The following are a few of the most interesting observations which I have remarked in perusing this treatise. When the secundines are evacuated before the child, they cause difficult parturition, and the case is dangerous unless the head present. Presentations of the hand and foot are directed to be replaced. When the placenta is retained after the expulsion of the child, the child is to be laid upon wool, or upon two bladders, filled with water, either of which is to be pricked, so that the water may run off gradually, and thus draw down the placenta. When there is a copious discharge of blood before labor, there is a risk that the child may be dead, or at least not viable. When women with child long for coals, the appearance of these things is to be seen on the child’s head. (For the opinions of the ancients on the effect of imagination on the fœtus in utero, see the commentary on B. I., § 1, ofPaulus Ægineta, Syd. Soc. edition.) Some ridiculous things are contained in this work, such as the following; when a man wishes to beget a male child let his left testicle be tied, and when a female the right.[255]The composition of suppositories for cleansing the uterus is described at considerable length towards the end of the treatise. Altogether, the work is by no means devoid of interest, but, as I have already said, it is certainly not the composition of Hippocrates. Littré, on the authority of the passage quoted from Aristotle on this head, refers the treatise to Leophanes. From the account which we have given of its contents, it will be remarked that the title and contents of it do not well accord together. This remark, however, applies to other of the Hippocratic treatises besides the one we are now treating of.
XLII. Περὶ γυναικείης—On the Female Nature.
As Foës remarks, this work is mostly made up of excerpts from the treatise “De Muliebribus.” I need not, therefore, occupy time in discussing its claims to be regarded as genuine, nor in giving an outline of its contents.
XLIII. Περὶ καρδίης—On the Heart.
Galen, in one place, appears to cite a passage in this treatise, but without naming it.[256]It is not found in Erotian’s list, and all the modern authorities, including even Foës, who is more disposed than most of the others to deal leniently with the claims of the treatises which bear the name of Hippocrates, concur in refusing to admit it as genuine. Still, however, there can be no question as to its being a work of very high antiquity. It is to be regretted, then, that the text is in a very unsatisfactory state. It contains, upon the whole, a wonderfully accurate description of all the parts about the heart—of its substance, which is said to be a strong muscle; of its pericardium, which is described as being a smooth tunic, containing a little fluid resembling urine; of its ventricles (γαστέρες); of its auricles (ὄυατα); of the origin of the veins from it; of its sigmoid valves; of its office, to be, as it were, the fountain head, from which all parts of the body are irrigated, and the seat of the understanding, which is said to be in the left ventricle. The understanding, it is added, is not nourished by the blood, but by a pure and luminous (φωτοειδὴς) superfluity from it. Altogether, this little treatise bespeaks much practical acquaintance with human anatomy, and, considering the age in which it was written, must be the production of a very superior mind. It contains an account of an experiment which has been much animadverted upon, both by ancient and modern authorities. The writer says, if a colored fluid be given to an animal, such as a sow, to drink, and if its throat be cut while it is in the act of swallowing, it will be found that part of the fluid has passed down by the gullet to the lungs. See in particular Aulus Gellius (Noctes Atticæ, xvii., 11); Macrobius (Saturnal. vii., 15); and Plutarch (Sympos. vii., 1.) Aulus Gellius says decidedly that Plato had adopted this opinion from Hippocrates. Aulus Gellius and Macrobius also quote Plutarch as having stated, in his ‘Symposiacon,’ that Hippocrates is the author of this opinion; but the text of Plutarch (l.c.) is in an unsatisfactory state. See Schulze (Hist. Med. i., iii., vi., 12.)
XLIV. Περὶ τροφῆς—On Aliment.
It must be admitted that this treatise has very high authorities in favor of its authenticity, such as Erotian, Galen,[257]Aulus Gellius,[258]Palladius,[259]Stephanus;[260]and, in modern times, Mercuriali, Foës, Haller, and Le Clerc.[261]It is rejected by Casper Hoffman,[262]Gruner, Ackerman, Kühn, Littré, and Greenhill, though, by the last two, not in decided terms. Considering the respectability of the external evidence in its favor, I should certainly not have hesitated in admitting it as genuine, had not a careful examination of its contents led me to form the unbiassed decision that it must be the production of some metaphysician, rather than of a medical practitioner, such as we know Hippocrates to have been. The physiological dogmata with which it abounds are announced in so antithetical, not to say paradoxical, a manner, that I can conceive nothing more foreign to the style and character of the true writings of Hippocrates. I shall give a few specimens:—“The species of aliment is one and many; all these (kinds of aliment?) are one nature and not one. Purging is upwards and downwards, and neither upwards nor downwards. Purging in aliment is excellent, purging in aliment is bad. Aliment not aliment, unless it conveys nourishment; it is aliment in name but not in deed; aliment in deed and no longer in name only. Sweet and not sweet; sweet potentially, as water, sweet to the taste, as honey. Things not animals are animated; animals are animated, the parts of animals are animated. It (the embryo) is and is not.” Now, I must say, that all this appears to me to savour more of the taste of Democritus than of Hippocrates himself. It may be said, indeed, that the very circumstance of Galen’s having admitted the work as genuine, and having composed an elaborate commentary on it, is a most presumptive proof of its authenticity; for where shall we find so excellent a judge of the doctrines of Hippocrates as his great commentator? But then it must be taken into account that Galen himself had a greatpenchanttowards metaphysical subtleties, and this would lead him to believe that what was in accordance with his own tastes must have been in accordance with those of his great professional hero. But, notwithstanding the doubts which hang over the question of its authorship, it may be confidently affirmed regarding this treatise that, illustrated as it is by Galen’s commentary (even although it has come down to us in a mutilated state), few works in the Collection are more suggestive than the present one. I shall merely give a few more specimens of it:—“The root of the veins is the liver, and the root of the arteries is the heart; and from them blood and spirits are carried to all parts, and heat passes to the same.” This passage is frequently quoted and commented upon by ancient authors; as by Galen,[263]and Aretæus.[264]We have seen it stated in the preceding treatise that the heart is the place from which both veins and arteries originate. This seems a presumptive proof that these two treatises must have had a distinct authorship. “The aliment reaches to the hairs, the nails, and the outer surfaces from within; and aliment from without passes from the most external to the most internal parts, there is one conflux and one conspiration (ξύρροια μία, ξύμπνοια μία). All parts sympathize throughout the whole frame, but in so far every part has its own peculiar action.” This passage, also, is very celebrated and frequently quoted.[265]I need scarcely remark that it embraces a grand and most important view of the animal economy. “Milk is food to some with whom it agrees, and to others not. To some wine is food, and to others not; and so with flesh and many other kinds of aliment. We must look to situation and habit. Humidity is the vehicle of food. The natures (instincts?) of all things are untaught. Persons who perspire freely are weak, more healthy, and have easier recoveries than others. Those who perspire ill are stronger than others before they become indisposed, but being indisposed have more difficult recoveries. These remarks apply to the whole and to the parts.”
From these specimens it will be readily seen that the work abounds in curious matters, but of a very different stamp from those which the true Hippocratic treatises contain. Contrary, then, to my general rule, I certainly feel disposed in the present instance to reject, upon internal evidence, a treatise which has the most unexceptionable external evidence in its favor.
XLV. Περὶ σαρκῶν, ἤ ἀρχῶν—On Fleshes, or Principles.
This treatise does not appear in Erotian’s list of the Hippocratic works, and it is rejected by all the modern authorities, from Mercuriali downwards. Galen is inconsistent in his notice of it.[266]Some of the philosophical dogmata which it contains are curious, such as the following specimen: “It appears to me that what we call heat is immortal, and that it knows all, sees, hears, and perceives all things that are and will be.[267]When things, then, were thrown into confusion the greater part of this passed off to the highest circle, and this it is which the ancients called ether.” The following extract is held by Gruner, but probably without any good reason, to evince a degree of anatomical knowledge in advance of the age of Hippocrates: “There are two hollow veins from the heart, the one called the artery, and the other the vena cava. The artery has more heat than the vein.” The other veins are also described with considerable accuracy. It is stated that the fœtus in utero sucks in fluid (liquor amnii?) by its lips, and in proof of this the author remarks that the child voids fæces soon after delivery, which, it is argued, must be derived from food. The opinion thus stated has been often maintained in modern times, but does not appear to be well founded. The author mentions correctly that persons in attempting to commit suicide open the trachea, in which case, he adds, the patient lives, but loses his voice until the opening be closed. Conringius and Haller, with considerable plausibility, but yet without any direct proof, attribute this treatise to Democritus.
XLVI. Περὶ ἑβδομάδων—On Hebdomads.
This treatise exists now only in the Latin translation, which M. Littré has discovered in the Royal (National, it is now called!) Library in Paris, and will be published in his edition of the works of Hippocrates. M. Littré gives an elaborate and most interesting disquisition on it, and seems to make out clearly that it is the production of the same author as the treatise “On Fleshes,” which we last noticed. It is cited by Philo Judæus,[268]and several other writers of antiquity. Galen, however, held it not to be the production of Hippocrates. A considerable extract from it is contained in the tract “On Critical Days,” and the eighth section of the Aphorisms, which has always been looked upon as spurious, is said by M. Littré to be mostly taken from this treatise.
XLVII. Περὶ ἀδένων—On the Glands.
Erotian makes no mention of this treatise, and Galen pronounces it to be the work of the recent Hippocratists.[269]M. Littré remarks, and with great truth, that it is difficult to find out the grounds upon which the ancient critics have rejected this work. Certain it is that it contains a goodly store of interesting matters, none of which, as far as I can discover, are inconsistent with the true doctrines of Hippocrates. In it a pretty correct description is given of the glands, including those of the mesentery. The brain itself is said to be of glandular nature, and also the kidneys. An ingenious account is also given of the origin of scrofula, which is said to be produced by the lodgment of humors in the glands of the neck, which get into a state of slow inflammation. Glands, the author says, are seated mostly in parts of the body which most abound in humidities, such as the armpits and groins, and hence such parts produce hairs. In the case of the mesentery, however, no hairs are produced, because the humidities here are excessive, and choke up, as it were, the seeds of the hairs; in like manner as seeds sown in marshy grounds perish. A very ingenious account is given of the origin of phthisis, which is said to spring from tubercles in the lungs and matter (pus), which corrodes the lungs when “the patients do not readily recover.” A curious description is next given of the tabes dorsalis, “in which disease the patient does not wish to live.” How expressive this language is of the state of mind in the case of the unfortunates who are subject to spermatorrhœa! The treatise concludes with some striking remarks on the sympathy between the mammæ and uterus, and on the influence which both exercise on the development of the female character. Altogether the contents of this treatise are most valuable, and may suggest important views to the medical practitioner and physiologist, even at the present day. We need have no hesitation in pronouncing, with regard to it, that it reflects infinite credit on the school from which it emanated, and that it is not unworthy of Hippocrates, although we have reason to believe that he was not actually the author of it.
XLVIII. Περὶ φλεβῶν—On the Veins.
This is merely an excerpt from the treatise “On the Nature of the Bones.”
XLIX. Περὶ ἰητροῦ—On the Physician.
I may mention in this place, generally, that the treatises which follow have no ancient authority in support of them, and that, with very few exceptions, they are also rejected by all the modern critics. Their contents, moreover, are not of much practical importance, and therefore I shall be very brief in my analysis of them.
The treatise in question is held to be genuine by no one critic, as far as I know, with the exception of Foës, who appears, in part, to sanction its claims. The object of the author is announced to be in order to instruct the physician how to conduct matters connected with the iatrium, that is to say, with his establishment or surgery. Mercuriali, I may mention, is unjustly severe in his animadversions on the exordium. (See Conringius, Introd. p. 120.) The physician should have a healthy look himself, for the writer says, people fancy that a person who does not keep himself in good health is not qualified to take charge of the health of others. He should be of a prudent disposition and a gentleman in morals.[270]Minute directions are given respecting the site and other circumstances connected with the iatrium: clean and soft towels are to be at hand, linen is to be used for the eyes, and sponges for the sores. In supplying bandages, attention is to be paid to utility rather than to display. The surgeon should pay great attention to all matters connected with this operation: for it is attended with much disgrace when any manual operation does not succeed. Minute directions are given about the performance of venesection at the arm, and mention is made of several untoward accidents connected with it, such as the blowing up of the vein, whereby the flow of blood is stopped; and suppuration following as a consequence of the operation. In order to acquire dexterity in the treatment of accidents, the author recommends the young physician to attach himself to some foreign army; and from this Gruner infers, that the work cannot belong to Hippocrates, as domestic wars were but too common in his time; and there could have been no necessity for the surgeon’s seeking foreign service in order to gain experience. It does not occur to me, however, that there is much force in this argument; for intervals of peace were just as common during the long life of Hippocrates, as during the interval between his death and the time when the Collection was made. But, in fact, there is no necessity to seek recondite reasons for rejecting a treatise which has no proper authority in support of it.
L. Περὶ εὐσχημοσύνης—On Decorum.
This work, like the last, has not the slightest claim to be looked upon as genuine. Moreover, it has come down to us in a very unsatisfactory state as regards the text, so that the meaning is often very dark and uncertain; and I must confess that, as a general rule, I have little inclination to spend much time in searching out a meaning, in obscure writings, when, after it is discovered, it is not likely to repay the exertions made in discovering it. I am always disposed to remember the advice which Galen repeatedly gives to the student of medicine, “to concern himself more about things than about words.”[271]The object of the author seems to be to give general directions with regard to decorum in the physician’s communication with the sick. It is evidently the production of some sophist, according to Bernard, of some one belonging to the Stoical sect. I shall be brief in my abstract of it. A philosophical physician is equal to a god. In the practice of medicine all the virtues relating to wisdom are exercised; namely, contempt of money, decency, modesty, simplicity in dress, character, judgment, quietness, accessibility, purity of life, sententious maxims, knowledge of the purifications which are proper and necessary in life, abstinence from lucre, freedom from superstition, divine excellence. The physician should keep himself aloof, and not hold much converse with the common people, unless when necessary. The surgeon should be well provided with all the means required in the practice of his profession, such as dressings, medicines, instruments, and so forth, as any deficiency in these might produce serious results. Minute directions are given for the regulation of the physician’s address in entering the chamber of the sick, and his conduct while there.
LI. Παραγγέλιαι—Precepts.
This little tract stands altogether in much the same circumstances as the preceding one, that is to say, it is wholly destitute of all good authority in its favor, and the nature of its contents is what might rather be expected from a sophist than a practical physician. The text, moreover, is in a most unsatisfactory state. I shall dismiss it then with a very brief notice. It opens with an advice to the physician not to trust to speculation but to rational experience. He ought to learn remedies from all quarters, even from the vulgar, and not be avaricious in his dealings with the sick, more especially if strangers and needy. The author alludes, as Schulze thinks, to the practice then followed by the physicians of migrating from one city to another, and of making a public declaration of their pretensions at their first entry into any place. These physicians were calledperiodeutæ. The author of this tract advises the physician, in such a case, not to make any vainglorious or inflated profession of his abilities. He also enjoins the medical practitioner to look to the health of those who are free from disease, as well as those who was indisposed.
LII. Περὶ ἀνατομῆς—On Dissection.
This small fragment of ancient anatomical science has no claim to be regarded as the work of Hippocrates. Neither Erotian nor Galen, nor any other ancient critic, holds it as such, and the modern authorities are unanimous in rejecting it. That it may have been the composition of Democritus, as suggested by Gruner, seems not unlikely. It abounds in harsh and obsolete terms, which have never been satisfactorily explained. Some parts of the anatomical description are difficult to determine, as for example, “the large bronchia which extend from the heart to the liver;” “the vena scalena, which extends from the liver to the kidneys.” The latter passage, however, may be supposed to refer to the emulgent vein.
LIII. Περὶ ὀδοντοφυίης—On Dentition.
This little tract is destitute of any competent evidence of its authenticity. Some of the observations contained in it bespeak a familiar acquaintance with the diseases of infancy. Thus it is said, that when the bowels are loose at the term of dentition, if the digestion be good, the children thrive, and are not subject to convulsions. When children at the breast vomit up their food, the bowels are constipated. When there is fever accompanying dentition, children are seldom attacked with convulsions. But when there is heavy sleep along with dentition, there is danger of convulsions. All the children that are seized with convulsions at the time of dentition do not die. Children that take food during dentition bear vomiting best. Ulcers on the tonsils are attended with danger.
LIV. Περὶ ἐγκατοτὸμης άμβρύου—On Excision of the Fœtus.
No one stands up for the genuineness of this treatise,[272]which, however, is not wanting in interesting matter relative to the extraction of the fœtus in cross-presentations. For an abstract of the practice there recommended, seePaulus Ægineta, Vol. II., p. 389, Syd. Soc. edition. A circumstantial description is also given of the process ofsuccussion, the dangerous effects of which, in certain cases, are related in the Epidemics.
LV. Περὶ ὄψιος—On Vision.
This little fragment is admitted by all the authorities to be spurious. It contains a description of glaucoma, for which purging of the head and the application of the actual cautery are recommended, and also in certain cases venesection. In epidemic ophthalmy, purging both of the head and bowels is recommended.
LVI. Περὶ ὀστέων φύσιος—On the Nature of the Bones.
M. Littré has very ingeniously shown that this work is a compilation made up of fragments of other works, and thus he has announced his intention of excluding it altogether from the Hippocratic Collection. Certain it is, beyond all dispute, that the treatise is not the production of Hippocrates himself. The following are a few of the most notable things which I have observed in it. “It appears to me that what we call heat is immortal, and that it understands, sees, hears, and perceives all things that are and will be.” The heat, it is further said, is the origin of all movement in animals. This will be recognized as the original of the doctrine of theCalidum innatum, which figures in the works of our earlier physiologists in modern times. See the works of Harvey and the other physiologists of the seventeenth century; also what is said on this subject in the next section. The aorta and vena cava are correctly described, the one as an artery, the other as a vein; and their origin from the ventricles of the heart is noticed. The author states (p. 440, ed. Kühn), that he had known cases of attempted suicide in which the windpipe had been opened, and yet death did not ensue; only while the opening remained the person lost the power of speaking. See No. XLV.
LVII. Περὶ κρισίων—On the Crises.
This tract has no ancient authority whatever in support of it, and Foës, Gruner, and Littré concur in holding it to be a compilation from other Hippocratic treatises, more especially the Aphorisms and Prognostics. This, indeed, must be obvious to every person who reads it with any attention.
LVIII. Περὶ κρισίμων—On Critical Days.
This treatise stands in the same predicament as the preceding one, that is to say, it has no ancient authority in support of it; indeed Galen declares against it when he says that Hippocrates had not given any work on the Critical Days. (Tom. iii., p. 440; ed. Basil.) It is manifestly a compilation from the other treatises, more especially from those “On Internal Diseases” and “On Diseases.” Still it appears to me to be an interesting and well-written compilation. For example, it would be difficult to point out in any other work, ancient or modern, a better description of pneumonia than is given towards the conclusion of it. Tetanus also is accurately described. To be sure, Gruner infers, from the circumstance that three varieties of this disease are described, that the work in question must have emanated from the Cnidian school. But Aretæus, and, indeed, all the ancient authorities that treat of tetanus, describe three varieties of this disease; and therefore this is no good reason for excluding it from the Coan school.
LIX. Περὶ φαρμάκων—On Purgative Medicines.
Though it must be admitted that this little fragment can boast of no competent authorities to establish its claim to be placed among the genuine works of Hippocrates, it bears undoubted marks of having been written by some person well acquainted with his principles, and having no ordinary acquaintance with professional matters. Thus the author states very correctly the effects of idiosyncrasy in modifying the operation both of purgatives and emetics, and advises the physician to make inquiry beforehand what effects such medicines, if formerly taken, had produced on the patient; for, he adds, it would be a disgraceful casualty to occasion a man’s death by the administration of a purgative medicine. He also interdicts the administration of purgatives during the heat of a fever, and during the very hot seasons of the year. These practical rules appear to me to be highly important, and yet how frequently do we see them disregarded! At the time we have mentioned, the author prudently remarks that it is safer to administer a clyster.
LX. Περὶ ἑλλεβορισμοῦ—On the Administration of Hellebore.
This little tract is usually published among theEpistolæ, and, as a matter of course, it has no evidence in support of its genuineness further than they have, which, as we shall presently see, is very slender. It contains, however, very acute and important observations on the administration of hellebore, to which it is well known that the Hippocratists were very partial. But these are mostly extracted from the Aphorisms, and need not be noticed in this place. The Book of Prognostics also is quoted, but seemingly by mistake.
LXI. Ἐπιστολαι—The Epistles.
No scholar can require to be informed that, since the memorable controversy in this country between the Honorable C. Boyle and the celebrated Dr. Bentley, respecting the authenticity of the Epistles which bear the name of Phalaris, the whole of the “Epistolæ Græcanicæ” have been generally condemned as spurious. Against this judgment I have no intention to protest; but I may be allowed to remark that many ancient works which are usually acknowledged as genuine have not so much external evidence in their favor as these Epistles possess. The Epistles ascribed to Plato, for example, are quoted as genuine by Cicero,[273]and by Diogenes Laertius.[274]Those of Hippocrates, too, are quoted and recognized by Erotian, Soranus, and other ancient authorities. Still, however, as I have stated, I have no intention to stand up against the general opinion of scholars from the Scaligers down to the present time, by which they have been condemned as supposititious; only I contend that, as it is admitted on all hands that they are very ancient,[275]that is to say, that they must have been composed within less than a hundred years after the death of Hippocrates, it is utterly incredible that the Sophists who wrote them, whether for a fraudulent purpose that they might derive profit from them by passing them off for the productions of the great name they bear, or whether for the purpose of displaying their own skill in sustaining an assumed character, should have made them turn upon alleged occurrences in the life of Hippocrates which every person at that early period must have been able to judge whether they were fictitious or not. I see no reason, then, to doubt that the main facts to which these Epistles relate are real, although the Epistles themselves be supposititious.[276]
Having thus stated my opinion of these Epistles in general terms, I shall now dismiss them with a very brief notice.
They are differently arranged by modern authorities; I shall follow M. Littré in the few remarks which I have to offer upon them.
The first series of these Epistles relates to the services which Hippocrates is said to have rendered to the people of Athens during the time of the memorable plague. The spuriousness of these, it is generally held, is proved beyond all doubt by the silence of Thucydides with regard to any such professional services rendered by Hippocrates on the occasion; and no doubt if it were maintained that these took place at the outbreak of the disease in Greece, that is to say, at the commencement of the Peloponnesian war, the inference would be most legitimate. But if we be permitted to suppose that, as the plague is known to have lurked about in different parts of Greece for a considerable time, the services of Hippocrates did not take place until several years afterwards, there is nothing in the story which bears the slightest air of falsehood, even if we adhere to the common chronology respecting the birth of our author. Indeed, I repeat, if the Sophist who composed these letters had founded them on tales which everybody knew to be false, he could never have hoped to impose upon the learned men of the next generation, and make his forgeries pass for genuine.
The second series relates to Democritus, and these must be admitted to be the most interesting of the whole group. Now that Hippocrates visited Abdera, and that he was familiarly acquainted with Democritus, are facts which the most sceptical critic will hardly venture to call in question.[277]But that the Epistles themselves were not written by the physician and philosopher whose name they bear, I readily admit to be probable. Most undoubtedly the letter of Hippocrates, in which he is made to describe his visit to Democritus, however full it may be of curious matters, is written in a style and manner very unlike the well-known characters of the true writings of Hippocrates.
Third. The short letter inscribed from Hippocrates to his son Thessalus, contains nothing from which its authenticity or the contrary could be legitimately inferred, only it is destitute of all ancient authority in its favor. In it the father recommends to the son the study of geometry and arithmetic, as a proper preparation to the study of medicine.
Fourth. This series, consisting of “The Oration at the Altar,” “The Decree of the Athenians,” and “The Oration of Thessalus, son of Hippocrates,” although now generally regarded as spurious, possess more direct evidence in their favor than any of the others. In fact, they are decidedly recognized as genuine by Erotian. The documents in question have all reference to the services of Hippocrates and his disciples in the pestilence which pervaded Greece during the Peloponnesian war. These services are alluded to by many ancient authorities, as we have shown in the Commentary onPaulus Ægineta, Book II., § 35. In conclusion, I repeat that, supported as the main facts referred to in these documents are by the highest testimony which antiquity can furnish, I cannot but regard the facts as true, although the documents themselves be given up as supposititious.
I will now briefly recapitulate the general results of the investigations on which I have been occupied in the present section:
1. That all the authorities, ancient and modern, who have investigated the question regarding the genuineness of the works which have come down to us under the name of Hippocrates, are agreed that a considerable portion of them are not the productions of the author himself.
2. That it is almost universally admitted that the following treatises are genuine, viz.:
The Prognostics.On Airs, etc.On Regimen in Acute Diseases.Seven of the Books of Aphorisms.Epidemics I. and III.On the Articulations.On Fractures.On the Instruments of Reduction.The Oath.
3. That the following treatises may be pretty confidently acknowledged as genuine, although the evidence in their favor is not so strong as it is with regard to the preceding list:—
On Ancient Medicine.On the Surgery.The Law.On Ulcers.On Fistulæ.On Hemorrhoids.On the Sacred Disease.
4. That as it certainly appears that the Book of Prognostics is composed, in a great measure, from the contents of the First “Prorrhetics” and the “Coacæ Prænotiones,” there can be little or no doubt that these two treatises are more ancient than the time of Hippocrates.
5. That although the exact time at which the Collection, as it now stands, was made out has never been determined in a very satisfactory manner, an examination of the contents of the different treatises leads to the conclusion that most of them represent pretty faithfully the opinions held by the family of Hippocrates and his immediate successors in the Coan school of medicine.
6. That a few of them, and more especially the two important works “On Internal Affections,” and “On Diseases,” would appear to bear distinct traces of having emanated from the contemporary school of Cnidos.
7. That although the Epistles and certain public documents usually published at the end of the Collection may justly be suspected of being spurious, there is undoubted evidence that they are of very ancient date, and were composed, most probably, within less than a hundred years after the death of Hippocrates, so that there is every reason for believing that they relate to real events in the life of our author, and not to fictitious as some have supposed.