FOOTNOTES:

FOOTNOTES:[1]It is necessary to inform my readers in this place, that, owing to its bulk, it has been judged expedient by the Council of the Sydenham Society to divide the work into two separate parts or volumes.[2]This is the view which is taken regarding the origin of Grecian medicine by Schulze, in his Historia Medicinæ. He is a most learned and trustworthy authority on the history of medicine, but in the present instance his judgment is biassed by the opinion which was generally held in his age with respect to the origin of Grecian philosophy. At that time it was customary to follow the later Platonists in tracing the rise of philosophy to Egypt. Lord Monboddo, in his work on Ancient Metaphysics, strongly espouses this opinion, which, in fact, was the established belief of learned men down to a late period. Kant advocated the views which are here adopted.[3]See in particular the introductory chapters to Ritter’s History of Ancient Philosophy; Thirlwall’s History of Greece, c. xii.; Grote’s History of Greece, P. I., c. xvii. The opinion now generally held on this subject may be explained in few words. The Homeric poems are beyond all doubt of Grecian origin, for it cannot be shown that the ancient Egyptians or Babylonians had anything resembling a regular epos. Now, as Mr. Grote well observes, “from the poetry of Homer to the history of Thucydides, and the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, was a prodigious step, but it was the native growth of the Hellenic youth into the Hellenic man, and what is of still greater moment, it was brought about without breaking the thread either of religious or poetic tradition—without any coercive innovation or violent change in the mental feelings. The transition of Grecian mind from its poetical to its comparatively positive state was self-operated, and accomplished by its own inherent and expansive force—aided indeed, but by no means either impressed or provoked, from without.”—L. c.[4]Plato, Menex.[5]Celsus mentions Pythagoras, Empedocles, and Democritus, as the most distinguished of the philosophers who cultivated medicine.—Præfat.[6]“Hippocrates primus ab studio sapientiæ disciplinam hanc separavit.”—Præfat.[7]See the authorities quoted atPaulus Ægineta, Vol. I., p. 73, Syd. Soc. edition; also in particular Xenophon’s Memorabilia, iii., 13; and Pausanias, ii., 2. The most complete list which is anywhere given of the ancient Asclepia, is that contained in Schulze’s History of Medicine, i., 24. It is to be regretted, however, that the references to Pausanias are made according to the pages of an old edition, instead of books and chapters, so that one experiences some difficulty in finding the passages referred to. The number of Asclepia in Greece noticed by him is sixty-four. Plutarch states in positive terms that all the Temples of Health were erected in high situations, and where the air was wholesome.—(Quæst. Rom.) On the practice of medicine in the Ancient Temples of Health, see further Sprengel, Hist. de la Méd., e. v. Sprengel, however, does not acknowledge so candidly as he ought to have done his obligations to his predecessor Schulze.[8]Philostratus, Vita Apollonii, i., 9; Strabo, Geogr., xiv.[9]Pausanias, vii., 21.[10]This I have reason to know is the belief of the learned and estimable author of the Isis Revelata.[11]Aristides, Orat. in Æsculap., viii. It may be proper to state that Sprengel, in referring to this passage (Hist. de la Méd., p. 160. French edition), falls into the mistake of saying that these medicines were prescribed to Aristides himself.[12]Galen, de Administ, Anatom., ii.[13]Censura Operum Hippocrat., p. 184.[14]Hist. de la Méd., i., 5, p. 175, French edit. Schulze, in like manner, depreciates the anatomical knowledge of the Asclepiadæ, and holds that it had been overrated by Galen.—Hist. Med., i., 2, 5.[15]Comment, in Libr. de Artie, iii., 28; de Decret. Hippocrat. et Platon., viii., I.[16]Polit., iii., 399; ed. Tauchnitz.[17]Geograph., xiv., 2.[18]De Sanitate tuenda, i.[19]L. c.[20]Galen, Opera, tom. iv., ed. Basil, 35.[21]Aristotle, Polit., vii., 4. Notwithstanding the high compliment which Aristotle here pays to the professional reputation of Hippocrates, there can be no doubt that he does not always make proper acknowledgment for the many obligations which he lies under to the Coan sage. Galen states repeatedly that the greater part of Aristotle’s physiology is derived from Hippocrates.[22]See some ingenious observations on these mythical genealogies in Grote’s History of Greece., vol. i., p. 593. He holds that they are altogether unworthy of credit, or at least that there is no test whereby one can separate the true from the false in them. Clinton, indeed, in his Fasti Hellenici, attaches more importance to them; but apparently Mr. Grote’s judgment on them is perfectly just. See further vol. ii., p. 53, etc.[23]Noctes Atticæ, xvii., 21.[24]That Hippocrates drew the rudiments of his medical knowledge from the reports of cases collected in the Asclepion of Cos, is attested by good authorities. See Strabo, Geogr., xiv.; Pliny, H. N., xxix., 2.[25]On the introduction of the gymnastic exercises into the practice of medicine, see Schulze, Hist. Med., i., 2, 8. The author of the VI. Epidem. condemns Herodicus for using exercises in the treatment of acute diseases. Herodicus is frequently mentioned in the Dialogues of Plato. See Protagoras, § 20; and de Repub., iii. Plato says, that being in ill health, he wore out first himself and afterwards many others, by combining gymnastics with medicine.[26]Somnus alludes to this fiction, and quotes Andreas as an authority for it. See also Pliny, H. N., xxix., 2. Tzetzes calls it the Temple of Cos, and not of Cnidos, which was burned.[27]See Plato, Protagoras.[28]Galen, Comment. in Libr. de Nat. Human.[29]Suidas in voce Hippocrates.[30]It was a common practice in ancient times to kindle great fires asdisinfectantsordeodorizers. We have entered pretty fully upon this subject in our Commentary onPaulus Ægineta, Vol. I., p. 274. There can be no doubt that it was the established practice of the profession in the days of Hippocrates. The names of Acron, Empedocles, and Hippocrates are particularly famous as having successfully adopted the practice. See Aëtius, v., 94; Paulus Ægineta, l. c.; Pliny, H. N., xxxvi., 69; and Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride.[31]Hist., iii., 87.[32]It deserves to be mentioned further, as adding probability to the present narrative, that it was quite common in ancient times for the Asclepiadæ to be publicly consulted by cities and States respecting the general health of the inhabitants, and this both for the prevention and cure of diseases. See Aristid. Opera, i., p. 81.[33]Galen, in many parts of his works, alludes to the professional services of Hippocrates during the great plague described by Thucydides. He mentions decidedly that Thucydides gives only those symptoms which would strike a common, that is to say, a non-professional man; whereas Hippocrates describes the disease accurately like a professional man, but gives few of those symptoms which appeared most interesting to Thucydides.—De Difficult. Respir., ii., 7.[34]Thucydides mentions that the mortality of the plague was greatly aggravated by the influx of the people from the country into the city, and the crowding of them in ill-ventilated huts. (ii., 52.) Mitford, in describing the plague of Athens, remarks that the want of sewers in ancient times must have contributed very much to the severity of the disease. (Hist. of Greece, vol. ii., p. 195.) He refers (l. c.) to Strabo (Geogr. v.) for proof that the Romans were the first people who constructed sewers.[35]See Xenophon, Cyropæd., i. and viii.[36]Galen, Comment in libr. de Artic. iii.[37]Xenophon, Anabasis, i. It has never been clearly determined whether he was in the suite of Artaxerxes the king, or of his brother Cyrus, before the battle of Cunaxa, in which the latter was killed, and the former being severely wounded, was attended professionally by Ctesias. Diodorus Siculus, indeed, says decidedly that he was taken prisoner on the occasion. (Bibl. ii., 32.) But we are certain, from the authentic narrative of Xenophon, that he was not taken prisoner in the battle, nor is it likely that he was one of those who were kidnapped afterwards, otherwise the historian would certainly not have omitted the name of so distinguished a personage. Besides, had he been brought to Babylon in this way, as a captive, Artaxerxes was not likely to have intrusted his royal life to a person who had been so lately the professional attendant on his rebel brother.[38]See Thucyd., ii., 48.[39]De Prisca Medicina.[40]See in the next section, under xxiii. Though I have not admitted the treatise here referred to into the list of genuine works, it will be seen below that it possesses considerable evidence in its favor, and that beyond doubt it is very ancient.[41]Aphor., I., 1.[42]See Galen, Opera, tom. v., p. 488; ed. Basil.[43]This is clearly defined and stated by Aristotle, Phys., i. See also Boethius in Præd., p. 113; ed. Basil.[44]This is the more remarkable, as it does not appear to have been the established creed of the greatest literary men and philosophers of the age, who still adhered or professed to adhere to the popular belief in the extraordinary interference of the gods with the works of Nature and the affairs of mankind. This at least was remarkably the case with Socrates, whose mind, like that of most men who make a great impression on the religious feelings of their age, had evidently a deep tinge of mysticism. See Xenoph. Memor., i., 1, 6–9; Ibid. iv., 7, 7; also Grote’s History of Greece, vol. i., p. 499. The latter remarks, “Physical and astronomical phenomena are classified by Socrates among the divine class, interdicted to human study.” (Mem., i. 1, 13.) He adds, in reference to Hippocrates, “On the other hand, Hippocrates, the contemporary of Socrates, denied the discrepancy, and merged into one the two classes of phenomena—the divine and the scientifically determinable,—which the latter had put asunder. Hippocrates treated all phenomena as at once both divine and scientifically determinable.” (p. 499.) He then quotes the memorable passage in the treatise “On Airs,” etc. It does not appear, however, that in ancient times the charge of Atheism was ever brought against him. It has been urged against him by modern fanatics, but scarcely deserves a serious refutation. See Schulze (Hist. Med., i., 3, 2), and Ackerman (Hist. Lit. Hippocr., pp. xii, xiii; ed. Kühn). By such persons, whoever does not join in their anthropomorphical notions of a first cause is held up for an Atheist.[45]For the medicine of the ancient Jews, Egyptians, and Babylonians, see the introductory chapters of Sprengel’s Hist. de la Méd. The medicine of the Hindoos, as given in the “Susruta” of D’Hanvantare, abounds in superstitious practices.[46]Epidem., vi.[47]Epidem., i.[48]De Diæta in Morb. Acut., Prognost., 15. See the argument to the Appendix to the former work.[49]See Galen, Oper. tom. v., p. 106; ed. Basil.[50]See De Morbis, pluries; de Prisca, Med., 22.[51]De Superfœt. et pluries.[52]De Ratione Victus in Acut. There is some doubt, however, whether the σκαμμώνιον of Dioscorides be theConvolvulus scammonia. Some rather take it for theC. sagittifolius.[53]De Superfœt. et alibi.[54]De Morb. Mulier.[55]De Fract., Aphor. et alibi.[56]Galen, Meth. Med., v., 3; Comment. in Libr. de Humor. See further in illustration, Œconom. Hippocrat. under Παροχετεύειν and 'Αντίσπασις; and Schulze, Hist. Med., i., 3, 4, 10.[57]See Epidem., i, and iii.; Aphor., i., 16; and De Diæta Acutor., passim.[58]See de Morbis, ii.; and Le Clerc, Hist. Med., 1, 3, 20.[59]See the work “On the Articulations,” pluries.[60]See in particular Venesect. adv. Erasistrat., Comment. in Lib. de Offic. Medic.[61]De Dyspn., ii., p. 181; ed. Basil. This brevity of style, Galen, in another passage of the same work, pronounces to be characteristic of all the old writings. In fact, when the materials of writing were scarce and dear, it is not likely that authors would indulge in an extravagant use of them.[62]Coray, Traité de Hippocrat. des Airs, etc., Discours préliminaire, pp. l., lvii.[63]Dionysius Halicarnassensis de iis quæ Thucyd. propria sunt, et de Platon. judicium.[64]Opus supra laudatum, p. clxxiv.[65]See the editions of Horace by Bentley and Tate, pluries.[66]See in Bentley’s Horace. The poet himself in several of his pieces, alludes to the separate publication of the various books, as i., 97; vi., 1; ii., præfat.; et pluries.[67]See Middleton’s Life of Cicero, pluries.[68]See the editions by Ast, Bekker, and Stallbaum, and the ancient authorities there referred to.[69]See the preliminary dissertation prefixed to Buhle’s edition; also Schneider’s edition of the Historia Animalium, Epimetrum iii.[70]He mentions, in his commentary on the treatises entitled “On Regimen in Acute Diseases,” that, from the marks of confused arrangement about it, he was persuaded the author had left it in an unfinished state, and that it had been published after his death. See Opera, tom. v., p. 70; ed. Basil.[71]See Galen, de Crisibus, i., 6.[72]Galen, Gloss., tom. v., p. 705; ed. Basil. As frequent mention of the commentators will occur in the course of this work, I will here subjoin a complete list of them, with a few brief notices of them, more especially of a chronological nature, derived principally from the following sources: Ackerman, Bibliotheca Græca; Dietz, Præfatio in Scholia Apollonii, etc.; Littré, Op. Hippocrat., tom. i., pp. 80–132; Daremberg, Cours sur l’Histoire et la Littérature des Sciences Médicales.Herophilus, the famous anatomist of Alexandria; flourished about from 310–280A.C.Xenocrates of Cos, quoted by Erotian as an authority on the Prognostics; nearly contemporary with Herophilus.Philinus of Cos, contemporary with Herophilus, and probably a disciple.Bacchius, contemporary with Philinus.Glaucias immediately after Bacchius; flourished probably between 290–260A.C.Zeuxis the Empiric, immediately after Glaucias and before Zeno; probably from 270–240A.C.See Daremberg.Heraclides Tarentinus, somewhat later than Bacchius, probably between 260–240A.C.Zeno the Herophilean, the contemporary and rival of Heraclides; probably the same as Zeno of Laodicea.Apollonius Biblas, the contemporary and rival of Zeno.Callimachus, according to Daremberg, an immediate disciple of Herophilus.Epiceleustus of Crete, of uncertain date.Apollonius Ophis, of uncertain date.Lysimachus of Cos, uncertain.Euphorion, uncertain.Heraclides the Erythrean, rather uncertain; but, according to Daremberg, a contemporary with Heraclides Tarentinus. The same as Heraclides the Herophilean. (Strabo, Geogr., xiv.)Epicles, uncertain.Eurycles, uncertain.Philonides of Sicily, uncertain.Ischomachus, uncertain.Cydias, uncertain.Cinesias, uncertain.Demetrius, the Epicurean.Diagoras, uncertain.Nicander the Poet of Colophon, from 150–120A.C.Apollonius Citiensis; Daremberg places him between 80–52A.C.See also Dietz and Littré.Asclepiades of Bithynia, contemporary with Pompey the Great; about 60–40A.C.Thessalus, the famous Methodist; about 50–70P.C.Erotian flourished in the reign of Nero, from 50–70P.C.His Glossary still preserved.Sabinus, of uncertain date, but probably not long anterior to Galen, by whom he is frequently quoted. (Op., tom. v., p. 433.)Metrodorus, disciple of Sabinus.RufusorRuffus Ephesius, contemporary with Sabinus. Several of his works remain, but no portion of his Commentaries on Hippocrates.Marinus, the celebrated anatomist, about the beginning of the second centuryP.C.Quintus, the Empiric, probably about from 110–130P.C.Lycus, the Macedonian, the disciple of Quintus; from 120–140P.C.See Daremberg.Lycus, of Naples, date rather uncertain.Artemidorus, a favorite of the Emperor Hadrian; often blamed by Galen for his alterations of the text; about 120–140P.C.Dioscorides (notthe author of the Materia Medica), an associate of Artemidorus.Numesianus, somewhat later than Dioscorides.Dionysius, about the time of the last.Pelops, the disciple of Numesianus.Satyrus, the disciple of Quintus.Phecianus, the disciple of Quintus.Julian the Alexandrian, the immediate predecessor of Galen, who frequently animadverts on his writings.Galen, flourished between 150–190P.C.; wrote Commentaries, still in existence, on the following works:—On the Nature of Man; on Regimen in Health; on Regimen in Acute Diseases; on the Prognostics; on the First Book of the Prorrhetics; on the Aphorisms; on the First, the Third, and the Sixth Books of the Epidemics; on the Treatise on Fractures; on the Articulations; on the Physicians’ Establishment or Surgery; on the Humours; fragments of the Commentaries on Airs, Waters, Places, and on the Aliment. Besides these, he wrote several other Commentaries, which are lost.Domnus, of uncertain date, after Galen.Attalion, like the last, cited in the Commentary attributed to Oribasius.Philagrius, of uncertain date, quoted by Theophilus.Gesius, of uncertain date.Asclepius, of uncertain date, quoted by Theophilus. (Dietz, tom. ii., p. 458.)Stephanus, the Athenian, supposed by Dietz to have lived in the reign of Heraclius, that is to say, in the earlier part of the seventh century. According to Dietz, not the same as Stephanus Alexandrinus.Palladius, probably about the seventh century; his Commentary on the book “On Fractures,” published by Foës, and a considerable portion of his Commentary “On the Sixth Epidemic,” by Dietz.Joannes Alexandrinus, probably near the time of Palladius; part of his Commentary “On the Nature of the Young Man,” published by Dietz.Theophilus, or Philotheus, surnamed Protospatharius, probably flourished in the seventh centuryP.C.See the Annotations of Dr. Greenhill, in his excellent edition of the work “De Corporis Humani Fabrica;” Oxford, 1842. Several of his Commentaries on the Aphorisms, published by Dietz.Meletius, of uncertain date; part of his Commentaries on the Aphorisms, published by Dietz. See also Anec. Gr., ed. Cramer.Damascius, of uncertain date; a few of his Commentaries on the Aphorisms, published by Dietz.[73]Œuvres d’Hippocrat., tom. i., p. 171.[74]See Schulze, Hist. Med., i., 3, 1.[75]It will be proper to give this Class:—De Aëre, Aquis, et Locis.De Natura Hominis.De Locis in Homine.De Humoribus.De Alimento.De Morbis popularibus.Prognosticon.Prædictionum, ii.De Victu Acutorum.De Fracturis.De Articulis.Mochlicus.De Vulneribus Capitis.Officina Medici.Aphorismi.[76]Censura Librorum Hippocrateorum, Vratislaviæ, 1772.[77]De Elementis, i., 9.[78]Tom. v., p. 442; ed. Basil.[79]Galen, who is a most unexceptionable judge in such a case, says that the language of Hippocrates inclines to the Attic, and that some had held it to be Old Attic. (Tom. v., p. 525; ed. Basil.) Dionysius of Halicarnassus, another admirable critic, says that Herodotus is the most excellent standard of the Ionic (and so, by the way, Photius also says, under the head ofCtesias) and Thucydides of the Attic. (De Platon. Judicium.) Now, since we have already made it appear that there is a most striking similarity between the language of Hippocrates and Thucydides, the judgment of Dionysius is evidently in accordance with that of Galen on this point. Indeed, as briefly stated in the text, the Attic was nothing more than a new development of the Ionic, and scarcely more different from it than the English language in the age of Pope is from the same in the age of Milton. It is to be borne in mind that the name Ionian was originally applied to the Thracians and the inhabitants of Attica, who were evidently closely allied to one another in consanguinity. It was in Thrace that learning and civilization first sprang up under the auspices of Thamyris, Orpheus, and Musæus, by whom the elegant arts were transplanted to Athens. (See Hesychius, in voce Iones; Eustathius, ad Iliad., ii.; Diogenes Laertius,Prœfat.; also Hermes Philologus, p. 23, by the author of this disquisition, whose mind now reverts with great delight,ad studia quæ adolescentiam alebant.) The inhabitants of Asiatic Ionia and the adjoining islands were colonists from Attica. (Thucyd., i., 12; Herodotus, viii., 44; Heraclides, de Polit.) From what has been stated it will readily be understood that the only standard of polite Greek was the Ionic, with its offspring the Attic. The Æolic and Doric dialects, although used in certain scientific and popular compositions, such as Bucolics and certain philosophical treatises, were never looked upon as being fashionable and learned dialects.[80]De Artic., i.[81]See his Historia Literaria Hippocratis, in the Bibliotheca Græca of Albertus Fabricius, or in vol. i. of Kühn’s edition of Hippocrates.[82]Galen, tom. v., p. 17; ed. Basil.[83]Apologie, etc.[84]Hippocratis nomine quæ circumferuntur scripta ad temporis rationes disposuit Christianus Petersen, p. prior. Hamburgi, 1839.[85]Prædict., i.; Coacæ Prænot.; de Loc. in Hom.[86]De Carne.; de Part. Sept.; de Part. Oct.; de Superf.; de Dent.[87]De Flat.[88]De Morb. Popul., i., iii.; de Morb., i.; de Affect.; de Morbo Sacro; de Insan.; de Veratr. Usu; de Victu Acut.; de Victu Sal.; Præn.; Prædict., ii.; Aphor.; de Aëre, Locis, et Aq.; de Insom.; de Hæmorrh.; de Fistul.[89]De Nat. Puer.[90]De Prisca Med.[91]De Nat. Hom.; de Humor.; de Nat. Oss.; de Corde; de Corp. Sect.; de Gland.; de Visu; de Alim.; de Usu Liquid.; de Affect. Intern.; de Morb. Popul., ii., iv., etc.; de Morb., ii., iii.; de Morb. Mulier.; de Nat. Mulieb.; de his quæ ad Virg. Spect.; de Steril.; de Vulner.; de Judic.; de Dieb. Judic.[92]De Morb., iv.; de Genitura; de Remed. Purgant.[93]De Victu Sanor. libri tres.[94]Tom. ii., pp. 32, 33.[95]Œuvres d’Hippocrate, tom. i., p. 263.[96]See Stephanus, Comment. in Prognost. Hippocrat., tom. ii., p. 61, ed. Dietz.; and Galen, tom. v., p. 328, ed. Basil.[97]The well known story regarding the concealment of Aristotle’s library by his heir, Neleus of Scepsis, and its restoration by Apellicon, is faithfully related by Strabo, Geograph., ix. In this passage Strabo states, that before the restoration of the library by Apellicon, there were but few of Aristotle’s works in the hands of the peripatetic philosophers, and these principally his exoteric works. But that the treatise “On the History of Animals” was an exoteric work, can admit of no question. This is confidently maintained by the learned Schneider in the prolegomena to his edition of this work. Indeed, as he suggests, there is no good reason for doubting that the treatise “On the History of Animals” had been published by Aristotle in his lifetime. (Epimetrum, ii.) See also Buhle’s dissertation prefixed to his edition of Aristotle’s works. I need scarcely add that, it being thus shown that all the most learned authorities on the literature of Aristotle’s works are agreed that the History of Animals, in which is contained this disputed fragment on the veins, was published before the time when the Hippocratic Collection is supposed to have been made, M. Littré’s conclusions on this head must fall to the ground.[98]The death of Aristotle is referred toA.C.321. Now this is just about the date of the foundation of the Royal Library at Alexandria, and very near the age when Herophilus flourished. These (M. Littré’s) positions clearly made out, it would follow that the dates of the treatises in the Collection come down very near to the foundation of the Alexandrian Library.[99]See Hengstenberg’s Commentary on the Psalms, pluries.[100]Although this piece be admitted into the first class, it also merits a place here.[101]Prænotiones or Prognostica; Aphorismi; Epidemiorum, i., iii.; de Diæta Acutorum; de Aëre, Aquis, et Locis; de Capitis Vulneribus.[102]De Prisca Medicina; de Articulis; de Fracturis; Mochlicus; Jusjurandum; Lex; de Ulceribus; de Fistulis; de Hæmorrhoidibus; de Officina Medici; de Morbo Sacro.[103]Prorrhetica, i.; Coacæ Prænotiones.[104]De Natura Hominis; de Salubri Victus Ratione; de Natura Muliebri; de Morbis, ii., iii.; de Superfœtatione.[105]De Flatibus; de Locis in Homine; de Arte; de Diæta; de Insomniis; de Affectionibus; de Internis Affectionibus; de Morbis, i.; de Septimestri Partu; de Octimestri Partu; Epidemiorum, ii., iv., vii.; de Humoribus; de Usu Liquidorum.[106]Epistolæ; Thessali Legati Oratio; Oratio ad Aram; Atheniensium Senatus-Consultum.[107]De Genitura; de Natura Pueri; de Morbis, iv.; de Mulierum Morbis; de Virginum Morbis; de Sterilibus.[108]Epidemiorum, v., vii.; de Corde; de Alimento; de Carnibus; de Septimanis; de Natura Ossium; de Glandulis; de Medico; de Decenti habitu; Præceptiones; de Anatomia; de Dentitione; de Exsectione Fœtus; de Visu; de Crisibus; de Diebus Criticis; de Medicamentis Purgativis.

[1]It is necessary to inform my readers in this place, that, owing to its bulk, it has been judged expedient by the Council of the Sydenham Society to divide the work into two separate parts or volumes.

[2]This is the view which is taken regarding the origin of Grecian medicine by Schulze, in his Historia Medicinæ. He is a most learned and trustworthy authority on the history of medicine, but in the present instance his judgment is biassed by the opinion which was generally held in his age with respect to the origin of Grecian philosophy. At that time it was customary to follow the later Platonists in tracing the rise of philosophy to Egypt. Lord Monboddo, in his work on Ancient Metaphysics, strongly espouses this opinion, which, in fact, was the established belief of learned men down to a late period. Kant advocated the views which are here adopted.

[3]See in particular the introductory chapters to Ritter’s History of Ancient Philosophy; Thirlwall’s History of Greece, c. xii.; Grote’s History of Greece, P. I., c. xvii. The opinion now generally held on this subject may be explained in few words. The Homeric poems are beyond all doubt of Grecian origin, for it cannot be shown that the ancient Egyptians or Babylonians had anything resembling a regular epos. Now, as Mr. Grote well observes, “from the poetry of Homer to the history of Thucydides, and the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, was a prodigious step, but it was the native growth of the Hellenic youth into the Hellenic man, and what is of still greater moment, it was brought about without breaking the thread either of religious or poetic tradition—without any coercive innovation or violent change in the mental feelings. The transition of Grecian mind from its poetical to its comparatively positive state was self-operated, and accomplished by its own inherent and expansive force—aided indeed, but by no means either impressed or provoked, from without.”—L. c.

[4]Plato, Menex.

[5]Celsus mentions Pythagoras, Empedocles, and Democritus, as the most distinguished of the philosophers who cultivated medicine.—Præfat.

[6]“Hippocrates primus ab studio sapientiæ disciplinam hanc separavit.”—Præfat.

[7]See the authorities quoted atPaulus Ægineta, Vol. I., p. 73, Syd. Soc. edition; also in particular Xenophon’s Memorabilia, iii., 13; and Pausanias, ii., 2. The most complete list which is anywhere given of the ancient Asclepia, is that contained in Schulze’s History of Medicine, i., 24. It is to be regretted, however, that the references to Pausanias are made according to the pages of an old edition, instead of books and chapters, so that one experiences some difficulty in finding the passages referred to. The number of Asclepia in Greece noticed by him is sixty-four. Plutarch states in positive terms that all the Temples of Health were erected in high situations, and where the air was wholesome.—(Quæst. Rom.) On the practice of medicine in the Ancient Temples of Health, see further Sprengel, Hist. de la Méd., e. v. Sprengel, however, does not acknowledge so candidly as he ought to have done his obligations to his predecessor Schulze.

[8]Philostratus, Vita Apollonii, i., 9; Strabo, Geogr., xiv.

[9]Pausanias, vii., 21.

[10]This I have reason to know is the belief of the learned and estimable author of the Isis Revelata.

[11]Aristides, Orat. in Æsculap., viii. It may be proper to state that Sprengel, in referring to this passage (Hist. de la Méd., p. 160. French edition), falls into the mistake of saying that these medicines were prescribed to Aristides himself.

[12]Galen, de Administ, Anatom., ii.

[13]Censura Operum Hippocrat., p. 184.

[14]Hist. de la Méd., i., 5, p. 175, French edit. Schulze, in like manner, depreciates the anatomical knowledge of the Asclepiadæ, and holds that it had been overrated by Galen.—Hist. Med., i., 2, 5.

[15]Comment, in Libr. de Artie, iii., 28; de Decret. Hippocrat. et Platon., viii., I.

[16]Polit., iii., 399; ed. Tauchnitz.

[17]Geograph., xiv., 2.

[18]De Sanitate tuenda, i.

[19]L. c.

[20]Galen, Opera, tom. iv., ed. Basil, 35.

[21]Aristotle, Polit., vii., 4. Notwithstanding the high compliment which Aristotle here pays to the professional reputation of Hippocrates, there can be no doubt that he does not always make proper acknowledgment for the many obligations which he lies under to the Coan sage. Galen states repeatedly that the greater part of Aristotle’s physiology is derived from Hippocrates.

[22]See some ingenious observations on these mythical genealogies in Grote’s History of Greece., vol. i., p. 593. He holds that they are altogether unworthy of credit, or at least that there is no test whereby one can separate the true from the false in them. Clinton, indeed, in his Fasti Hellenici, attaches more importance to them; but apparently Mr. Grote’s judgment on them is perfectly just. See further vol. ii., p. 53, etc.

[23]Noctes Atticæ, xvii., 21.

[24]That Hippocrates drew the rudiments of his medical knowledge from the reports of cases collected in the Asclepion of Cos, is attested by good authorities. See Strabo, Geogr., xiv.; Pliny, H. N., xxix., 2.

[25]On the introduction of the gymnastic exercises into the practice of medicine, see Schulze, Hist. Med., i., 2, 8. The author of the VI. Epidem. condemns Herodicus for using exercises in the treatment of acute diseases. Herodicus is frequently mentioned in the Dialogues of Plato. See Protagoras, § 20; and de Repub., iii. Plato says, that being in ill health, he wore out first himself and afterwards many others, by combining gymnastics with medicine.

[26]Somnus alludes to this fiction, and quotes Andreas as an authority for it. See also Pliny, H. N., xxix., 2. Tzetzes calls it the Temple of Cos, and not of Cnidos, which was burned.

[27]See Plato, Protagoras.

[28]Galen, Comment. in Libr. de Nat. Human.

[29]Suidas in voce Hippocrates.

[30]It was a common practice in ancient times to kindle great fires asdisinfectantsordeodorizers. We have entered pretty fully upon this subject in our Commentary onPaulus Ægineta, Vol. I., p. 274. There can be no doubt that it was the established practice of the profession in the days of Hippocrates. The names of Acron, Empedocles, and Hippocrates are particularly famous as having successfully adopted the practice. See Aëtius, v., 94; Paulus Ægineta, l. c.; Pliny, H. N., xxxvi., 69; and Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride.

[31]Hist., iii., 87.

[32]It deserves to be mentioned further, as adding probability to the present narrative, that it was quite common in ancient times for the Asclepiadæ to be publicly consulted by cities and States respecting the general health of the inhabitants, and this both for the prevention and cure of diseases. See Aristid. Opera, i., p. 81.

[33]Galen, in many parts of his works, alludes to the professional services of Hippocrates during the great plague described by Thucydides. He mentions decidedly that Thucydides gives only those symptoms which would strike a common, that is to say, a non-professional man; whereas Hippocrates describes the disease accurately like a professional man, but gives few of those symptoms which appeared most interesting to Thucydides.—De Difficult. Respir., ii., 7.

[34]Thucydides mentions that the mortality of the plague was greatly aggravated by the influx of the people from the country into the city, and the crowding of them in ill-ventilated huts. (ii., 52.) Mitford, in describing the plague of Athens, remarks that the want of sewers in ancient times must have contributed very much to the severity of the disease. (Hist. of Greece, vol. ii., p. 195.) He refers (l. c.) to Strabo (Geogr. v.) for proof that the Romans were the first people who constructed sewers.

[35]See Xenophon, Cyropæd., i. and viii.

[36]Galen, Comment in libr. de Artic. iii.

[37]Xenophon, Anabasis, i. It has never been clearly determined whether he was in the suite of Artaxerxes the king, or of his brother Cyrus, before the battle of Cunaxa, in which the latter was killed, and the former being severely wounded, was attended professionally by Ctesias. Diodorus Siculus, indeed, says decidedly that he was taken prisoner on the occasion. (Bibl. ii., 32.) But we are certain, from the authentic narrative of Xenophon, that he was not taken prisoner in the battle, nor is it likely that he was one of those who were kidnapped afterwards, otherwise the historian would certainly not have omitted the name of so distinguished a personage. Besides, had he been brought to Babylon in this way, as a captive, Artaxerxes was not likely to have intrusted his royal life to a person who had been so lately the professional attendant on his rebel brother.

[38]See Thucyd., ii., 48.

[39]De Prisca Medicina.

[40]See in the next section, under xxiii. Though I have not admitted the treatise here referred to into the list of genuine works, it will be seen below that it possesses considerable evidence in its favor, and that beyond doubt it is very ancient.

[41]Aphor., I., 1.

[42]See Galen, Opera, tom. v., p. 488; ed. Basil.

[43]This is clearly defined and stated by Aristotle, Phys., i. See also Boethius in Præd., p. 113; ed. Basil.

[44]This is the more remarkable, as it does not appear to have been the established creed of the greatest literary men and philosophers of the age, who still adhered or professed to adhere to the popular belief in the extraordinary interference of the gods with the works of Nature and the affairs of mankind. This at least was remarkably the case with Socrates, whose mind, like that of most men who make a great impression on the religious feelings of their age, had evidently a deep tinge of mysticism. See Xenoph. Memor., i., 1, 6–9; Ibid. iv., 7, 7; also Grote’s History of Greece, vol. i., p. 499. The latter remarks, “Physical and astronomical phenomena are classified by Socrates among the divine class, interdicted to human study.” (Mem., i. 1, 13.) He adds, in reference to Hippocrates, “On the other hand, Hippocrates, the contemporary of Socrates, denied the discrepancy, and merged into one the two classes of phenomena—the divine and the scientifically determinable,—which the latter had put asunder. Hippocrates treated all phenomena as at once both divine and scientifically determinable.” (p. 499.) He then quotes the memorable passage in the treatise “On Airs,” etc. It does not appear, however, that in ancient times the charge of Atheism was ever brought against him. It has been urged against him by modern fanatics, but scarcely deserves a serious refutation. See Schulze (Hist. Med., i., 3, 2), and Ackerman (Hist. Lit. Hippocr., pp. xii, xiii; ed. Kühn). By such persons, whoever does not join in their anthropomorphical notions of a first cause is held up for an Atheist.

[45]For the medicine of the ancient Jews, Egyptians, and Babylonians, see the introductory chapters of Sprengel’s Hist. de la Méd. The medicine of the Hindoos, as given in the “Susruta” of D’Hanvantare, abounds in superstitious practices.

[46]Epidem., vi.

[47]Epidem., i.

[48]De Diæta in Morb. Acut., Prognost., 15. See the argument to the Appendix to the former work.

[49]See Galen, Oper. tom. v., p. 106; ed. Basil.

[50]See De Morbis, pluries; de Prisca, Med., 22.

[51]De Superfœt. et pluries.

[52]De Ratione Victus in Acut. There is some doubt, however, whether the σκαμμώνιον of Dioscorides be theConvolvulus scammonia. Some rather take it for theC. sagittifolius.

[53]De Superfœt. et alibi.

[54]De Morb. Mulier.

[55]De Fract., Aphor. et alibi.

[56]Galen, Meth. Med., v., 3; Comment. in Libr. de Humor. See further in illustration, Œconom. Hippocrat. under Παροχετεύειν and 'Αντίσπασις; and Schulze, Hist. Med., i., 3, 4, 10.

[57]See Epidem., i, and iii.; Aphor., i., 16; and De Diæta Acutor., passim.

[58]See de Morbis, ii.; and Le Clerc, Hist. Med., 1, 3, 20.

[59]See the work “On the Articulations,” pluries.

[60]See in particular Venesect. adv. Erasistrat., Comment. in Lib. de Offic. Medic.

[61]De Dyspn., ii., p. 181; ed. Basil. This brevity of style, Galen, in another passage of the same work, pronounces to be characteristic of all the old writings. In fact, when the materials of writing were scarce and dear, it is not likely that authors would indulge in an extravagant use of them.

[62]Coray, Traité de Hippocrat. des Airs, etc., Discours préliminaire, pp. l., lvii.

[63]Dionysius Halicarnassensis de iis quæ Thucyd. propria sunt, et de Platon. judicium.

[64]Opus supra laudatum, p. clxxiv.

[65]See the editions of Horace by Bentley and Tate, pluries.

[66]See in Bentley’s Horace. The poet himself in several of his pieces, alludes to the separate publication of the various books, as i., 97; vi., 1; ii., præfat.; et pluries.

[67]See Middleton’s Life of Cicero, pluries.

[68]See the editions by Ast, Bekker, and Stallbaum, and the ancient authorities there referred to.

[69]See the preliminary dissertation prefixed to Buhle’s edition; also Schneider’s edition of the Historia Animalium, Epimetrum iii.

[70]He mentions, in his commentary on the treatises entitled “On Regimen in Acute Diseases,” that, from the marks of confused arrangement about it, he was persuaded the author had left it in an unfinished state, and that it had been published after his death. See Opera, tom. v., p. 70; ed. Basil.

[71]See Galen, de Crisibus, i., 6.

[72]Galen, Gloss., tom. v., p. 705; ed. Basil. As frequent mention of the commentators will occur in the course of this work, I will here subjoin a complete list of them, with a few brief notices of them, more especially of a chronological nature, derived principally from the following sources: Ackerman, Bibliotheca Græca; Dietz, Præfatio in Scholia Apollonii, etc.; Littré, Op. Hippocrat., tom. i., pp. 80–132; Daremberg, Cours sur l’Histoire et la Littérature des Sciences Médicales.Herophilus, the famous anatomist of Alexandria; flourished about from 310–280A.C.Xenocrates of Cos, quoted by Erotian as an authority on the Prognostics; nearly contemporary with Herophilus.Philinus of Cos, contemporary with Herophilus, and probably a disciple.Bacchius, contemporary with Philinus.Glaucias immediately after Bacchius; flourished probably between 290–260A.C.Zeuxis the Empiric, immediately after Glaucias and before Zeno; probably from 270–240A.C.See Daremberg.Heraclides Tarentinus, somewhat later than Bacchius, probably between 260–240A.C.Zeno the Herophilean, the contemporary and rival of Heraclides; probably the same as Zeno of Laodicea.Apollonius Biblas, the contemporary and rival of Zeno.Callimachus, according to Daremberg, an immediate disciple of Herophilus.Epiceleustus of Crete, of uncertain date.Apollonius Ophis, of uncertain date.Lysimachus of Cos, uncertain.Euphorion, uncertain.Heraclides the Erythrean, rather uncertain; but, according to Daremberg, a contemporary with Heraclides Tarentinus. The same as Heraclides the Herophilean. (Strabo, Geogr., xiv.)Epicles, uncertain.Eurycles, uncertain.Philonides of Sicily, uncertain.Ischomachus, uncertain.Cydias, uncertain.Cinesias, uncertain.Demetrius, the Epicurean.Diagoras, uncertain.Nicander the Poet of Colophon, from 150–120A.C.Apollonius Citiensis; Daremberg places him between 80–52A.C.See also Dietz and Littré.Asclepiades of Bithynia, contemporary with Pompey the Great; about 60–40A.C.Thessalus, the famous Methodist; about 50–70P.C.Erotian flourished in the reign of Nero, from 50–70P.C.His Glossary still preserved.Sabinus, of uncertain date, but probably not long anterior to Galen, by whom he is frequently quoted. (Op., tom. v., p. 433.)Metrodorus, disciple of Sabinus.RufusorRuffus Ephesius, contemporary with Sabinus. Several of his works remain, but no portion of his Commentaries on Hippocrates.Marinus, the celebrated anatomist, about the beginning of the second centuryP.C.Quintus, the Empiric, probably about from 110–130P.C.Lycus, the Macedonian, the disciple of Quintus; from 120–140P.C.See Daremberg.Lycus, of Naples, date rather uncertain.Artemidorus, a favorite of the Emperor Hadrian; often blamed by Galen for his alterations of the text; about 120–140P.C.Dioscorides (notthe author of the Materia Medica), an associate of Artemidorus.Numesianus, somewhat later than Dioscorides.Dionysius, about the time of the last.Pelops, the disciple of Numesianus.Satyrus, the disciple of Quintus.Phecianus, the disciple of Quintus.Julian the Alexandrian, the immediate predecessor of Galen, who frequently animadverts on his writings.Galen, flourished between 150–190P.C.; wrote Commentaries, still in existence, on the following works:—On the Nature of Man; on Regimen in Health; on Regimen in Acute Diseases; on the Prognostics; on the First Book of the Prorrhetics; on the Aphorisms; on the First, the Third, and the Sixth Books of the Epidemics; on the Treatise on Fractures; on the Articulations; on the Physicians’ Establishment or Surgery; on the Humours; fragments of the Commentaries on Airs, Waters, Places, and on the Aliment. Besides these, he wrote several other Commentaries, which are lost.Domnus, of uncertain date, after Galen.Attalion, like the last, cited in the Commentary attributed to Oribasius.Philagrius, of uncertain date, quoted by Theophilus.Gesius, of uncertain date.Asclepius, of uncertain date, quoted by Theophilus. (Dietz, tom. ii., p. 458.)Stephanus, the Athenian, supposed by Dietz to have lived in the reign of Heraclius, that is to say, in the earlier part of the seventh century. According to Dietz, not the same as Stephanus Alexandrinus.Palladius, probably about the seventh century; his Commentary on the book “On Fractures,” published by Foës, and a considerable portion of his Commentary “On the Sixth Epidemic,” by Dietz.Joannes Alexandrinus, probably near the time of Palladius; part of his Commentary “On the Nature of the Young Man,” published by Dietz.Theophilus, or Philotheus, surnamed Protospatharius, probably flourished in the seventh centuryP.C.See the Annotations of Dr. Greenhill, in his excellent edition of the work “De Corporis Humani Fabrica;” Oxford, 1842. Several of his Commentaries on the Aphorisms, published by Dietz.Meletius, of uncertain date; part of his Commentaries on the Aphorisms, published by Dietz. See also Anec. Gr., ed. Cramer.Damascius, of uncertain date; a few of his Commentaries on the Aphorisms, published by Dietz.

Herophilus, the famous anatomist of Alexandria; flourished about from 310–280A.C.Xenocrates of Cos, quoted by Erotian as an authority on the Prognostics; nearly contemporary with Herophilus.Philinus of Cos, contemporary with Herophilus, and probably a disciple.Bacchius, contemporary with Philinus.Glaucias immediately after Bacchius; flourished probably between 290–260A.C.Zeuxis the Empiric, immediately after Glaucias and before Zeno; probably from 270–240A.C.See Daremberg.Heraclides Tarentinus, somewhat later than Bacchius, probably between 260–240A.C.Zeno the Herophilean, the contemporary and rival of Heraclides; probably the same as Zeno of Laodicea.Apollonius Biblas, the contemporary and rival of Zeno.Callimachus, according to Daremberg, an immediate disciple of Herophilus.Epiceleustus of Crete, of uncertain date.Apollonius Ophis, of uncertain date.Lysimachus of Cos, uncertain.Euphorion, uncertain.Heraclides the Erythrean, rather uncertain; but, according to Daremberg, a contemporary with Heraclides Tarentinus. The same as Heraclides the Herophilean. (Strabo, Geogr., xiv.)Epicles, uncertain.Eurycles, uncertain.Philonides of Sicily, uncertain.Ischomachus, uncertain.Cydias, uncertain.Cinesias, uncertain.Demetrius, the Epicurean.Diagoras, uncertain.Nicander the Poet of Colophon, from 150–120A.C.Apollonius Citiensis; Daremberg places him between 80–52A.C.See also Dietz and Littré.Asclepiades of Bithynia, contemporary with Pompey the Great; about 60–40A.C.Thessalus, the famous Methodist; about 50–70P.C.Erotian flourished in the reign of Nero, from 50–70P.C.His Glossary still preserved.Sabinus, of uncertain date, but probably not long anterior to Galen, by whom he is frequently quoted. (Op., tom. v., p. 433.)Metrodorus, disciple of Sabinus.RufusorRuffus Ephesius, contemporary with Sabinus. Several of his works remain, but no portion of his Commentaries on Hippocrates.Marinus, the celebrated anatomist, about the beginning of the second centuryP.C.Quintus, the Empiric, probably about from 110–130P.C.Lycus, the Macedonian, the disciple of Quintus; from 120–140P.C.See Daremberg.Lycus, of Naples, date rather uncertain.Artemidorus, a favorite of the Emperor Hadrian; often blamed by Galen for his alterations of the text; about 120–140P.C.Dioscorides (notthe author of the Materia Medica), an associate of Artemidorus.Numesianus, somewhat later than Dioscorides.Dionysius, about the time of the last.Pelops, the disciple of Numesianus.Satyrus, the disciple of Quintus.Phecianus, the disciple of Quintus.Julian the Alexandrian, the immediate predecessor of Galen, who frequently animadverts on his writings.Galen, flourished between 150–190P.C.; wrote Commentaries, still in existence, on the following works:—On the Nature of Man; on Regimen in Health; on Regimen in Acute Diseases; on the Prognostics; on the First Book of the Prorrhetics; on the Aphorisms; on the First, the Third, and the Sixth Books of the Epidemics; on the Treatise on Fractures; on the Articulations; on the Physicians’ Establishment or Surgery; on the Humours; fragments of the Commentaries on Airs, Waters, Places, and on the Aliment. Besides these, he wrote several other Commentaries, which are lost.Domnus, of uncertain date, after Galen.Attalion, like the last, cited in the Commentary attributed to Oribasius.Philagrius, of uncertain date, quoted by Theophilus.Gesius, of uncertain date.Asclepius, of uncertain date, quoted by Theophilus. (Dietz, tom. ii., p. 458.)Stephanus, the Athenian, supposed by Dietz to have lived in the reign of Heraclius, that is to say, in the earlier part of the seventh century. According to Dietz, not the same as Stephanus Alexandrinus.Palladius, probably about the seventh century; his Commentary on the book “On Fractures,” published by Foës, and a considerable portion of his Commentary “On the Sixth Epidemic,” by Dietz.Joannes Alexandrinus, probably near the time of Palladius; part of his Commentary “On the Nature of the Young Man,” published by Dietz.Theophilus, or Philotheus, surnamed Protospatharius, probably flourished in the seventh centuryP.C.See the Annotations of Dr. Greenhill, in his excellent edition of the work “De Corporis Humani Fabrica;” Oxford, 1842. Several of his Commentaries on the Aphorisms, published by Dietz.Meletius, of uncertain date; part of his Commentaries on the Aphorisms, published by Dietz. See also Anec. Gr., ed. Cramer.Damascius, of uncertain date; a few of his Commentaries on the Aphorisms, published by Dietz.

Herophilus, the famous anatomist of Alexandria; flourished about from 310–280A.C.

Xenocrates of Cos, quoted by Erotian as an authority on the Prognostics; nearly contemporary with Herophilus.

Philinus of Cos, contemporary with Herophilus, and probably a disciple.

Bacchius, contemporary with Philinus.

Glaucias immediately after Bacchius; flourished probably between 290–260A.C.

Zeuxis the Empiric, immediately after Glaucias and before Zeno; probably from 270–240A.C.See Daremberg.

Heraclides Tarentinus, somewhat later than Bacchius, probably between 260–240A.C.

Zeno the Herophilean, the contemporary and rival of Heraclides; probably the same as Zeno of Laodicea.

Apollonius Biblas, the contemporary and rival of Zeno.

Callimachus, according to Daremberg, an immediate disciple of Herophilus.

Epiceleustus of Crete, of uncertain date.

Apollonius Ophis, of uncertain date.

Lysimachus of Cos, uncertain.

Euphorion, uncertain.

Heraclides the Erythrean, rather uncertain; but, according to Daremberg, a contemporary with Heraclides Tarentinus. The same as Heraclides the Herophilean. (Strabo, Geogr., xiv.)

Epicles, uncertain.

Eurycles, uncertain.

Philonides of Sicily, uncertain.

Ischomachus, uncertain.

Cydias, uncertain.

Cinesias, uncertain.

Demetrius, the Epicurean.

Diagoras, uncertain.

Nicander the Poet of Colophon, from 150–120A.C.

Apollonius Citiensis; Daremberg places him between 80–52A.C.See also Dietz and Littré.

Asclepiades of Bithynia, contemporary with Pompey the Great; about 60–40A.C.

Thessalus, the famous Methodist; about 50–70P.C.

Erotian flourished in the reign of Nero, from 50–70P.C.His Glossary still preserved.

Sabinus, of uncertain date, but probably not long anterior to Galen, by whom he is frequently quoted. (Op., tom. v., p. 433.)

Metrodorus, disciple of Sabinus.

RufusorRuffus Ephesius, contemporary with Sabinus. Several of his works remain, but no portion of his Commentaries on Hippocrates.

Marinus, the celebrated anatomist, about the beginning of the second centuryP.C.

Quintus, the Empiric, probably about from 110–130P.C.

Lycus, the Macedonian, the disciple of Quintus; from 120–140P.C.See Daremberg.

Lycus, of Naples, date rather uncertain.

Artemidorus, a favorite of the Emperor Hadrian; often blamed by Galen for his alterations of the text; about 120–140P.C.

Dioscorides (notthe author of the Materia Medica), an associate of Artemidorus.

Numesianus, somewhat later than Dioscorides.

Dionysius, about the time of the last.

Pelops, the disciple of Numesianus.

Satyrus, the disciple of Quintus.

Phecianus, the disciple of Quintus.

Julian the Alexandrian, the immediate predecessor of Galen, who frequently animadverts on his writings.

Galen, flourished between 150–190P.C.; wrote Commentaries, still in existence, on the following works:—On the Nature of Man; on Regimen in Health; on Regimen in Acute Diseases; on the Prognostics; on the First Book of the Prorrhetics; on the Aphorisms; on the First, the Third, and the Sixth Books of the Epidemics; on the Treatise on Fractures; on the Articulations; on the Physicians’ Establishment or Surgery; on the Humours; fragments of the Commentaries on Airs, Waters, Places, and on the Aliment. Besides these, he wrote several other Commentaries, which are lost.

Domnus, of uncertain date, after Galen.

Attalion, like the last, cited in the Commentary attributed to Oribasius.

Philagrius, of uncertain date, quoted by Theophilus.

Gesius, of uncertain date.

Asclepius, of uncertain date, quoted by Theophilus. (Dietz, tom. ii., p. 458.)

Stephanus, the Athenian, supposed by Dietz to have lived in the reign of Heraclius, that is to say, in the earlier part of the seventh century. According to Dietz, not the same as Stephanus Alexandrinus.

Palladius, probably about the seventh century; his Commentary on the book “On Fractures,” published by Foës, and a considerable portion of his Commentary “On the Sixth Epidemic,” by Dietz.

Joannes Alexandrinus, probably near the time of Palladius; part of his Commentary “On the Nature of the Young Man,” published by Dietz.

Theophilus, or Philotheus, surnamed Protospatharius, probably flourished in the seventh centuryP.C.See the Annotations of Dr. Greenhill, in his excellent edition of the work “De Corporis Humani Fabrica;” Oxford, 1842. Several of his Commentaries on the Aphorisms, published by Dietz.

Meletius, of uncertain date; part of his Commentaries on the Aphorisms, published by Dietz. See also Anec. Gr., ed. Cramer.

Damascius, of uncertain date; a few of his Commentaries on the Aphorisms, published by Dietz.

[73]Œuvres d’Hippocrat., tom. i., p. 171.

[74]See Schulze, Hist. Med., i., 3, 1.

[75]It will be proper to give this Class:—De Aëre, Aquis, et Locis.De Natura Hominis.De Locis in Homine.De Humoribus.De Alimento.De Morbis popularibus.Prognosticon.Prædictionum, ii.De Victu Acutorum.De Fracturis.De Articulis.Mochlicus.De Vulneribus Capitis.Officina Medici.Aphorismi.

[75]It will be proper to give this Class:—

De Aëre, Aquis, et Locis.De Natura Hominis.De Locis in Homine.De Humoribus.De Alimento.De Morbis popularibus.Prognosticon.Prædictionum, ii.De Victu Acutorum.De Fracturis.De Articulis.Mochlicus.De Vulneribus Capitis.Officina Medici.Aphorismi.

[76]Censura Librorum Hippocrateorum, Vratislaviæ, 1772.

[77]De Elementis, i., 9.

[78]Tom. v., p. 442; ed. Basil.

[79]Galen, who is a most unexceptionable judge in such a case, says that the language of Hippocrates inclines to the Attic, and that some had held it to be Old Attic. (Tom. v., p. 525; ed. Basil.) Dionysius of Halicarnassus, another admirable critic, says that Herodotus is the most excellent standard of the Ionic (and so, by the way, Photius also says, under the head ofCtesias) and Thucydides of the Attic. (De Platon. Judicium.) Now, since we have already made it appear that there is a most striking similarity between the language of Hippocrates and Thucydides, the judgment of Dionysius is evidently in accordance with that of Galen on this point. Indeed, as briefly stated in the text, the Attic was nothing more than a new development of the Ionic, and scarcely more different from it than the English language in the age of Pope is from the same in the age of Milton. It is to be borne in mind that the name Ionian was originally applied to the Thracians and the inhabitants of Attica, who were evidently closely allied to one another in consanguinity. It was in Thrace that learning and civilization first sprang up under the auspices of Thamyris, Orpheus, and Musæus, by whom the elegant arts were transplanted to Athens. (See Hesychius, in voce Iones; Eustathius, ad Iliad., ii.; Diogenes Laertius,Prœfat.; also Hermes Philologus, p. 23, by the author of this disquisition, whose mind now reverts with great delight,ad studia quæ adolescentiam alebant.) The inhabitants of Asiatic Ionia and the adjoining islands were colonists from Attica. (Thucyd., i., 12; Herodotus, viii., 44; Heraclides, de Polit.) From what has been stated it will readily be understood that the only standard of polite Greek was the Ionic, with its offspring the Attic. The Æolic and Doric dialects, although used in certain scientific and popular compositions, such as Bucolics and certain philosophical treatises, were never looked upon as being fashionable and learned dialects.

[80]De Artic., i.

[81]See his Historia Literaria Hippocratis, in the Bibliotheca Græca of Albertus Fabricius, or in vol. i. of Kühn’s edition of Hippocrates.

[82]Galen, tom. v., p. 17; ed. Basil.

[83]Apologie, etc.

[84]Hippocratis nomine quæ circumferuntur scripta ad temporis rationes disposuit Christianus Petersen, p. prior. Hamburgi, 1839.

[85]Prædict., i.; Coacæ Prænot.; de Loc. in Hom.

[86]De Carne.; de Part. Sept.; de Part. Oct.; de Superf.; de Dent.

[87]De Flat.

[88]De Morb. Popul., i., iii.; de Morb., i.; de Affect.; de Morbo Sacro; de Insan.; de Veratr. Usu; de Victu Acut.; de Victu Sal.; Præn.; Prædict., ii.; Aphor.; de Aëre, Locis, et Aq.; de Insom.; de Hæmorrh.; de Fistul.

[89]De Nat. Puer.

[90]De Prisca Med.

[91]De Nat. Hom.; de Humor.; de Nat. Oss.; de Corde; de Corp. Sect.; de Gland.; de Visu; de Alim.; de Usu Liquid.; de Affect. Intern.; de Morb. Popul., ii., iv., etc.; de Morb., ii., iii.; de Morb. Mulier.; de Nat. Mulieb.; de his quæ ad Virg. Spect.; de Steril.; de Vulner.; de Judic.; de Dieb. Judic.

[92]De Morb., iv.; de Genitura; de Remed. Purgant.

[93]De Victu Sanor. libri tres.

[94]Tom. ii., pp. 32, 33.

[95]Œuvres d’Hippocrate, tom. i., p. 263.

[96]See Stephanus, Comment. in Prognost. Hippocrat., tom. ii., p. 61, ed. Dietz.; and Galen, tom. v., p. 328, ed. Basil.

[97]The well known story regarding the concealment of Aristotle’s library by his heir, Neleus of Scepsis, and its restoration by Apellicon, is faithfully related by Strabo, Geograph., ix. In this passage Strabo states, that before the restoration of the library by Apellicon, there were but few of Aristotle’s works in the hands of the peripatetic philosophers, and these principally his exoteric works. But that the treatise “On the History of Animals” was an exoteric work, can admit of no question. This is confidently maintained by the learned Schneider in the prolegomena to his edition of this work. Indeed, as he suggests, there is no good reason for doubting that the treatise “On the History of Animals” had been published by Aristotle in his lifetime. (Epimetrum, ii.) See also Buhle’s dissertation prefixed to his edition of Aristotle’s works. I need scarcely add that, it being thus shown that all the most learned authorities on the literature of Aristotle’s works are agreed that the History of Animals, in which is contained this disputed fragment on the veins, was published before the time when the Hippocratic Collection is supposed to have been made, M. Littré’s conclusions on this head must fall to the ground.

[98]The death of Aristotle is referred toA.C.321. Now this is just about the date of the foundation of the Royal Library at Alexandria, and very near the age when Herophilus flourished. These (M. Littré’s) positions clearly made out, it would follow that the dates of the treatises in the Collection come down very near to the foundation of the Alexandrian Library.

[99]See Hengstenberg’s Commentary on the Psalms, pluries.

[100]Although this piece be admitted into the first class, it also merits a place here.

[101]Prænotiones or Prognostica; Aphorismi; Epidemiorum, i., iii.; de Diæta Acutorum; de Aëre, Aquis, et Locis; de Capitis Vulneribus.

[102]De Prisca Medicina; de Articulis; de Fracturis; Mochlicus; Jusjurandum; Lex; de Ulceribus; de Fistulis; de Hæmorrhoidibus; de Officina Medici; de Morbo Sacro.

[103]Prorrhetica, i.; Coacæ Prænotiones.

[104]De Natura Hominis; de Salubri Victus Ratione; de Natura Muliebri; de Morbis, ii., iii.; de Superfœtatione.

[105]De Flatibus; de Locis in Homine; de Arte; de Diæta; de Insomniis; de Affectionibus; de Internis Affectionibus; de Morbis, i.; de Septimestri Partu; de Octimestri Partu; Epidemiorum, ii., iv., vii.; de Humoribus; de Usu Liquidorum.

[106]Epistolæ; Thessali Legati Oratio; Oratio ad Aram; Atheniensium Senatus-Consultum.

[107]De Genitura; de Natura Pueri; de Morbis, iv.; de Mulierum Morbis; de Virginum Morbis; de Sterilibus.

[108]Epidemiorum, v., vii.; de Corde; de Alimento; de Carnibus; de Septimanis; de Natura Ossium; de Glandulis; de Medico; de Decenti habitu; Præceptiones; de Anatomia; de Dentitione; de Exsectione Fœtus; de Visu; de Crisibus; de Diebus Criticis; de Medicamentis Purgativis.

Back to Index Next