Die Schädellehre Franz Joseph Galls in Literatur und Kritik des 19. Jahrhunderts: zur Rezeptionsgeschichte einer medizinisch-biologisch begründeten Theorie der Physiognomik und Psychologie

problems involved in relying on the standard edition of Galen, by C. G. Kuhn, they have at times an undue faith in some more modern editions. Sometimes this does not matter: at 47 Albrecht in 1911 agrees with Furley and Wilkie, Galen on respiration, in 1984. But elsewhere there are problems. The text printed at 48 is that of Marquardt's Teubner of 1884, a monument of misplaced erudition, which differs substantially (and crucially) from the more recent editions of Brinkmann (1914) and Barigazzi (1966 and 1991). The text of 73, based on Mueller (1891), is far from certain: in line 6 T6 should be deleted or, with Cornarius, followed by vyo6,evac; in line 7, I prefer £i instead of ei;, and I should delete Kai cuXXoyicaprv in line 9. At 427 Lloyd's second suggestion should be adopted, as the one preferred in the text involves two ugly and unusual examples of hiatus. But these are relatively trivial observations, in no way detracting from an excellent piece of work. It is also possible to see easily what Galen thought most important in Theophrastus-his logic, his botany, and some of his ideas on physiology. References to Theophrastus' views of disease and treatment come not from the Galenic Corpus but from other authors, medical and non-medical. Dioscorides, by contrast, takes over far more botanical information from Theophrastus than he openly avows-and when Galen cites Theophrastus to explain the meaning of a plant name in Hippocrates, he is not always accurate in his references. In short, this will long be the standard edition of the fragments of Theophrastus. Its execution fully lives up to the hopes and expectations of the organizers of the project, and we look forward eagerly to the commentaries on the individual portions. If they are only half as good as this first course, we have a feast in store.