72 Hippocratic Corpus and Diocles of Carystus
Regimenis another matter which cannot be discussed here – though here,
too, interpreters have been misguided bya prioriconceptions of ‘mythic re-
ligiosity’.^65 It will be clear that on the above interpretation ofOn the Sacred
Diseasethe positions advanced in the two treatises are not so far removed
from each other. An important point is that the author ofOn Regimen
recommends prayers in various sorts of diseases, whereas the writer ofOn
the Sacred Diseasewould probably do so only – if ever – in hopeless cases.
On the other hand it must be conceded that the author ofOn Regimen
substantiates his claim to the ability to cure far more elaborately than the
author ofOn the Sacred Disease, who confines himself to just a few general
remarks on therapy which may apply to any disease.^66 But the treatises
differ so widely in purpose and method that comparisons are problematic.
The sole object of mentioningOn Regimenis to show the danger of us-
ing apparent differences in ‘theology’ or ‘religiosity’ between the various
Hippocratic treatises as evidence for establishing the relative dates of the
treatises.^67
Postscript
Major discussions ofOn the Sacred Diseasethat have come out since the
original publication of this paper are Stol ( 1993 ), Roselli ( 1996 ), Hankinson
( 1998 c), W ̈ohlers ( 1999 ), Laskaris ( 2002 ), Jouanna ( 2003 ) and Lloyd ( 2003 )
43 – 50. While some scholars (Hankinson, Jouanna, Roselli) have accepted
my position regarding the author’s religious beliefs, others (Laskaris, Lloyd)
prefer to read the author’s arguments in chapter 1 predominantly as rhetor-
ical and not necessarily expressing the author’s own views. My suggestion
to prefer the reading-#Cin 18. 2 has been adopted by Roselli, though
(^65) See N ̈orenberg ( 1968 ) 78 : ‘Trotz seiner medizinischen Kenntnisse verschiedener Di ̈aten und
krankhafter Zust ̈ande unterliegt dieser Verfasser noch ganz dem Aberglauben’; and Thivel ( 1975 )
64 : ‘Il existe probablement, dans la Collection hippocratique, peu de trait ́es qui se tiennent aussi
́eloign ́es du veritable esprit scientifique.’ Both Kudlien and N ́ orenberg point to the belief in divine ̈
dreams ( 4. 87. 1 ) as evidence of this; but this belief was hardly ever questioned throughout the classical
period (with the exception of Aristotle). One of the interesting characteristics ofOn Regimen 4 is that
the author states that he will not deal with divine dreams, but only with those dreams which have a
physical origin, while at the same time incorporating religious instructions among his therapeutic
remarks. This is, of course, not an inconsistency or a sign of the alleged ‘compilatory’ character of
the book (as van Lieshout ( 1980 , 186 – 7 ) seems to think), but an interesting example of the surprising
relations between science and religion of which Greek medicine provides evidence (see Lloyd ( 1979 )
42 ).
(^66) This may be because his claims concerning the curability of the disease are actually quite weak (see
Lloyd ( 1979 ) 22 , 49 and 56 – 7 ), but it may just as well be due to the purpose of the treatise, which
does not aim at giving therapeutic details. [It should further be noted that the author ofOn Regimen
is first of all concerned with the prevention of disease rather than its cure; see van der Eijk ( 2004 a).]
(^67) Contra Kudlien ( 1977 ) 274 and N ̈orenberg ( 1968 ) 78.