Vincentelli C
Hist Philos Life Sci. 1990;12(2):249-59.
The treatises De aeris locis (related to Cos) and De morbis I (attributed to Cnide) are often considered rivals by the Hippocratic criticism which still admits the existence of an ideological conflict between the authors. However, the comparative study of the different passages reveals a doctrinal identity which cannot be justified, as required by the traditional criticism, merely by the influence of one school on the other. So, besides an identical and etiological pattern (external and released causes and internal and humoural causes) the physiology of the two treatises is controlled by the same physical principles, those used by the Milesian physiologists to explain the water cycle and rain formation: the process of the disease is in fact related to cosmo-meteorological phenomena. It appears that their medical concepts, to which the physikoi contributed, have been elaborated from a micro-macrocosmic method: the microcosmic man is directed by the same laws as the macrocosmic universe. We are dealing in both treatises with a medicine based on a cosmological principle.
《论空气环境》(与科斯岛有关)和《论疾病一》(归于克尼多斯)这两篇论文常被希波克拉底批评视为对手,该批评仍然承认作者之间存在意识形态冲突。然而,对不同段落的比较研究揭示了一种学说上的一致性,而这无法像传统批评所要求的那样,仅仅通过一个学派对另一个学派的影响来解释。所以,除了相同的病因模式(外部和释放性病因以及内部和体液性病因)之外,这两篇论文的生理学受相同的物理原理控制,即米利都派生理学家用来解释水循环和降雨形成的原理:疾病的过程实际上与宇宙气象现象相关。似乎他们的医学概念,物理学家们对此也有贡献,是从微观 - 宏观宇宙学方法中发展而来的:微观的人由与宏观宇宙相同的法则所引导。我们在这两篇论文中探讨的都是基于宇宙学原理的医学。