in early Greek medicine: the choirs of Cos, of Cnidus, and of Sicily. The word is vague and suggestive, and we do well to keep it so. If we look in the Hippocratic Corpus for schools of medical theory, with distinct sets of doctrine marked off clearly from the doctrines of rival schools, we shall be lucky indeed if we can find them, and, having found them, succeed in convincing others of their existence. But we shall find, now and again, an individual voice proclaiming itself from among its impersonal surroundings with clarity and vigour: some treatises in the collection have their author's personality stamped on them as distinctly as on a work of art.
and 
von den 
steht auβer Frage, ihre nahe Verwandtschaft wird durch viele Parallelbilder von Krankheiten bewiesen, die oft wörtliche Übereinstimmung zeigen.’
with the remainder of the treatise, see 
(I, p. 110,8 Kuehlewein); that passage, however, is ambiguous, and a number of interpretations are possible. Against that of Edelstein, see, e.g., 
I, p. 109, 15–17 Kuehlewein). Moreover, it is no objection to the antiquity of this system to suppose, as I think we must, that what was purged according to the earlier 
were the humours bile and phlegm. These are not, as 
(Galen, XVII A, 888 K.), but the term itself in its medical application is older than Euryphon (Archilochus 96 Diehl); while 
appears to have been familiar to Hecataeus (cf. 
reflects purely Greek ideas is unlikely to be true: cf. 
, on which Cnidian dietetics are based. It is significant that bile and phlegm in the Cnidian treatises show distinct signs of a double and inconsistent use: on the one hand they are treated as 
, while on the other they are opposed to the 
, which act upon them (cf. 
I). It is in the latter case that they show their original character, while the dietetic use is to be traced back to Alcmaeon (cf. the historical sketch given by 
[
, noted by the author of 
, are to be traced to the importation by Euryphon of dietetic medicine into the Cnidian tradition. This would account for his importance in that tradition.
25 (VI, p. 236 L.). ‘Dysentery and leientery and diarrhoea are akin, and must be treated by preventing or diverting the flow from the head and upper cavity: 
’ The same author says in 37 (p. 246) that the first question the physician must ask himself, after discovering the symptoms from the patient, is whether the disease is caused by bile or by phlegm or by both. Cf. also 
9 (VI, p. 54 L.): 
. It is perhaps significant that a remark on dietetics has preceded: 
. The thought is similar in 
(VI, p. 20 L.): 
. The treatise 
is entirely governed by this attitude: see especially the initial and final chapters, and cf. the remarks of 
35 (VII, p. 252 L.): 
. The relation between cause and symptom is not usually stated so clearly in these works.
II. 1–11 and 12 ff. as two separate works, both depending upon a common source, which contained the aetiology (which is therefore early) of 1–11, and the symptoms and treatment of 12 ff.; 1–11, however, was probably composed later than 12 ff. Thus the relation is complicated, but seems to me to account for the facts best. For a different explanation, see 
(cf. also 
’
II and of 
(which P. himself admits, N.G.G. [1937], 94–95; to what he says there I would add that the reason for the importance of the head [not the brain, which is not mentioned] in this section of 
II, is simply that the arrangement is a capite ad calcem; moreover, the head here is not regarded as the seat of phlegm only, as P. says it is), it seems to me that Wellmann's hypothesis of a common source for both works (op. cit., pp. 304 ff.) is at least likely to be nearer the truth, though based on somewhat tenuous grounds.
and its relation to phlegm, see 
, cf. 
II. 2 (VII, p. 8 L.) 
. The water is a liquescence of phlegm: 
. Cf. 
19 (VI, p. 228 L.), 
, and the change of phlegm to water in dropsy, 
22 (VII, p. 220 L.). Precisely the same process is described in 
4 (p. 210), 
. 
4 is a compendium of the diseases of the head which are discussed in extenso in these chapters of 
II, and is presumably abbreviated from the equivalent section in the 
.
: cf. LSJ s.v. 
. Only then does the whole passage become intelligible. The author says, in effect: ‘It is ridiculous to talk of the veins having too much blood. What actually happens is that bile and phlegm enter the veins, and as evidence (
, p. 12) that this is so, when you make an incision the blood is black and in a morbid state. Now if the expression 
were literally correct (
, p. 12) the blood should be red, its pure colour, not black and muddy.’ For the phenomenon itself, cf. 
IO (VII, p. Igo L.), 
(with phlegm), and 18 (p. 210): 
II. 4 [VII, p. 12 L.]).
II. 1–11 might go back to the first edition of the 
, on the ground that the author of 
says that the composers of the second edition 
: ‘sie bildeten also die Therapie aus’. See, however, Galen's interpretation of 
: C.M.G. V. 9, 1, p. 268. It is certainly evident that the authors of the Cnidian works went their own way in treatment. It is aetiology which unites them.
, that Plato has in mind in his portrait of the physician of free men (Laws, 790 d).
freely admits that the discoveries of pharmacology are ‘more a matter of chance than of scientific reasoning’ (45, VI, p. 254 L). His contrast 
nicely expresses the difference between the traditional treatments in the Cnidian works and those which have been influenced by dietetic medicine. Indeed, it is precisely this difference that the author, himself familiar with the principles of dietetics, may have in mind.
.’
II are not exclusively caused by phlegm: cf. 2 (VII, p. 8 L.) (= 13, pp. 22–24), and 6 (p. 14) (= 22, pp. 36–38): 
.
.
, see 
. It is difficult to tell which represents the correct version, but 
reads more naturally: 
.
.
18 (VI, pp. 226–8 L.) may point to such a 
of Ep. IV. 20 (V, p. 156 L.).
might = ‘forms of disease caused by phlegm’ rather than ‘forms of phlegm’; cf. 21 (p. 218) where in 
refers to the appearance of the symptoms. See, however, Fredrich, p. 47. In any case the author's main interest is in the different forms of disease which different kinds of phlegm cause.
III. II (VII, p. 130 L.), where the two symptoms of itching caused by the patient's clothes, and his irritation at being spoken to, reappear in the second and first forms of 
respectively.
complexion, and which is classified with dropsy and 
; and the other coming from the spleen, which produces a dark complexion. The first corresponds to the fourth variety in 7r. Tetl V evTas. ra04 38 (VII, p. 260 L.) (not to the first: though the complexion there is described as oixpaeutcov, the disease in Ep. II is definitely phlegmatic); and the second perhaps to the first variety in 7T. votkraw II. 38 (VII, P. 54 L.).
, this sufficiently explains the predominance of classification by organ in 
, which is mainly concerned with this region.
(I, p. 149,11 Kuehlewein); 
28, p. 240; the Cnidian-influenced 
45 (VI, p. 340 L.); Ep. VI. 4.12 (V, p.310 L.); and 5. 15 (V, p. 322 L.). It is coupled with heat and cold in the last passage, on which see Deichgräber, op. cit., pp. 54–55.
, which may have been characteristic of the 
, (cf. 
II. 11, p. 18) is of course particularly suited to such descriptions. The author of 
I has imposed a later literary elegance on his source, but the structure of the thought remains.
by drying and 
of the fluid in the joints. It must be admitted, however, that 
is not confined to the Cnidian treatises, though its use there is systematic. Cf. Ep. IV. 35 (V, p. 178 L.); VI. 2. 6 (V, p. 280 L.). It is related to the doctrine of 
, a doctrine characteristic of the Epidemics, in 
7 (V, p. 488 L.) and in 
(I, p. 162, 9 Kuehlewein). Thucydides uses the term, presumably as a familiar one, in 2. 49.
notes pain in the 
, particularly on the right side towards the liver. Cf. the case of Apollonius, Ep. III (III, p. 136 ff. L.); tension of the belly on the right side in Ep. IV. 45 (V, p. 186 L.).
is behind the frequent recommendation in these works of fomentations, 
, as a means of relieving pain. Cf. 
16 (VI, p. 224 L.): bile and phlegm, when 
, cause pain, but on the application of fomentations, they become 
, and the pain disappears. (Contrast 
42 [VI, p. 334 L.], where pain is explained as the effect of heat and cold on their contraries.) The remedy itself is of course traditional, even instinctive; certainly much older than the aetiology which explains it.
I goes back to the ‘Sicilian’ doctrine that blood is the seat of 
, while 
represents the view that its seat is in the 
. This, if true, is another instance of the eclectic character of 
I. But we should have to conclude that 
II. 3 (VII, p. IO L.) also goes back to the same doctrine: 
(Incidentally, this passage contradicts the doctrine of 
, and therefore weakens Pohlenz's theory about the source of the aetiology of 
II. 1–11.)
III, while it gives no aetiology as such, is noticeably careful to give an explanation for every stage of the treatment it recommends. With the present passage, compare the account of pleuritis in 16 (VII, p. 142 L.). The clarity and logical consequence with which the author of 
III describes treatment are reminiscent of the style of 
.
3 (VI, pp. 280–2 L.) appears to have a system of his own (cf. also Fredrich, p. 60); in this respect it is significant that the aetiology which this work gives for peripneumonia (VI, p. 302 L.) and pleuritis (
I, and which is implied in 
and 
II. In these works, the pain associated with the disease is caused by a 
of blood in the hepatitic and splenitic veins, where they touch the side; 
on the other hand says nothing about 
here. Peripneumonia occurs when the lungs swell so as to touch the sides; if one side only is touched, the disease is pleuritis; ‘dry’ pleuritis is caused when the lung collapses and sticks to the side. It is interesting that a remark in Polybus' account of the vascular system implies the same aetiology of pain as in the Cnidian works: 
is not used elsewhere in the Corpus, so far as I am aware; although apart from later writers, such as Rufus of Ephesus, Aristotle uses it in connexion with Diogenes of Apollonia (Hist. An. 3. 3, 512a 5–6).
IV are also connate (VII, p. 542 L.), but they are as well taken in with food and drink (
IV and 
, cf. 
, which are then specified as waters, places, fatigue, and 
), followed by Philistion (Anonymus Londiniensis, xx. 30 ff. Diels: diseases arise 
where the last are further specified as wounds, excess of temperature or change of temperature, and change to an unsuitable and harmful diet). Alcmaeon's other causes are 
(‘Ursache’ and ‘Veranlasstmg’: Diels). The first is described as operating ‘by excess of heat or cold’, which corresponds to the explanation given by Menon for Philistion's 
(xx. 35). The second operates through ‘surfeit or deficiency of nutriment’. But neither Alcmaeon nor Philistion has the dichotomy of external and internal cause which is characteristic of, and used systematically in, 
I. There are three classes of cause according to Philistion-Menon, while two different principles of classification are used by Alcmaeon (since 
and 
cannot be regarded as subdivisions of ‘internal causes'). On the other hand, it must be admitted that in 
I. 23 (VI, p. 188 L.) there is something like the 
of Alcmaeon: 
(wounds, fatigue, excessive heat and cold). Contrast 
, where 
and 
are definitely external causes. Here, as in other matters, 
I shows a certain eclecticism.
from 
I on the ground that the former does not explicitly mention the distinction of causes in its first chapter. But it is clearly implied in the wording of that passage, just as it is actually used in the passage I have mentioned. Cf. also 7 (VI, p. 214 L.) where the author, discussing pleuritis, remarks 
Here the external cause is given without the internal cause, as it occasionally is in these works. The internal cause, however, is implied by what the author has said earlier in the same passage. The parallel passage on pleuritis in 
I. 26 (VI, p. 192 L.), which I have already quoted, distinguishes more clearly between external and internal cause (the latter being bile and phlegm). This precision appears most clearly, of all these works, in 
: e.g. 28 (VII, p. 240 L.) 
(sc.
viously the author has given a long account of the disease in terms of its internal cause, in the passage (p. 280) beginning 
. Clearest of all is the passage on 
in 51 (p. 292), which begins 
, the causes being sunbathing and the consequent drying (
: cf. 
I. 2 and 
1) of the fluid in the joints. So much for the external cause. Then, shortly after, the author says (p. 294) 
.
, I. 20 (VI, p. 176 L.): 
a minority. A similar distinction of causes is pointed to by the remark in Ep. II. 4. 5 (V, 126 L.): 
. I suspect that it was from this distinction that the later 
and 
developed: on these, see 
I. 19 (VI, p. 174 L.): 
. If we should look for verbatim fragments of the common stock of these works, we might do worse than find one in this passage from 
II, which leaps to the eye from its surroundings. It is all the more significant that it is detailed and full (contrast the inferior aetiological remarks of 
); and it observes clearly the distinction between external and internal cause.
I. 18 (VI, p. 172 L.) blood is in fact the cause of erysipelas in the lung: 
. Hornstein (op. cit., p. 73) argued that the doctrine of 
was distinct from that of 
I, since in the former blood is regarded, analogously to the other humours, as a humour causative of disease, while in the two latter it is regarded as normally preserving health, though liable to corruption by bile and phlegm. In view of the passages cited above, I do not think that this distinction between the treatises can be maintained.
, and as innate ingredients of the body, that he lays his emphasis (vi. 42 ff.): 
what follows, the Anonymus is relying upon 
, I. 2, and it is interesting to see, even without the supplements suggested by 
(bile and phlegm) 
. In these passages the author is of course following out his own doxographic principle (iv. 26–28: 
). On the other hand, it was surely the ease with which 
I.2 fits into this doxographic scheme that led the author to select it as characteristic of ‘Hippocrates’.
Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
Pendrick, Gerard
1994.
A Note on [Hippocrates], De Morbis II 1, 4a.
The Classical Quarterly,
Vol. 44,
Issue. 1,
p.
278.
Pormann, Peter E.
2018.
The Cambridge Companion to Hippocrates.