Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

Diocles of Carystus on the method of dietetics 89While it has also been argued very frequently that Diocles here shares thesceptical attitude towards theoretical approaches of dietetics found in thetreatise On Ancient Medicine, 35 Fredrich’s view that the third claim Dioclesis criticising corresponds with the actual practice of the writer of On AncientMedicine has been received with mixed feelings. 36However, it seems very questionable to me whether it is correct to presentDiocles as making a common stand with the authors of On Ancient Medicineand On Regimen. As for On Ancient Medicine, this seems to misunderstandboth the claims that Diocles is opposing (especially claim one) and Diocles’own position. The scope of the Diocles fragment is rather different fromwhat is at issue in On Ancient Medicine. Diocles does not object to thepostulation of warm and cold, nor does he object to referring to these postulatesas causes per se: he simply warns against premature generalisations.His argument allows for cases in which a thing’s having the quality hotcauses it to produce such-and-such an effect, but he points out that thisdoes not imply that all things that have that quality produce that effect (forinstance because of the combination with other factors, or because it is onlyan incidental cause), nor that all cases where this effect is produced are dueto this very quality. Diocles points out that one should look for the essentialcause: sweet things may cause certain effects, but not necessarily so and notin so far as they are sweet. Nor does Diocles make the distinction between ’). On Mnesitheusbeing a possible target see Smith (1980) 444, and von Staden (1992) 240; a more sceptical attitude istaken by Bertier (1972) 30–1.35 Apart from Fredrich (1899) 171 (‘Kurz, Diokles vertritt denselben Standpunkt wie der Autor von , der auch Praktiker ist’) see also Wöhrle (1990) 175; Jaeger (1938a) 38; Kullmann(1974) 352; von Staden (1992) 240. The passage which comes closest to Diocles’ views is On AncientMedicine 17.1–2 (pp. 141,15–142,2 Jouanna; 1.612 L.), where the Hippocratic writer bluffs his way outof the problem of fever: ‘I think personally that this is the most important proof that it is not simplythrough heat that people get fever, nor that this is the only cause of feeling unwell; rather it is thecombination of bitterness and heat, or sharpness and heat, or saltiness and heat, and innumerableother things – and, again, the combination of cold with other properties’ ( – ).36 See Wöhrle (1990) 175: ‘Auch der zweite Teil des Textabschnittes, in dem sich Diokles gegen dieÄtiologen wendet, kann sich kaum auf den Katalog des zweiten Buches von De victu beziehen.Denn erstens wird dort nur zu einem geringen Teil eine Erklärung für die Wirkung bestimmterNahrungsmittel gegeben, und zweitens liegt diesen Ausführungen kein streng hypothetisches Schemazugrunde (im Gegensatz zur Feuer-Wasser-Theorie des ersten Buches).’ On the other hand, Fredrich’sview seems to have been accepted by Kullmann (1974) 352: ‘Fredrich, der zugleich einleuchtendPolemik des Diokles gegen die hippokratische Schrift vermutet’) and by Düring (1966)527 n. 105. On this see below.