Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

48 Hippocratic Corpus and Diocles of Carystusdoes not concern a discrepancy between religious theory and religious practiceor between theology and cult, but a tension between different ideas inone and the same text. For there is a difference between intellectuals simplyparticipating (from habit or under social pressure) in cultic actions, andintellectuals, such as the author of On the Sacred Disease, making explicitstatements and definitions about what they believe should be the right wayof approaching the gods. Moreover, the author’s assertions not only concerncult and ritual, but also characteristics of the divine and the way inwhich it manifests itself within human experience. Therefore the problemdeserves to be considered, and we must try to find out how these two setsof religious opinions are related to each other.I shall first deal with the statements on the divine character of the diseaseand consider whether these admit of being extrapolated into a ‘theology’.This will for a substantial part consist in an attempt to evaluate and clarifythe interpretative debate on the author’s claim that ‘all diseases are divineand all are human’. Then I shall deal with the statements in his chapter 1and relate these to the assertions about the divine character of the disease.Finally I shall summarise my conclusions concerning the religious notionswhich can, with some degree of certainty, be attributed to the author of Onthe Sacred Disease.2 the divinity of diseasesIn spite of the vast literature on this subject (see n. 5 above) we may saythat basically there are two different interpretations of the use of the words‘divine’ (theios) and ‘human’ (anthrōpinos) with regard to diseases in Onthe Sacred Disease, both of which have a strong textual basis. 11 I do notreasons? On this question see Gigon (1952) 127–66, esp. 128–9 and 156–64, and Vlastos (1952) 104 and112–13. (ii) To what extent were intellectuals at liberty to hold and propagate advanced ideas aboutreligious matters? On the one hand it is often stated that there was no institutionalised orthodoxy inancient Greece and no sacred books with authorised interpretations and that, consequently, manydifferent religious beliefs were tolerated (see Lloyd (1979) 10–15). On the other hand it cannot bedenied that at the end of the fifth century (in Attica at least) a growing intolerance manifests itself,e.g. in the trials of ‘impiety’ (asebeia). In this respect it is significant that it is the author of On theSacred Disease himself who accuses his opponents of impiety and atheism (1.28ff.; 1.39ff.), chargeswhich later (in the fourth century) were frequently connected with magic (e.g. in the trials of asebeiaagaint Ninos and Theoris). (iii) Did this apparent intolerance only concern participation in cult andritual, or did it concern religious ideas as well? On all these matters see Bryant (1986); Dover (1975);Fahr (1969); Guthrie (1969) vol. iii, 226–49; Meijer (1981); Mikalson (1983) 91–105; Sandvoss (1968)312–29; Versnel (1990) 123–31.11 For this reason I shall not discuss as a separate alternative the view that the author of On the SacredDisease has adopted the idea of the divinity of air from Diogenes of Apollonia (cf. H. W. Miller (1953)9–15), though I shall say something about this in the course of my comments on interpretation (1).On the influence of Diogenes on this treatise see Grensemann (1968c) 29–30.