Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

106 Hippocratic Corpus and Diocles of Carystusto the execution of these principles and clearly trying to emancipate itselffrom philosophical speculation. Thus, as is well known, the author of theHippocratic work On Ancient Medicine criticises what he calls ‘philosophy’ 9and its influence on medical practice, and he refers disparagingly to the useof ‘postulates’ such as the elementary qualities hot and cold as all-pervadingexplanatory principles in the understanding and treatment of the humanbody. 10 The author of another Hippocratic work, On the Art of Medicine,defends medicine against accusations to the effect that it is not really a skilland that its successes are a matter of good luck. Interestingly, he countersthe criticism that medicine is not in all cases capable of restoring healthby pointing out that this is not due to lack of skill or poor performance ofdoctors (although this may of course be the case), but due either to lack ofco-operation by the patient or to the fact that the disease is, or has become,incurable – and in such cases, he argues, it is actually to the doctor’s creditto be realistic and to refrain from treatment. 11As far as point (ii) is concerned, what Celsus says here would againseem to receive confirmation from the surviving evidence of fifth- andfourth-century medical literature. For while the Hippocratic Corpus doesnot contain works specifically devoted to therapeutics as such, two leadingmedical writers of the subsequent generation, Diocles of Carystus andPraxagoras of Cos, are both reported to have written extensively on therapeuticsper se in works entitled On Treatments ( ), at leastfour books being attested in the case of Diocles and three for Praxagoras; 12and it may be noted that Aristotle, too, is credited with a work On Remedies(De adiutoriis, in Greek probably ). 13 In the case ofDiocles, we further know that this work On Treatments was different fromthe more frequently attested work Affection, Cause, Treatment ( , in one book). 14 Regrettably, our information on the nature ofthese two works and their possible differences is severely restricted by thefact that Diocles’ works survive in fragments only; and in this particular casethe problem is aggravated by the fact that all information about Diocles’9 On Ancient Medicine 20 (1.620 L.). 10 On Ancient Medicine 1 (1.570 L.).11 On the Art of Medicine 8 (6.12–14 L.).12 Diocles, frs. 99 (libro curationum), 136 (secundo libro curationum), 100 (tertio libro de curationibus),125 (quarto libro de curationibus) in van der Eijk’s edition (2000a); Praxagoras, frs. 100, 101, 102, 103,104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 111, 112 in the edition of Steckerl (1958).13 Aristotle, fr. 360 (= Caelius Aurelianus, Acute Affections 2.13.87) in the edition of Gigon (1983).14 Diocles, frs. 49, 73, 79, 85, 92, 99, 100, 103, 109, 111a, 114, 116, 120, 123, 125, 128, 129, 131, 132a, 136, 139in van der Eijk (2000a). To be sure, in frs. 116, 131 and 139 Caelius Aurelianus refers to the ‘books’(libris) Diocles wrote on diseases, causes, treatments, but the fact that in the overwhelming majorityof references to this work he speaks of a ‘book’ (libro) and that Caelius, when he refers to this work,never specifies in which book Diocles said such and such, suggests that these three cases are just dueto lack of accuracy on Caelius’ part.