100 Hippocratic Corpus and Diocles of Carystus
for having pointed out that experience is an indispensable (but not neces-
sarily the only) instrument forascertaining the ultimate effectsof food and
drink. This reference to the ‘ultimate effects’^58 is in accordance with the in-
terpretation of section 8 given above: this ultimate effect does not admit of
further causal explanation; we can only make sure what it is by experience,
by applying the foodstuff in a given case and seeing how it works out.
Postscript
Discussions of this fragment that came out after the original publication of
this paper can be found in Hankinson ( 1998 a), ( 1999 ) and ( 2002 ), in van
der Eijk ( 2001 a) 321 – 34 , and in Frede (forthcoming).
(^58) [In the original version of this paper I suggested that the Greek original may have been something
like8 #
, which could be related to what Diocles in fr. 176 , 21 says on ‘the whole
nature’ (% # -
) of a foodstuff or drink: this ‘whole nature’, rather than the individual
constituents of a foodstuff, should be held responsible for the effects it produces; and this can only
be ascertained by experientially seeing how it works in practice. But a re-examination of the Arabic
would seem to make this interpretation less plausible. A literal translation of the Arabic would
read as follows: ‘It is not possible to ascertain in the case of food and drink where their last things
(akhiriyatuha?) return to/develop into (ta’uluˆ ) but by way of experience.’ On this reading, it is the
ultimateeffectsof foodstuffs which are meant, and this suggests that the Greek may have contained
a word such as or ), or perhaps"<)(cf. Diocles, fr. 184 , 32 ). The idea
is then that although a Dogmatist might speculate theoretically about the power (-
)ofa
particular foodstuff, e.g. on the basis of its known constituents or on the basis of comparison or
analogy with the known effects of other, similar foodstuffs, one can onlyascertainthe effects of
any particular foodstuff by seeing experientially how it works out in practice. Thus the position
attributed to Diocles here corresponds closely with that attributed to him by Galen in fr. 176 ; and it
is plausible to assume that the fragment from Diocles’Matters of Healthquoted in fr. 176 is also at
least part of the basis of Galen’s report on Diocles’ position here. (I am indebted to Peter Pormann for
his help here.) A different interpretation was proposed by Walzer, who translated the present phrase
‘there is no way of ascertaining the ultimate disposal of foods and drinks except by experience’. This
would suggest that Galen is referring to how foods and drinks are ultimately disposed of; but this
would seem to be quite inappropriate to the context.]