Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xm8r8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-14T20:38:12.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Chapter 6 - Hippocrates’ Diseases 4 and the Technological Body

from Part II - The Technological Body

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 July 2023

Maria Gerolemou
Affiliation:
Center for Hellenic Studies, Washington
George Kazantzidis
Affiliation:
University of Patras, Greece
Get access

Summary

The Hippocratic treatise Diseases 4 is well known for explaining corporeal processes through vivid analogies with plants, cupping glasses, bronze vessels, swirling wine sediment, coagulating cheese, and blocked oil flasks. Scholars have often applied a heuristic dichotomy to these arguments, evaluating whether they are “mechanistic” (i.e., rely solely on recognizable physical forces) or “vitalistic” (i.e., attribute special capacities to living tissues and parts). Comparisons to implements tend to line up on the former side, while plant analogies support the latter. Rather than focus on delineating these two types of explanations, this chapter emphasizes that the author draws both sets of comparative objects from the therapies, implements, and techniques that a physician would have either administered to the body or encountered in the more general practice of medicine. Whether comparing the attractive capacity of the four inner “springs” (head, heart, gallbladder, spleen) to medicinal plants drawing up particular nutriment from the soil, or likening these same springs to bronze vessels, Diseases 4 amalgamates medical tools and the bodies that they treat. Its view of corporeality therefore emerges at the physical and conceptual interface between flesh and the therapeutic technologies that affect it, as the body absorbs and enfolds medical tools and substances.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2023

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Amigues, S. ed. and trans. 2006. Théophraste. Recherches sur les plantes, vol. 5 (Paris).Google Scholar
Berryman, S. 2009. The Mechanical Hypothesis in Ancient Greek Natural Philosophy (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Bliquez, L. J. 2014. The Tools of Asclepius: Surgical Instruments in Greek and Roman Times (Leiden).Google Scholar
Byl, S. 1980. Recherches sur les grands traités biologiques d’Aristote: sources écrites et préjugés (Brussels).Google Scholar
Holmes, B. 2010. The Symptom and the Subject: The Emergence of the Physical Body in Ancient Greece (Princeton).Google Scholar
Holmes, B. 2014. ‘Proto-Sympathy in the Hippocratic Corpus’, in Jouanna, J. and Zink, M., eds., Hippocrate et les hippocratismes: médecine, religion, société: XIVe Colloque International Hippocratique (Paris), 123–38.Google Scholar
Holmes, B. 2017. ‘Pure Life: The Limits of the Vegetable Analogy in the Hippocratics and Galen’, in Wee, J. Z., ed., The Comparable Body: Analogy and Metaphor in Ancient Mesopotamian, Egyptian and Greco-Roman Medicine (Leiden), 358–86.Google Scholar
Jackson, R. 2010. ‘Cutting for Stone: Roman Lithotomy Instruments in the Museo Nazionale Romano’, Medicina nei Secoli, 22/1–3: 393418.Google ScholarPubMed
Joly, R., ed. and trans. 2003. Hippocrate, De la génération, De la nature de l’enfant, Des maladies IV, Du foetus de huit mois. (Paris).Google Scholar
Jouanna, J. 2002. Hippocratis De natura hominis, rev. ed. Corpus Medicorum Graecorum i 1, 3 (Berlin).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanowski, M. G. 1984. Containers of Classical Greece: A Handbook of Shapes (St Lucia).Google Scholar
Krug, A. 2012. ‘Doktorspiele? – Der Aryballos Peytel’, Boreas, Münstersche Beiträge zur Archäologie, 35: 1123.Google Scholar
Le Bley, F. 2005. ‘Microcosm and Macrocosm: The dual direction of analogy in Hippocratic thought and the meteorological tradition’, in van der Eijk, P. J., ed., Hippocrates in Context (Leiden), 251–69.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. 1966. Polarity and Analogy: Two types of argumentation in early Greek Thought (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. 1978. Hippocratic Writings (New York).Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. E. R. 2015. Analogical Investigations: Historical and Cross-cultural Perspectives on Human Reasoning (Cambridge).Google Scholar
Lonie, I. M. 1969. ‘On the Botanical Excursus in de Natura Pueri 22–27’, Hermes, 97: 391411.Google Scholar
Lonie, I. M. 1981a. ‘Hippocrates the Iatromechanist’, Medical History, 25: 113–50.Google Scholar
Lonie, I. M. 1981b. The Hippocratic Treatises “On Generation”, On the Nature of the Child, “Diseases IV”: A Commentary, eds. G. Baader , F. Kudlien , C. Lichtenthaeler and K. D. Fischer. (Berlin).Google Scholar
Oser-Grote, C. M. 2004. Aristoteles und das Corpus Hippocraticum: Die Anatomie und Physiologie des Menschen (Stuttgart).Google Scholar
Potter, P. ed. and trans. 2012. Hippocrates. Generation. Nature of the Child. Diseases 4. Nature of Women and Barrenness. (Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
Roby, C. 2017. ‘Animal, Vegetable, Metaphor: Plotinus’s Liver and the Roots of Biological Identity’, in Wee, J. Z., ed., The Comparable Body: Analogy and Metaphor in Ancient Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Greco-Roman Medicine (Leiden) 387414.Google Scholar
Schiefsky, M.J. 2005. Hippocrates On Ancient Medicine: Translated with introduction and commentary (Leiden/Boston).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Totelin, L. 2009. Hippocratic Recipes: Oral and Written Transmission of Pharmacological Knowledge in Fifth- and Fourth-Century Greece (Leiden).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Von Staden, H. 1995. ‘Teleology and Mechanism: Aristotelian Biology and Early Hellenistic Medicine’, in Kullmann, W. and Föllinger, S., eds., Aristotelische Biologie: Intentionem, Methoden, Ergebnisse (Stuttgart), 183208.Google Scholar
Von Staden, H. 1996. ‘Body and Machine: Interactions between Medicine, Mechanics, and Philosophy in Early Alexandria’, in K. Hamma, ed., Alexandria and Alexandrianism (Malibu), 85106.Google Scholar
Von Staden, H. 1998. ‘Andréas de Caryste et Philon de Byzance: médecine et mécanique à Alexandrie’, in Argoud, G. and Guillaumin, J.-Y., eds., Sciences exactes et sciences appliquées à Alexandrie (Saint-Étienne), 147–72.Google Scholar
Von Staden, H. 2007. ‘Physis and Technê in Greek Medicine’, in Bensaude-Vincent, B. and Newman, W., eds., The Artificial and the Natural: An Evolving Polarity (Cambridge, MA), 2149.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×