On the Sacred Disease 53
1 ' ), we have to suppose, on this interpretation, that
when writing ‘the same source’ ($ ($) the author means the climatic
factors, whose influence is explained later on in the text (see above) and
whose divine character is not stated before the final chapter. Now if a writer
says: ‘this disease owes its divine character to the same thing to which
all other diseases owe their divine character’, it is rather unsatisfactory
to suppose that the reader has to wait for an answer to the question of
what this ‘same thing’ is until the end of the treatise. This need not be
a serious objection against this interpretation, but it would no doubt be
preferable to be able to find the referent of$ ($in the immediate
context.
Thirdly, this interpretation requires that in the sentence ‘from the things
that come and go away, and from cold and sun and winds that change
and never rest’ ( 18. 1 :"3 *
!) "
!) :-
8 ) < ) ( "
=!))
the secondkai(‘and’) is taken in the explicative sense of ‘that is to say’. In
a sequence of four occurrences ofkaithis is a little awkward, since there
is no textual indication for taking the secondkaiin a different sense from
the others. Yet perhaps one could argue that this is indicated by the shift
from plural to singular without article, and by the fact that the expression
‘the things that come and those that go away’ is itself quite general: it may
denote everything which approaches the human body and everything which
leaves it, such as food, water or air, as well as everything the body excretes.^21
On this line of reasoning, this expression would then be specified into the
following items: cold, sun and winds; without this specification food, air
and water as well as the corresponding excretions would be divine too,
which seems unlikely.^22 Besides, it must be conceded that the specification
of ‘the things that come and go away’ (*
!) "
!))
as the climatic factors mentioned is not without justification. At the end of
(^21) 1 "
!is a common expression for excretions: cf.Epidemics 1. 5 ( 2. 632 L.) and 3. 10 ( 3. 90 L.;
for other instances see Kuhn and Fleischer, ̈ Index Hippocraticuss.v.); in this sense the word is used
inOn the Sacred Disease 5. 8 ( 6. 370 L.) as well (though this is Grensemann’s emendation of the MSS
reading"
). Against this specialised interpretation cf. Ducatillon ( 1977 ) 202 : ‘L’adjectif qui nous
interesse [i.e. ́ theios, PJvdE] s’applique icia de nombreux objets. Il caract́erise d’une part ce qui entre dans le corps et ce qui en sort, c’esta dire l’air et les aliments, d’autre part le froid, le soleil, les vents,
bref, les conditions climatiques et atmosph ́eriques; c’est donc la nature entiere, consid` er ́ ́ee comme
une r ́ealit ́e mat ́erielle qui est proclam ́ee divine.’
(^22) As G. E. R. Lloyd reminds me, it could be argued that the divinity of air, water and food need not
be surprising in the light of the associations of bread with Demeter, and wine with Dionysus (cf.
Prodicus DKb5). But even if these associations apply here (which is not confirmed by any textual
evidence), the unlikelihood of the divinity of the ‘things that go out of the body’ (1 "
!)
remains.