Introduction 37
this is not sufficient and of no use to those lacking the experience to put it
into practice.^51 For what we know about the history of medical education
in the ancient world, these remarks indeed reflect the standard situation.^52
The tradition of theviva voxas the preferred mode of teaching (not only in
medicine) continued also in times in which literacy had established itself
and in which medical literature was available on a very large scale; even
Galen, the most learned physician of antiquity, who frequently recom-
mends the use of the medical books written by the great authorities of
the past, stresses the importance of learning from the master by direct oral
teaching.^53
All these references suggest that at least some of the medical works pre-
served in the Hippocratic Corpus were presented orally, and also that proba-
bly the majority of written texts were used in combination with oral teaching
and transmission of knowledge. This means that they were not intended to
stand on their own, and this fact may provide an explanation for some of
the formal peculiarities they display and for some of the difficulties involved
in their interpretation.^54
At the same time, however, the Hippocratic writings refer on numerous
occasions to ‘written’ information that is available and should be taken into
account.^55 Thus atEpidemics 3. 16 ( 3. 100 L.) it is said that an important com-
ponent of the medical art is the ability to form a correct judgement about
‘what has been written down’ (ta gegrammena), that is, the case histories
of patients that have been put down in writing. Very similar instructions
are found elsewhere in the Corpus, suggesting that this use of written
information – probably in addition to oral information and the doctor’s
own observations – is by no means something self-evident, but needs to be
encouraged and to be done correctly. It is further noted at several points
(^51) In a comparison between legislation and medicine, Aristotle says: ‘Neither do men appear to become
expert physicians on the basis of medical books. Yet they try to discuss not only general means of
treatment, but also how one might cure and how one should treat each individual patient, dividing
them according to their various habits of body; these [discussions] appear to be of value for men
who have had practical experience, but they are useless for those who have no knowledge about the
subject’ (Eth. Nic. 1181 b 2 – 6 ;cf.Politics 1287 a 35 ). And a report about Diocles’ reply to someone who
claimed to have purchased a medical book (iatrikon biblion) and therefore to be no longer in need
of instruction makes the same point: ‘Books are reminders for those who have received teaching,
but they are gravestones to the uneducated’ (fr. 6 ).
(^52) See Kudlien ( 1970 ).
(^53) Galen,On the Powers of Foodstuffs 1. 1. 47 ( 6. 480 K.);On the Mixtures and Powers of Simple Drugs 6 ,
proem ( 11. 791 K.);On the Composition of Drugs according to Places 6. 1 ( 12. 894 K.).
(^54) The brevity and obscurity of the Hippocratic writings were already noted and explained as a deliberate
strategy by Galen; see the references mentioned by Langholf ( 1977 ) 11 n. 5 , and the discussion by
Sluiter ( 1995 a).
(^55) The evidence has been conveniently assembled by K. Usener ( 1990 ).