Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

On the Sacred Disease 49intend to offer a new one, but I believe that the debate would benefit fromrecognising that these interpretations are different and incompatible, andfrom acknowledging the presuppositions underlying both views. My seconda priori remark is that the use of terminological oppositions such as ‘rationalversus irrational’ and ‘natural versus supernatural’ in order to define themeaning of theios and anthrōpinos is confusing rather than illuminating. 12The correct questions to ask are, first, in which respect (or, in what sense) adisease, according to the author, is to be regarded as divine or human, and,second, what connotations or associations of theios and anthrōpinos enablethe author to apply these words to a disease.The two interpretations are as follows:(1) A disease is divine in virtue of being caused by factors ( prophasies; onthis term see below) which are themselves divine: the climatic factorsheat, cold and winds. These can, on this view, be called divine becausethey are beyond human control (the author accepting aporos, ‘hopeless’,‘impossible to resolve’, as a proper associate of theios, cf.1.3–4, 6.352L.). 13 The disease is human in virtue of being caused by other factorsas well which are ‘human’, such as the particular constitution-type ofan individual, the constitution of his brain, his age, and so on. Thesefactors can be called human because they (or at least some of them) arecapable of being controlled, or in any case influenced, by human agency.(2) A disease is divine in virtue of having a phusis, a ‘nature’, that is, a definitecharacter and a regular pattern of origin (cause) and growth (13.13,6.368 L.: ). The governing connotations of theios12 This is not to suggest that the oppositions ‘rational–irrational’ and ‘natural–supernatural’ are usedby modern scholars as if they were equivalent, but rather to avoid the anachronistic associationsthese terms conjure up. Cf. the frequent use of ‘rational–irrational’ in Nörenberg (1968), e.g. 71:‘Damit bekommt das wie die ´ einen rationalen Charakter, der die Kritik an jeder irrationalenAuffassung und so auch an den des Mythos und des Volksglaubens, bzw. demgänzlich irrationalen provozieren muss’; and Kudlien (1974) passim. A more cautious useof ‘natural–supernatural’ is to be found in Lloyd (1979) e.g. 26–7; but even with regard to the useof phusis in On the Sacred Disease this opposition creates a distinction which is not to the point,since the term ‘supernatural’ does not apply to the position that the author of On the Sacred Diseasecombats.13 In 1.3–4 (6.352 L.) the author discusses the possible reasons why people came to regard epilepsy asa sacred disease. One of these reasons, he says, may be the ‘hopelessness’ () with which thedisease confronted them. But he proceeds to show that this only applies to a cognitive ‘hopelessness’( ); as for the therapeutic aspect, he says, these people claim to be ‘wellprovided’ with means to cure () rather than ‘hopeless’ (). Cf. the distinction betweentwo respects of ‘hopelessness’ made in 13.13 (6.368 L.): (‘and it [i.e. the disease] is not more hopeless than the others, neither as faras curing nor as far as understanding it are concerned’). Apparently the author accepts aporos asa justified associate of theios, but he points out that these people are actually not aporoi at all. Byshowing that the disease is caused by ‘human’ factors as well (which are in their turn influenced bythe divine factors mentioned) the author demonstrates that in his account a disease can be bothdivine and human (i.e. both divine and curable).