Religion & Medicine in Ancient Greece: Asclepius Cult & Hippocratic Physicians, Papers of Introduction to Sociology

Download Religion & Medicine in Ancient Greece: Asclepius Cult & Hippocratic Physicians and more Papers Introduction to Sociology in PDF only on Docsity! Vivian Nutton on Religion and Medicine In “Religion and Medicine in Fifth- and Fourth-Century Greece,” Vivian Nutton argues that the relationship between religion and medicine for doctors, patients, and the community is far more complex than most scholars and historians can easily observe. His thesis revolves around the statement that the cult of Asclepius was “as significant a development in the history of medicine as the contemporary ferment of medical theories that were later included in the Hippocratic Corpus.” (Reader, 77) He traces the rise of this cult of Asclepius, demonstrating that it cooperates largely with the mainstream medical school of thought. (Reader, 79) Nutton brings forward examples of the participation of physicians in cult activities, and vice versa. The evidence he presents characterizes 'medicine', as defined in this time period, not as atheistic, nor explicitly as the result of divine whim, but with natural causes and remedies. The practice of healing, though, fit nicely within the setting of Greek religious culture. Nutton contends that the common ideas of the Hippocratic Corpus and the Asclepius cult became orthodox by rejecting their ideological enemy, 'divine healers'—those who pursued magic, denying both science and the superiority of the gods. (Reader, 81-83) In sources such as The Epidaurian Miracle Inscriptions and The Sacred Tales, the authors mention divinities alongside non-divine healers and cures. (Reader, 99) This does not imply that, contrary to Nutton's argument, Greek society at the time considered orthodox medical treatment to include a blend of religion and medicine. They remained distinct practices; cures to physical ailments were not partly religious, partly scientific (though some margin may be allowed for diseases of the mind). What is employed is not a blend of religion and science; the two merely work together, coexisting normally. (Reader, 78) They do, however, draw the line between magical healing methods and orthodox medicine. When compared to faith healers' beliefs, which characterized the gods as angry, easily triggered to harm or punish human beings (Lloyd, 54), the cult's beliefs fell in line with those of the Hippocratic philosophers: the presence of a god “would be more likely to purify and sanctify [the human body] than pollute it.” (Reader, 51) The author of On The Sacred Disease claims that if these 'healers' really believed that diseases were caused by gods, then they would not be able to individually provide remedies—their cures would be too weak, too “simple.” (Reader, 49) He believes they are not (or should not be) generally accepted because they are ignorant, atheist, or “hateful to the gods.” (50) He claims that the “sacred disease,” like any other, has a “definite cause.” (49) From this harsh criticism of practitioners of alternate medicine, it becomes clear that the gods were respected, but medicine was understood to act upon diseases with equally natural explanations. Those who dealt with magic, “credited with the potential to disturb the proper relationship between gods and men,” were the main target of condemnation. (83) Additional support for Nutton's proposal that Hippocratic physicians and the Asclepius cult were orthodox, while magical healers were not, comes from evidence of good relationship between the two groups. Humility, and the lack of desire of these schools of thought to blindly call themselves 'superior' to any other group, also likely contributed in the beginning. The Asclepius cult permeated quickly through Hellenic lands, arriving long after other cults. Still, it managed to have comfortably “co-existed.” (Reader, 79) Once the cult established a reputation and following, it was in a position to supersede other cults and 'call out' magical healers (79), though the idea that “any deity could choose to heal” (81) remained orthodox throughout. Physicians and gods maintained a relationship that did not eliminate the necessity for either. The state also took advantage; shrines were often under “the city's official control” (Reader, 79) regardless of the private individual who founded them—a first step towards The Elements, a Persistent Paradigm Elemental theory was an extremely powerful philosophical tool—a simple and compoundable basis for understanding the universe—developed by Empedocles some time in the fifth century B.C.E. (Marx-Wolf, Lecture, April 7, 2009) Elements allowed the Pre-Socratic philosophers, and those who studied their work, to attribute natural causes to natural phenomena. Their quest to find explanations within their own environment was largely successful. The idea that four (or five, if aither is counted) elements contribute to every occurrence and every part of nature was incorporated into theoretical cosmologies for centuries, and its impact and contributions still survive today. The theory immediately allows for such ideas as balance, agelessness, harmony and discord within a cosmology; it can be expanded to pertain to mathematics, the relationship between gods and mortals, or even biology and reproduction. Empedocles calls the elements “roots,” or rhizomata, and they “are equal and of the same age in their creation; but each presides over its own office, and each has its own character.” In the material realm, they consist of earth, air, fire, and water. (Baird, Ancient Philosophy, 8) Empedocles immediately institutes the idea of balance between the elements and within the universe with his 'principles of change'. Metaphorically linked with the human birth and death, “love” brings things into existence while “strife” seeks to tear them apart. (Marx-Wolf, Lecture, April 9, 2009) In Empedocles' universe, matter is conserved in proportion: “Besides these [elements], nothing else comes into being, nor does anything cease.” (Baird, 8) Thus, the elements may only combine, come apart, or exchange orientations, but never lose their unique characteristics. They can be found “uniting under the influence of love” or “moving apart through the hostile force of hate,” equivalent to 'strife.' (Baird, 8) Empedocles' early theory allows room for the gods (Baird, 8-9), for it is a trend in social change not to stray too far from the accepted ideology. (Marx-Wolf, Lecture, April 21, 2009) It is unknown exactly how these elements came to be known as the fundamental components of the universe; they are merely introduced or explained away through means that do not explicitly incorporate observation or evidence. The explanatory power of this paradigm, regardless, is absolutely superb. The theory is made of up such small, simple, understandable components, lending to an especially wide scope of applicability. Because these “elements” are so pervasive and ever-present, they can be linked in some way to almost every natural occurrence, with the exception of the divine (for these philosophers do not attempt to reason with or understand the divine; merely they allow their theories to mesh with preexisting notions). Beginning with Empedocles, elemental theory only grew to become more pervasive and influential in every aspect of science, from taxonomy to mathematics and medicine. Plato was one of the first to pick up and greatly expand upon the idea of elements in cosmology and cosmogony. In the Timaeus, Plato's “Demiurge” has reasons for the elements he works with, corresponding with their presence on Earth. “Nothing is visible where there is no fire... nothing is solid without earth.” (Timaeus, 17) The remaining two elements arise from the need to bind fire and earth together, along with the three-dimensional nature of our world (leading to the need for two bonding elements, as opposed to just one for a surface). (18) Also, four is an important number to many of the ancient philosophers. (Marx-Wolf, Lecture, April 7, 2009) Plato, too, applies the conservation of matter in his statement that “the Creator compounded the world out of all the fire and... water and... air and... earth, leaving no part of any of them... outside.” (18) Plato goes on to introduce the soul, which presides over the body, and is made through a complex, forceful division and filtering of the existing elements. He continues to describe the nature of the basic elements: solid bodies, containing plane rectilinear figures with triangular faces. (42) Plato associated one element with each of the regular solids. (Lloyd, 74) Plato seeks out the opportunity to label every occurrence as a manifestation of numbers and proportion; his theory of the make-up of elements is no different. Such a presence in his work bears the mark of influence by the Pythagoreans. (Marx-Wolf, Lecture, April 7, 2009) The theory's geometry leads to direct consequences, such that “earth is excluded from the transformations that affect the other primary solids.” (Lloyd, 77) This reasoning is notably natural, just one of many attempts to find a grand unified cosmogony that required as little outside influence as possible. Another unique contribution of Plato to elemental theory is his concept of change, transformation. His definition of elemental form easily allows geometric recombinations, explaining natural phenomena such as the change between air [vapor] and water. (Lloyd, 76) The theory of elements applied on a larger scale, in far different fields. In the Timaeus, Plato seeks to explain the different classifications of living beings based on their elemental correlation. All things that fly are associated with air, those that swim with water, and those that walk with earth. Fire relates to the gods. (Marx-Wolf, Lecture, April 14, 2009) Here, once more, is an example of ancient theology and science 'making room' for one another. Aristotle's observation-based division quickly changes the accepted model; he is critical of the taxonomists who classify based on opposites, and the four elements are near enough to separate extremes that Aristotle would be unhappy by this method. (Reader, 9) However, biology was not Plato's forte, and his attempt to make rational sense out of the diversity of species was a noble step for science, the inconsistencies of which were quickly addressed by Aristotle and his followers. The Hippocratic humoral theory of disease, imagining an imbalance of black bile, yellow bile, phlegm, and blood, bore striking resemblance to the idea of the elements. First, the motif of