Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

98 Hippocratic Corpus and Diocles of Carystusfoodstuffs. 53 Compared with the verbatim fragment itself, Galen’s introductionof Diocles as a champion of the view that the powers of foodstuffsare found by means of experience only (note the use of in sections 2and 12, both just before and immediately after the quotation) is certainly agross overstatement – just as his characterisation of Diocles as a ‘Dogmatist’and his association with the Empiricists evidently suffers from anachronisticdistortion. In fact, when reading Galen’s own discussion of the rightmethod of dietetics in the pages following on the fragment, it turns outthat Diocles’ position as reflected in the fragment (especially in his criticismof claims one and two) perfectly meets the requirements of whatGalen himself calls ‘qualified experience’ ( ; see chapter10 below). By this concept, which Galen presents as his own innovation, hemeans an empirical approach which takes into account the conditions underwhich a dietetic statement like ‘rock fish are difficult to digest’ is true. 54Some of the factors Galen enumerates as being relevant in this respect havealready been mentioned above: climate, season, geographical area, the patient’snatural constitution, age, way of life, and so on. All these shouldbe considered, Galen points out, before any generalising statement aboutthe power of a particular foodstuff is allowed. Galen represents Diocles asbeing completely unaware of these factors and as being more one-sidedthan he actually was – and it would seem that Galen is doing so not forlack of understanding but in order to articulate his own refined position asagainst Diocles’ unqualified acceptance of experience as the only way to getto know the powers of foodstuffs. 55 That Galen is making forced efforts todistinguish himself from Diocles may also be indicated by the fact that laterin the same introductory chapter of On the Powers of Foodstuffs Galen oncemore mentions Diocles, 56 and blames him for ‘not even’ having mentioned53 See Torraca (1965) 109; Smith (1979) 184.54 See De alim. facult. 1.1.45 (p. 216,5 Helmreich; 6.479 K.); 1.1.46 (p. 216,14 H.; 6.479 K.); 1.12.1(p. 233,2–3 H.; 6.508 K.); On the Method of Healing (De methodo medendi ) 2.7 (10.27 K.); 3.7(10.204 K.); De simpl. med. fac. 2.7 (11.483 K.); 3.13 (11.573 K.); 4.19 (11.685 K.); 4.23 (11.703 K.); 6.1(11.800 K.); 7.10 (12.38 K.).55 See Smith (1979) 184–6.56 Fr. 177 (Galen, De alim. facult. 1.1.27,p.210,15 Helmreich (6.469 K.)) – a testimony which is not listedas such in Wellmann’s collection but only referred to at the end of fr. 176 (Wellmann fr. 112) by ‘vgl.Gal. vi 649’, although there is little to be compared in the two passages: ‘The [substances] that areeven with respect to their mixtures and have no mastering quality are just foodstuffs, not drugs: theydo not provoke emptying of the belly, nor do they stop, strengthen or relax the stomach, just as they donot stimulate or stop sweat or urine, nor do they bring about another state in the body characterisedby hotness, coldness, dryness or wetness, but they preserve in every respect the body of the animalthat is fed [by it] in the state in which they found it. But here too there is a highly useful qualification,itself, too, not mentioned by Diocles, just as also none of the others we have discussed until now [wasmentioned by him]’ (