88 Hippocratic Corpus and Diocles of Carystus
like to add a secondcaveat, which has to do with the nature of polemical
writing in antiquity. Even if we can find a text A, the contents of which
completely correspond with the ideas criticised by the author of another
text, say, B, and a text C which only shows some similarities with what
is criticised in B, the statement that B is consciously opposing A and not
C can at best remain a plausible hypothesis. For we cannot rule out the
possibility that B is actually aiming at C in a way which is – according to our
standards – just unfair: he may represent the ideas of his opponent in a very
distorted and caricaturist way by ignoring several important specifications
or relevant details, or by isolating separate items from their context. Such
a distortion need not be a manifestation of malevolence; it may also be a
result of the fact that the way in which the author of B views text C is rather
different from our perception of it. Especially in the case of an author, such
as Diocles, whose writings have been lost, we should be very careful not
to pretend that we can creep into his skin and perceive with his eyes the
other text which is supposed to be criticised and which represents only a
very small part of a literature that must have been of considerable size.
These remarks may appear unduly sceptical or a tedious example of
stating the obvious. Yet the practice of ancient polemical writers in cases
where they do mention their opponents by name and in which the writings
of these opponents are preserved as well (e.g. the polemics of Christian
writers such as Origen or Tertullian against the Gnostics), shows that fair
polemics were the exception rather than the rule.^33
Fredrich’s identifications are, of course, an extreme example, and most
scholars dealing with this fragment have expressed themselves in much more
cautious terms. Yet the substantial similarity between Diocles’ criticism of
the first claim and the critical remarks of the author of the Hippocratic
textOn Regimen 2. 39 is accepted, and it has been suggested that bothOn
Regimen 2. 39 and Diocles are arguing against generalisations of a type the
physician Mnesitheus in fragment 22 Bertier (and perhaps also the writer
of the Hippocratic textOn Affections 55 ) provides evidence of – which is
reinforced by the fact that Galen in the immediate context of this same
fragment presents Diocles as disagreeing with Mnesitheus on a related
subject (although it is not certain that chronology admits of the possibility
that Mnesitheus actually was the target in either, or both, of these cases).^34
(^33) On Origen’s polemics against the Gnostics see, for instance, Norelli ( 1992 ) and Castagno ( 1992 ).
(^34) Mnesitheus, fr. 22 Bertier (Athenaeus 3 .121 d): ‘Salty and sweet flavours all have a relaxing effect on
the belly, while those that are acid and sharp release urine. Those that are bitter are rather diuretic,
while some of them also have a relaxing effect on the belly. Those that are sour,
(]# 5 5a # C T‘/ M ’, #0‘