On the Sacred Disease 57
is mentioned. Of course the validity of this argument depends on the
assumption of a common author ofOn the Sacred DiseaseandAirs, Waters,
Placesand on the presumption that he has not changed his opinion on the
subject – a long-standing issue which is still a matter of disagreement. It
is evident that this question would have to be settled on other grounds as
well, for possible divergencies in the concepts of the divine expressed in
the two treatises might equally well be taken as ground for assuming two
different authors.^33
Perhaps none of these considerations can be regarded as genuine objections.
But it can hardly be denied that the first interpretation necessarily presup-
poses all of them and that the champions of this interpretation should
take account of them. It therefore remains to consider whether the second
interpretation ( 2 ) rests on less complicated presuppositions.
On this interpretation the disease is divine in virtue of having aphusis,a
‘nature’ (in the sense defined above: a regular pattern of origin and growth).
This appears to be closer to the text of the three passages quoted: the
mention ofphusisin 1. 2 and 2. 1 – 2 in the immediate context of the claim
that epilepsy is not more divine than other diseases can easily be understood,
since it is exactly its ‘having a nature’ which constitutes the divine character
of the disease. A further advantage of this interpretation is that the referent of
‘the same (i.e. origin)’ ($ ($) is immediately supplied by the context
(‘have a nature from which each of them arises’, -
... 4
) and that in 18. 2 the sentence ‘and each of them has a nature and a
power of its own, and none is hopeless or impossible to deal with’ ( -
. 4...(’" ) can be taken as providing the explanation
of ‘all are divine and all are human’ ( "
):
all diseases are divine in virtue of having a nature and a power of their
own, and all are human in virtue of being capable of human treatment and
cure, with the phrase ‘none is hopeless or impossible to deal with’ ((.
'!
(’" ) answering ‘it is in no respect less curable
than the others... ’ (
#3 ,
(. 6 7))in 2. 3 ( 6. 364 L.).
This corresponds very well with the use of ‘human’K"
Lin the
author’s criticism of the magicians ( 1. 25 , 6. 358 L.; 1. 31 , 6. 360 L.): whereas in
their conception of the divinity of the disease ‘divine’ and ‘human’ exclude
each other, the author regards it as one of his merits to have shown that
(^33) On this question see, e.g., Heinimann ( 1945 ) 181 – 206 ; a useful summary of the discussion is given by
Norenberg ( ̈ 1968 ) 9 – 11 ; on the significance of similarities and discrepancies between the two treatises
for the question of their authorship cf. Grensemann ( 1968 c) 7 – 18 and the interesting analysis by
Ducatillon ( 1977 ) 197 – 226 ; see also van der Eijk ( 1991 ).