24 Medicine and Philosophy in Classical Antiquity
title of ‘younger Hippocrates’ or deemed ‘second in age and fame to Hip-
pocrates’. He practised in the fourth centurybce, and although we know
very little of his life, we can safely assume that he was one of the most promi-
nent medical thinkers of antiquity.^29 His interests ranged widely, and he is
reported to have written at least twenty works (some of them in at least four
books) on a great variety of areas such as anatomy, physiology, digestion,
fevers, prognostics, pathology, therapeutics, bandages, gynaecology, embry-
ology, surgery, dietetics, hygiene and regimen in health, foods, wines, herbs,
vegetables, olive oil, drugs, poisons, sexuality, and possibly also mineralogy
and meteorology. He clearly had a keen interest in ‘the phenomena’ and in
the practical aspects of medical care, and he rated the results of long-term
medical experience very highly. Yet at the same time Diocles was known for
his theoretical and philosophical outlook and for his tendency to build his
medical views on a general theory of nature. There are good reasons to be-
lieve that he was well in touch with the medical and philosophical thinkers
of his time, that he knew a number of the Hippocratic writings and that
he was familiar with, and to, Aristotle and Theophrastus. Furthermore, he
appears to have positioned himself prominently in the intellectual debates
of the fourth century, and to have played a major role in the communica-
tion of medical views and precepts to wider audiences in Greek society by
means of highly civilised literary writings in the Attic dialect. The basis for
his fame may lie partly in the impressive range of subjects he dealt with,
the almost encyclopaedic coverage of the subject of medicine and allied
sciences such as botany, biology, and possibly mineralogy and meteorology,
the considerable size of his literary production and the stylistic elegance his
work displayed. But a further possible reason may have been Diocles’ philo-
sophical and theoretical orientation and his tendency to relate his medical
views to more general theoretical views on nature (see frs. 61 , 63 , 64 ),^30 just
like the ‘Hippocrates’ referred to by Socrates in the well-known passage
in Plato’sPhaedrus( 270 c–d). For from the remains of his work Diocles
emerges as a very self-conscious scientist with a keen awareness of ques-
tions of methodology, a fundamental belief that treatment of a particular
part of the body cannot be effective without taking account of the body
as a whole (fr. 61 ) and of the essence of disease (fr. 63 ), and a strong desire
for systematisation of medical knowledge. Diocles’ use of notions such as
pneuma, humours and elementary qualities, his use of inference from signs
(^29) For a collection and discussion of the evidence and an account of Diocles’ views and historical
importance see van der Eijk ( 2000 a) and ( 2001 a), from which the following paragraph is adapted.
(^30) References to Diocles’ fragments are according to the numeration in van der Eijk ( 2000 a).