“By S. H. Load. 1610.”“By Conrad Sprengel. Lond. 1708.”“By T. Coar. Lond. 1822.”“By J. W. Underwood. Lond. 1828.”
Of these I have only carefully examined the translations by Sprengel and Coar. That of Sprengel displays considerable pretensions to erudition, but, upon a careful examination, it will be quite apparent that the translator was not possessed of a competent acquaintance either with the Greek or English language. In short, nothing can be conceived more quaint, inelegant, and inaccurate, than the language of this translation. Lest I should be suspected of prejudices against my predecessor, and of exaggerating his faults, I shall subjoin a short list of passages which I hold to be mistranslated, so that the reader may judge for himself, whether my opinion of the work be well founded or not. (See Aph. i., 11,[118]15,[119]20,[120]23;[121]ii., 6,[122]15,[123]27, 31, 34, 40; iii., 16, 21.)
The production of Coar is not destitute of some merit, although it is but too apparent that he was not fully competent for the task which he had undertaken. He gives, separately, every Aphorism in Greek, to which he subjoins first a Latin and then an English translation. In the Preface, he admits that “in executing the English translation considerable assistance had been derived from the elegant French translation of M. de Mercy.” From this admission it will readily be gathered, that the translator felt conscious that he did not possess a proper acquaintance with the language of the original. I subjoin references to a few of the passages which, upon examination, appeared to me to be incorrectly rendered. (See Aph. i., 2,[124]10,[125]20;[126]ii., 49;[127]iii., 11,[128]26, 31; iv., 1; v., 26, 44, 68.)
IV. Ἐπιδημιῶν α’ και γ’—The First and Third Books of the Epidemics.
These are among the most undoubtedly genuine remains of Hippocrates, and well sustain the high reputation of their great author. In fact, of all the earlier records of medicine, these are about the most precious which have come down to us. Although, as I have stated, no one has questioned their genuineness, Galen complains that, by some mishap or other, they had not wholly escaped from some derangement of the subject-matters which they contain, and from additions being made to them.[129]
The following, I believe, are the only English translations of them which have ever been published.
“A Comment on forty-two histories described by Hippocrates in the First, and Third Books of his Epidemics. By J. Floyer.”“The History of Epidemics, by Hippocrates, in Seven Books. Translated into English from the Greek, with Notes and Observations. By Samuel Farr, M.D. Lond. 1780.”
“A Comment on forty-two histories described by Hippocrates in the First, and Third Books of his Epidemics. By J. Floyer.”
“The History of Epidemics, by Hippocrates, in Seven Books. Translated into English from the Greek, with Notes and Observations. By Samuel Farr, M.D. Lond. 1780.”
The former of these I have not been able to see. The other, although it appears to have been got up with considerable care, is manifestly the work of a man not properly acquainted with the language and doctrines of his author. In proof of this, I subjoin below a few examples collected from the first book, near the beginning.[130]
V. Περὶ διαίτης ὸξέων—On the Regimen in Acute Diseases.
This work is acknowledged as genuine by Erotian,[131]Palladius,[132]and Galen,[133]and other ancient authorities, as well as by all the modern critics, from Mercuriali and Lemos down to Littré and Greenhill. The authenticity of the latter part, indeed, is questioned by Galen, who pronounces the style, theories, and language to be different from those of Hippocrates. Yet even he admits that it is of great antiquity, being more ancient than the time of Erasistratus, who lived within less than a century from the death of Hippocrates.[134]Even if not genuine, then, this part (which is published by M. Littré as an appendix) possesses great value, not only as containing important matter, but as furnishing us with the opinions of the Coan school at a very early period after the time of our author. We shall have occasion to give a fuller analysis of its contents, in the Argument prefixed to the translation of it.
VI. Περὶ ἀέρων, ὑδάτων, καὶ τόπων—On Airs, Waters, and Places.
Fortunately there are no reasonable grounds for questioning the authenticity of this highly important work. It is admitted as genuine by Erotian, Palladius,[135]Athenæus,[136]and Galen,[137]and by every one of the modern critics, with the exception of Haller, who pronounces against it upon very insufficient grounds. He argues that it is obvious, from its contents, that the author of this treatise was a European, which cannot be said of Hippocrates, seeing that his native place, Cos, was one of the Asiatic islands.[138]But, if Haller had possessed any competent acquaintance with classical literature, he must have been aware that all the inhabitants of the islands adjoining to Asia Minor were colonists from Greece, and consequently looked upon themselves as Europeans, and not as Asiatics.[139]Nor is this more remarkable than that the present inhabitants of America should rank themselves ethnologically with the Europeans, and not with the native inhabitants of the country they now occupy.
An edition of this treatise, with a French translation, was published at Paris by a learned modern Greek, Dr. Coray, in the beginning of this century; the annotations to which are highly valuable. The only English translation of it which we possess, as far as I know, is the following:
“Hippocrates upon Air, Water, and Situation. By Francis Clifton, M.D. Lond. 1734.”
“Hippocrates upon Air, Water, and Situation. By Francis Clifton, M.D. Lond. 1734.”
This, I am inclined to think, is the best English translation which we have of any of the Hippocratic treatises. It is generally accurate, and the only drawback to it which I am aware of, is the style, which is often exceedingly quaint and obsolete. The translator, as we stated above, was well acquainted with all the works of Hippocrates, and of his painstaking industry the notes in this treatise bear undoubted evidence. Of these I have availed myself, whenever I could derive any assistance from them, but from the translation itself I have never copied literally.
VII. Περὶ ἄρθρων—On the Articulations.
This work was received as genuine by all the ancient commentators, from Bacchius and Philinus, the disciples of Herophilus, down to Erotian, Galen,[140]and Palladius.[141]It was also admitted by all the earlier modern critics, down to Gruner, who rejected it on these grounds: 1. Because it contains a reference to the treatise “On Glands,” which all acknowledge to be spurious. 2. That in the course of the work a degree of anatomical knowledge is evinced, far beyond what its actual state in the time of Hippocrates would warrant. 3. That the legend of the Amazons, which is received as true history in the treatise “On Airs, etc.” is rejected as fabulous in this work. Grimm also agrees with Gruner in condemning it as spurious; but Littré shows good reasons for admitting it into the list of genuine productions. He replies in a very satisfactory manner to Gruner’s objections. Thus he shows, in particular, what we have adverted to previously, that the knowledge of anatomy which was possessed in the Hippocratic age, had been much underrated by Gruner and others, and that the two passages in which the Amazons are supposed to be referred to, are not parallel, and do not admit of a comparison. He also very properly insists upon it, as a strong argument in favor of the genuineness of this treatise, that it had been commented upon by Ctesias.[142]The work, indeed, contains so much valuable matter, of which subsequent authors (as Celsus and Paulus Ægineta) have freely availed themselves, in handling the subjects which are treated of in it, that I have every disposition to receive it as genuine. We shall see, afterwards, that, taken in connection with the next work, it is a perfect masterpiece on the subject of Fractures and Dislocations.
VIII. Περὶ ἀγμῶν—On Fractures.
Tried by the tests laid down by us above, this treatise must undoubtedly be received as genuine. It is decidedly acknowledged as such by Palladius, Erotian, Galen, and, in short, by all the ancient authorities, and the only modern critics who venture to question its claim are Grimm, the German translator of Hippocrates, and Kühn; and, in fact, the latter does so merely in deference to Grimm, for his arguments on the question of its authenticity all tell the other way. That the treatises “On Fractures” and “On Articulations” constituted originally one work, is shown in a very convincing manner by Galen, in his introductory comment on the latter.[143]This is an additional reason for admitting the work “On Articulations” as genuine. Indeed, I do not hesitate to declare that whoever refuses to admit these two treatises as genuine, may consistently dispute the claims of any other work of the same date.
IX. Μοχλικός—On the Instruments of Reduction.
This work is quoted by Galen as one of the acknowledged books of Hippocrates,[144]and is admitted by Erotian into his list of genuine works; nay, it appears from the latter that it had been commented upon by Bacchius. Of the modern authorities, Foës and Littré concur with the ancient in admitting its claims, but it is rejected by Lemos, Mercuriali, Haller, Gruner, Grimm, and Kühn. No one who reads it carefully can fail to remark that, as stated by Galen,[145]it is a compendium of the work “On the Articulations,” so that whoever admits the latter to be genuine must acknowledge the treatise now under consideration to be one which embodies the opinions of Hippocrates, whether it were actually composed by him or not. Taking all this into account, it appears to me superfluous diligence in modern critics to search out grounds for questioning its authenticity.
X. Περὶ τῶν ἐν κεφαλῇ τρωμάτων—On Injuries of the Head.
This work is acknowledged as genuine by all the authorities, ancient and modern. The only objection to its genuineness is the appearance of certain interpolations towards the end of it.[146]This, however, as we have remarked above (No. III.), is a mode of vitiation from which few ancient works are altogether exempt.
XI. Ὂρκος—The Oath.
This interesting little piece is quoted as genuine by Erotian,[147]Theodore Priscian,[148]Soranus Ephesius,[149]St. Jerome,[150]Gregory Nazianzen,[151]Suidas,[152]and Scribonius Largus.[153]It is also received as such by Foës, Gruner, and Littré, but is rejected by Mercuriali, Schulze, Haller, Kühn, Ackerman, and other modern authorities, as quoted by Ackerman. The only reasonable grounds which I can see for questioning its authenticity is the silence of Galen with regard to it; but when we take into account that Galen has nowhere given an entire list of what he considers to be the genuine works of Hippocrates, this omission on his part may be merely incidental, and is not of much weight. On the other hand, the argument which M. Littré seeks to establish in favor of its authenticity on fancied allusions to it by Aristophanes[154]and Plato,[155]appears to me to have no weight; indeed, he himself gives up the former in another place.[156]
I have met with the following English translations of this piece, and no doubt there may be others:
“The Protestation which Hippocrates caused his Scholars to make, by Peter Low; Lond. 1597.”“——, by Francis Clifton, M.D.; Lond. 1734.”
“The Protestation which Hippocrates caused his Scholars to make, by Peter Low; Lond. 1597.”
“——, by Francis Clifton, M.D.; Lond. 1734.”
The translation by Low is in a quaint and antiquated style; that by Clifton is carefully done.
XII. Νόμος—The Law.
This little piece is noticed by Erotian, and admitted as genuine by M. Littré, but Mercuriali, Gruner, Ackerman, Kühn, and Greenhill incline to reject it. It is well written, but the style is rather too scholastic for the age and taste of the great Father of Medicine. At the same time, it has so many points of accordance with “The Oath,” that it seems inconsistent to admit the one as authentic and reject the other as spurious.
XIII. Κατ' ἰητρεῖον—On the Surgery.
All the ancient commentators which have come down to us, such as Erotian, Galen, and Palladius, admit it to be genuine; but it would appear from Galen that some of the older commentators were not satisfied upon this point, some doubting whether it was the production of the great Hippocrates or of Thessalus, and some referring it to Hippocrates, the son of Gnosidicus.[157]It is received also by Foës, Gruner, and, after a good deal of hesitation, by M. Littré. Schulze expresses himself on this point doubtfully,[158]and the work is rejected by Grimm, Ackerman, and Kühn. Beyond all doubt, it is a compendium of the treatises “On Fractures” and “On the Articulations,” so that, whether the composition of Hippocrates himself or not, there can be no question that the subject-matter of it is derived from him. Galen appears to have been remarkably fond of this treatise, and makes frequent reference to it in his great work “On the Dogmata of Hippocrates and Plato.” It would appear that Diocles, Philotimus, and Mantias had written treatises bearing the same title.
There is some difficulty in determining accurately what was the nature of the ancientIatriumιητρεῖον. See an interesting disquisition on this subject in Littré’s edition of Hippocrates, t. v., p. 25. It most probably was an establishment kept by the physician, in which were contained not only all sorts of medicines, but also all kinds of surgical apparatus. Mention of theIatriumis made by Plato (Legg. iv., p. 720, and i., p. 646; ed. Tauch.) Aristotle is said to have possessed anIatrium, which, if the story be true, he had no doubt acquired from his father, who was a medical practitioner.[159]From what is stated by Plato, it would appear that the assistants were qualified to administer professional assistance in the absence of their superior, and were also called doctors. (Legg. iv.) So it appears that the modern abuse of this title was sanctioned by classical usage! It must be recollected that, in the time of Hippocrates, eminent physicians wereperiodeutæ, that is to say, wanderers from place to place, and consequently they would stand in need of such an establishment as we have described theIatriumto be. See further the Argument to this work.
XIV. Περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου—On the Nature of Man.
Erotian, Galen, Palladius, and Macrobius[160]do not hesitate to quote the doctrines contained in this treatise as being those of the great Hippocrates, but its authenticity has long been considered very questionable, owing to the circumstance that a passage in it of considerable length, relative to the anatomy of the venous system, is quoted by Aristotle[161]as being the production of Polybus, and it is accordingly received as such by Haller,[162]Gruner, Littré, and most of our recent authorities on ancient medicine. Galen, however, contends that the passage quoted by Aristotle is not the work either of Hippocrates or of Polybus, but an interpolation, and that the rest of the treatise is genuine.[163]But Galen, at the same time, admits that Dioscorides, the Commentator (he must not be confounded with the celebrated author of the Materia Medica), had marked the first part of this treatise with the sign of the obelisk, as indicating his suspicion of its being spurious, and that he held it to be the work of Hippocrates, the son of Thessalus, that is to say, of a grandson of the great Hippocrates. But, whatever may be decided regarding its authorship, a careful perusal of the treatise will satisfy any one that it is a piece of patchwork; made up of several fragments, which do not cohere properly together. It certainly also appears to me that many of the philosophical dogmata which are delivered in it do not accord well with the doctrines contained in those treatises which are universally admitted to be genuine.
After alluding briefly to the opinions of those philosophers who held that the human body is formed from the four elements, that is to say, fire, air, water, and earth, the writer proceeds to state his own doctrines regarding the four humors, namely, blood, phlegm, yellow and black bile, and the diseases which are occasioned by the prevalence of one or other of them, according to the seasons of the year, and other circumstances. The doctrines, as herein stated, are very hypothetical, and certainly, as already hinted, not in accordance with those delivered in the genuine works. It is proper to mention, however, that Galen, in several parts of his works, makes Hippocrates to be the author of the theories of the elements and of the humors.[164]The treatise contains certain general truths and rules of practice not unworthy of some consideration, such as this, that diseases are cured by their contraries, that is to say, that diseases arising from repletion are removed by evacuation, andvice versa; and that diseases in general are occasioned either by the food we eat, or the air we breathe, those which prevail epidemically being produced by the latter cause. All sudden changes of diet are held to be attended with danger, and to be avoided. It is also an important rule of practice that, in venesection, blood should be abstracted from a part as distant as possible from the seat of the pain and of the collection of blood. There can be no doubt, in a word, as we have stated in the preceding section, on the authority of Galen, that Hippocrates was well acquainted with the principle of revulsion in the practice of medicine. The natural heat, or, as it is now called, the animal heat, is stated to be greater the younger the body is—a physiological doctrine strenuously advocated by Galen in several parts of his works, but more especially in the treatise “Against Lycus.”[165]The theory of the formation of urinary calculi is also discussed. The same occurs in the treatise “De Aëre,” etc., and in the work “De Morbis” (iv., 28). Allusion is likewise made to the occurrence of substances in the urine resembling hairs.[166]The last fragment of which this treatise is composed relates to fevers, the greater part of which are held to be occasioned by bile. It is said that there are four varieties of them, namely, synochus, quotidian, tertian and quartan; that the synochus is formed from the most intense bile, and comes soonest to a crisis, and the others in the order we have stated them. This is very unlike the doctrines of fever laid down in the genuine works, and accordingly this portion of the treatise was a great stumbling-block to those among the ancient commentators who contended for the genuineness of the treatise.[167]Altogether, then, I must say, that a careful perusal of the work leads me to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the high authorities in its favor, it does not deserve to be received as a genuine production of Hippocrates.[168]
XV. Περὶ διαίτης ὑγιεινῆς—On Diet in Health.
This work is passed over unnoticed by Palladius and Erotian; and Galen, although he wrote a commentary on it which still remains, informs us that some of the elder commentators had assigned it to Polybus, the son-in-law to Hippocrates.[169]He further mentions that it had been variously referred to Euryphon, Phaon, Philistion, and others; ancient authority in its favor is, therefore, very equivocal. The modern critics are pretty unanimous in rejecting it; indeed, Littré, improving on the hint cast out by Galen, does not scruple to refer it and the preceding treatise to Polybus. Though the subject-matters of it are not, in the main, of much importance, it contains some directions for the regulation of the diet, which are by no means injudicious. One of his directions, with regard to clothing, is very different, however, from what we might have expected, considering the fondness of the ancients for the use of oil to counteract the effects of cold.[170]The author of this work directs oily garments to be used in summer, but clean ones in winter. Emetics are recommended to be taken by persons of a gross habit of body, but to be avoided by those who are slender. This rule is expressed by Celsus in the following terms: “Vomitus inutilis gracilibus et imbecillum stomachum habentibus, utilis plenis et biliosis omnibus, si vel nimium se repleverint vel parum concoxerint.”[171]The author of this treatise recommends hyssop as an emetic, and we find its use in this way not infrequently noticed in the Hippocratic treatises, but not in the works of subsequent authorities, as far as I am aware. The work concludes with a passage on diseases of the brain, which also occurs, “De Morbis” (ii.), and seems much out of place here. It is said that they are first manifested by stupor of the head, frequent passing of urine, and other symptoms of strangury; and it is added, that a discharge of water or of mucus by the nose or ears relieves these complaints.
Altogether, considering how slender the evidence is, both external and internal, in favor of the authenticity of this treatise, I can have no hesitation in rejecting it as spurious.
XVI. Προρῥητικον, α’—First Book of Prorrhetics.
XVII. Κωακὰι προγνώσεις—Coan Prognostics.
These two works are so evidently allied to one another, that I have judged it expedient to treat of them together. The greatest difference of opinion has prevailed among the critics, both ancient and modern, with regard to them. Erotian declares expressly that the “Prorrhetics,” both first and second, are not genuine; and Galen, although he writes a commentary on the first book, complains of the difficulty he experienced in explaining certain vocables of dubious meaning contained in it,[172]and elsewhere states that the treatise is composed of extracts from the “Prognostics,” “Epidemics,” and “Aphorisms.” Foës is almost the only modern scholar of any note who stands up for the genuineness of the first book of the “Prorrhetics;” and it is decidedly rejected by Grimm, Ackerman, Haller, Littré and nearly all the other modern authorities. The “Coacæ Prænotiones” have very little ancient authority in their favor, and even Foës rejects the work with greater disdain than it would seem to merit. Of late years, the opinion has gained pretty general assent that these two treatises are more ancient than the days of Hippocrates;[173]that, in fact, they constitute the materials out of which he composed the “Prognostics,” and are the results of the observations made by the priest-physicians in the Asclepion, or Temple of Health, at Cos. This idea is followed out with great ability by Dr. Ermerius, in his “Specimen Historico-Medicum Inaugurale de Hippocratis doctrina a Prognostice oriunda,” where, by a most ingenious and convincing process of comparison, he appears clearly to make out that the “Coacæ Prænotiones” are formed from the first book of the “Prorrhetica,” and the “Prognostics” from the “Coacæ Prænotiones.” These positions, I repeat, he seems to me to have established most satisfactorily, and I cannot hesitate to declare it as my opinion that Dr. Ermerius has thereby thrown great light on this department of the Hippocratic literature. M. Littré has justly appreciated the labors of Dr. Ermerius, and adopted his views without reserve. (v. i., p. 351.) As I shall have occasion to compare the contents of these two treatises now under consideration with the subject-matters of the “Prognostics” in my Argument to the latter, I shall confine myself at present to a few observations, selected in a good measure from M. Littré’s argument to the “Coacæ Prænotiones.”
In the first place, M. Littré makes some interesting remarks on vomicæ of the chest after pneumonia and pleurisy; but this subject will come to be treated of in the notes on the “Prognostics.” He next gives some important observations on the following passage in the “Coacæ Prænotiones,” § 418: “All sprains are troublesome, and cause intense pains at the commencement, and in certain cases occasion after-consequences; the most troublesome are those about the breast, and the most dangerous are those in which there is vomiting of blood, much fever, and pain about the mammæ, chest, and back; when all these occur, the patients quickly die; but in those cases in which they do not all occur, nor are severe, they are longer protracted; the inflammation at farthest is protracted to forty days.” He relates, in illustration of this passage, a case very much in point, from the “Journal de Médecine,” Juillet, 1843, of a healthy person who, in lifting a log of wood, strained the parts about the chest so as to experience a cracking sensation about the breast; it was followed by intense inflammation, which, in spite of plentiful depletion, ended in an empyema which opened by the fifth intervertebral space. The patient recovered. This case is a good illustration of a species of accident frequently described in the Hippocratic Collection. He then briefly considers the question whether or not Hippocrates was acquainted withthe croup, on which he does not give any decided opinion. In my opinion, the termcroupis now used in a vague sense, being applied to cases of angina, in which the inflammation spreads down to the glottis and trachea, and also to cases of bronchitis attended with a croupy cough. I am confident that purecynanche trachealis, that is to say, acute disease originating in the trachea, is of very rare occurrence, at least, it certainly is so in the north of Scotland. That the ancients were well acquainted with that species of cynanche in which the disease spreads down to the windpipe there can be no doubt. See the Commentary on §§ 26, 27, Book III., ofPaulus Ægineta. It may reasonably be doubted whether they were not fully as well acquainted with diseases of the fauces and windpipe as the moderns are.
M. Littré’s observations on sphacelus of the brain do not at all accord with the opinions of Dr. Coray,[174]nor with those advanced in the Commentary onPaulus Ægineta, B. III., § 7. He thinks that Hippocrates meant by it necrosis of the cranium. Although I still so far adhere to my former opinion that by sphacelus was generally meantramollissementof the brain, I must admit that some of the passages in the Hippocratic Collection, where it is described, would bear out M. Littré’s ideas regarding it. On the subject of sphacelus, see “De Morbis,” near the beginning.
M. Littré draws, from a variety of sources, much interesting matter in illustration of § 500 of the “Coacæ Prænotiones:” “Amaurosis is produced by wounds in the eyelash, and a little above it; the more recent the wound, they see the better; but when the cicatrix becomes older the amaurosis increases.” Plattner[175]held that in this case the amaurosis is connected with lesion of the frontal nerve. Beer[176]shows that the affection of the sight is not connected with injury of the nerve, but is rather the result of concussion of the ball of the eye. Walker, and Littré himself, are rather disposed to question altogether the truth of the statement made by Hippocrates.
M. Littré concludes his argument with some observations on the lethargus of the ancients, which he holds, and correctly, as I think, to be a pseudo-continual fever. My own opinion, as delivered in the Commentary on Book III., § 9, ofPaulus Ægineta, will be found to be very similar. Lethargus is there stated to have been a species of remittent fever, resembling the causus. M. Littré, further in illustration of this subject, gives from the works of Mr. R. Clark, an English physician at Sierra Leone, an interesting account of a sleepy-dropsy, to which the Negroes there are subject.
The greater part of the contents of these treatises are mixed up by Clifton with his translation of the “Prognostics;” and Moffat gives a complete translation of this book of the “Prorrhetics.” The latter, like all the other translations by the same hand, is utterly worthless. Clifton is only culpable for having introduced confusion into the contents of works which had been so admirably arranged by Hippocrates.
XVIII. Προῤῥητικόν, β’—The Second Book of Prorrhetics.
The reception which this work has met with from the critics, ancient and modern, appears rather singular. Erotian and Galen, who, in general, are too facile in admitting the claims of suspected works, in the present instance reject a work which many modern authorities acknowledge as genuine; as, for example, Haller, Gruner, Grimm, and, with certain qualifications, Ackerman and Kühn. I must say, however, with Foës, Littré, and Greenhill, that I cannot see how we can consistently recognize as genuine a work which has so large an amount of ancient authority against it, and none in its favor. At the same time, all must admit that the treatise in question contains nothing unworthy of the name of Hippocrates, and that, if estimated by the value of its contents, it is one of the most important works in the whole Collection. I will, therefore, give an abstract of its contents, along with my translation of the “Prognostics.” It is deserving of much attention, as being the only work we possess which gives us an insight into the method taken by the ancient physicians to gain the confidence of their patients by their mode of conducting the preliminary examination of every case. In my younger days I knew an old physician, who was an adept in this art of conciliating the confidence of his patients by anticipating their histories of their own complaints.
XIX. Περὶ ἑλκῶν—On Ulcers.
This treatise is decidedly admitted as genuine by Galen,[177]Erotian, Celsus, and by Foës, Lemos, Mercuriali, Schulze,[178]and Vidus Vidius,[179]but is rejected by Haller, Gruner, Ackerman, and Kühn, on internal evidence, the nature of which we shall presently examine. M. Littré in so far concurs in the judgment of the authorities who reject it, although he does not admit the grounds of their decision. Gruner’s principal, indeed I may say his sole, argument against the authenticity of this work is founded on the nature of the substances recommended by the author for the treatment of ulcers; namely, such acrid and (as Gruner chooses to call them)absurdmedicines as arsenic, black hellebore, and cantharides. But how does it appear that these are “absurd” applications to ulcers, when even at the present day the two strongest of them, namely, arsenic and cantharides, are the means often resorted to for the cure of indolent and malignant ulcers? The same articles are recommended by Celsus (v.), and by Paulus Ægineta.[180]It is true that the titles given to certain of the prescriptions contained in this treatise are not appropriate, such asemollient(μαλθακώδεα), applied to applications which contain many acrid ingredients. But in this case, as is remarked by Foës, we should consider the text to be in so far corrupt, for certainly this does not constitute a legitimate reason for rejecting the treatisein toto.
Vidus Vidius, in his interesting commentary on this work, mentions, as a proof of its authenticity, that most of the principles laid down by Galen for the treatment of ulcers, are taken from this part of the works of Hippocrates. In a word, agreeably to the rules laid down by me for testing the authenticity of these treatises, I do not see that I am warranted in refusing to admit the claims of this work to be considered genuine. I hold myself bound, therefore, to give a translation of it.
It may be proper in this place to mention that the term ulcer (ἕλκος) is used in this treatise to signify both a wound inflicted by an external body, and a solution of continuity from any internal cause. This usage of the word is sanctioned by the older poets, as, for example, Homer (Iliad, ii., 723; Ib., xiv., 130); Pindar (Nem., viii., 50; Pyth., iii., 84); and Bion (Adonis).
XX. Περὶ συρίγγων—On Fistulæ.
Though this work be acknowledged as genuine by Erotian, Dioscorides, Celsus, Paulus Ægineta, and by Foës and Vidus Vidius, it is set down for spurious by Haller, Gruner, and Ackerman; and even by Littré and Greenhill its claims are not fully recognized. I can see no good reason, however, for rejecting it, since, as I have stated, the ancient authority in favor of it is very strong, and I can detect nothing in the doctrines and rules of practice delivered in it which are at variance with those laid down in the treatises which all admit to be genuine. Ackerman, indeed, pretends that the theory of bile and phlegm, as being the cause of disease, does not belong to Hippocrates or his school. But this is evidently begging the question; and, moreover, Galen, who must be admitted to be a high authority in such a case, decidedly holds Hippocrates to be the author of the Theory of the Humors.[181]Galen seems to say that this treatise, and the following one on hemorrhoids, constituted one work in his time; and he does not throw out the slightest suspicion against the genuineness of either, as the words of Ackerman would lead one to suppose.[182]
Vidus Vidius, although he acknowledges Hippocrates as the author of this work, holds that it had not been published by him, but had been left in an unfinished state. The argument, however, which he uses in proof of this opinion, is by no means convincing; he contends that the part which relates to inflammation of the anus is quite out of place in a work devoted to the consideration of fistulæ. But few who have much practical acquaintance with the subject will agree with him on this point, for it is well known that fistulæ, for the most part, originate in inflammation and abscess about the verge of the anus.
XXI. Περὶ αἱμοῤῥοιδων—On Piles.
This little tract has experienced the same reception from the critics as the preceding one, that is to say, it is acknowledged as genuine by ErotianΠερὶ αἱμοῤῥοιδων and Galen, and by Foës and Vidus Vidius, but is decidedly rejected as such by Mercuriali, Gruner, Grimm, and Ackerman. I can remark nothing in it, however, which appears to me at all inconsistent with the doctrines contained in the genuine works, unless it be that in this tract the author appears to direct that in operating upon hemorrhoids they should be all extirpated, whereas in one of his Aphorisms, which is quoted by Paulus Ægineta, in his chapter on this subject, he recommends that one should be left, as an outlet to the superfluous blood. (vi., 79.) I do not know how this divergence of opinion is to be explained, but, at all events, such an apparent contradiction would not warrant us in rejecting the treatise altogether.
XXII. Περὶ ίερῆς νούσου—On the Sacred Disease.
This work is acknowledged as genuine by Erotian, Galen,[183]and Cælius Aurelianus,[184]but is rejected by Lemos, Mercuriali, Haller, Gruner, Ackerman, Kühn, and even by M. Littré, although the last of these admits that the grounds upon which it had been refused a place among the genuine works are very equivocal. I feel very much at a loss what to decide with regard to it. It is unquestionably the work of a man possessed of a highly cultivated mind, free from the popular superstition of his age, and familiarly acquainted with comparative anatomy, and having no contemptible knowledge of human physiology. There is, in fact, no name, whether in ancient or modern times, to which it might not do honor. That it is not unworthy, then, of the great Hippocrates, all must allow, but whether or not he be the actual author of it, there is much difficulty in determining satisfactorily. That, in certain respects, it is very unlike his other works, must be admitted; the talent which it displays is more of a reflective than of a perceptive nature, which is the reverse of the common character of Hippocrates, who, in his genuine works, evidently evinces a disposition to trust to accurate observation rather than to acute ratiocination. The style, too, I must admit, is more diffuse than the true Hippocratic style generally is. All this might, no doubt, be accounted for, upon the supposition that the work was addressed to the general reader, and not to the professional. Other reasons might be imagined, to account for the diversity of style and matter, but these I shall not occupy time in discussing, as I have decided upon giving a translation of it, so that the English reader may be enabled to judge for himself as to its genuineness. Whether the tract in question be the work of Hippocrates, or, as some have supposed, of his philosophical friend Democritus,[185]there can be little or no doubt that it is a production of that age, for it appears to me that their contemporary, Plato, has evidently made reference to it. Thus, in that portion of his “Timæus” which treats of the causes of diseases, he clearly seems, in accounting for epilepsy, to have had in view the doctrines contained in this treatise. For although he uses the term “sacred disease,” and applies “most divine,” as an epithet to the cavities (ventricles?) of the head, he still, in imitation of the author of this work, accounts for the disease upon natural causes, that is to say, from derangements of the pneuma and phlegm.[186]
XXIII. Περὶ φυσὠν—On Airs.
This treatise deserves, in many respects, to be put in the same category as the last; that is to say, it is generally admitted by the ancient authorities, but rejected by the modern. Thus it is noticed as genuine by Erotian and Galen, and by Gregory Nazianzen and Stobæus.[187]On the other hand Mercuriali, Le Clerc,[188]Haller, Gruner, Ackerman, and Kühn reject it. M. Littré, also, in deference to the opinion of later critics, refuses it a place in his list of genuine works, but, at the same time, expresses himself doubtfully on this point. Le Clerc, although, as we have stated, he inclines to the opinion of those who reject it, does not hesitate to declare, “that this book, upon reading it, seems to be one of the most rational and coherent of all Hippocrates’s works.” And I in so far agree with Le Clerc, that the contents of it are of great importance for the right understanding of the ancient theory of medicine, whether we refer the tract in question to Hippocrates or not. I shall now give a summary of the doctrines contained in it, which I must say appear to me to smack rather of the school of philosophy, than of the practical good sense for which the author of the First and Third Epidemics, and of the Prognostics, is so remarkable.
The author sets out with stating “that there are certain arts which are of laborious acquisition, but are profitable to those who practise them; of general utility to the common people, but painful to those who exercise them. Of such a nature is the art of medicine. The physician contemplates dreadful things (δεινὰ), comes in contact with what are unpleasant, and reaps sorrow to himself from the afflictions of others; but the sick are freed from the greatest evils by the art, namely, from diseases, pains, sorrow, and death; for medicine has been found decidedly to be a cure for all these. In the manual parts of medicine (surgery) practice is necessary. For in all that relates to manipulation, usage is the best teacher. But with regard to the most obscure and difficult diseases, a judgment is to be formed rather from opinion than art; and it is in such cases that experience differs much from inexperience. And it is a most important consideration to determine what is the cause of diseases, and what the beginning and fountain-head, as it were, of the evils in the body; for if one be acquainted with the cause of the disease, he may be able to apply the suitable remedies to the affections of the body, judging of diseases from their contraries: for this mode of cure is that which is most in accordance with nature. Thus, for example, hunger is a disease; for whatever afflicts man is called a disease. What, then, is the cure of hunger? Whatever will allay hunger, that is to say, food, and by it the other is to be cured. Again, drink cures thirst; and, moreover, evacuation cures repletion, and repletion evacuation, and rest labor, and labor rest; and, in a word,the contraries are the cure of contraries. For medicine consists of addition and subtraction—the subtraction of what is redundant, and the addition of what is deficient. And he that does these things best, is the best physician; and he that is most removed from this system, is the most removed from a knowledge of the art. The manner of all diseases is the same, but they differ in place; and hence diseases appear to have no resemblance to one another, owing to the diversity and dissimilarity of situations. For there is but one form (ἰδίη) of all disease, and the cause is the same. What that is I will attempt to explain in the following discourse. The bodies of men and of other animals are nourished by three kinds of aliment, namely, food, drink, and airs; and those winds in the body are called spirits, which are named airs out of it. This it is which exercises the greatest power over the symptoms, and it is worth while to attend to the power of it; for the wind is a current and stream of air. When, then, much air makes a strong current, trees are torn from their roots by the force of the blast, and the sea is raised in billows, and ships of immense size are tossed aloft. Such power it possesses, and yet it is invisible to the sight, and is manifest only to the understanding. And what would there be without it, and from what thing is it absent? and with what is it not present? For the whole space between the earth and heaven is full of air, and it is the cause of winter and of summer; in winter becoming condensed and cold, and in summer mild and tranquil. The path also of the sun, moon, and stars is through air—for air is the pabulum of fire, and fire deprived of air could not live.... And with regard to the sea, that it contains a portion of air is obvious to everybody. For water-animals could not exist if they did not participate in the air; and how could they participate in it otherwise, except by means of the water, and by drawing in the air along with it. And the moon’s foundation is upon it, and this it is which supports the earth,[189]and nothing is void of it. And why the air is possessed of such power in other things has been now stated; but in men this is the cause of life, and of disease to those who are in ill health. And all bodies stand so much in need of air, that whereas if deprived of everything else, such as food and drink, a man may subsist for two, three, or more days; if the passage of air into the body be stopped, he will perish in a short part of a day, so necessary is air to the body. And, besides, there is some intermission of every other operation which men perform, for life is full of change; but this operation alone living animals perform incessantly, sometimes inspiring, and sometimes expiring. That all living animals, then, are closely connected with air has now been shown. After this we must forthwith declare what infirmities probably arise in an especial manner from this source—when it is redundant or deficient in quantity, or when polluted with morbific miasmata it enters the body. That diseases are the offspring of air I will show from the most common of all diseases, I mean, fever; for this disease accompanies all others, and most especially inflammations. This is well illustrated by the accidents which befall the feet; for along with the inflammation a bubo and fever speedily supervene. There are two kinds of fever (that I may touch upon that subject); the one common to all, which is called the plague, and the other being connected with vitiated food in those who use it. The air, then, is the cause of both these. A common fever (epidemic?) therefore is such, because all draw in the same breath (pneuma).” The author afterwards attempts an explanation of the phenomena of rigors, which, however, is not very intelligible, and then of the febrile heat and sweats which succeed them. The latter he compares to the condensed steam of boiling-water. He afterwards proceeds to explain that when the blood is mixed up with vitiated air (gases?), it occasions diseases in various parts of the body; for example, pain in the eyes, when it fixes there; when in the ears, the disease is seated there; when in the nose, coryza is the consequence; and when in the chest, branchus (bronchitis?), and so forth. To the same cause he ascribes the origin of dropsy, namely, to the prevalence of airs, and the melting down of the flesh. He also accounts for the formation of apoplexy, by supposing that it arises from the flesh of the parts being filled up with gases; and in the same way he explains the origin of epilepsy very elaborately, and most ingeniously, but at too great length to suit my limits in this place. Altogether the treatise is one of the most interesting pieces of medical philosophy which has come down to us from antiquity. It shows very decidedly what a talent for dealing with abstract ideas the ancient Greeks were endued with.
XXIV. Περὶ τόπων τῶν κατ’ ἄνθρωπον—On the Places in Man.
The ancient authority in favor of this treatise is pretty strong. It is included in Erotian’s list, is quoted by Cælius Aurelianus,[190]and by Ruffus Ephesius,[191]and is incidentally noticed by Galen in two places of his Glossary.[192]That it is further quoted by Athenæus, as stated by Gruner and Ackerman, would appear to me to be a mistake.[193]It is admitted to be genuine by Le Clerc, Schulze, Haller, Triller, Sprengel, Zuinger, Petersen, and others. It is rejected, however, by Lemos, Mercuriali, Duret, Reinsius, Gruner, and Ackerman. M. Littré does not venture to assign it a place among the genuine treatises, and yet he evidently inclines to the opinion that later critics had rejected it on very doubtful grounds, and leaves the question undecided. The following summary of its contents will show that it is not destitute of valuable matter.
The author of it commences with announcing this important physiological principle, which microscopical observations on the development of the chick have amply confirmed: “It appears to me that in the body there is no beginning, but that all parts are alike beginning and end; for in a described circle no beginning is to be found.” He goes on to remark that, in consequence of this, diseases affect the whole body; that when seated in the dry parts of it they are more permanent, but when in the fluid, more changeable: that one part of the body imparts disease to the other parts, namely, the stomach to the head, and the head to the stomach; and that if the very smallest part of the body suffer, it will impart its suffering to the whole frame. He afterwards enters into a lengthened anatomical description of the parts of the body which, although quoted by Galen,[194]and not unfavorably noticed by Gruner,[195]cannot now command much interest. He then describes seven defluxions from the head, namely, to the nose; to the ears; to the eyes; to the chest—producing empyema and phthisis; to the spine—producing another species of phthisis (tabes dorsalis?); to the fleshy parts—inducing dropsy; and to the joints—occasioning ischias and kedmata (morbus coxarius?) All this seems very hypothetical, and does not appear to savor of the strict process of induction which we remark in the genuine treatises of Hippocrates. When the disease is seated in the head, he directs numerous and deep incisions to be made in the scalp, down to the bone. He notices pleurisy, and its termination in empyema; the latter, he further remarks, may originate in ruptures (sprains?), and in this case, on succussion, an undulatory sound may be heard. He also states decidedly that empyema forms in phthisical persons, and that, in their case, too, a sound like that of water in a bladder may be heard on succussion. The symptoms accompanying empyema are given very graphically. He also describes thetabes dorsalis. He afterwards gives the treatment of pleurisy and pneumonia, in which it is remarkable that no mention is made of venesection, notwithstanding that, in the work “On Regimen in Acute Diseases,” Hippocrates recommends bleedingad deliquiumin these diseases; and Galen accounts for his silence respecting venesection in his treatment of fevers on the supposition that he did not notice it, because he took it for granted, as a general rule, that the operation was performed.[196]This consideration, as much as any other, inclines me to doubt the authenticity of this treatise. Ischiatic disease he directs to be treated by cupping-instruments and heating medicines, administered internally. Anasarca, in a young person, he treats by scarifications. In the brief notice of injuries of the head here introduced, much the same views are advocated as in the work on that subject, of which a translation is given in this volume. The treatment of callous ulcers, as here laid down, is deserving of great attention; “remove the indurated parts by a septic medicine, and then produce reunion of the parts.” Every practical surgeon must recognize this as a very sound and important rule of practice.
The treatment of suicidal mania appears singular:—“Give the patient a draught made from the root of mandrake, in a smaller dose than will induce mania.” He also, in like manner, recommends mandragora in convulsions, applied by means of fires lighted around the patient’s bed. Pains of the head he directs to be treated by opening the veins of the temples, or by applying the cautery to them. He then insists, in strong terms, that, under certain circumstances, purgatives will bind the bowels, and astringents loosen them. And he further makes the important remark that, although the general rule of treatment be “contraria contrariis curantur,” the opposite rule also holds good in some cases, namely, “similia similibus curantur.” It thus appears that the principles ofAllopathyandHomœopathyare recognized by the author of this treatise. In confirmation of the latter principle, he remarks that the same substance which occasions strangury will also sometimes cure it, and so also with cough. And further, he acutely remarks, that warm water, which, when drunk, generally excites vomiting, will also sometimes put a stop to it by removing its cause. He estimates successful and unsuccessful practice according to the rule whether the treatment was rightly planned or not; for he argues what is done in ignorance cannot be said to be correctly done, even if the results are favorable. The work concludes with a short passage on the diseases of women, all of which are said to be connected with the uterus. We find here the first mention that is anywhere made of the globus hystericus; indeed, I do not remember to have met with the term in any of the ancient medical works, with the exception of the Hippocratic treatises. He recommends fetid things to be applied to the nose, and aromatic and soothing things to the genital organs. The process of fumigating the uterus is fully described; and likewise suppositories and pessaries are mentioned. In the treatment of uterine hemorrhage the rules here laid down are most important. All heating things, diuretics, and purgatives are to be avoided; the foot of the patient’s bed is to be raised, and astringent pessaries are to be introduced. My own opinion of the work may now be given in a few words. It undoubtedly contains much valuable matter which would be no discredit to Hippocrates, nor to any of the greatest medical authorities, whether of ancient or modern times. I desiderate in it, however, a proper unity of design, and think I see too much of a speculative disposition to suit with the character of the Coan sage. That it is to be referred to the Cnidian school, as suggested by Gruner, seems doubtful; for, as we are informed by Hippocrates himself, the Cnidian physicians only gave the most obvious symptoms, while their practice was very inert, consisting entirely of drastic purgatives, whey, and milk, whereas in this work the diagnostic symptoms are more profoundly stated then they are in most of the Hippocratic treatises, and the practice, in many instances, is very bold and decided. The knife, the actual cautery, the use of strong purgatives and narcotics, are freely recommended in various diseases. Altogether, then, although I would hesitate to ascribe the present work to Hippocrates himself, I must admit myself inclined rather to refer it to the Coan than the Cnidian school. I see no proper data, however, for forming a decided opinion on this head, more especially as we are but very imperfectly acquainted with the tenets of the Cnidian school.[197]
XXV. Περὶ τέχνης—On Art.
This treatise is sustained as genuine by Erotian, and even by one of the older commentators, Heraclides of Tarentum, but it is nowhere noticed by Galen, and Suidas would appear to refer it to Hippocrates, the son of Gnosidicus.[198]Mercuriali, Gruner, Haller, Ackerman, Kühn, and most of the modern authorities hold it decidedly to be spurious. Foës and Zuinger, however, do not object to its authenticity; and Littré, although he excludes it from his list of the genuine works of Hippocrates admits that it is very ancient, and formed a portion of the Collection from the commencement. To me it appears that it is written in too subtle and abstract a style to admit the supposition of its being the work of a practical physician like Hippocrates. Although it contains a good deal of original thought, there is not much in it which would prove interesting to the medical reader of the present day. It is an elaborate defense of the art of medicine against the attacks of those who maintain that it is no art at all, or one of an uncertain nature. According to the author’s definition, the aim of the physician should be to remove the pains of the sick, to blunt the intensity of diseases, and not to interfere with those that are mastered by disease, as knowing that medicine can be of no avail in such a case. In conclusion, I shall merely remark that the evidence, both internal and external, is against the supposition of its being genuine, but still there appears no good reason for doubting that it emanated from the school of Cos.
XXVI. Περὶ διαιτης—On Regimen.
The evidence in favor of this large and interesting work, unfortunately, is by no means strong. It is passed by unnoticed by Erotian, and Galen expresses himself, in general, regarding the work in very equivocal terms, mentioning that some had referred it to Euryphon, some to Phaon, others to Philistion, and others, again, to Aristo.[199]In other places, however, he expresses himself less unfavorably as to the authenticity of the last two books. Haller, Gruner, Ackerman, Kühn, and, in fact, nearly all the modern authorities, reject it.[200]M. Littré, although he agrees with them, remarks justly that the work is one of great value, and exhibits many evident traces of conformity with the writings which are truly Hippocratic.
The nature of the work is as follows: The first book is altogether made up of abstract principles, which savor very much of the dogmata of Heraclitus. Thus, the author of it holds that there are in men, and in all other animals, two principles, different in power but consentaneous in use, namely, fire and water; that these together are sufficient for all others, and for themselves; that the one contains the principle of motion, and the other of nutrition; that these give rise to the separate existence of seeds and animals, of all varieties, shapes, and characters; that, in reality, none of those things which exist either perish or are created, but they are altered by being mixed together and separated from one another, but that men suppose that the one passes from Hades to light, and the other again from light to Hades. In a word, the contents of the first book savor more of philosophy than of practical medicine. For example, it is said, “The trainers of the athletæ instruct their pupils in this manner—to break the law according to law, to commit injustice according to justice; to deceive, to steal, to rob, to commit violence, in the most elegant and disgraceful manner: he who cannot do these things is bad, he who can do them is good; which is a proof of the folly of the many who, when they behold these things decide that the one of these is good and the others bad. Many wonder, but few are judges. Men going to the market proceed thus: they deceive one another in buying and selling, he who deceives most is admired. They execute these things—they drink and become mad, they run, they wrestle, they fight, they steal, they cheat; the one is preferred to all the others. Hypocrites and deceivers! Before the spectators they say one thing. and think another.[201]The same persons creep out, and they creep in not the same persons; to one man they say one thing, and do another; the same person not always the same—sometimes he has one mind, and sometimes another. In this manner all the arts have communion with human nature.” All this is too fanciful and recondite for the physician of whom Celsus says “primus ex omnibus memoria dignis ab studio sapientiæ disciplinam hanc separavit.” It is clearly the production of a philosopher and not of a practical physician, such as we know Hippocrates to have been. The latter part of this book, however, is of a more practical nature, and treats of many things relating to regimen and dietetics, such as the arrangement of meals, of exercises, etc.
The second book is a regular work on Dietetics, and exhibits this branch of medicine in a more advanced state than might have been expected, considering the time it was written. After some preliminary observations on climate, which bear a great resemblance to those contained in the treatise “On Airs,” etc., the author treats, in a very scientific and methodical manner, of the various animal and vegetable substances which are used as articles of food. It concludes with a discussion on certain matters connected with regimen, such as exercises, baths, sleep, and so forth. Foës remarks that a great portion of the opinions advanced by Celsus on the head of Dietetics is borrowed from this book.
The third book treats again of various subjects connected with Dietetics, such as exercises, the arrangement of meals, the administration of emetics, the use of venery, and the like. It is full of important matter, but looks like a distinct treatise from the two preceding books, for one cannot conceive that the author of one work would have twice resumed the consideration of the same subject. Le Clerc, with considerable appearance of reason, ascribes the book to Herodicus, the master of Hippocrates in the gymnastic art.[202]
Altogether, the work is one of the highest importance in medical literature, whether we ascribe it to Hippocrates or not. On this point the evidence, both external and internal, we have seen to be very inconclusive. The most probable conclusion that can be drawn regarding it is, that the work is a compilation of important documents from a variety of sources, but who the compiler was, whether Hippocrates or one of his successors cannot be determined.[203]
XXVII. Περὶ ἐνυπνίον—On Dreams.
This little work is generally admitted to be a continuation of the preceding one, and consequently stands upon much the same grounds as regards its authorship.[204]As Le Clerc and Gruner have well remarked, it is written with much acumen, and evinces great freedom of spirit, and exemption from popular errors and superstitions. It commences in the following strain:
“He who forms a correct judgment of those signs which occur in sleep, will find that they have a great efficacy in all respects; for the mind is awake when it ministers to the body, being distributed over many parts; it is not then master of itself, but imparts a certain portion of its influence to every part of the body, namely, to the senses, to the hearing, seeing, touch, walking, acting, and to the whole management of the body, and therefore its cogitations are not then in its own power. But when the body is at rest, the soul, being in a state of movement, steals over the organs of the body, manages its own abode, and itself performs all the actions of the body; for the body, being asleep, does not perceive, but the soul, being awake, beholds what is visible, hears what is audible, walks, touches, is grieved, reflects, and, in a word, whatever the offices of the soul or body are, all these the soul performs in sleep.[205]Whoever, then, knows how to judge of these correctly, will find it a great part of wisdom. But with regard to such dreams as are divine, and prognosticate something, either good or evil, to cities, or to a particular people, there are persons who have the art of judging of them accurately, without falling into mistakes. But such affections of the body as the soul prognosticates, namely, such as are connected with repletion and evacuation, from the excess of customary things or the change of unusual things, on these also persons pronounce judgment, and sometimes they succeed, and sometimes they err, and understand neither how this happens, that is to say, how it comes that sometimes they are right, and sometimes they fall into mistakes; but warning people to be upon their guard lest some mischief befall them, they do not instruct them how to guard themselves, but direct them to pray to the gods; and to offer up prayers is no doubt becoming and good, but while praying to the gods a man ought also to use his own exertions. With regard to these, then, the matter stands thus: Such dreams as represent at night a man’s actions through the day, and exhibit them in the manner in which they occur, namely, as performed and justly deliberated, these are good to a man, and prognosticate health, inasmuch as the soul perseveres in its diurnal cogitations, and is not weighed down by any repletion, evacuation, or any other external accident. But when the dreams are the very opposite to the actions of the day, and when there is a conflict between them—when this happens, I say, it indicates a disorder in the body; when the contrast is great, the evil is great, and when the one is small the other is small also.” For the cure of this state, as being connected with repletion, he recommends evacuation by vomiting, active exercise, and a restricted diet. The author of the treatise proceeds to state the signification of dreams which relate to the sun, moon, and stars, of which the last are said to be connected with the external parts of the body, the sun with the middle, and the moon with the cavities. This is the nearest approach to alchemy which I have met with in the works of any of the ancient physicians. But I must not proceed much further with my extracts from this work, which there is no reason to suppose a genuine production of Hippocrates, and the substance of which would not much interest the general reader nowadays, when the interpretation of dreams has been entirely abandoned by the profession. The work concludes as follows: