Abstract

The Asclepiadean corpuscular hypothesis can be seen for what it was. It was not Epicurean as to the extent that it stands in a tradition of ‘monistic theories’, the theory might broadly be termed ‘atomistic’, but this misrepresents it seriously. It was not Heraclidean either though this may come as a big surprise to those scholars who have assumed that Asclepiades is a transparent source for the Heraclidean theory. The corpuscular hypothesis of Asclepiades marks a notable attempt at pairing down the multiplicity of explanations of physiological and pathological phenomena. Not only does this type of activity lie in a well-attested Hippocratic tradition, but in one whose importance in the development of Hellenistic medicine seems often to be overlooked.