aristotelian) psyche-body duality Tis duality givgreater weight and importance to the two component parts (psyche anbody) o the whole person and is to this degree a more lsquocompositiobased approach41

Te last work treated in this section isde Foetuum Formatione ( Foet Form) Galenrsquos response here might seem to be different rom that in Nat Fac and QAM in that Galen on one key point disagrees both with theStoics and Aristotle whereas elsewhere his differences rom Stoicism to be linked with adoption o an Aristotelian or Platonic-Aristotelia

38) QAM 4 Marquardt et al vol 2 458-11 c 5-8 783-4K Contrast the presentatioo pneuma as an active principle in 47 F I L and LS vol 1 287-939) See text to nn 30 33 above See urther Long 1996 227-34 von Staden 20097-102 Gill 2006 31-340) QAM 4 Marquardt et al vol 2 455-8 783K Elsewhere also Galen re ers to Stoic theory o tension (eg LS 47 K N) though it is less clear that he recognisesradical implications o this theory or the revision o standard (Platonic-Aristotelcategories41)

For the conceptual contrast suggested here and its application to Galen anStoicism see text to nn 20-3 above



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105

approach Te main point o con ict centres on the question which organdevelops rst in the embryo and whether or not the organ which emerg

rst produces or manages the urther development o the embryo as incated in this passage

In the rst place they [Peripatetics and Stoics] assume that the heart is generatbe ore anything else Secondly that the heart generates the other parts Tirdly a consequence they claim that even the deliberative part o our psyche is situatethe heart ( Foet Form 627 10212-17 Nickel 698K trans LS 53 D slightlymodi ed)

However Galenrsquos response to Stoic thought on this question as on others re ects the combination o a shared (broadly physicalist) view ochology with partial differences in conceptual approaches which can linked with the lsquocompositionrsquo ndash lsquostructurersquo contrast In considering Galeresponse I ocus on these aspects o the relationship with Stoicism wdo not necessarily also apply to Aristotle Some o the relevant eatemerge by contrast with Hieroclesrsquo roughly contemporary account o tsame process which Galen might conceivably have known42

Te similarities between the Galenic and Stoic theories include a viewo animals ( or instance humans) as coherent organic psychophysentities whose anatomical structure serves as the vehicle o an embod psychological system Embryonic growth in each o the theories repsents the early or preliminary development o the animal as an orgaunit o this type43 Tis process is also understood in both theories asthe progressive realization o a teleological design though on differassumptions about the role o speci c organs Te Stoics present thheart (more precisely the pneuma in the heart) as an active locus o

42) Galen lived in AD 129- c 210 and Hierocles ourished c 120 Galen re ers to malsrsquo instinctive capacity or sel -de ence ( Foet Form 613 692K) which Hierocles citesthough this theme also appears in Senecarsquos account o development (LS 57 B-C) F point on which Galenrsquos difference rom Stoicism does not apply to Aristotle n 46 below43) See Foet Form 38-29 663-674K or Galenrsquos account o the emergence o embryostructure For Stoics the embryo is still plant-like ie directed by phusis (see LS 53 B(2-3)

and n 50 below) whereas or Galen development rom the plant-like to the animal stbegins in the womb (317-18 24 667 670-1K)



106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

embryological development anticipating its subsequent role as the seo thehecircgemonikon44 Galen resists that idea strongly while sharing thebelie in a process o teleological development which is seen by hibuilt into the capacities o the sperm though re ecting the plan o external designer45

Te areas o disagreement regarding embryonic development displathe larger (though partial) conceptual differences stressed here between ttwo theories Stoic thinking on the role o the heart in this process re etheir strongly uni ed view o the body as an anatomical and psychoph

ical structure with a single directing centre46

Tis view comes out veryclearly in Hieroclesrsquo account o the transition rom embryo to animal o the psychological unctions that begin to operate at birth For instanthe idea o lsquosel -perceptionrsquo (a distinctive theme o Hieroclesrsquo discusexpresses both the idea that the animal once born has its own integriand coherence and also that the animal is a uni ed psychophysical entity47 Galen too as just noted sees the embryo as a coherent teleologicashaped organism But in his critique o the Stoic (and Aristotelian) viand his affirmation o a rival picture we also see indications o a lsquocomtionrsquo approach to physiology Galenrsquos assertion that the liver which hthe most elementary unctions develops be ore the heart seems to rehis general commitment to a three-part psychophysical model with deteminate roles or liver heart and brain48 Although Galen criticises his oppo-

44) Foet Form 513-16 683-4 520-1 686-7K 627-8 698K on the role o pneuma see629-30 699-700K See also Nickel 1989 77-8 1993 81-245) Foet Form 61-34 687-702K also 511 8618 Nickel 682K lsquothe seed must contathe scheme o the Crafsmanrsquo (logos decircmiourgou) trans Singer 1997 191 HoweverGalen acknowledges the difficulties in offering a complete explanation o embrydevelopment in teleological terms (631-4 700-2K)46) Foet Form 627-8 698K also LS 53 B(5-8) G-H Aristotle also holds a hearcentre theory but in his case it is less clear that the heart is conceived as the organiscentre o a uni ed psychophysical system or structure (see urther van der Eijk 268-9)47) LS 53 B(5) Although the idea o sel -perception (as distinct rom sel -awarendistinctive to Hierocles in our sources his account o the transition to birth and psych physical cohesion is in line with other evidence See ieleman 1991 Long 1996 25248) Foet Form 327-9 672-4K See also 317-26 667-72K on the alleged role o the li

as the source o an emerging system o veins and on Galenrsquos commitment to a tripa psychophysical model 633-4 701K



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107

nents or ailing to base their claims on proper anatomical investigat(46-9 676-8K) this is not a subject on which Galenrsquos position rests osecure anatomical oundations either Galen concedes that the evidenavailable to him (human abortions in the rst month and the dissectiono non-human animals) does not yield certain in ormation about the prcise sequence o embryonic development in humans He also acknowedges that elsewhere he has argued that the heart comes rst idevelopment and that he has changed his mind in the light o the geneconsensus that the embryorsquos initial li e is plant-like and there ore

Galen in ers centred on the work o the liver49

Tus it seems that histheoretical attachment to a part-based psychophysical model rather thaanatomical evidence plays the decisive role in his opposition to the Staccount Galenrsquos strong opposition to the Stoic heart-centred picture oembryological development in Foet Form seems to re ect the earlierintense debate about embodied psychology in PHP 2-3 It may alsore ect the larger conceptual contrast (between lsquostructurersquo and lsquocompostionrsquo approaches) which is embodied in that debate as I suggest shortl

A related point arises rom Galenrsquos response to a urther aspect oStoic theory o the embryo In the Stoic account embryonic unctioare presented as being shaped like those o plants by phusis and only atbirth are animal unctions also in ormed by psyche In this respectelsewhere the Stoics see animal unctions as part o a larger spectrum

types o lsquotensionrsquo shaping natural and non-natural entities in general50

a view which I take as re ecting their characteristically holistic or lsquostrturersquo approach Galen while noting this eature o the Stoic theory senot to register its broader signi cance and treats phusis simply as a syn-onym or Platorsquos appetitive or Aristotlersquos vegetative part o the psyche51 Inthis respect Galen assimilates this idea to the part-based psychologic

ramework that he adopts rom Plato and Aristotle thus offering a ther indication o the larger conceptual difference between his theoand Stoicism

49) Foet Form 39-10 663-4K re erring tode Semine 181-8 907-928 De Lacy also Prop Plac 112 9022-925 Nutton See urther Nickel 1989 80-2 2001 121-350) See LS 53 B(2-3) (Hierocles) also Inwood 1984 173-4 Long 1996 236-951)

Foet Form 313 665K 631 700K also PHP 637 (521K) see urther Nickel 199381 84



108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

Competing Psychologies Parts and Wholes

I now turn to PHP 1-6 the scene o Galenrsquos most intense engagemen

with Stoicism Although the other works discussed here (apart romUP Book 1) were written later than PHP I think that the same general ea-tures evident in those works also hold good or PHP Here although the

ocus in both theories is on body-based psychology (at least in PHP 2-3)it is differences and disagreements that are most obvious Here especiait is plausible to see Galenrsquos response to Stoicism as re ecting their diffe positions in relation to the conceptual contrast (between a holistic olsquostructurersquo approach and a part-based or lsquocompositionrsquo approach) outlinearlier Tis difference comes out most clearly in Galenrsquos criticism i PHP 5 o Chrysippusrsquo description o psychic sickness as disharmbetween the parts o the psyche Tis criticism considered shortly illutrates vividly two divergent ways o understanding the part-whole retionship But an analogous difference is also indicated in other aspects

Galenrsquos treatment o psychology in PHP 1-6 Notably this seems tounderlie certain internal tensions in Galenrsquos account o embodied pschology Tis actor also helps to explain why Galen does not try to cobine aspects o Stoic psychology with his own even though doingmight have bene ted his own theory by helping him to remove theinternal tensions

In PHP 2-3 the main explicit ground o con ict is the questio whether the ruling part o the psyche is located in the heart as tStoics supposed or in the brain as Galen maintained on the basis o atomical investigation by Herophilus and Galen himsel But underlyithis con ict is a contrast between two radically different pictures embodied psychic unctions According to Galen the system is a triptite one in which three organs brain heart and liver serve as the seat a

source ( archecirc ) o three communication-systems those o nerves arterand veins respectively Tese organs also serve as the locations o the thunctions in Galenrsquos (Platonic-style) tripartite psyche namely reasoni

anger and other emotions and appetite or desire For the Stoics by cotrast there is a single psychological agency thehecircgemonikon located inthe heart and coordinating all psychic processes52

52)

On Galenrsquos psycho-physiological model and criticisms o Chrysippusrsquo theory Hankinson 1991a ieleman 2002 and or a detailed analysis ieleman 1996



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109

How does this disagreement relate to the contrast drawn earliebetween lsquostructurersquo and lsquocompositionrsquo approaches Adopting a tripartimodel does not in itsel mean that the theory is based on lsquocompositiothe parts could be seen as subordinate elements o an inclusive structuand the structure could be seen as conceptually or ontologically prior the parts In Galenrsquos case different aspects o his thought indicate differapproaches and this divergence can be linked with various internal tesions which scholars have recently identi ed in his thinking on embodi psychology Broadly speaking these tensions derive rom the attem

( undamental to Galenrsquos project in PHP ) o combining the uni ed brain-centred model based on medical anatomy with the three-part psycho physiological model derived rom Plato

Jaap Mans eld or instance underlines the difficulty in reconcilinGalenic thought the idea o the brain as the source o motivation aaction (exercised through the central nervous system) with the view thall three parts unction as sources o internal agency

Because there are no motor nerves issuing rom either the heart (the seat o anaccording to Galen) or the liver (the seat o desire according to Galen) the two norational parts are in act precluded rom moving any muscle it is reason andson alone [situated in the brain] which makes the muscles move by means o connecting nerves53

eun ieleman also comments that Galenrsquos ailure in PHP 1-6 lsquoto accountor the anatomical and physiological basis or the necessary interac

between the three parts seems to subvert his whole enterprisersquo54 R JHankinson while affirming in general the coherence o Galenrsquos pictualso stresses the problem (which Galen himsel acknowledges) that this no experimental evidence to support the claim that the liver acts assource o internal action He also highlights the tension between Galen presentation o all three parts including the liver as archai (starting- points or sources) and his emphasis on the role o (quasi-irrigation

53) Mans eld 1991 14154) ieleman 2003b 155 However ieleman also points (155-60) to evidence ro works later than PHP 1-6 that Galen attempted to modi y his picture to show how com

munication via the nerves might enable the emotions based in the heart and liver in uence the brain-based reason which is the sole initiator o action



110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

systems o circulation in the body55 Heinrich von Staden suggests thattwo aspects o Galenrsquos psychophysiology are on a lsquocollision coursersquo each other Tese are on the one hand the subdivision o unctions in psychic and physical ( ollowing earlier medical and Stoic thought) Galenrsquos attachment to the Platonic tripartite model in which all three parts serve as sources o psychic (not physical) agency which acc

or the ull range o psychophysical activity56 Although these scholarsare commenting on different eatures the cumulative impression is tension between the idea o a uni ed structure or system and the role

distinct quasi-independent parts which serve as origins o motivatior actionA striking implication o this tension is that Galen would have do

better ndash in his own terms ndash i he had combined the brain-centred modrevealed by his own anatomical experiments with the more uni ed pture o embodied psychology advocated by Stoicism His theory wohave bene ted i he had ormed a view o the role o the brain as more like the Stoic heart that is as the seat o reason emotion and desireconceived as unctions o a single directing organ and psychologagency57 Tis is a clear case o a missed opportunity a leap that was coceptually possible in terms o the thought-world o the period but wh was not attempted Why does Galen not even consider this possibilit which might have been prompted by the other points o connection wi

Stoicism discussed earlier Tese eatures taken together add up toshared naturalism that brings Galen closer to Stoicism in many respecthan to Platonism (at least in its more dualistic versions) Te adoption oStoic unitary psychology in conjunction with the brain-centred modemight have presented itsel to him as a logical extension o this shanaturalism However this is emphaticallynot how Galen responds andthis raises in an acute orm the question posed earlier why Galen does make more o the relationship with Stoicism than he does Although w

55) Hankinson 1991a 223-9 re erring esp to PHP 631-6 519-21K 6320-6525-7K56) H von Staden 2000 107-11 citation rom 10957) For a similar suggestion see ieleman 2002 269-70 ieleman points out that one

Galenrsquos experiments (showing a cow reacting in a panicky way deprived o its heartnot its brain) might have supported this conclusion



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111

can identi y speci c reasons why Galen might not engage more clo with Stoic ideas I think we can also see the in uence o the larger contual contrast between lsquocompositionrsquo and lsquostructurersquo approaches

As suggested earlier one actor that might have deterred Galen radopting a Stoic-style unitary psychological model is his conviction ththe Stoics are pro oundly mistaken about the location o the ruling po the psyche Even so he could have corrected this error while still ading their unitary view But Galen might have been discouraged rodoing so by the way he interprets Stoic (or at least Chrysippean) theory58

In PHP 4-5 Galen presents himsel as responding to another crass errin Stoic psychology namely the recognition only o the rational partthe psyche and the denial o the existence o non-rational parts Gathinks that this makes Chrysippus incapable o explaining passionaemotions and the internal con icts these generate the existence o whiChrysippus himsel acknowledges Galen believes that passionate emtions and con icts can only be explained by ollowing Plato and seethese as the expression o distinct psychological parts which are also in pendent sources o motivation59 Here in my view Galen misses the key point in the Stoic theory Tis is their uni ed or holistic conception ohuman psychology according to which passions or instance constituan integrated psychophysical response combining what are in modeterms cognitive affective and physiological dimensions60 Galen consis-

tently treats Stoic claims about the uni ed character o (adult) psychlogical reactions as amounting to the view that they are wholly lsquorationin a Platonic sense that is unctions o an intellectual part o the psyc61 Tis reading o Stoic theory is admittedly a common one in ancient an

58) Galen draws a sharp and in uential distinction between Chrysippusrsquo psychologithinking and that o Posidonius which he presents as much closer to Plato However lsome other scholars I regard Galenrsquos distinction as over-stated and misleading see G2006 266-90 also ieleman 2003a 198-28759) See eg PHP 4416-37 385-90K 4712-44 420-426K or Galenrsquos reading o Plaaccount o psychic division in R 435-41 see PHP 571-82 480-501K and text to n 70below60) See urther Gill 2005 453-5 2006 247-9 also ieleman 2003a 114-22 and Pri2005 472-8161)

See eg Gal PHP 5245 48 51 (443-4K) C Antiochusrsquo critique o Stoic theory Cicerode Finibus 426-39 esp 26-8 35 (discussed in Gill 2006 168-70)



112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

modern thinking62 but it is also one that can be challenged UnderlyingGalenrsquos response to Stoic theory we can see the orce o competing ceptual patterns as regards parts and wholes Galen reads the Stoic theoin terms o an analysis that is not simply part-based but which also giexplanatory priority to psychic parts in so ar as they unction as in pendent and potentially con icting sources o motivation In this respeas in some other aspects o his psychophysiological thinking63 Galenadopts a lsquocompositionrsquo approach even though other sides o his thougexpress a lsquostructurersquo approach Put differently Galenrsquos ailure to recog

the ull orce o the Stoic holistic psychological theory re ects the peting pull o the lsquocompositionrsquo viewpointO course it is possible to see Galenrsquos response to Stoicism in

respect as a direct consequence o his adoption o the Platonic triparmodel and perhaps o a more general allegiance to Platonism64 But thisline o explanation is less clear-cut than it might seem and in Galeinterpretation o Plato too one can see the in uence o the same conctual pattern I have argued elsewhere that in Platorsquos account o the embied tripartite psyche in imaeus 69-72 and in a different way in thetripartite theory o the Republic we can see alongside the explicitly partbased theory indications o a more holistic structure-based pattern thinking I have also suggested ndash though this is more speculative ndash ththe more holistic aspects o Platonic thinking might have in uenced t

ormation o Stoic (speci cally Chrysippean) psychology65

Whether ornot one accepts these suggestions there are some rather clear signs thGalen in his reading o the Platonic theory accentuates the part-basdimensions For instance inimaeus 69-72 Plato presents the embodiedtripartite psyche as an integrated system in which internal communiction travels downwards rom the rational part in the brain to the heaand liver66 Galen in his comments on Platorsquos account accentuates th

62) See eg Antiochusrsquo critique o Stoic theory in Cicerode Finibus 426-39 esp 26-8 35(discussed in Gill 2006 168-70) among recent accounts o Chrysippean theory see Sorabji 2000 chs 2-363) See text to nn 53-6 above64) On this actor see text to nn 13-14 above65) Gill 2006 ch 5 see also Gill 1998 130-766)

Pl i 70a-b 71b-c see Gill 2006 301-4 (also 294-6) On the embodied tripartit psyche as a coherent structure see also Johansen 2004 ch 7



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113

relative independence o all three parts in part by importing phrasdrawn rom the Republic which are linked with the idea o internal strug-gle rather than cooperation and integration67 Also in drawing on the psychology o the Republic to criticise the Stoic uni ed model Galengives maximal prominence to Platorsquos arguments in Book 4 or the rolethe psychic parts as independent and potentially con icting sources motivation68 Tere is no equivalent emphasis on Platorsquos theme o psychiharmony (in 443c-444a or instance)69 although as we see shortly Galenmakes much use o the idea o psychic harmony or proportion ( summe-

tria) in his dispute with Chrysippus Tese eatures suggest that theaspects o Galenrsquos picture which accentuate the independence o the pchic parts (and are thus in tension with the idea o a coherent psych physiological structure) are not simply importations rom Plato70 RatherGalen interprets Platorsquos account in a way that stresses or enhances thdimension o the Republic and imaeus Here too then we can see theunderlying orce o the lsquocompositionrsquo approach to parts and wholes shing Galenrsquos thought ndash even though this only represents one side o Galeoverall pattern o thinking

Te contrast between Stoic and Galenic thinking in this respect comesout with special clarity in one section o Galenrsquos discussion o the Stheory o the passions in PHP 5 where the issue o the relationshipbetween parts and wholes is the explicit object o debate Te starting

point is the idea developed especially by Chrysippus that there is a clanalogy between physical and psychological sickness and health and ththerapy (521-34 432-40K) Galenrsquos complaint is that Chrysippus cannot give any real content to the notions o proportion and disproportio( summetria and asummetria) which are closely linked with those o

67) Gal PHP 6214 518K using phrases rom R 440c-d (lsquodog-likersquo) and 588c-589b(lsquomany-headed beastrsquo) which underline the idea o psychic con ict between quindependent parts Other phrases used in a similar way are lsquo ountain-head o blood tmoves violently through the limbsrsquo (i 70b1-2) and lsquoappetitive o ood and drinkrsquo( i 70d7) see eg PHP 68 40 49 69 74 (573 575 580 582K) See Gill 2006 296-868) PHP 571-82 480-501K discussing at length R 435e-441c the signi cance o Pla-torsquos argument or Galenrsquos theory is underlined in PHP 621-12 512-18K69) Tis passage is not listed in De Lacyrsquosindex locorum to PHP in 1978-84 vol 370)

Galen emphasises psychic con ict elsewhere in PHP eg in 331-22 302-8K Onthis emphasis in Galen see also Mans eld 1999 133-8



114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

health and sickness because he does not recognise parts o the psycheMore speci cally Chrysippus does not recognise partso the relevantkind that is independent sources o motivation which are capable o gerating internal con ict ( stasis) which or Galen is synonymous withlsquosicknessrsquo o the psyche (5235-8 441K) In Galenrsquos characterisatio psychic health we can see clear indications o a lsquocompositionrsquo approTe parts are given explanatory priority in that they are presented as lsquosim plest partsrsquo or lsquoelementsrsquo ( stoicheia) and in that psychic health (or disease)depends on establishing a relationship o proportion between these (ind

pendent and potentially con icting) parts71

Galen makes plain that Chrysippus also characterised psychic healand sickness in terms o proportion and disproportion o psychic paBut Galen denies that Chysippus gave a clear or credible account o tidea Indeed given the Stoic unitary conception o psychology (presenby Galen as narrowly intellectualist)72 it is not obvious precisely whatkind o lsquopartsrsquo are involved Galen cites this comment o Chrysippus

lsquoTey are parts (merecirc ) o the psyche through which its reason and the disposition oits reason are constituted ( sunestecircke) And a psyche is beauti ul or ugly by virtue oits governing part (hecircgemonikon morion) being in this or that state with respect to its proper divisions (oikeious merismous)rsquo73

Galen adds in clari cation ndash and criticism ndash o this account that Chryippus was orced to count the lsquoactivitiesrsquo (energeiai) o the psyche as itslsquopartsrsquo What set o ideas underlies this comment o Chrysippus and we discern in these ideas a contrasting holistic (or structure-based) an ysis o psychic health and sickness

ieleman suggests that the lsquopartsrsquo o psychic and o physical healthsickness are essentially the same in kind (namely the hot and cold w

and dry) and highlights evidence including the QAM passage discussedearlier which indicate that psychological disease was analysed by Stoic

71) See esp PHP 5238 444K lsquoFor when the three parts are in harmony with each otheand not in con ict at all they produce psychic harmony but when in disharmony ancon ict (they) produce diseasersquo trans De Lacy slightly modi ed72) PHP 5248 444K trans De Lacy lsquohe placed [psychic] health and disease bea

and ugliness in one part only the rationalrsquo73) PHP 5249 444K trans De Lacy slightly modi ed



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115

terms o imbalance and disorder in these elements74 I accept ully thatthis physical dimension is an integral part o the Stoic theory o the psions but I do not think these can be quite the kind o lsquopartsrsquo Chrysippintends here ndash at least not on their own75 Nor can they be the psychic

unctions ( or instance vocal and auditory) dismissed rom consideraby Galen as candidates or being lsquopartsrsquo o the relevant kind76 But whatare the parts that Chrysippus has in view Galen maintains that Chrysip pus is incapable o giving an answer to the question posed but Galown comments indicate a partial awareness o the answer that Chrysi

pus might give Among the suggestive points Galen highlights are theChrysippusrsquo description o reason as lsquoa collection o notions and conce(531-2 445K) the idea that passion consists in internal con ict betwee judgements (5410-14 456-8K) and also that disease o the psyche lsquo everishrsquo unstable state (5312-13 448K) Also suggestive are cer passages rom PlatorsquosSophist introduced by Galen though with the inten-tion o showing that Chrysippus is unable to answer the question poseTese Platonic passages stress the link between psychic disease and intenal con ict ( stasis) and between ignorance or error and disproportion77

What kind o Stoic ideas are indicated in these comments by Galand how ar do they explain Chrysippusrsquo conception o psychic sickas asummetria o psychic parts and thus provide an answer to the quetion posed by Galen (5248 444K) Galen in citing Chrysippusrsquo stat

ment on this quoted earlier remarks that the Stoic thinker treats the(rational) lsquoactivitiesrsquo (energeiai) o the psyche as its lsquopartsrsquo and this poinmay also be signi cant78 In essence I think that the lsquoproper divisionsrsquo

74) ieleman 2003a 148-57 re erring to QAM 4 Marquardt et al vol 2 455-461783-4K) on 149-50 see also 157-8 on PHP 3125 291K and 161-2 on Calcidin

imaeum 16575) ielemanrsquos comments on this point in 2003a 148-57 do not convey ully theconnec-tions between belie s and physical reactions in passionate states that are discussed be(or the act that the belie sdetermine the physical reactions) However theseare eatures o the Stoic theory that ieleman in general brings out well see eg 2102-22 170-9076) PHP 537 446K c LS 53G-H77) PHP 5324-30 c PlSph 227-878) Te contrast between acultypart (dunamismeros) and activity (energeia) is an

important one or Galen see eg PHP 637 521K and Nat Fac 12 Marquardt et al vol 3 10510-1061 10711-22 6-7 9-10K (re erences I owe to Hankinson 2006 242-3



116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

(oikeious merismous) o thehecircgemonikon in Chrysippusrsquo comment are thestandard components o rational (adult human) psychological activitTese are the rational impressions assent and the associated impulses bre erence to which Stoic theory explains the motivation to action in adhumans Tey are not o course lsquopartsrsquo in the Galenic sense (independesources o motivation) these lsquoactivitiesrsquo are causally interlocked with eother and cannot con ict in the Platonic-Galenic manner79 How thencan they give rise to thecontrasting states o proportion and dispropor-tion or health and sickness that Chrysippus explains in this way Ho

are these contrasting states explained by re erence to the way in whichgoverning part (hecircgemonikon morion) is lsquoin this or that state with respectto its proper divisions (oikeious merismous)rsquo (5249 444K)

In addressing this question it is use ul to bring out the senses in whthe Stoic theory is holistic or centred on structure (by contrast witGalenrsquos more composition-based approach) Tere are at least two rele vant and related senses One just noted is that speci c psychologiactivities such as in adult humans orming rational impressions or ging assent only make sense when considered as part o a connected sesystem o such activities An associated point is that both ideal and detive psychic states are viewed holistically A person is psychically weill well or badly proportioned as a whole in a way that involves an inter-connected set o (in modern terms) belie s and reasoning affec

responses and psychophysiological reactions In this respect Stoic theogives explanatory priority to thewhole state and sees the component part ( or instance orming this or that type o impression) as secondA salient Stoic term which expresses this ocus on structured whole sustecircma a term used in connection with their conception otechnecirc orknowledge (as a sustecircma o concepts or branches o knowledge) and othe (ideal) city and universe (as a sustecircma o rational beings)80 A second

79) See eg LS 33 I 53 Q-S 62 C see urther Brennan 2003 260-9 Price 20472-8180) SeeSVF 295-7 3112 LS 67 K Although sustecircma is not cited in PHP 5249 444K(text to n 73 above) the idea o a structured whole is strongly implied there Te phraology used lsquoparts o the psyche through which its reason and the disposition o its re

are constituted ( sunestecircke)rsquo also evokes another signi cant notion sustasis (lsquoconstitutionrsquo) which has strongly holistic implications Stoicism see Gill 2006 37-46



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117

sense in which the Stoic theory is structure-centred is this Te wise personrsquos state (o knowledge character virtue and so on) is taken as contuting the onlycomplete or ully whole or structured state all other humanstates are regarded as relatively incomplete or unstructured by compason with wisdom Hence summetria (or psychic health) is a property ina strong sense only o the wise Te condition o the non-wise by cotrast is one o relative con ict disorder and asummetria Tus while thestate o mind o the non-wise person is in one sense conceived as a w(as a causally interconnected set o psychological activities) judged by

standard o complete wholeness it lacks summetria81

In this respect theidea o wholeness has a strong normative role in Stoic thought thouone which also bears directly on the description and analysis o instance adult human psychological activities

How does this point help to explain the signi cance o the psych parts or divisions (merecircmerismoi)82 by re erence to which thehecircgemoni-kon is well or badly proportioned ( PHP 5239 444K) Tese parts are Isuggest aspects o the psychological activity o respectively the wisthe non-wise In the wise person these parts re ect or instance a co plete belie - (or knowledge-) structure which is internally consisteSimilarly the wise person possesses the virtues as an interlocked which in turn generate qualities o the whole personality characterisedlsquobeautyrsquo or lsquoharmonyrsquo83 Te occurrent psychological activities o the wise

person re ect this character In the non-wise person by contrast there ainconsistent and mutually jarring belie s such as those which generthe passions Te passions thus generated constitute disturbed affectiveand psychophysiological occurrent experiences Also the longer-terstates o the non-wise though quasi-dispositional are inherently unstaand lsquo uctuatingrsquo or lsquo everishrsquo84 Chrysippus is thus ully entitled to talk

81) See urther re s in nn 83-4 below82) I think these two terms are used simply as synonyms here also Chrysippusrsquo phrahecircgemonikon meros (c PHP 3110-15 288K) does not signi y a quasi-independentlsquopartrsquo in the Platonic-Galenic sense83) On the wise personrsquos consistency and harmony see eg LS 31 B 61 A F-G 63 F LStob 26218-24 631-5 (5b3-4) on the wise person as a norm or everyone see LS61 G I(1) See urther Gill 2006 150-684)

In passions the basic con ict is between the belie that only virtue is good (a b which all humans are constitutively capable o orming and making central to their li



118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

about lsquopartsrsquo o the overall nexus o psychological states or activities wise or non-wise person But these lsquopartsrsquo can only be characterised prerly when viewed rst as aspects o an interconnected set o psychocal processes and second in the context o the overall state o some who possesses or who lacks psychic summetria and health In this patterno thinking the whole is primary in conception and explanation and t parts are secondary By contrast in the Galenic picture the whole psycstate depends on the equilibrium established between lsquopartsrsquo which aseen as independent sources o motivation and as natural basic un

within the personalityHence although in some other respects outlined earlier Galen shar with the Stoics a broadly holistic (as well as broadly naturalistic) approain this area at least his thinking displays a strongly contrasting (lsquocompotionrsquo) conception o the part-whole relationship Tis difference I suggeunderlies the other grounds o dispute regarding psychology between Gaand the Stoics It thus helps to explain why Galen responds so negativelya theory with which he has in other respects a good deal in common85

References

Editions ranslations o Galen Works Cited

Brock A J trans 1916Galen on the Natural Faculties Cambridge MassDe Lacy P ed and trans 1978-1984Galen On the Doctrines o Hippocrates and Plat3 vols Berlin

mdashmdash 1992de Semine BerlinHankinson R J 1991bGalen on the Terapeutic Method Books I and II trans with

introduction and commentary Ox ord

and the belie that other things (eg health or wealth) are good See urther on occur passions quasi-dispositional passionate states and the underlying belie s includcon icting belie s LS 65 A-J R- also Brennan 1998 22-44 2003 269-74 Gill 11998 115-23 2006 249-6085) Tis revised version o the paper given at the 2005 Meeting o the Southern Assoction or Ancient Philosophy owes much to comments made at the time or subsequentParticular thanks are due to the editors o this Special Issue Verity Harte and MalcoScho eld and to David Charles Jim Hankinson and eun ieleman Tanks are due alsto the Leverhulme rust or a Major Research Fellowship which enabled the research which this article is based



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119

Marquardt I Muumlller I and Helmreich G eds 1884Claudii Galeni PergameniScripta Minora 3 vols Leipzig (reprint Amsterdam 1967)

Nickel D ed and trans 2001Galen de Foetuum Formatione Berlin

Nutton V ed and trans 1999Galen de Propriis Placitis BerlinSinger P N trans 1997Galen Selected Works Ox ord

Secondary Works CitedBarnes J and Jouanna J eds 2002Galien et la philosophie Fondation Hardt Entretiens

vol 49 Vanoeuvres-GenegraveveBrennan 1998 lsquoTe Old Stoic Teory o Emotionsrsquo in Sihvola and Engberg-Pedersen

21-70mdashmdash 2003 lsquoStoic Moral Psychologyrsquo in B Inwood (ed)Te Cambridge Companion tothe Stoics Cambridge 257-294

Chiaradonna R lsquoGalen and Middle Platonismrsquo in C Gill Whitmarsh and J Wikins (eds)Galen and the World o Knowledge ( orthcoming)

De Lacy P ed and trans 1972 lsquoGalenrsquos Platonismrsquo American Journal o Philology 93 27-39

Dillon J 1977Te Middle Platonists LondonDonini P lsquoPsychologyrsquo in R J Hankinson (ed)Te Cambridge Companion to Galen

(Cambridge orthcoming)Gill C 1983 lsquoDid Chrysippus Understand Medearsquo Phronesis 28 136-149mdashmdash 1998 lsquoDid Galen Understand Platonic and Stoic Tinking on Emotionsrsquo in

Sihvola and Engberg-Pedersen 113-148mdashmdash 2005 lsquoCompeting Readings o Stoic Emotionsrsquo in Salles 445-470mdashmdash 2006Te Structured Sel in Hellenistic and Roman Tought Ox ord

Hankinson R J 1989 lsquoGalen and the Best o All Possible WorldsrsquoClassical Quarterly 39 206-227 mdashmdash 1991a lsquoGalenrsquos Anatomy o the Soulrsquo Phronesis 36 197-233mdashmdash 1992 lsquoGalenrsquos Philosophical Eclectismrsquo in W Haase (ed) Au stieg und Niedergang

der roumlmischen Welt II365 Berlin 3505-3522mdashmdash 2002 lsquoCausation in Galenrsquo in Barnes and Jouanna 31-66mdashmdash 2006 lsquoBody and Soul in Galenrsquo in R King (ed)Common to Body and Soul Berlin

232-258

Harte V 2002 Plato on Parts and Wholes Te Metaphysics o Structure Ox ordInwood B 1984 lsquoHierocles Teory and Argument in the Second Century ADrsquoOx ord

Studies in Ancient Philosophy 2 151-183 Johansen K 2004 Platorsquos Natural Philosophy A Study o the imaeus-Critias CambridgeKollesch J and Nickel D eds 1993Galen und das hellenistische Erbe StuttgartKupreeva I 2004 lsquoAristotelian Dynamics in the 2nd Century School Debates Gale

and Alexander o Aphrodisias on Organic Powers and Movementsrsquo Bulletin o the Institute o Classical Studies Supplement 83 vol 1 71-92

Lloyd G E R 1988 lsquoScholarship Authority and Argument in Galenrsquos Quod Animi Moresrsquoin P Manuli and M Vegetti (eds) Le opere psichologiche di Galeno Naples 11-42



120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

mdashmdash 1993 lsquoGalen on Hellenistics and Hippocrateans Contemporary Battles and PaAuthoritiesrsquo in Kollesch and Nickel 125-143

Long A A 1996Stoic Studies Cambridge

Long A A and Sedley D N 1987Te Hellenistic Philosophers Cambridge 2 vols(=LS)Mans eld J 1991 lsquoTe Idea o the Will in Chrysippus Posidonius and Galenrsquo Boston

Area Colloquium in Ancient Philosophy 7 107-45Moraux P 1984 Der Aristotelismos bei den Griechen vol 2 Der Aristotelismos im I und

II Jh n Chr BerlinNickel D 1989Untersuchungen zur Embryologie Galens Berlinmdashmdash 1993 lsquoStoa und Stoiker in Galens Schrif De oetuum ormationersquo in Kollesch

and Nickel 79-86Price A W 2005 lsquoWere Zeno and Chrysippus at Odds in Analyzing Emotionrsquo

Salles 471-488Salles R ed 2005 Metaphysics Soul and Ethics in Ancient Tought Temes fom th

Work o Richard Sorabji Ox ordSedley D N 1989 lsquoPhilosophical Allegiance in the Greco-Roman Worldrsquo in M

Griffin and J Barnes (eds) Philosophia ogata Essays on Philosophy and Roman Soety Ox ord 97-119

Sihvola J and Engberg-Pedersen eds 1998Te Emotions in Hellenistic PhilosophyDordrecht

Sorabji R 2000 Emotion and Peace o Mind From Stoic Agitation to Christian emtion Ox ord

von Staden H 2000 lsquoBody Soul and Nerves Epicurus Herophilus Erasistratus Stoics and Galenrsquo in Wright and Potter 79-116

mdashmdash 1997 lsquo eleology and Mechanism Aristotelian Biology and Early Hellenistic M

icinersquo in S Foumlllinger (ed) Aristotelische Biologie Intentionen Methoden ErgebnisStuttgart 183-208ieleman 1991 lsquoDiogenes o Babylon and Stoic Embryology Ps Plutarch Plac V 154Reconsideredrsquo Mnemosyne 44 106-125

mdashmdash 1996Galen and Chrysippus on the Soul Argument and Re utation in the De Pla IIndashIII Leiden

mdashmdash 2002 lsquoGalen on the Seat o the Intellect Anatomical Experiment and Philosopcal raditionrsquo in Rihll and C uplin (eds)Science and Mathematics in AncientGreek Culture Ox ord 265-273

mdashmdash 2003aChrysippusrsquo On Affections Reconstruction and Interpretation Leidenmdashmdash 2003b lsquoGalenrsquos Psychologyrsquo in Barnes and Jouanna 131-161 van der Eijk P 2000 lsquoAristotlersquos Psycho-physiological Account o the Soul-Body

tionshiprsquo in Wright and Potter 57-77 Vegetti M 1999 lsquoHistoriographical Strategies in Galenrsquos Physiologyrsquo in P van der

( d )A i t Hi t i M di iL id 383 395



C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 89

Introduction

Te aim o this discussion is to explore key eatures o the concept

relationship between Galen and Stoicism starting rom Galenrsquos explicomments on Stoic ideas In particular I want to place Galenrsquos moextended and negative critique o Stoic thought (inde Placitis Hippocratiset Platonis PHP Books 2-5) within a larger outline o the relationship between the two systems o thought Te ocus o this discussiis on (embodied) psychology but this is considered in conjunction witrelated aspects o the two theories Te ocus here is on leading conceor ideas rather than methodology o enquiry in so ar so the two canseparated1

I want especially to bring out certain intriguing even tantalising tures o the relationship In spite o Galenrsquos hostile treatment o S psychology in PHP the theories share a broadly naturalistic approach with several common eatures Both theories combine a (largely) ph

calist approach to psychology with a conception o animals includihumans as teleologically shaped biological entities Teir shared approaccan be contrasted or instance with the non-naturalistic mind-boddualism prevalent in Middle Platonism o the rst and second centuriAD Galen sometimes explicitly recognises this resemblance whichalso implied even in some o his more critical responses to Stoic idHowever this prompts the question why Galen does not acknowledgthis affinity more ully and why he does not build on it intellectuallyhe does with some other earlier theories Tere are various possible wayo explaining Galenrsquos relatively cool response to Stoicism Te main expnation considered here centres on the contrast between the systematicaluni ed or holistic approach o Stoicism and Galenrsquos (relatively) m part-based approach a contrast which bears both on their respective co

ceptions o psychology and their larger world-views Tis contrast emergmost clearly in PHP 5 and in a more quali ed orm in comments onStoicism in other Galenic works

1)

In a book in progress I explore both aspects o this question (ideas and methodoloo enquiry)



90 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

Overview











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 91





4)




92 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 93










94 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 95











96 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











98 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 99











100 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 101













102 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120













C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103










104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















90 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120

Overview











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 91





4)




92 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 93










94 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 95











96 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











98 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 99











100 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 101













102 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120













C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103










104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 91





4)




92 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 93










94 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 95











96 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











98 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 99











100 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 101













102 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120













C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103










104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















92 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 93










94 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 95











96 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











98 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 99











100 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 101













102 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120













C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103










104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 93










94 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 95











96 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











98 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 99











100 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 101













102 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120













C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103










104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















94 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 95











96 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











98 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 99











100 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 101













102 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120













C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103










104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 95











96 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











98 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 99











100 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 101













102 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120













C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103










104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















96 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











98 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 99











100 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 101













102 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120













C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103










104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120
























98 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120











C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 99











100 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 101













102 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120













C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103










104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 99











100 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 101













102 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120













C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103










104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















100 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 101













102 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120













C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103










104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 101













102 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120













C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103










104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















102 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120













C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103










104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 103










104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















104 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 105










106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















106 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 107












108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















108 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









52)




C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 109











110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















110 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 111









112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















112 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120










C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 113









114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















114 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120












C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 115











116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















116 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120









C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 117










118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















118 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120



References








C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120 119














232-258







120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120






















120 C Gill Phronesis 52 (2007) 88-120




















marcelo boeri - alejandro de afrodisias como lector de aristóteles

Documents