To help, or to do no harm 111
However, on this interpretation it is slightly strange to introduce a new
paragraph at section 9 , as Mudry does,^22 for this suggests that a new issue is
to be discussed, whereas both sentences seem to be expressing more or less
the same idea: progress leading to different methods of treatment and divi-
sion of the art of medicine into three areas which are also defined by the way
in which they provide treatment (quae uictu... quae medicamentis... quae
manu mederetur) seem to amount to the same thing.^23 Instead, I would
suggest takingisdemque temporibusas a less specific reference to the times
mentioned in the previous section (thus including both Hippocratic and
post-Hippocratic medicine) and reading the section fromisdemque tempo-
ribusonwards as making a new point (as is indicated by the use ofque), that
is to say, a development running parallel to the events that were described
in section 8 (Hippocrates’ emancipation of the art of healing from the study
of wisdom and the subsequent further refinement of medicine by Diocles
and the others). It is important to see for what purpose Celsus has inserted
the tripartition of healing into his argument.^24 It enables him to present the
subsequent relapse into the theoretical study of nature as something taking
placewithin dietetics,^25 thus arriving at the paradoxical, perhaps slightly
tragic picture of medicine making fast progress towards greater refinement
but this same differentiation allowing theoretical speculation to sneak in
again through the back door of dietetics.^26 For although Celsus does not
state whom he means when referring to ‘by far the most famous authori-
ties’ (longe clarissimi auctores) in dietetics, it is hard not to think of Diocles
and Erasistratus (and perhaps Mnesitheus, although he is not mentioned
by Celsus), who had just been mentioned as those who had made further
progress in medicine, but who are also known for their ‘theoretical’ outlook
in general – and indeed it is hard not to think of the most philosophical
treatise on dietetics that has come down to us, the HippocraticOn Regimen.
Thus interpreted, Celsus’ report is consistent with the fact (which there
was no reason for him to ignore) that the Hippocratic Corpus itself already
provides evidence of a division of therapeutic activities roughly correspond-
ing to the tripartition into dietetics, surgery and pharmacology. Although
(^22) See also Spencer ( 1935 ) 6 , and Serbat ( 1995 ) ad loc.
(^23) On the interpretation of this phrase see n. 20 above.
(^24) Surgery and pharmacology had already been identified as ‘parts’ of medicine in section 4 (dealing
with the Homeric age). Dietetics is presented by Celsus as a more recent method of treatment.
(^25) SeeMudry( 1982 ) 74.
(^26) It may be disputed whether Celsus really values this development negatively (see von Staden ( 1994 b)
85 ), considering his cautious approval of theory in section 47 of the proem; however, there the
discussion is about fevers and wounds, not about dietetics, and theory is just presented as adding
a special but not strictly necessary quality to medicine; and in section 59 (where the wording is
strikingly similar to that of section 9 ) he is clearly being sarcastic about the value of theory.