94 Hippocratic Corpus and Diocles of Carystus
against claims one and two sounds very Aristotelian (although he does not
use the typically Aristotelian terminology of 5 H!,1 < <#!,
or the qualifier6C). The advice not to take unknown, disputed or implausible
items as starting-points is perfectly in keeping with the principles and the
practice of Aristotelian dialectic.^43
the most imperfect embryo is of this kind, and also in all viviparous and oviparous animals the
first embryo grows to perfection while being undifferentiated... in those animals that produce a
living being within themselves the embryoin some sort of waybecomes egg-like after its formation;
for the moisture is contained within a fine membrane, as when one takes away the shell of an
egg’ (
. G 1 . D S
*
-) 1 5 (! ! #0
3 . -
) #
1 5
) # > 3 12
) # 3 *T 3 1 " -#
$!
0 +
. =)C$
eC$
eC3 3 -# 3 * "
!
f
<
% &D#
...1 5 H =)C$
1 3 -# 3 D
" eC
.
T
1 3 H3 H
*C0 J A
"
3
* eC* \). Theophrastus,On the Causes of Plants 2. 9. 8 – 9 : ‘Seeing that it is the opening
of the fruit that makes it remain on the tree by producing ventilation and drainage, the process in
the Egyptian mulberryseems in some sort of waysimilar; but some dispute this fact of opening and
say that when the insects enter the fig they do not make it open but make it shut; and so one can
give the opposite cause for retention and assert that caprification aims at closing the fruit. For once
the fig is closed neither dew nor drizzle can make it miscarry, and it is dew and drizzle that get
warmed and cause the drop, as with the pomegranate blossom. That these are responsible (and they
are cited by some people) is indicated by what happens: there is more dropping of the fruit when
light rain follows its first appearance’ (345 A 8 '
D
%
% &
"
$
[3] < * a
-)C
)T " 1 $
<#$
P '5 ( "
/ : " 1 -
$
-)
%
$
P -
= )T 1 1 -)
& 5 8 ! & 1 :
-
H 5
; "
!
? / -
* O*T
. $ A
#-
3 < ^ %
T "<
1 + H)
);tr.
Einarson and Link, slightly modified); Theophrastus,On the Causes of Plants 5. 2. 5 : ‘What happens
in plants that flower progressively from the lower parts upward closelyresembles in a waywhat
happens here’ (3 4.
3 < 1 " $
"3 * ) "
; tr. Einarson and Link, slightly modified); Theophrastus,On the
Causes of Plants 6. 9. 4 : ‘by and large all fragrant substances are bitter. We shall deal with the reason for
this later. Itseemsthat of the two opposites, namely sweet and bitter, the sweet is the origin (as it were)
of good flavour, whereas the bitter is the origin of fragrance andin some waythe bitter is to a greater
extent the origin of fragrance. For it is hard to find any fragrant thing that is not bitter, but many
non-sweet things have excellent flavour’ (X + . 5 &
T - .
G %
2 .34. \
) ` $
$
3 . ` ( "% 3 5 ( ,
+ 3
3 ( >
c& 1 < %
3 & . 1 % , tr. Einarson and Link,
slightly modified). I am aware that linguistic resemblances do not prove intellectual exchange or even
similarity of doctrine (for the abuse of linguistic ‘evidence’ by Jaeger see von Staden ( 1992 ) 234 – 7 )
and that the Aristotelian corpus is so much larger than the Hippocratic that the significance of the
fact that only occurrences in Aristotle and Theophrastus are found may be doubted (the computer
also found Plato,Phaedo 100 e 6 –a 1 :A) . G ;C
=) !
1 (
, but this
passage is not quite comparable with the Diocles fragment). It will be clear that much linguistic
work still needs to be done here. The resemblance (both linguistic and doctrinal) between Diocles,
fr. 176 , and a passage in ch. 9 of the Pseudo-Aristotelian textDe spiritu( 485 a 28 ff.) was pointed out
by Roselli ( 1992 ) 122.(^43) Cf., for instance, Aristotle’s well-known definition of the ‘common opinions’ (D)inTop. 100
b 20 ff.