46 Hippocratic Corpus and Diocles of Carystus
natural principle (or as a certain group of concrete natural factors) and is no
longer conceived as something supernatural. Consequently the influence,
or the manifestations, of the divine are regarded as natural processes and
no longer as supernatural interventions of gods within natural or human
situations. On this view, the writer ofOn the Sacred Diseasemay be seen
as the exponent of a ‘rationalistic’ or ‘naturalistic’ religiosity, or in any
case as an adherent of a more advanced way of thinking about the divine,
which can be observed in some of the Presocratic philosophers as well (e.g.
Xenophanes, Anaximander; see n. 14 below), and which resembles opinions
found in the Sophistic movement, in some of the tragedies of Euripides
and in theHistoriesof Thucydides.
On the other hand, it has been recognised by several interpreters^6 that the
author’s criticism of the magicians, which occupies the entire first chapter
of the treatise (and which is echoed several times later on),^7 reflects an
authentic religious conviction. This applies particularly to his repeated
accusations of impiety (asebeia) and even atheism (atheos) in sections 1. 28 –
30 ( 6. 358 – 60 L.) and 1. 39 ff. ( 6. 362 ff. L.). In these passages the author shows
himself both a defender of religion and a critic of magic: he expresses definite
opinions on what he believes to be the different domains of human action
and divine action ( 1. 25 – 31 , 6. 358 – 60 L.) and on the nature of the divine in its
relation to man ( 1. 45 , 6. 364 L.), and he makes stipulations concerning the
truly pious manner of approaching the gods and making an appeal to their
cleansing power ( 1. 41 , 6. 362 L.; 1. 42 , 6. 362 L.; 1. 46 , 6. 364 L.). The religious
belief which apparently underlies these passages is far more traditional
and less ‘advanced’ than the naturalistic theology which is reflected in the
statements on the divine character of the disease, since it appears that the
author ofOn the Sacred Diseasebelieves in a supreme divine power which
cleanses men of their moral transgressions and which is accessible to cultic
worship in sacred buildings by means of prayer and sacrifice.
The problem I intend to deal with in this chapter is how these two
different sets of religious ideas are related to each other. For if it is true,
(^6) See especially Ducatillon ( 1977 ) 163 and 180 – 5 ; cf. McGibbon ( 1965 ) 387 – 8 and the hesitant remarks
of Norenberg ( ̈ 1968 ) 74 – 6. None of these scholars, however, have satisfactorily solved the problem
of this apparently ‘double-faced’ religiosity (see below).
(^7) There is no sharp dividing line between the ‘polemical’ and the ‘positive’ part of the treatise: the
polemical tone persists through the whole text (e.g. 2. 6 – 7 , 6. 366 L.; 11. 5 , 6. 382 L.; 12. 2 , 6. 382 L.;
13. 13 , 6. 386 L.; 17. 1 – 10 , 6. 392 – 4 L.; 18. 1 – 2 and 6 , 6. 394 – 6 L.), and in the polemical ch. 1 the author
repeatedly expresses his own opinions (e.g. 1. 2 , 6. 352 L.; 1. 13 – 14 , 6. 356 L.; 1. 25 – 6 , 6. 358 L.; 1. 45 – 6 ,
6. 364 L.). References toOn the Sacred Diseasefollow the division into chapters and sections of
H. Grensemann’s edition ( 1968 c). Compared to the Loeb edition by W. H. S. Jones (vol.ii, 1923 ),
Grensemann’s ch. 1 corresponds to Jones’ chs.i–iv, then 2 tov, 3 toviand so on up to ch. 16. 1 – 5 ,
which corresponds to Jones’ ch.xix; then 16. 6 – 17. 1 – 10 corresponds to Jonesxxand 18 toxxi.