[p. 306]
(3) It has, like Ancient Medicine, Nutriment, Nature
of Man, Airs, Regimen I., a close relationship
to philosophy.
(4) It shows, I think conclusively, the wide period
covered by the Hippocratic collection.
No reader can fail to notice that, short as it is, the
work is a cento with three main divisions.
(1) Chapters I and II defend the principle that
medicine must be based upon observed fact
and not on any plausible but fallacious hypothesis
(ἐκ πιθανῆσ2 ἀναπλάσιοσ2 λόγου). The writer
uses language remarkably similar to that
attributed to Epicurus by Diogenes Laertius.
I must quote two passages from the latter.
(a) καὶ γὰρ καὶ ἐπίνοιαι πᾶς1αι ἀπὸ τῶν αἰσθής1εων
γεγόνασι κατά τε περίπτωσιν καὶ ἀναλογίαν καὶ
ὁμοιότητα καὶ σν́νθεσιν, συμβαλλομένου τι καὶ τοῦ
λογισμοῦ. . . . τὴν δὲ πρόληψιν λέγουσιν οἱονεὶ
κατάληψιν, ἢ δόξαν ὀρθήν, ἢ ἔννοιαν, ἢ
καθολικὴν
νόης1ιν ἐναποκειμένην, τοῦτ' ἐς1τι μνήμην τοῦ πολλάκις2
ἔξωθεν φανέντος2.
D. L., X. 20, 21, 32, 33.
(b) ἀλλὰ μὴν ὑποληπτέον καὶ τὴν τῶν ἀνθρώπων
φύς1ιν πολλὰ καὶ παντοῖα ὑπὸ τῶν αὐτὴν περιεστώτων
πραγμάτων διδαχθῆναί τε καὶ ἀναγκασθῆναι: τὸν
δὲ λογισμὸν τὰ ὑπὸ ταύτης2 παρεγγυηθέντα καὶ
ὔστερον ἐπακριβοῦν.
D. L., X. 24, 75.
There are also several occurrences of the Epicurean
word ἐναργής2. The similarities are far too close to
be accidental.