Introduction 33
and assert themselves, to establish the position of their profession and to
gain authority and power.^37 To be sure, the rhetorical nature of some of the
Hippocratic writings has not been completely overlooked; but it used to be
regarded with disdain and suspicion by scholars (such as Diels), apparently
on the assumption that this was sheer stylistic, meaningless embellishment
used in order to mask lack of substance, and consequently the authors of
works such asOn the Art of MedicineandOn Breathswere deprecatingly
labelled as ‘iatrosophists’.^38 Historians of ancient science, however, have
recently pointed to the competitive setting in which Greek scientists had to
work and to the rhetorical devices doctors had to use to attract customers in
what has appropriately been called the ‘medical marketplace’:^39 in a situa-
tion where no independently recognised qualifications and certificates were
available and where everyone could call himself doctor, the Hippocratic
physicians had to assert themselves not only against people they perceived
as drugsellers, quacks, magicians and practitioners of temple-medicine, but
also against intellectuals (such as Empedocles) who advocated healing on
the basis of philosophical postulates. Again, thevariationsthe Hippocratic
Corpus displays with regard to the use of rhetoric (not only the well-known
Gorgianic figures of speech but also argumentative techniques, analogies,
metaphors, etc.) admit of greater appreciation and explanation if the so-
cial and cultural context (or, in Hymes’ terminology, setting and scene) in
which they were intended to function is taken into account.^40
Finally, even within the traditional, content-oriented approach to ancient
scientific writing, there has been a growing awareness of the relevance of the
particular communicative situation of the text to its interpretation, such as
the audience for whom the text was intended or the occasion for which it
was produced. Such an awareness has led to greater caution in the establish-
ment of doctrinal ‘parallels’ or ‘inconsistencies’ between different works of
the same author, which would have been used as evidence of a development
in doctrine or even as a basis for declaring a work genuine or spurious. (We
will see interesting examples of this in chapters 8 and 9 below.) Indeed, it has
prompted greater restraint in the establishment of the author’s intention
(in so far as it may be questioned whether it is appropriate to speak of an
‘author’ in cases such as the HippocraticEpidemics). Such caution is inspired
by a consideration of differences in genesis (single or multiple authorship),
status (e.g. data collection, introductory work, rhetorical pamphlet, or
(^37) See Barton ( 1994 ); Lloyd ( 1979 ); van der Eijk, Horstmanshoff and Schrijvers ( 1995 ).
(^38) For a critical discussion of this concept see Jouanna ( 1988 a) 48.
(^39) Nutton ( 1992 ).
(^40) On polemical writing in the Hippocratic Corpus see Ducatillon ( 1977 ).