96 Hippocratic Corpus and Diocles of Carystus
different from the ones given by Aristotle and Theophrastus. The latter are
either – in the case of real undemonstrable principles such as definitions
or logical postulates – concerned with the avoidance of an infinite regress
or with the consideration thatwithin the limits of a particular branch of
studysome things should be accepted as starting-points, the demonstra-
tion of which belongs to another discipline: the ignorance of this is seen
by them as a sign of ‘being uneducated’ ("
). While Aristotle’s
warnings against pursuing causal analysis too far in these latter contexts
look like methodological prescriptions based on considerations of fruit-
fulness and economy (oneshouldnot ask for a cause here because it is
useless – although it may be possible to state one), Diocles’ point is that
in the field of dietetics many things simply do notallowof explanation,
because when pursuing the search for causes too far, one passes the level of
the ‘whole nature’ of a foodstuff and loses the connection with the actual
explanandum.
On the other hand, it is not unlikely that some sort of contact between
Diocles and the Lyceum took place. Diocles enjoyed a good reputation
in Athens – although our source for this does not specify in what times
he did.^48 Moreover, there is the reference to a Diocles in Theophrastus’
On Stones 5 (fr. 239 a). It has been doubted whether this should be taken
as applying to the Carystian physician, seeing that the name Diocles was
very common in Greek and that several persons named Diocles in fourth-
century Athens are known from literary and epigraphical sources.^49 Ye t I d o
not see any compelling reason against assuming that the Diocles to whom
Theophrastus refers is identical with the Carystian physician. The fact that
he is credited by Theophrastus with an opinion on a mineralogical topic is
a weak argument, which is based on doubtful presuppositions concerning
a ‘division of labour’ between the sciences. Diocles may have had various
interests, just as Theophrastus himself, or Aristotle, or the authors of such
(^48) (Pseudo-)Vindicianus,On the Seed 2 : ‘Diocles, a follower of Hippocrates, whom the Athenians
gave the name of younger Hippocrates’ (Diocles, sectator Hippocratis, quem Athenienses iuniorem
Hippocratem vocaverunt). The use of the Attic dialect may be an indication that Diocles lived or
practised in Athens (although several fragments preserved in Oribasius also – in some manuscripts –
show Ionic forms [see van der Eijk 2001 a, xxiv n. 51 ]); but the characterisations by Kullmann ( 1974 ,
350 : ‘Der in Athen lebende Arzt Diokles’) and Wohrle ( ̈ 1990 , 177 : ‘Die Weltstadt Athen, in der
Diokles lebte’) go beyond what is known with certainty.
(^49) See Edelstein ( 1940 ) 483 – 9 ; Kudlien ( 1963 ) 462 ff.; von Staden ( 1992 ) 252 – 4. The fact that Theophras-
tus refers to Diocles without further specification is regarded by Eichholz as evidence that the Carys-
tian is meant ( 1965 ) 107 – 8 ; but this argument will not do, for two different people named Diocles
are also mentioned in the will of the Peripatetic Strato (Diogenes Laertius 5. 62 – 3 ). We can only say
that it must have been evident to Theophrastus and his audience which Diocles was meant [see van
der Eijk ( 2001 a) 416 – 19 ].