Diocles of Carystus on the method of dietetics 95
Connections of Diocles’ views with Aristotle’s have, of course, been
made by earlier scholars, especially by Werner Jaeger, in whose picture
of Diocles as a pupil of Aristotle fragment 176 played a central part. He
argued that the fragment could not have been written without the influence
of the great Stagirite on the Carystian physician, and from this and other
considerations drew far-reaching conclusions concerning Diocles’ date.^44
Jaeger’s views have met with much criticism and opposition from various
scholars, not just because of the authoritative way in which he presented
them or because of the claim of inevitability he held with regard to the
conclusions he drew from his observations.^45 Most of these criticisms ap-
pear completely justified to me, and I have little to add to them. Yet this
should not make usa priorihostile to any attempt to associate Diocles
with the Lyceum. The resemblance is not so much between Diocles’ ar-
gument that knowledge of the cause is often not necessary for practical
purposes and similar statements found in Aristotle’sNicomachean Ethics
(which Jaeger emphasised) – it has been shown that what is at issue in
those passages is rather different from what Diocles is concerned with.^46
More important in this respect is the point which Diocles makes in section
8 – and which is repeated in section 10 – that many things or states of
affairs do notadmitof a causal explanation. While, to my knowledge, no
parallels of this idea can be found in the Hippocratic Corpus, it clearly re-
sembles statements in Aristotle and Theophrastus (see note 41 ) to the effect
that the search for causes should stop somewhere and that further analy-
sis even ‘destroys’ our understanding. It will probably remain a matter of
dispute whether this resemblance is actually to be interpreted as evidence
of intellectual exchange between Diocles, Aristotle and Theophrastus.^47
Moreover, if the interpretation of section 8 given above is correct, Diocles’
reasonfor saying that many things cannot be causally explained is slightly
(^44) See n. 8 above; for earlier associations of Diocles with the Peripatos see von Staden ( 1992 ) 229 n. 11 ,
12 and 15. For a more recent attempt see Longrigg ( 1993 ) 161 – 75 and ( 1995 ).
(^45) The most comprehensive and convincing refutation of Jaeger’s arguments has been given by von
Staden ( 1992 ). It should be noted, however, that Jaeger’s views have been setting the agenda for
Dioclean studies for quite a long time and are sometimes still determining the kind of questions
asked by scholars who are at the same time in doubt concerning the validity of his conclusions (see,
e.g., the article by Longrigg quoted in the previous note). For a plea for a study of Diocles in his
own right (with the question of his date and his being ‘influenced’ by this or that particular ‘school’
being kept away from the study of the individual fragments as long as possible) see van der Eijk
( 1993 b) and ( 2001 a) xxi–xxxviii.
(^46) See Kullmann ( 1974 ) 350 ff.; von Staden ( 1992 ) 238.
(^47) H. Gottschalk (private correspondence) points out to me that the doctrine of the limits of causal
explanation, which is a very sophisticated piece of philosophy, is presented by Aristotle as his
invention, whereas Diocles alludes to it very briefly: ‘his sentence presupposes a knowledge of
Aristotle or something very like it’.