90 Hippocratic Corpus and Diocles of Carystus
primary and secondary qualities that is so important to the author ofOn
Ancient Medicine; he rather distinguishes between qualities and powers, for
it is the combination of these two that is supposed to be significant. Besides,
there are more general reasons which should make us reluctant to associate
Diocles with the author ofOn Ancient Medicine. The picture of Diocles that
emerges not just from this single fragment, but from the more than two
hundred that are preserved from him, shows that in matters of physiology
and pathology Diocles’ opinions display many speculative characteristics in
whose company the author ofOn Ancient Medicinewould have felt himself
quite uncomfortable. Diocles’ acceptance of the four primary qualities and
of concepts such as innate pneuma and humours is frequently attested, and
his use of them in the causal explanation ofdiseasesin his workAffection,
Cause, Treatment(W ,
, ) is well documented.^37 One may
object that this information is based on testimonies (not onverbatimfrag-
ments such as fragment 176 ) supplied by sources which are perhaps not
very reliable; but as far as this fragment is concerned, there is no reason for
doubt concerning the validity of these reports, for they are perfectly com-
patible with it. Fragment 176 does not present itself as (nor claims to be) a
methodological programme for medical science as a whole: it is concerned
with dietetics, with the powers of foodstuffs and with the practical prob-
lems the physician has to face. It is far from self-evident that what Diocles
says here also applies to anatomy, pathology and general physiology – or
even if it would apply, what the implications of this would be.^38 Moreover,
if the interpretation of the fragment given above is correct, we should say
that even within the field of dietetics Diocles is not hostile towards causal
explanations as such; he is just concerned with their limitations and with
their correctness. He points out that there are many cases in which causal
(^37) On Diocles’ physiology see frs. 25 – 8 ; on his pathology see, e.g., frs. 109 (on which see Smith ( 1979 )
186 , and Flashar ( 1966 ) 50 – 3 ), 78 , 95 , 98 , 117. A large number of Diocles’ aetiological views on diseases
are reported in the treatise on acute and chronic diseases by the so-called Anonymus Parisinus Fuchsii,
edited by Garofalo ( 1997 ). It is remarkable that many of these aetiologies (e.g. frs. 72 , 78 , 98 )are
in the form of a definition stating the nature of the affection in question, while others describe the
conditions under which (or the places where) the disease occurs (frs. 80 , 87 ); moreover, fr. 98 seems
to imply that Diocles distinguished different kinds of causes. Although we should take into account
the possibility that in many cases it is the Anonymus who is responsible for the precise wording
of the aetiologies, the testimonies nevertheless point to a sophisticated use of causal explanation by
Diocles in dealing with diseases. The question of the reliability of the Anonymus (which is too often
approached from ana priorinegative point of view, for instance by Kudlien ( 1963 ) 462 ) can only be
answered on the basis of an unbiased study of the whole text, which has only recently been made
available in its entirety by Garofalo ( 1997 ); see also van der Eijk ( 1999 b).
(^38) An extreme example of this is Kudlien’s view ( 1963 , 461 ) that this fragment casts doubt on the
reliability of doxographic reports that attribute to Diocles a doctrine of humours. On this see
Flashar ( 1966 ) 54 n. 5 ; Sch ̈oner ( 1964 ) 72 ff.; Smith ( 1979 ) 185 – 6 n. 12.