4. Plato's References to Hippocrates
In the
Protagoras (311 B) Plato assumes the case
of a young man who goes to
Ἱπποκράτη τὸν Κῷον,
τὸν
τῶν Ἀς1κληπιαδῶν, to learn medicine. This passage
tells us little except that Hippocrates took pupils
for a fee. But in the
Phaedrus (270 C--E) there is
another passage which professes to set forth the
true Hippocratic method. It is as follows :--
| Socrates. Do you think
it possible, then, satisfactorily
to comprehend
the nature of soul apart
from the nature of the
universe? |
ΣΩ. Ψυχῆς2 οὐν φύς1ιν
ἀξίως2 λόγου κατανοῆς1αι οἴει
δυνατὸν εἶναι ἄνευ τῆς2 τοῦ
ὅλου φύς1εως2; |
| Phaedrus. Nay, if we
are to believe Hippocrates,
of the Asclepiad
family, we cannot learn
even about the body
unless we follow this
method of procedure. |
ΦΑΙ. Εἰ μὲν οὖν Ἱπποκράτει
γε τῷ τῶν Ἀς1κληπιαδῶν
δεῖ τι πείθες1θαι, οὐδὲ
περὶ ς1ώματος2 ἄνευ τῆς2 μεθόδου
ταύτης2. |
| Socrates. Yes, my friend,
and he is right. Yet
besides the doctrine of
Hippocrates, we must
examine our argument
and see if it harmonizes
with it. |
ΣΩ. Καλῶς2 γάρ, ὦ ἑταῖρε,
λἐγει. χρὴ μέντοι πρὸς2 τῷ
Ἱπποκράτει τὸν λόγον ἐξετάζοντα
ς1κοπεῖν εἰ ς1υμφωνεῖ. |
| Phaedrus. Yes. |
ΦΑΙ. Φημί. |
| Socrates. Observe,
then, what it is that both
Hippocrates and correct
argument mean by an
examination of nature.
Surely it is in the following
way that we must inquire
into the nature of
anything. In the first
place we must see whether
that, in which we shall
wish to be craftsmen and
to be able to make others
so, is simple or complex.
In the next place, if it
be simple, we must inquire
what power nature
has given it of acting,
and of acting upon what ;
what power of being
acted upon, and by what.
If on the other hand it
be complex, we must
enumerate its parts, and
note in the case of each
what we noted in the
case of the simple thing,
through what natural
power it acts, and upon
what, or through what
it is acted upon, and by
what. |
ΣΩ. Τὸ τοίνυν περὶ
φύς1εως2 ς1κόπει τί ποτε
λέγει Ἱπποκράτης2 τε καὶ ὁ
ἀληθὴς2 λόγος2. ἆρ' οὐχ
ὧδε δεῖ διανοεῖς1θαι περὶ
ὁτουοῦν φύς1εως2; πρῶτον
μέν, ἁπλοῦν ἢ πολυειδές2
ἐς1τιν, οὗ πέρι βουλης1όμεθα
εἶναι αὐτοὶ τεχνικοὶ καὶ
ἄλλον δυνατοὶ ποιεῖν, ἔπειτα
δέ, ἐὰν μὲν ἁπλοῦν ᾖ,
ς1κοπεῖν τὴν δύναμιν αὐτοῦ,
τίνα πρὸς2 τί πέφυκεν εἰς2 τὸ
δρᾶν ἔχον ἢ τίνα εἰς2 τὸ παθεῖν
ὑπὸ τοῦ; ἐὰν δὲ πλείω
εἴδη ἔχῃ, ταῦτα ἀριθμης1άμενον,
ὅπερ ἐφ' ἑνός2, τοῦτ'
ἰδεῖν ἐφ̓ ἑκάς1του, τῷ τί
ποιεῖν αὐτὸ πέφυκεν ἢ τῷ
τί παθεῖν ὑπὸ τοῦ;--Phaedrus
270 C, D. |
It is obvious that if we could find passages in the
Hippocratic collection which clearly maintain the
doctrine propounded in this part of the
Phaedrus we
should be able to say with confidence that the
[p. xxxv]
Hippocrates of history and tradition was the author
of such and such a treatise.
Galen maintains that Plato refers to the treatise
Nature of Man. I believe that few readers of the
latter will notice any striking resemblances between
this work
1 and the doctrine outlined by Plato.
More plausible is the view of Littré, that Plato refers
to Chapter XX of
Ancient Medicine, which contains
the following passage :--
ἐπεὶ τοῦτό γε μοι δοκεῖ ἀναγκαῖον εἶναι παντὶ ἰητρῷ περὶ
φύς1ιος2 εἰδέναι,
καὶ πάνυ ς1πουδάς1αι ὡς2 εἴς1εται,
εἴπερ τι
μέλλει τῶν δεόντων ποιής1ειν,
ὅ τί τέ ἐς1τιν ἄνθρωπος2 πρὸς2 τὰ
ἐς1θιόμενά τε καὶ πινόμενα,
καὶ ὅ τι πρὸς2 τὰ ἄλλα ἐπιτηδεύματα,
καὶ ὅ τι ἀφ᾽ ἑκάς1του ἑκάς1τῳ ς1υμβής1εται.
Here the resemblance is closer--close enough to
show that the author of
Ancient Medicine, if he be not
the Hippocrates of history, at least held views similar
to his. And here the question must be left. Few
would maintain with Littré that the resemblance
between the two passages is so striking that they
must be connected ; few again would deny that
Plato was thinking of
Ancient Medicine. Ignorance
and uncertainty seem to be the final result of most
of the interesting problems presented by the Hippocratic
collection.
