Galen, divination, and the status of medicine

Galen's stories about his successes in predicting the development of an illness belong to the best-known anecdotes drawn from his writings. Brilliant pieces of self-presentation, they set Galen apart from his peers, who tried to cover up their ignorance by levelling accusations of magic and divination against their superior colleague. These accusations are usually interpreted as very real threats, as Roman law punished illicit magic and divination. Pointing out that Galen sometimes likes to present himself as a mantis and a prophet, others have suggested that the accusations against Galen and his own self-presentation indicate that the border line between medicine and religion was still fluid. Both approaches correctly draw attention to the social reality that the accusations betray: they suggest that Galen belongs to a group of healers of dubious standing that populated the empire and thus show that medicine did not have a monopoly on healing. Yet such a socio-historical approach may not be sufficient. For one thing, both explanations have their limitations. Regarding the former, it can be said that Augustus' prohibition of divination aimed at controlling prediction about the emperor and one can doubt that a widespread clampdown of all forms of divination ever was intended. A possible objection to the second view is that throughout his oeuvre Galen emphasizes his medicine as a rational undertaking, even as a science (episteme). If one takes his self-presentation as a mantis to be more than metaphorical and to indicate the not yet fully crystallized identity of medicine as a separate scientific discipline, then Galen's usual way of understanding his own craft as a science' is in need of explanation. Besides such possible objections, a different set of questions still needs to be asked: why precisely were accusations of practising magic and divination levelled against Galen and why do they recur so frequently in his writings? Why divination and not, say, poisoning

Anatomy in the Third Reich: An outline, part 1. National Socialist politics, anatomical institutions, and anatomists

Although it is known that anatomists working in Germany during the Third Reich have used bodies of victims of the National Socialist (NS) regime for dissection and research, a comprehensive history of the anatomy in the Third Reich has not yet been written. Recent studies of the history of German anatomy departments during this time period provide material for a first outline of the subject matter. A historical review can help with the formulation of ethical foundations in modern anatomy. From the outset, the NS regime sought to reorganize German universities according to NS leadership principles and political goals. Many German academics, especially physicians and among them anatomists, followed these intentions with a voluntary “self-alignment” that encompassed their professional actions as well as their ethics. Currently, political information is available for 111 of 178 anatomists. Thirty-eight of the anatomists were dismissed for racial or political reasons, among them 10 chairmen of anatomy, whereas 35 of the anatomists were politically active members of one of the NS organizations. Over 70% of the chairmen of anatomical departments in the time period from 1941 to 1944 were members of NS organizations. Anatomists, as so many other physicians and academics, belonged both, to the group of victims of the regime, i.e., those being dismissed from their positions for racial and political reasons, and to the group of supporters and sometimes active perpetrators of NS policies. Clin. Anat. 22:883–893, 2009. © 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/64328/1/20872_ftp.pd

Soul's Tools

This paper explores the various ways Aristotle refers to and employs “heat and cold” in his embryology. In my view, scholars are too quick to assume that references to heat and cold are references to matter or an animal’s material nature. More commonly, I argue, Aristotle refers to heat and cold as the “tools” of soul. As I understand it, Aristotle is thinking of heat and cold in many contexts as auxiliary causes by which soul activities (primarily “concoction”) are carried out. This, as I argue, is what it means to call them “tools” of soul. An upshot of this investigation is the fuller picture of Aristotle’s conception of efficient causation it provides in general, and the better understanding of the efficient causal operation of an organism’s nature or soul it provides in particular