THE HIPfcOCRATICS 



writer passes on to question the usefulness of 

 other philosophic theories for the medical prac- 

 titioner: " Certain physicians and philosophers 

 assert that one cannot know medicine without 

 knowing what man is, how he originally came 

 into existence and of what substances he was 

 compounded in the beginning. . . . Now the 

 contention of these men really looks to phi- 

 losophy, as do Empedocles and others who 

 have written concerning nature (7rept <3?i/««s). 

 As for me, I consider that what a philosopher 

 or physician has said or written of Nature has 

 less relevancy to medicine than to painting; 

 and I am of opinion that, so far as concerns 

 knowledge of Nature, one can know nothing 

 definite about it except from medicine; but 

 this may be thoroughly learned, when men go 

 about it rightly. Hitherto, it seems to me, we 

 are far from it : far, that is to say, from having 

 a scientific knowledge of what man is (that 

 is to say, what his constitution is) and to what 

 cause he owes his origin and the rest, in any 

 exact sense. Now so much at least it is indis- 

 pensable that the physician should know con- 

 cerning Nature and should greatly concern 

 himself to know, if he is to do any part of his 

 duty; to wit, what a man is (i.e. what his 



[i7] 



