Theological and Epistemological Principles of Ancient Natural Science

But then, disaffirming this method of “proof”, Galen constructs his own reasoning and at the same time reveals to us the framework of his scientific thinking. Galen assumes that in order to explore the essence, one must look at how this research was conducted by the “ancient” authors. The essence is not somewhere, but in what is the direct object of research:

“The controlling part of the soul, with which many can agree, is a source of feelings and ability to volitional actions. Therefore, the proof that the heart possesses the controlling part of the soul should not proceed from any other premise than the fact that any conscious (volitional) movement of any part of the body starts in it, and all the feelings return to it” (Galen,2005: 3, 4-5).

Next Galen goes straight on to the proof that he considers indisputable: anatomical incision exposes the heart and makes it possible to see (if there is one) a certain vessel that connects the heart to those organs that are in motion:

“...the method of scientific evidence has made clear that it would be more useful to cut through the animal's flesh and directly observe which and how many varieties of structures originate in the heart and spread to all other parts of the animal; and to observe these very structures, of which there are so many in number and varieties; this one, for example, is responsible for a feeling or movement, or both at once, that is in charge of something else, and thus we can reach an understanding of what forces in the body have their source in the heart” (Galen, 2005: 3, 7).

Galen points out that the base of his scientific method is Aristotle's “Posterior Analytics”, which states that knowledge of new should be based on knowledge obtained earlier. Both the previous knowledge and the new knowledge must be directly related to the subject itself, with its internal properties.

Galen begins his research on whether the heart is the source of the physiology of higher nervous activity with a brief theoretical discussion about which arguments are scientific and which are unscientific in their nature. He attributes to unscientific arguments such varieties as “rhetorical” and “sophistic”. Moreover, Galen supposes that “scientific” arguments, which are based on knowledge about the heart, should be analyzed in a special way.

Among other things, there is an argument that the heart is anatomically in the middle of the human body. On this Galen opines that neither the fact that heart is in the exact middle of the human body nor the fact that the brain occupies the highest position in the human body are arguments to choose the heart or brain as the sources of sensation and motor activity of a living being.

Further, Galen explores the tenet that the heart and lungs situated near the heart give rise to human speech. Galen's arguments are purely experimental in nature. He tells about an experiment with a severed trachea in an animal and a wounded person. If the trachea is cut, says Galen, and the heart and lungs are left untouched, the animal and the man will stop making sounds. The source of sounds is the larynx. And although air is involved in the production of the voice, Galen concludes, it is inside the larynx where air makes the sounds. Without the larynx, air movement is involved only in breathing, not in sounds and speech.

Galen's next argument is also an experimental and empirical one. He sees it as an undeniable fact that certain muscles are involved in the production of sounds and speech, and it is their tension which sends air into the trachea. But even earlier, the tension of these muscles creates a nerve that is everywhere, in every muscle. If you cut this nerve, the muscles will never strain and will never create the possibility of movement for the air flow.

Finally, the third experimental and empirical argument is conditioned by the fact that pushing air into the larynx may involve different sets of muscles, depending on the mental state of the person. If a person is calm, then the speech production is connected with the activity of one “set” of muscles, if a person is anxious, the air is pushed into the larynx by other muscles. Galen goes on to say that at the same time this process can be shown by means of anatomy: if you cut certain nerves, then neither muscle will move, although the heart, lungs, trachea, and the other organs will be in full order. Additionally, Galen is very precise in specifying which nerves can be cut at the neck or head, or while pressing the brain or the left ventricle of the heart, so that the corresponding muscles will lose their ability to move.

Galen exemplifies it by describing the behaviour of animals being sacrificed. When their hearts are removed, they are still able to make sounds, scream, and move, although they will die of blood loss very quickly. Conversely, if you cut the bull's spinal cord where it connects to the brain, even though the animal's heart is perfectly fine, it loses the ability to move, breathe and pronounce any sounds.

Then Galen advances many other arguments and dissents with a number of scientists who argue that it is not the brain that is the source of sensations, and that since the heart is the source of meaningful speech, it is the heart that generates thinking. The thing which is noteworthy here is confidence of both Galen and those with whom he argues that intelligent thinking is a form of meaningful and structured speech.

Galen takes a very detailed look at the “sophistic” argument of Zenon, the founder of Stoicism, who insists that if a voice arises when the air flow passes through the respiratory throat, it is not the brain that sends it there and, therefore, it is not the brain that is involved in the production of meaningful speech, eventually, it is not the brain that is the human mind organ. As opposed to Zenon's sophism Galen formulates his own medical sophism: “If urine was sent by the heart, it would not be pushed through the genitals”. He invites his opponents to consider this thesis as applied to their own claims about the brain and larynx.

What draws attention is the way Galen combines logical reasoning and experiential and empirical data. For example, he decomposes the argument that it is the heart which controls our senses, because the senses are very close to the heart. And Galen demolishes similar arguments about the brain - like that the brain is the source of visual and auditory sensations, because the eyes and ears are close to the brain. For Galen, the means of proof are no less important than the conclusions drawn from this evidence. The proximity of different organs cannot indicate that some neighbouring organs are a source of sensations that occur in other organs close to the former. Galen asserts that the “close proximity” argument violates the universal law of logic:

“The proximity of location, misleading both sides, accredits the preconditions with the facade of science and evidence; but this is not the truth. Take a man who believes that the heart is the source of all things, the remoteness of his eyes from heart will not prevent him from having faith in that they too receive the sensation and movement from the heart being the source of any sensation and movement; and a man who claims that the source is the brain insists that no one of the other organs is the source of movement in the respiratory and speech organs, and so it is the brain that begets a volitional movement in them as in everything else.

It turns out that the universal statements we have been taught as regards the methods of evidence are true only in particular cases and this is true for every subject of study. Prerequisites shall incorporate only the properties relevant to the problem instead of the truthful data on all the properties of the object” (Galen, 2005: 5, 44-47).

Teaching and practice, Galen says, are the main sources of truth. Using logical reasoning, he spent a lot of time and wrote a lot of pages on debunking the arguments of Zenon, Diogenes and Chrysippus, representatives of Stoic psychology. Galen reprehends not doctors who have anatomical and treatment practices, but philosophers who do not rely on medical facts in their thinking. He fights them with their own weapons, revealing the logical inconsistency, sophistry of their pseudo-reasoning; primarily he draws the arguments of medical practice and the logicality of adducing proofs.

Galen was very critical about Chrysippus's claim that the heart could transmit impulses to the brain so that the brain, which controls all the nerves, could cause this or that sensation. Previously, Galen had referred to his previous writings and arguments set forth in other treatises. In this treatise, we can trace the course of his research and methods directly, as Galen reproduces the course of this research in fine detail.

1^st step. The experimental stage with designing the experience

“The number and nature of the structures that connect the heart to the brain must be determined when cutting the animal; then each of these structures in the neck region shall be cut or flattened or bandaged with the ligature to observe the effect this action will have on the animal” (Galen, 2005: 6,3-4).

2^nd step. Using previously obtained reliable knowledge about the subject of the study “The heart is connected to the brain by three types of vessels that are common to the whole body: veins, arteries and nerves; the veins are the so-called jugular veins, arteries, carotid artery, and the nerves that are located outside these arteries” (Galen,2005: 6, 4-5).

3^rd step. Validation of basic knowledge in practice (anatomical)

“You cannot just cut the jugular vein or carotid artery as we do with nerves, because the animal will quickly die of heavy bleeding; it is better to start by bandaging them with good ligatures in the upper and lower parts of the neck, and then make cuts between ligatures, thus avoiding bleeding. As for the nerves, whether you wish to flatten them or bandage with ligatures, or clamp them with your fingers, all these operations will have the same effect on the animal: it will immediately lose its voice, but no other activity will be disturbed; neither immediately nor later. Having experienced bandaging with the ligature or cutting of the arteries in the described way, the animal will lo se neither voice nor sensitivity, as most of the proponents of Hippocrates wrote, because of their wrong cuts, but all the arteries over the wound will lose heartbeat. Again, even if you clamp the veins with ligatures or if you cut them in the way described above, you will not see that any activity (function) is hurt” (Galen, 2005: 6, 5-8).

4^th step. Reasoning built on logical laws, based on different preconditions and on that a certain assumption may lead to

“that the heart does not have a leading source of its strength in the brain, you would learn from the fact that when all the above mentioned nerves are either cut or tied by ligatures, the animal only loses its voice; this animal inhales and exhales without any trouble concerning both inhalation and exhalation, which were mentioned earlier, and even now keeps moving all its four limbs, as well it hears, sees, and feels as before. It happens, as we said, when the nerves along the arteries are cut and only the animal's voice is hurt” (Galen, 2005: 6, 10-12).

5^th step. Discussion, rebuttal or confirmation of the opinions of scientists and philosophers who expressed certain views on the subject “All those doctors and philosophers who believed that by cutting or clamping the mentioned arteries in the described way, the animal loses its sensitivity, and who further concluded that the heart excites the sensitivity and movement to the brain, should be seen as having made a mistake in their study of the phenomenon, though they had made an accurate conclusion based on their assumption” (Galen, 2005: 6, 13-14).

6^th step. In the course of the discussion, Galen singles out in the opinion of opponents both a rational grain and a delusion, then he approaches the evaluation of opposite opinions in a constructive way, chooses in them what can be used to confirm his own position.

“The truth is that we cannot perceive sensually that the controlling part of the soul is enclosed either in the chest or in the heart, and therefore I praise the original statement of Chrysippus, in which he acknowledges the truth, but I do not welcome his statement in which he gives a false description of the sensual perception” (Galen, 2005: 6, 15-16).

7^th step. Concrete scientific knowledge is transformed into philosophical one, because in the course of the research it has demonstrated its limitations and stochastic approximation; to transform concrete scientific knowledge into philosophical one Galen refers to the universal concept of Plato's soul found in the dialogues “State” and “Timaeus”

“I am going to prove that the rational (endowed with mind) part of the soul, which Chryssipus himself calls the “controlling part”, the “mind” and the “supreme controlling part of the soul” are in the brain.

Once this has been proven, if we see that there is another power in the heart that does not come from any other source, we will get a clear idea of the first (main) two principles and then, as a consequence, we will discov-

er the third in the same way” (Galen, 2005:

6, 20-21).

Thus, the medical and anatomical part of Galen's research passes through to the philosophical part, where he makes his own comments on Plato's dialogues “State” and “Timaeus”. Previously, there was made an assumption that these Plato's dialogues were the main methodological-philosophical basis for Galen and maybe other researchers who have got ahead in the ancient natural science. It is possible to hypothesise that the real ancestor of modern natural science is more Plato than Aristotle, as it is commonly believed in modern science tradition. Galen's comments on Plato's “Timae- us” and “State” dialogues are not included in Book 2 of the Treatise being analysed now and should be the subject of further research.

From the beginning to the end the whole Book 2 is devoted to the logically constructed arguments of Galen, who has set himself the goal to prove the following thesis:

“The rational (endowed with the mind) part of the soul, which Chrysippus himself calls the `controlling part', the mind and the supreme controlling part of the soul are in the brain” (Galen, 2005: 7, 20).

Galen's reflection over his evidence (as well as his opponents' consideration on the matter) is of great interest. He distinguishes 4 types of evidence:

“The first type I called scientific and demonstrative, the second - useful for training and, as Aristotle would say, dialectical, third - persuasive (motivating, stimulating) and rhetorical, and the fourth - sophistical; and I have shown that the prerequisites, which are based on the qualities and characteristics of the heart, which are directly related to the very essence of the problem under study, belong to the class of scientific prerequisites, and all the others are dialectical; those prerequisites which are taken from external evidence are rhetorical, and those that deceptively exploit homonyms or forms of expression are sophistical” (Galen, 2005: 8, 2).

Galen sees as scientific evidence those that are based on a direct study of the object, which are related to the clarification of its internal, inherent properties:

“As for the scientific prerequisites relevant to any issue, they are very few and easy to count, but those that are useful for training, are numerous, they are formulated based on any quality and properties of the thing” (Galen, 2005: 8, 3-4).

Book 2 ends with another rede by Galen, where he scrutinizes the argument of his rivals in a discussion about whether the “controlling soul” is in the heart or the brain. Galen formulates the argument of his opponents in the following way:

“The organ from which the animals' originating source comes also contains a reasonable part of the soul; the animals' originating source is in the heart; hence the part of the soul which reasons and thinks is also in it” (Galen, 2005: 8, 33-34).

Galen refutes this argument with the following premises:

1) he points out that the thesis about the heart as an originating source (of power) has not yet been proved by anyone and that the previously unproven thesis should not be used as an argument; Galen reports that the corroboration about the source of power will be made in the next books of this Treatise;

2) he constates that there is no direct connection between the originating source and the part controlling the will;

3) then he examines probable quality of this connection, e.g., the argument that it is the heart that is the first to consume the power; this is a false argument, which Galen proves with numerous examples; the mouth, oesophagus, stomach, are the first to be fed / to get the power, besides, air flow comes first not to the heart but to the mouth, throat and lungs;

4) and finally, in the arguments of his opponents Galen chooses what is able to prove his own position; indeed, what is important is not the food itself, but the controlling centre, which will lead to our willingness or unwillingness to eat.

5) Book 2 of the treatise concludes with a clear indication by Galen that it is not speculation that should be taken into account, but “anatomical observations”.

Ultimately, Galen's Treatise “nept xrov InnoKpaxoy^ Kai niaxrovo^ Soyqaxrov” is not first and foremost a philosophical work; Galen clearly distinguishes between “dialectical” and “scientific” prerequisites. And he formulates his task in a very accurate way: to conduct purely scientific research based on a specific scientific (in this very case - anatomical) methodology. One can see that the entire second book of this Treatise is devoted to the anatomical experience and even experiment. In the part where Galen makes assumptions about which organs are actually connected with the movement and will of a living being, he proposes to perform various medical operations with the organs of the animal and monitor what this or that anatomical doctor's action will lead to.

Galen's philosophical arguments in this Treatise are “diffused” among his inferences. They predetermine a clear logical order of his reasoning. He himself is attracted to the “ancient” authors (which for him are Hippocrates, Plato and Aristotle) with their clarity and logic of their philosophical constructions and conclusions. The second book fortifies that Galen conducted sufficiently developed medical experiments related to cranial trepanation, spine transection, he knew which parts of the brain are responsible for the movements of living beings.

In Galen's works, ancient natural science has reached its peak of development. The combination of philosophical method of reasoning, reliance on experience and experiment, the ability to organise a rational discussion with opponents, including singling out of arguments to defend his position from the opponents' claims, a fastiduous analysis of scientific methodology and reliance on the perfect logic of great thinkers, all these qualities put Galen above all other thinkers in the discussed space of ancient natural science.

Further research of the Treatise “nepi xrov InnoKpaxoy^ Kai niaxrovo^ Soyqaxrov” will help to clarify Galen's methodology on the solution of other scientific problems, as well as to reveal his role as a philosopher with thorough consideration of his particular comments on the Plato's dialogues “Timaeus” and “State”.

Summing it up, though it is a well-known fact that Galen's ideas influenced the development of medicine, and this influence had been felt for at least for about one and a half thousand years, the works of this late antique author are also important for the formation of science as a whole. Galen's Treatise under study is a model of natural application of scientific method, based on empirical data and philosophical methodology. Practically, Galen's Treatise is nothing but the standard of scientific cogni-

References tion embodied in the text, syncretism of purely practical component and philosophical, moral principle. Here scientific cognition is no longer a plausible myth, but, relying on the logic of philosophy and setting its goal the good for a human being, it is transformed into other knowledge, which helps making a concrete step towards 0eraot^.

Referral to ancient thinkers is as natural for Galen as his incessant references to the results of anatomical studies. The Aesculapian in Galen's perception is certainly a philosopher; representatives of any other scientific spheres as well must have shared the idea of this inseparable unity of universal worldview goal setting and empirical foundation.

Reference

1. Aquinas, Th. Kommentarii k “Nikomakhovoi etike” Aristotelia [Comments on the “Nicomachean Ethics” by Aristotle]. Available at: http://dhspriory.org/thomas/Ethics1.htm#20

2. Arikha, N. (2008). “Just Life in a Nutshell”: Humours as Common Sense. In The Philosophical Forum Inc.: 303-314.

3. Aristotle. Nikomakhova etika [Nicomachean Ethics].

4. Balalykin, D.A., Shcheglov, A.P., Shok, N.P. (2013). Naturfilosofskaia traditsiia antichnogo estestvoznaniya i aleksandriiskaia shkola v III veke. Chast' I. [The natural philosophy tradition of ancient natural science and the Alexandrian school in the 3^rd century. Part I]. In Filosofiianauki [Philosophy of Science], 2 (57), 157-175.

5. Balalykin, D.A., Shok, N.P., Shcheglov, A.P. (2013). Sootnoshenie dukhovnogo i fizicheskogo v poni- manii Galenom zdorov'ia i bolezni. Chast' I (na primere raboty “Sposob raspoznavaniia i lecheniia strastei liuboi, v tom chisle i svoei sobstvennoi dushi”) [The ratio of the spiritual and the physical in Galen's understanding of health and illness. Part I (on the example of the work “A way of recognizing and treating any passion, including of one's own soul”)]. In Istoricheskie nauki [Historical Sciences], 7. Available at: http:// www.online-science.ru/rn/products/istori_sciense/gid888/pg3/

6. Braginskoi, N. (1997). Filosofy Gretsii [Philosophers of Greece]. Moscow: Publishing house EKS- MO-Press.

7. Chrysostom, J. (1895, 1906). Tvorenia sv. ottsa nashego Ioanna Zlatousta, arkhiepiskopa Konstanti- nopol'skogo, v russkom perevode [The creations of St., Our Father John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, in Russian translation], 1-12. St. Petersburg.

8. Cicero Marcus Tullius (1994). Dialogi “O gosudarstve”, “O zakonakh” [Dialogues “On the State”, “On the Laws”]. Moscow, “Nauka”.

9. Commentary on the Nicomachean Ethics by Thomas Aquinas, translated by C.I. Litzinger, O.P Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1964, 2 volumes, Book 1, Lecture 20. Available at: http://dhspriory.org/ thomas/Ethics1.htm#20

10. Eastwood, B.S. Galen on the Elements of Olfactory Sensation, 268-290. Available at: http://www.rhm. uni-koeln.de/124/Eastwood.pdf

11. Edelstein, L. (1967). Ancient Medicine. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

12. Elliot, K.J. (2005). Galen, Rome and the Second Sophistic. Thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

13. Gaidenko, P.P. “History of Greek Philosophy in its connection with Science”. Chapter 5.17. In Kos- mologiia i fizika Platona. Poniatie materii [Cosmology and Physics of Plato. The Concept of Matter]. Kos- mologiia i fizika v dialoge Platona “Timey” [Cosmology and physics in Plato's “Timaeus” dialogue]. Available at: http://philosophy.ru/library/gaid/62.html

14. Galen (1978-1984, 2005). Deplacitis Hippocratis et Platonis, edidit, in linguam Anglicam vertit, com- mentatus est Ph. De Lacy, CMG 4,1,2,3 vol., Berlin 1978-1984; vol. I: edition tertia lucis ope expressa, vol. II: edition altera Lucis ope expressa, vol. III: edition altera lucis ope expressa addendis corrigendis aucta, Berlin.

15. Green, Ch.D. (2003). Where did the Ventricular Localization of Mental Faculties Come from? In Journal of History of the Behavioral Sciences, 39 (2), 131-142

16. Heidegger, M. (1993). Evropeiskii nigilizm [European nihilism]. In Martin Khaidegger, Vremia i bytie (seriia “Mysliteli XX veka”) [Martin Heidegger, Time and Being (series “Thinkers of the 20^th century”)]. Moscow, Publishing House “Respublika”.

17. Heisenberg, W. (1987). Shagi za gorizont [Steps beyond the horizon]. Moscow, Publishing House “Progress”.

18. Helmig, Ch. and Steel, C. (2012). Proclus. In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2012/entries/proclus/

19. Hesiod. (2019). Works and Days. Translated by Gregory Nagy. Center for Hellenic Studies. Harvard University. Available at: https://chs.harvard.edu/CHS/article/display/5290

20. Hippocrates (1936). Izbrannyye knigi [Selected books]. Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo biologicheskoi i meditsinskoi literatury [State publishing house of biological and medical literature].

21. Homer (1903). Iliad. Book 11. Transl. by Alexander Pope. In Complete Poetic works. Available at: https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/iliad/full-text/book-xi/

22. Juvenal (2007). Satire 10. Translated by L. Ewans (1889). Formatted and with notes by C. Chinn (2007). Available at: http://pages.pomona.edu/~cmc24747/sources/juvenal/juv_10.htm Lacy, P. de (1972). Galen's Platonism. In AJP, 93, 27-39.

23. Lernould, A. (2001). Physique et theologie. Lecture du Timee de Platon par Proclus. Villeneuve d'As- cq, Presses Universitaires du Septentrion.

24. Liubishchev A. (2000). Linii Demokrita i Platona v istorii kul 'tury [The traces of Democritus and Plato in the history of culture]. St. Petersburg, Publishing House “Aletheia”.

25. Lloyd, G.E.R. (1979). Magic, Reason and Experience. Studies in the Origin and Development of Greek Science. Cambridge University Press.

26. Losev, A.F. (1988). Istoriia antichnoi estetiki. Poslednie veka (VIII-VI veka) [History of ancient aesthetics. Recent centuries (8-6^th centuries)]. Moscow, Publishing House “Iskusstvo”, 447 p.

27. Losev, A.F. (1993). Antichnyi kosmos i sovremennaia nauka [Ancient Cosmos and Modern Science]. In Bytie. Imia. Kosmos [Being. Name. Cosmos], Moscow, “Mysl'”, Russian Open University.

28. Marinus of Samaris (1925). Prokl, ili O schast'e [Proclus or Concerning Happiness]. Translated by Kenneth S. Guthrie. Available at: http://www.plato.spbu.ru/TEXTS/diogenl/marin01.htm

29. Martijn, M. (2010). Proclus on nature (philosophy of nature and its methods in Proclus ' Commentary on Plato's Timaeus). Leiden; Boston, Brill.

30. McDonald, G.C. (2009). Concepts and Treatments of Phrenitis in Ancient Medicine. Thesis L9158. Newcastle University.

31. Mesiats, S.V. (2007). Sovremennaia nauka iplatonovskii mif [Modern science and the Platonic myth]. Available at: http://www.plato.spbu.ru/CONFERENCES/2002/10-2.htm

32. Mesiats, S.V. (2009). Nachala metafiziki Prokla [origins of Proclus' metaphysics]. In ARKHE. In Trudy kul'turologicheskogo seminara [ARCHE. Proceedings of a cultural seminar]. Vol. 5. Moscow, Russian State University for the Humanities, 203-235.

33. Mesiats, S.V. (2012). Proclus's Dyadochus. “Timaues” Commentary. Book 1. 17a-27b. Moscow, “GDK”, 385 p.

34. Orficheskaia tablichka [Orphic tablet]. Fragmenty sochinenii rannikh grecheskikh filosofov [Fragments of the writings of early Greek philosophers. Pp. 43-44. A 1 Zutz (1 B 18 DK = F 32c K.), Furia (Southern Italy), between 400 and 350 BC].

35. Pearcy, L.T. (1983). Galen and Stoic Rhetoric. In Greek, Roman and Byzantine Studies, 24, 259-272.

36. Phillips, J. (2007). Order from Disorder. Proclus Doctrine of Evil and its Roots in Ancient Platonism (Studies in Platonism, Neoplatonism, and the Platonic Tradition), Brill Academic Publishers.

37. Plato. (1994). Gosudarstvo [State]. Translated into Russian by A.N. Egunov. Moscow, “Mysl'”, 79-420.

38. Plato. Timey [Timaeus].

39. Proclus Dyadochus (2012). Kommentariy k “Timeiu”. Kniga 1 [Commentary on “Timaeus”. Book 1]. Moscow, Greco-Latin Cabinet.

40. Proclus Dyadochus. In Kommentariy na “Timeia” Platona [Commentary on Plato's Timaeus]. Available at: http://centant.spbu.ru/plat/proklos/works/tim_1/000.htm

41. Prolygina, I.V. (2011). Galen Pergamskii i ego traktat “O tom, chto nailuchshii vrach est' takzhe fi- losof”. Antichnaia i srednevekovaia filosofiia [Galen of Pergamon and his Treatise “The Best Doctor is Also a Philosopher”. Ancient and medieval philosophy], 82-92. Available at: http://iph.ras.ru/uplfile/histph/ yearbook/2011/hphy-2011_prolygina.pdf

42. Puchkova, Ie.A. (2013). Aleksandriiskaia Shkola i dogalenovskiye teorii v meditsine [The Alexandria School and pre-Galen theories in medicine]. In Istoricheskie, filosofskie, politicheskie i iuridicheskie nauki, kul 'turologiia i iskusstvovedenie. Voprosy teorii i praktiki [Historical, philosophical, political and legal sciences, cultural studies and art history. Issues of theory and practice], Tambov, “Gramota”, 12 (38), 1, 153-156.

43. Santillana, G.De (1961). The origins of scientific thought (from Anaximander to Proclus, 600 D.C. to 300 A.D.). New York, New American Library of World Literature.

44. Scherbenske, E.W. (2009). Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum. Thesis for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

45. Schmidt, K.E.A. (1842). De Timaeo Platonis ex Procli commentariis restituendo. Stettin.

46. Slovar'Antichnosti [Dictionary of Antiquity] (1989). Moscow, “Progress”.

47. Smith, W.D. (2002). Hippocratic tradition. Electronic edition.

48. Solopova, M.A. (2012). Vita brevis: k tolkovaniiu pervogo aforizma Gippokrata [Vita brevis: on the interpretation of the first aphorism of Hippocrates]. In Filosofskii zhurnal [Philosophicaljournal], 1(8), 5-25.

49. Theognis of Megara (1931). Translated by J.M. Edmonds. Available at: http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/ hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0479%3Avolume%3D1%3Atext%3D11%3Asection%3D1)

50. Tracy, T.J. Plato, Galen and the Center of Consciousness. In Illinois Classical Studies, I. 43-52.

51. Visconti, J.G. (2009). The Secrets of Health; Views on Healing from the Everyday Level to the Printing Presses in Early Modern Venice 1500-1650. Dissertation in History.

52. Whittaker, T. (2005). The Neo Platonists a Study in the History of Hellenism. Whitefish, Mont., KessingerPub.

Ðàçìåùåíî íà Allbest.ru