In her monograph, Galen on the Atomists, Ambra Serangeli sets her sights on exploring Galen’s reaction to various philosophies of atomism with a particular focus on demonstrating an Epicurean source for the theories of Asclepiades of Bithynia. She accomplishes both through an exploration of textual evidence from a variety of sources and through a comparative analysis of Asclepiadean theory as presented by Galen, with Epicurean doctrine preserved by Lucretius playing a central role in major arguments.
The book is arranged into three parts that are in turn divided into several subsections; Each part opens with a conspectus that surveys the topics under discussion and, where relevant, is followed by a helpful introduction to the content and context of the Galenic work at the center of those topics. The subsections are, at times, rather loosely tied together and sometimes form groups with separate arguments. The discrete sections are thus easy to peruse in a nonlinear fashion, though perhaps at the expense of overall cohesiveness. In what follows I will summarize what seem to me to be the most salient points of each part.
Part one follows Galen’s arguments against the anti-teleological positions of Epicurus and Asclepiades. Following an analysis of Galen’s use of the term χρεία, the discussion turns to his criticism of Epicurus and Asclepiades for their belief in two anti-teleological causal sequences exemplified by the development of tendons in the hand. These two causal sequences are shown to resonate with similar Lucretian statements regarding two sequences of spontaneous development in the genesis of living beings, which suggests both that Galen knew the major tenets of Epicurean philosophy (even if he omits some for the sake of his argument) and that Epicureanism was an important influence on Asclepiades.
Part two looks at Galen’s account of the elemental theories of Democritus, Epicurus, and Asclepiades in his De elementis secundum Hippocratem and considers some possible sources for his understanding of their theories. The discussion explores Galen’s efforts to associate atomism with monism, particularly Eleatic monism, and analyses his arguments against the impassable (ἀπαθής) nature of elements. The discussion then turns to the doxographical tradition and Galen’s sources; while recognizing the likelihood that Galen had multiple sources (including doxographies) for his understanding of different atomistic philosophies, Serangeli employs a comparative analysis to suggest that Plutarch’s Adversus Colotem was one such source.
In part three, the author returns to Asclepiades. The first section of this part seeks to determine the ontological status of Asclepiades’ ὄγκοι by surveying the ancient sources that comment on them. The ancients agree that they are fragile but textual concerns in Sextus Empiricus’ account provoke some controversy about whether they can take on secondary properties. Ultimately, she affirms David Leith’s arguments and denies them such properties. The argument then turns to Asclepiades’ theory of flux, once again looking to parallels in Lucretius’ De rerum natura, to argue that Asclepiades’ pathology of obstructed pores is rooted in Epicurean doctrine. Specifically, the argument draws on Lucretius’ description of the Athenian plague in Book 6, proposing that the image Lucretius conveys, for example, of disease filling someone’s chest (6.1151–1153) is reminiscent of Asclepiades’ theory of the blockage of pores.
Serangeli’s monograph is a welcome contribution to studies in ancient medicine that will surely be of interest to ancient philosophers as well. Though the title points to Galen as a focus of the study, the shadowy figure of Asclepiades is as much—or more—the subject of examination. Part three in particular goes far in illuminating several aspects of Asclepiades’ doctrine, at least to the extent possible considering the state of the evidence, though he looms large in part one as well. In my view, the analyses relating to Asclapiades in parts one and two are where the book shines: in particular, part three’s analysis of Asclepiades’ ὄγκοι, which draws conclusions about their nature following close readings of passages from Galen, Sextus Empiricus, Caelius Aurelianus, and Calcidius, is cogent and persuasive, while the subsequent argument for the Epicurean basis of Asclepiades’ pathology is certainly stimulating. There is much of interest in part two, as well, such as the examination of Galen’s possible assimilation of Democritean atomism with the Parmenidean One. The question of whether Galen relied on doxographical sources is also intriguing given his extensive education from instructors representing the major philosophical schools.
The book is well researched and often engages closely with scholarship, particularly in matters still under debate. In the textual question over whether to read “ἕν” or “δέν” in a passage from Galen’s De elementis secundum Hippocratem, Serangeli offers a particularly insightful discussion of the nature of the question and explanation of the position she takes on a matter of some significance for understanding Galen’s thought (71–76). Insights like these, founded on thorough research, are a highlight of the book and are especially valuable in light of the relative paucity of studies devoted to Galen’s approach to atomism.
Though the book has many strengths, one could also note a few quibbles. A number of sections in the book feel more analytical than argumentative, leaving their relevance to the larger study unclear. Indeed, some are perhaps better suited to an appendix. One example is the discussion of Cicero’s critique of atomism in the De natura deorum. The author frames the analysis by (seemingly) holding out the possibility that Cicero could have directly influenced Galen’s thinking on the matter: “Both Cicero and especially Plutarch adopt arguments against the impassibility of the atoms that are similar to Galen’s and that, beyond their relying on the same tradition, may also be themselves part of its background” (93). The conclusion to the section, however, is tepid: “Thus, Cicero discusses and shares the same premises that in De elementis are necessary for supporting the conclusions of Galen’s needle argument” (98). The subsequent conclusion about Plutarch’s Adversus Colotem is not much stronger, leading one to wonder whether these analyses were really necessary. The discussion of Galen’s use of the word χρεία (10–18) is another example; it affirms another scholar’s argument without being well integrated into the larger discussion of Galen’s teleology or contributing to what I take to be the primary argument of part one, which is to establish an Epicurean background for Asclepiades’ theories. As a consequence, the argumentative thread can be difficult to follow across each section.
As a final quibble, there are some errors in the text, such as “maid plain” instead of “made plain” (70), “possessus” for the “possemus” (27) and, in the heading for section 11, “Asclepiade’s” (138). Of course, some of these mistakes could be attributable to an overzealous spell check or insufficient proofing: in short, it was disappointing to discover so many such infelicities in a book that costs more than $200.
Overall, scholars of Galen, Asclepiades, and the atomists will find value in Serangeli’s monograph. From a Galenic perspective in particular it helps to fill a sizeable gap in studies on Galen’s approach to his intellectual forebears, but it is equally valuable for bringing more light to Asclepiades’ theories.