Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

To help, or to do no harm 111However, on this interpretation it is slightly strange to introduce a newparagraph at section 9, as Mudry does, 22 for this suggests that a new issue isto be discussed, whereas both sentences seem to be expressing more or lessthe same idea: progress leading to different methods of treatment and divisionof the art of medicine into three areas which are also defined by the wayin which they provide treatment (quae uictu . . . quae medicamentis . . . quaemanu mederetur) seem to amount to the same thing. 23 Instead, I wouldsuggest taking isdemque temporibus as a less specific reference to the timesmentioned in the previous section (thus including both Hippocratic andpost-Hippocratic medicine) and reading the section from isdemque temporibusonwards as making a new point (as is indicated by the use of que), thatis to say, a development running parallel to the events that were describedin section 8 (Hippocrates’ emancipation of the art of healing from the studyof wisdom and the subsequent further refinement of medicine by Dioclesand the others). It is important to see for what purpose Celsus has insertedthe tripartition of healing into his argument. 24 It enables him to present thesubsequent relapse into the theoretical study of nature as something takingplace within dietetics, 25 thus arriving at the paradoxical, perhaps slightlytragic picture of medicine making fast progress towards greater refinementbut this same differentiation allowing theoretical speculation to sneak inagain through the back door of dietetics. 26 For although Celsus does notstate whom he means when referring to ‘by far the most famous authorities’(longe clarissimi auctores) in dietetics, it is hard not to think of Dioclesand Erasistratus (and perhaps Mnesitheus, although he is not mentionedby Celsus), who had just been mentioned as those who had made furtherprogress in medicine, but who are also known for their ‘theoretical’ outlookin general – and indeed it is hard not to think of the most philosophicaltreatise on dietetics that has come down to us, the Hippocratic On Regimen.Thus interpreted, Celsus’ report is consistent with the fact (which therewas no reason for him to ignore) that the Hippocratic Corpus itself alreadyprovides evidence of a division of therapeutic activities roughly correspondingto the tripartition into dietetics, surgery and pharmacology. Although22 See also Spencer (1935) 6, and Serbat (1995) ad loc.23 On the interpretation of this phrase see n. 20 above.24 Surgery and pharmacology had already been identified as ‘parts’ of medicine in section 4 (dealingwith the Homeric age). Dietetics is presented by Celsus as a more recent method of treatment.25 SeeMudry(1982) 74.26 It may be disputed whether Celsus really values this development negatively (see von Staden (1994b)85), considering his cautious approval of theory in section 47 of the proem; however, there thediscussion is about fevers and wounds, not about dietetics, and theory is just presented as addinga special but not strictly necessary quality to medicine; and in section 59 (where the wording isstrikingly similar to that of section 9) he is clearly being sarcastic about the value of theory.