Medicine and philosophy - Classical Homeopathy Online

64 Hippocratic Corpus and Diocles of Carystusmedicine and temple medicine never were as sharp as we tend to think, theco-operation of physicians in temple medicine being frequently attested; 47nor does the suggestion itself seem unlikely, for it might well explain thevigour with which the author attacks magic and defends religion. Thereason for not accepting this suggestion is simply that the text does notsupport it (on 1.44–6 see below). Yet what it does show is that the authorhas definite ideas on what one should do when invoking the help of thegods for the healing of a disease, and he may very well be thinking of theparticular situation of temple medicine, with which he was no doubt familiar(which does not, of course, imply that he was involved in these practicesor approved).One may point to this hypothetical ‘should’ and object, as I suggested atthe beginning of this chapter, that these remarks need not imply the author’spersonal involvement, but are solely used as arguments ad hominem. Hemay, for the purpose of criticising and discrediting his opponents, point outhow a man ought to act when making an appeal to divine help for the cureof a disease, but this need not imply that he himself takes this way of healingseriously (after all, invoking the gods for healing presupposes the belief ina ‘supernatural’ intervention in natural processes). To a certain extent thisobjection is justified, for both sentences (1.41 and 1.43) are hypothetical anddepend on premises to which the author himself need not subscribe. One ofthese premises is explicitly mentioned in 1.43:‘if the god is the cause of thedisease’ ( ). And one may point to the immediatelyfollowing sentence (1.44), where the validity of this premise itself is deniedby the author. In this way one might say that all the preceding stipulationsabout impiety and piety are just made for the sake of argument and do notreveal any of the author’s own religious convictions: he may be perfectlyaware of the truly pious thing to do without being himself a pious man.Yet this hypothetical character is absent from the following passage(1.44–6, 6.362–4 L.), which has to be quoted in full: ’ ’ .47 See Lloyd (1979) 40–5; Edelstein and Edelstein (1945) vol. ii, 139–41; Edelstein (1967a) 239; Krug(1985) 120f. and 159–63.