98 Hippocratic Corpus and Diocles of Carystus
foodstuffs.^53 Compared with theverbatimfragment itself, Galen’s intro-
duction of Diocles as a champion of the view that the powers of foodstuffs
are found by means of experienceonly(note the use of !in sections 2
and 12 , both just before and immediately after the quotation) is certainly a
gross overstatement – just as his characterisation of Diocles as a ‘Dogmatist’
and his association with the Empiricists evidently suffers from anachronis-
tic distortion. In fact, when reading Galen’s own discussion of the right
method of dietetics in the pages following on the fragment, it turns out
that Diocles’ position as reflected in the fragment (especially in his crit-
icism of claims one and two) perfectly meets the requirements of what
Galen himself calls ‘qualified experience’ (
)
# ; see chapter
10 below). By this concept, which Galen presents as his own innovation, he
means an empirical approach which takes into account the conditions un-
der which a dietetic statement like ‘rock fish are difficult to digest’ is true.^54
Some of the factors Galen enumerates as being relevant in this respect have
already been mentioned above: climate, season, geographical area, the pa-
tient’s natural constitution, age, way of life, and so on. All these should
be considered, Galen points out, before any generalising statement about
the power of a particular foodstuff is allowed. Galen represents Diocles as
being completely unaware of these factors and as being more one-sided
than he actually was – and it would seem that Galen is doing so not for
lack of understanding but in order to articulate his own refined position as
against Diocles’ unqualified acceptance of experience as the only way to get
to know the powers of foodstuffs.^55 That Galen is making forced efforts to
distinguish himself from Diocles may also be indicated by the fact that later
in the same introductory chapter ofOn the Powers of FoodstuffsGalen once
more mentions Diocles,^56 and blames him for ‘not even’ having mentioned
(^53) See Torraca ( 1965 ) 109 ; Smith ( 1979 ) 184.
(^54) SeeDe alim. facult. 1. 1. 45 (p. 216 , 5 Helmreich; 6. 479 K.); 1. 1. 46 (p. 216 , 14 H.; 6. 479 K.); 1. 12. 1
(p. 233 , 2 – 3 H.; 6. 508 K.);On the Method of Healing(De methodo medendi) 2. 7 ( 10. 27 K.); 3. 7
( 10. 204 K.);De simpl. med. fac. 2. 7 ( 11. 483 K.); 3. 13 ( 11. 573 K.); 4. 19 ( 11. 685 K.); 4. 23 ( 11. 703 K.); 6. 1
( 11. 800 K.); 7. 10 ( 12. 38 K.).
(^55) See Smith ( 1979 ) 184 – 6.
(^56) Fr. 177 (Galen,De alim. facult. 1. 1. 27 ,p. 210 , 15 Helmreich ( 6. 469 K.)) – a testimony which is not listed
as such in Wellmann’s collection but only referred to at the end of fr. 176 (Wellmann fr. 112 ) by ‘vgl.
Gal.v i 649’, although there is little to be compared in the two passages: ‘The [substances] that are
even with respect to their mixtures and have no mastering quality are just foodstuffs, not drugs: they
do not provoke emptying of the belly, nor do they stop, strengthen or relax the stomach, just as they do
not stimulate or stop sweat or urine, nor do they bring about another state in the body characterised
by hotness, coldness, dryness or wetness, but they preserve in every respect the body of the animal
that is fed [by it] in the state in which they found it. But here too there is a highly useful qualification,
itself, too, not mentioned by Diocles, just as also none of the others we have discussed until now [was
mentioned by him]’ (1
(
$
!#