The study of the cult of Asclepius has been the subject of significant research; however, its medical component still remains one of the most debated topics in contemporary classical studies. This article investigates the use and relationship between rational and sacred medicine in Asclepiadaea. Based on an analysis of the works of famous ancient healers—Hippocrates and Galen, the speeches of the Roman orator Aelius Aristides, as well as archaeological and epigraphic data, the author examines various aspects of this scientific problem. Special attention is given to contentious questions regarding the attitudes of physicians towards the cult of Asclepius and the god of healing himself, as well as the possibility of physicians being present in the Asclepiad and directly influencing the healing process. Furthermore, the author conducts a comparative analysis of various treatment methods typical of sacred and rational ancient medicine. In addition to general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, the article widely employs comparative-historical, historical-genetic, and typological methods. Methods of terminological and lexical analysis of Greek and Latin sources are also actively used. A key conclusion of the article is the indication of the following fact: despite the clear distinction in the minds of visitors to the Asclepiad between temple servants and physicians, who were not identified with one another, it seems erroneous to speak of an antagonistic relationship between sacred and rational medicine. The sacred medicine of the Asclepiadaea, to some extent, contributed to the development and establishment of rational medicine by suggesting treatment methods to physicians who lacked the experience and knowledge accumulated at the Asclepiad over several centuries. Similarly, sacred medicine borrowed elements from rational medicine—what was considered best and most effective for healing. The conclusions of researchers regarding the level of medical knowledge of temple servants have also been corrected: according to the author, they must have possessed medical knowledge deep enough to interpret "sacred dreams" in a way conducive to healing.
Tatiana Spirina (Thu,) studied this question.