Michelle Lessard, University of Cincinnati
Although Hippocratic experimental procedures and analogies often seem unscientific to modern readers, the demonstrations described in the Hippocratic corpus provide valuable evidence for the development of observation-based reasoning (see von Staden 1975; Longhi 2018). A common line of inquiry is whether the Hippocratic doctors who wrote the treatises performed these proto-experiments, developed them as thought-experiments, or adapted them from earlier sources such as Presocratic texts (Senn 1929; Lloyd 1964, 1966; Lonie 1981; Langholf 1989; Fausti 2010). However, considerations about the physicality of Hippocratic experiments have insufficiently influenced the study of how these descriptions contribute to the objectives of the treatises. I argue that the implied materiality of these demonstrations enhances the authority of each author by underscoring his experiential knowledge and by allowing the reader to virtually observe the experiments.
Vivid descriptions of experimental methods emphasize the doctor’s familiarity with the physical details of his demonstrations. The insistence in Diseases IV that connected χαλκεῖα be placed on a surface that is as level as possible (συνθεὶς ὡς ἐπὶ ὁμαλωτάτου χωρίου, Morb. IV 8, L. 7.557) reveals the author’s awareness that his demonstration of reciprocal flow of liquids will not work on tilted ground. In the frozen water experiment in Airs, Waters, Places, superlative descriptive words (κουφότατον, λεπτότατον, βαρύτατον, παχύτατον, Aer. 8, L. 2.37) indicate that the author has observed waters of various qualities and has the expertise to precisely identify the salient features of his demonstration. The materiality implied by these details validates the doctor’s practical knowledge and makes the arguments connected with his experiments more compelling.
Detailed explanations also introduce the possibility that readers could perform experiments themselves. In the frozen water experiment, step-by-step directions provide sufficient information to recreate the demonstration (Aer. 8, L. 2.36-37). Similarly detailed instructions are provided for many experiments within the Hippocratic corpus, such as the blending of wax and fat to represent male and female seed in On Generation (Genit. 6, L. 7.478-9). The potential for the reader’s own investigation underscores the physical possibility of the demonstrations, while the author’s ability to write instructions demonstrates his understanding.
Even if the reader does not perform experiments, visual language allows them to virtually observe the demonstrations as they are described. In the treatises On Generation and On the Nature of the Child, which include numerous experiments, the author consistently uses visual language. In addition to asserting that he has observed certain phenomena (αὐτὸς εἶδον, Nat. Puer. 2, L. 7.490), he frequently presents experiments through the eyes of a hypothetical observer, τις, who serves as a proxy for the reader. This observation by proxy is particularly effective for demonstrations that would be inconvenient for the reader to reproduce. When the author explains what can be learned by examining chicks throughout their development, he emphasizes the process of observation through the phrases σκοπῶν εὑρήσει and εἴ τις μηδέπω εἶδε, θαυμάσει (Nat. Puer. 18, L. 7.530-531). The possibility of observation maximizes the perceived reality of the demonstration and produces increased trust in the doctor’s expertise.