106 Hippocratic Corpus and Diocles of Carystus
to the execution of these principles and clearly trying to emancipate itself
from philosophical speculation. Thus, as is well known, the author of the
Hippocratic workOn Ancient Medicinecriticises what he calls ‘philosophy’^9
and its influence on medical practice, and he refers disparagingly to the use
of ‘postulates’ such as the elementary qualities hot and cold as all-pervading
explanatory principles in the understanding and treatment of the human
body.^10 The author of another Hippocratic work,On the Art of Medicine,
defends medicine against accusations to the effect that it is not really a skill
and that its successes are a matter of good luck. Interestingly, he counters
the criticism that medicine is not in all cases capable of restoring health
by pointing out that this is not due to lack of skill or poor performance of
doctors (although this may of course be the case), but due either to lack of
co-operation by the patient or to the fact that the disease is, or has become,
incurable – and in such cases, he argues, it is actually to the doctor’s credit
to be realistic and to refrain from treatment.^11
As far as point (ii) is concerned, what Celsus says here would again
seem to receive confirmation from the surviving evidence of fifth- and
fourth-century medical literature. For while the Hippocratic Corpus does
not contain works specifically devoted to therapeutics as such, two lead-
ing medical writers of the subsequent generation, Diocles of Carystus and
Praxagoras of Cos, are both reported to have written extensively on ther-
apeuticsper sein works entitledOn Treatments(
*), at least
four books being attested in the case of Diocles and three for Praxagoras;^12
and it may be noted that Aristotle, too, is credited with a workOn Reme-
dies(De adiutoriis, in Greek probably <# # )).^13 In the case of
Diocles, we further know that this workOn Treatmentswas different from
the more frequently attested workAffection, Cause, Treatment(
, in one book).^14 Regrettably, our information on the nature of
these two works and their possible differences is severely restricted by the
fact that Diocles’ works survive in fragments only; and in this particular case
the problem is aggravated by the fact that all information about Diocles’
(^9) On Ancient Medicine 20 ( 1. 620 L.). (^10) On Ancient Medicine 1 ( 1. 570 L.).
(^11) On the Art of Medicine 8 ( 6. 12 – 14 L.).
(^12) Diocles, frs. 99 (libro curationum), 136 (secundo libro curationum), 100 (tertio libro de curationibus),
125 (quarto libro de curationibus) in van der Eijk’s edition ( 2000 a); Praxagoras, frs. 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 ,
104 , 105 , 106 , 107 , 108 , 109 , 111 , 112 in the edition of Steckerl ( 1958 ).
(^13) Aristotle, fr. 360 (=Caelius Aurelianus,Acute Affections 2. 13. 87 ) in the edition of Gigon ( 1983 ).
(^14) Diocles, frs. 49 , 73 , 79 , 85 , 92 , 99 , 100 , 103 , 109 , 111 a, 114 , 116 , 120 , 123 , 125 , 128 , 129 , 131 , 132 a, 136 , 139
in van der Eijk ( 2000 a). To be sure, in frs. 116 , 131 and 139 Caelius Aurelianus refers to the ‘books’
(libris) Diocles wrote on diseases, causes, treatments, but the fact that in the overwhelming majority
of references to this work he speaks of a ‘book’ (libro) and that Caelius, when he refers to this work,
never specifies in which book Diocles said such and such, suggests that these three cases are just due
to lack of accuracy on Caelius’ part.