A while ago, I posted a bit of the Pseudo-Lucian’s Long Lives (Macrobii), a funny little book telling the stories of famous people who lived a long life through diet and exercise. Like this one:

“Ariathes, the king of Kappadokia, lived 82 years according to Hieronymos. Maybe he would have lived longer if he hadn’t been captured and crucified during the war against Perdikkas.”

Ἀριαράθης δὲ ὁ Καππαδοκῶν βασιλεὺς δύο μὲν καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα ἔζησεν ἔτη, ὡς Ἱερώνυμος ἱστορεῖ: ἐδυνήθη δὲ ἴσως καὶ ἐπὶ πλέον διαγενέσθαι, ἀλλ᾽ ἐν τῇ πρὸς Περδίκκαν μάχῃ ζωγρηθεὶς ἀνεσκολοπίσθη.

Pseudo-Lucian, Macrobii 13

There seems to have been a whole genre on this topic in antiquity and even into the Renaissance — my sister tells me Ficino’s De vita is essentially advice about how scholars can live a long life …

Here’s another example of the genre, this time from Galen’s On Wasting Away (De marcore):

Actually, a contemporary philosopher wrote a book showing how it is possible for someone to stay young forever. He published the book when he was forty, but he lived until he was eighty, at which point he was so withered and dry that he himself fit the description in the Hippocratic Prognostics:

“…nose sharp, eyes hollow, temples collapsed, ears cold and drawn in and the ear lobes curled up, and the area around the forehead dry and stretched and wrinkled.” (Hipp. Prog. 2.5, 2.115 Littré)

He was laughed at for trying to teach other people how to stay young when he looked the way he did. And so he put out a second edition of On the Marvellous Eternal Youth (for that’s also what he called it throughout the book), in which he showed that it wasn’t possible for every person to stay forever young, but that one needs to have the right nature and to be given a solid foundation from their earliest upbringing. And he proclaimed that if he were in charge of raising children with a suitable nature right from the start, he would make their bodies immortal.

Now, his claim couldn’t be tested, since he would be dead before the kids he was taking care of grew up. And so everyone else thought he was extremely foolish, but not me, since I alone recognized that many reasonable men, tricked by the plausibility of the arguments, hold many other opinions that are inconsistent with what is known through experience.

There is, then, nothing that marvellous about this argument. For the claim that everything born will be thoroughly corrupted is neither a scientific nor a necessary conclusion, but only goes as far as being probable, as I have shown in On Demonstration, even if just about everyone uses this argument when they point out that it is necessary for living things to age, saying that everything born is on the path to its subsequent and necessary destruction.

καί τοί τις τῶν καθ' ἡμᾶς φιλοσόφων ἔγραψε βιβλίον, ἐπιδεικνὺς ὅπως ἔνεστιν ἀγήρων τινὰ διαμεῖναι τὸ πάμπαν. ἐξέδωκε μὲν οὖν τὸ βιβλίον ἔτι τεσσαρακοντούτης ὢν, παρέτεινε δὲ μέχρι καὶ τῶν ὀγδοήκοντα ἐτῶν, καὶ ἦν οὕτως ἰσχνός τε καὶ ξηρὸς, ὡς ἁρμόζειν ἐπ' αὐτοῦ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ προγνωστικοῦ Ἱπποκράτειον ῥῆσιν, ῥὶς ὀξεῖα, ὀφθαλμοὶ κοῖλοι, κρόταφοι ξυμπεπτωκότες, ὦτα ψυχρὰ, καὶ συνεσταλμένα, καὶ οἱ λοβοὶ τῶν ὤτων ἀπεστραμμένοι, καὶ τὸ περὶ τὸ μέτωπον ξηρόν τε καὶ περιτεταμένον, καὶ καρφαλέον ἐόν. ἐπεὶ τοίνυν ἐγελᾶτο τοιοῦτος φαινόμενος, ὅτι ἄλλους ἀνθρώπους ἐπεχείρησε διδάσκειν, ὅπως ἄν τις ἀγήρως διαμείνῃ, δευτέραν ἔκδοσιν ἐποιήσατο περὶ τῆς θαυμαστῆς ἀγηρασίας, οὕτω γὰρ αὐτὴν καὶ ὠνόμασε διὰ τοῦ συγγράμματος, ἐπιδεικνὺς, ὡς οὐ πᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἀγήρως δύναται διαμένειν, ἀλλὰ δέοι μὲν εἰς τοῦτο καὶ φύσιν ἔχειν ἐπιτηδείαν, μάλιστα δ' ὧν ἡ πρώτη τροφὴ τοιαῦτα βάλλοιτο θεμέλια, καὶ ἐπηγγείλατο τῶν ἐπιτηδείων εἰς τοῦτο βρεφῶν εὐθὺς ἐξ ἀρχῆς αὐτὸς ἐπιστατῶν, ἀθάνατα αὐτῶν ποιήσειν τὰ σώματα. καὶ ἦν ἀνεξέλεγκτον αὐτοῦ τὸ ἐπάγγελμα· πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἀνδρωθῆναι τοὺς παῖδας, οὓς παρελάμβανεν, ἔμελλεν αὐτὸς τεθνήξεσθαι. οἱ μὲν οὖν ἄλλοι πάντες ἐσχάτην μωρίαν αὐτοῦ κατεγίνωσκον, ἐγὼ δὲ οὒ, [μόνον] εἰδὼς, ὅτι πολλὰ καὶ ἄλλα δόγματα τοῖς διὰ τῆς ἐμπειρίας ἐγνωσμένοις μαχόμενα πολλοὶ τῶν λογικῶν ἀνδρῶν ἀπεφήναντο τῇ πιθανότητι τῶν λόγων ἐξαπατηθέντες. οὐκ οὖν οὐδὲ τοῦτο θαυμαστόν ἐστιν ὅσον ἐπὶ τῷ λόγῳ. τὸ γὰρ ὅτι τὸ γεννητὸν πᾶν φθαρήσεται πάντως οὔτ' ἐπιστημονικὴν οὔτ' ἀναγκαίαν ἔχει τὴν ἀκολουθίαν, ἀλλ' ἄχρι τοῦ πιθανοῦ προϊοῦσαν, ὡς ἐν τῷ περὶ ἀποδείξεως ἀποδέδεικται, καίτοι γε τούτῳ χρῶνται τῷ λόγῳ σχεδὸν ἅπαντες, ὅσοι τὸ γηράσκειν ἀναγκαῖον ἐπιδεικνύουσι τοῖς ζώοις, ὁδὸν εἶναι φάσκοντες αὐτὸ πρὸς τὴν ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἑπομένην φθορὰν τοῖς γεννητοῖς ἅπασιν.

Galen, On Marasmus (De marcore liber | Γαλήνου Περὶ μαρασμοῦ βιβλίον), 7.760–2 Kühn

*On the identity of the contemporary philosopher, Theoharides offers this note in his translation:

Philipp sounds like a cool guy. He’s often named alongside Archigenes and he seems to have written about a state of old age brought about by illness; but, it makes no sense to me to say he’s the philosopher mentioned here.

Galen mentions Philipp all over the place—Theoharides’ note points to six instances in this treatise alone. Why would he refrain from saying his name here? And if Philipp is a doctor, why here would he call him a philosopher? Am I missing something?

The other place this contemporary philosopher shows up is in Galen’s Matters of Health:

“For, it is not possible that what is born be imperishable, even if a contemporary philosopher desperately tried to show this in his incredible treatise, where he teaches the path to immortality.”

ἄφθαρτον μὲν γὰρ ποιῆσαι τὸ γεννητὸν οὐχ οἷόν τε, κἂν ὅτι μάλιστα τῶν καθ’ ημᾶς τις νῦν ἀνὴρ φιλόσοφος ἐπειρᾶτο δεικνύναι τοῦτο διὰ τοῦ θαυμασίου τούτου συγγράμματος, ἐν ᾧ διδάσκει τὴν ὁδὸν τῆς ἀθανασίας.

Galen, De sanitate tuenda 1.12, 6.63 Kühn

He shows up again at the end of Matters of Health, where Galen calls him (probably not as an insult) a sophist:

“So, if it were really possible to preserve a moist mixture of the body forever, then the argument of the sophist—the one who claimed he would make the person who believed him immortal, which I went over at the beginning—would be true. But since, as we’ve shown, it is not possible for the body to avoid nature’s path to being dried out, it is therefore necessary that we grow old and die, while the one who is the least dried out would be the longest lived.”

ὡς, εἴγε δυνατὸν ἦν ἀεὶ διαφυλάττειν ὑγρὰν τὴν κρᾶσιν τοῦ σώματος, ὁ τοῦ σοφιστοῦ λόγος, ὃν ἐν ἀρχῇ διῆλθον, ἀθάνατον ἐπαγγελλομένου ποιήσειν τὸν αὐτῷ πειθόμενον, ἀληθὴς ἦν. ἀλλ’ ἐπεὶ τὴν φυσικὴν ὁδὸν τὴν ἐπὶ τὸ ξηραίνεσθαι τὸ σῶμα φυγεῖν οὐκ ἔστιν, ὡς ἐδείχθη, διὰ τοῦτο γηρᾶν ἀναγκαῖον ἡμῖν ἐστι καὶ φθείρεσθαι, πολυχρονιώτατος δ’ ἂν ὁ ἥκιστα ξηραινόμενος γένοιτο.

Galen, De sanitate tuenda 6.3, 6.399-400 Kühn

I haven’t found anyone who has noticed Galen contradicts himself in the two works. In De marcore he says there’s no necessity that what is born will die—a good position for a Platonist to hold, or at least for anyone who thinks the cosmos is created but imperishable. PN Singer told me he thinks Galen’s position in De sanitate tuenda may be meant to be restricted to non-celestial matters—that Galen is likely talking about death being necessary in the way he attributes to ‘just about everybody’ in De marcore. Still, he’s not explicit about it and I wonder if Galen put much thought into it. I mean, he’s a doctor, right? How much thought do doctor’s today put into arguments for immortality?