120 Hippocratic Corpus and Diocles of Carystus
is that in which they suspect the ruling part of the soul to be situated... Now
we hold that in phrenitis there is a general affection of the whole body, for the
whole body is shaken by fever. And fever is one of the signs that make up the
general indication of phrenitis, and for that reason we treat the whole body. We
do hold, however, that the head is more particularly affected, as the antecedent
symptoms indicate, e.g., its heaviness, tension, and pain, head noises, ringing in
the ears, dryness, and impairment of the senses... eyelids stiff, eyes bloodshot and
bulging out, cheeks red, veins distended, face puffed up and full, and tongue rough.
But there are those who argue as follows: ‘We determine the part affected on the
basis of the theory of nature (Greekphusiologia), for we know in advance that
the ruling part of the soul is located in the head, and conclude that that must be
the source of mental derangement.’ Our answer to them is that, to begin with, the
place of this ruling part is uncertain. But the number and variety of symptoms
occurring in the head have shown us that this organ is more particularly affected
than the rest of the body.^3
In this fragment Caelius Aurelianus refers to a great variety of views on
where to locate the affection ofphrenitisin classical antiquity, which can
be traced back to the fifth centurybce. This discussion was to a certain
extent determined by a lack of clarity about the evidential value of the
etymological relation between the name of the disease and the Greek word
phrenes, which had been used since Homer to indicate the midriff (later, the
common term for this became diaphragm, as used here by Caelius). Some
advocates of the location in the diaphragm appealed to this etymology,^4
others were of the opinion that the name of the disease should not be related
to any part of the body (be it affected or not), but to the faculty that was
affected (phronein, phronesis ̄ , standard terms in Greek for what we would
call ‘intelligence’ or ‘consciousness’).^5 Others thought that the name given
to a disease was arbitrary and did not offer any indication of its location.
Another significant fact is that Caelius Aurelianus criticises his predeces-
sors’ strong desire to locate the condition in one particular place in the body,
and their presupposition that this place should also be the seat of the mind
(the faculty affected in the case ofphrenitis).^6 Following typically Methodist
principles, Caelius is of the opinion that the disease cannot be located in
(^3) Caelius Aurelianus,On Acute Affections 1. 8. 53 – 6 , tr. Drabkin ( 1950 ).
(^4) For this use of the termphrenitison the basis of the affected part (apo topou) see Diocles, fr. 72 (all
references to Diocles are to van der Eijk ( 2000 a)); cf. Anonymus Londiniensisiv 13– 15 (ed. Diels
( 1893 a)); [Hippocrates],On the Sacred Disease 17 ( 6. 394 – 6 L.); see Grensemann ( 1968 c).
(^5) Cf. the view of the medical writer Erasistratus (third centurybce), fr. 176 (ed. Garofalo ( 1988 )).
(^6) An example of a medical writer to whom this presupposition does not apply is Diocles of Carystus:
according to the so-called Anonymus Parisinus (see Diocles, fr. 72 vdE), Diocles assumed that the
disease affects the diaphragm but that the mind is seated in the heart. The psychological disorders
arise as a result ofsumpatheia, i.e. because the heart ‘also suffers’ from the fact that the diaphragm is
heated.