PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE.

It is well known that the oldest documents which we possess relative to the practice of Medicine, are the various treatises contained in the Collection which bears the name of Hippocrates. Their great excellence has been acknowledged in all ages, and it has always been a question which has naturally excited literary curiosity, by what steps the art had attained to such perfection at so early a period. This investigation, however, is attended with peculiar difficulties, and has never been marked by any very satisfactory results. At one time, indeed, it was usual to solve the question by supposing that Greece had derived all the arts and sciences, in a state of considerable advancement, from the oriental nations, who are admitted to have possessed a considerable degree of civilization before the Hellenic race became distinguished for intellectual development.[2]The question with regard to the origin of Medicine was thus supposed to have met with a satisfactory solution. For, it being generally admitted that the Hippocratic Medicine had emerged from the schools of philosophy, and it having been assumed as incontrovertible that the early philosophy of the Greeks had been derived from the East, the inference appeared to be quite legitimate that medicine, in a state of considerable advancement, had been imported from the same quarter. Recent research, however, has cast great doubts on the supposed descent of Grecian philosophy from a foreign source, and it is now pretty generally admitted that the Orientals, in early times, had never made any considerable progressin mental science.[3]Instead, then, of looking upon philosophy as having been an exotic production in the land of Hellas, we have every reason to believe that it was, what its inhabitants, in the noble pride of political freedom and intellectual superiority, boasted that their forefathers had been, namely, â€œthe offspring of their own soil.â€[4]Since the philosophy of the Greeks was indigenous, there is every reason to suppose that their medicine was so in like manner. How long the union between medicine and philosophy had subsisted before the time of Hippocrates, has not been determined upon any contemporary evidence, but the disciples of Pythagoras, in after ages, did not hesitate to ascribe to him the honor of effecting this alliance.[5]However this may be, it appears to me very doubtful whether these philosophers ever practised medicine as a craft. Indeed, it is much more likely that they merely speculated upon the phenomena of disease. Thus we shall see afterwards, that Plato himself did not discard speculative medicine from his system of philosophy, although we are quite sure that he never practised it as an art. But this connection between medicine and philosophy was by no means regarded, in after times, as having been favorable to the advancement of the former, for we find Hippocrates complimented by Celsus for having brought about a separation between them.[6]

It is clearly established that, long before the birth of philosophy, medicine had been zealously and successfully cultivated by the AsclepiadÃ¦, an order of priest-physicians that traced its origin to a mythical personage bearing the distinguished name of Ã†sculapius. Two of his sons, Podalirius and Machaon, figure in the Homeric poems, not however as priests, but as warriors possessed of surgical skill in the treatment of wounds, for which they are highly complimented by the poet. It was probably some generations after this time (if one may venture a conjecture on a matter partaking very much of the legendary character) that Ã†sculapius was deified, and that Temples of Health, calledAsclepia, presided over by the AsclepiadÃ¦, were erected in various parts of Greece, as receptacles for the sick, to which invalids resorted in those days for the cure of diseases, under the same circumstances as they go to hospitals and spas at the present time. What remedial measures were adopted in these temples we have no means of ascertaining so fully as could be wished, but the following facts, collected from a variety of sources, may be pretty confidently relied upon for their accuracy. In the first place, then, it is well ascertained that a large proportion of these temples were built in the vicinity of thermÃ¦, or medicinal springs, the virtues of which would no doubt contribute greatly to the cure of the sick.[7]At his entrance into the temple, the devotee was subjected to purifications, and made to go through a regular course of bathing, accompanied with methodical frictions, resembling the oriental system now well known by the name ofshampooing. Fomentations with decoctions of odoriferous herbs were also not forgotten. A total abstinence from food was at first prescribed,[8]but afterwards the patient would no doubt be permitted to partake of the flesh of the animals which were brought to the temples as sacrifices. Every means that could be thought of was used for working upon the imagination of the sick, such as religious ceremonies of an imposing nature, accompanied by music, and whatever else could arouse their senses, conciliate their confidence, and in certain cases, contribute to their amusement.[9]In addition to these means, it is believed by many intelligent Mesmerists of the present day, that the aid of Animal magnetism was called in to contribute to the cure;[10]but on this point the proof is not so complete as could be wished. Certain it is, however, that as the Mesmerists administer medicines which are suggested to the imagination of patients during the state of clairvoyance, the AsclepiadÃ¦ prescribed drugs as indicated in dreams. These, indeed, were generally of a very inert description; but sometimes medicines of a more dangerous nature, such as hemlock and gypsum, were used in this way,[11]and regular reports of the effects which they produced were kept by the priests in the temples. It is also well known that the AsclepiadÃ¦ noted down with great care the symptoms and issue of every case, and that, from such observations, they became in time great adepts in the art of prognosis. When we come to an analysis of the different Hippocratic treatises, it will be seen that there is strong reason to believe we are still possessed of two documents composed from the results of observations made in the ancient Temples of Health. It would also contribute much to the increase of medical knowledge in this way, that the office of priesthood was hereditary in certain families, so that information thus acquired would be transmitted from father to son, and go on accumulating from one generation to another.[12]Whether the AsclepiadÃ¦ availed themselves of the great opportunities which they must undoubtedly have had of cultivating human and comparative anatomy, has been much disputed in modern times; indeed, the contrary is expressly maintained by some eminent authorities, such as Gruner[13]and Sprengel.[14]But it will be shown in another place, that there is good reason for believing that these two scholars have greatly underrated the amount of anatomical knowledge possessed by Hippocrates, and his predecessors the priest-physicians in the Temples of Health. Moreover, it is worthy of remark, that Galen holds Hippocrates to have been a very successful cultivator of anatomy.[15]Galen further states, upon the authority of Plato,[16]that the AsclepiadÃ¦ paid no attention to dietetics; but this opinion would require to be received with considerable modification, for, most assuredly, whoever reflects on the great amount of valuable information on this subject which is contained in the Hippocratic treatises, will not readily bring himself to believe that it could have been all collected by one man, or in the course of one generation. It is worthy of remark, moreover, that Strabo, whose authority I need scarcely say stands deservedly high in all literary matters, does not hesitate to affirm that Hippocrates was trained in the knowledge of dietetics, from documents preserved in the Asclepion of Cos.[17]That gymnastics, as stated by Galen,[18]wire not recognized as a regular branch of the healing art, until the age of Hippocrates, is indeed not improbable, and this perhaps is what Plato meant when he says that the AsclepiadÃ¦ did not make any use of the pedagogic art until it was introduced by Herodicus. But at the same time there can be no doubt, as further stated by Galen,[19]that exercise, and especially riding on horseback, constitutedoneof the measures used by the AsclepiadÃ¦ for the recovery of health, having been introduced by Ã†sculapius himself.

Of theAsclepiawe have mentioned above, it will naturally be supposed that some were in much higher repute than others, either from being possessed of peculiar advantages, or from the prevalence of fashion. In the beginning of the fifth century before the Christian era, the temples of Rhodes, Cnidos, and Cos were held in especial favor, and on the extinction of the first of these, another rose up in Italy in its stead.[20]But the temple of Cos was destined to throw the reputation of all the others into the background, by producing among the priests of Ã†sculapius the individual who, in all after ages, has been distinguished by the name of theGreat Hippocrates.[21]

Before proceeding, however, to give a brief sketch of his biography, I may state, partly by way of recapitulation, and partly in anticipation of what will be found in a subsequent part of this work, the leading facts which are known relative to the state of medicine before his time.

1. The origin of Grecian medicine is involved in impenetrable darkness, being anterior to all authentic history, and nothing being known either as to its rise or the steps by which it grow up to be a regular art.

2. There is no reason to suppose that the germs of medical science, any more than those of philosophy, had been originally imported into Greece from the East.

3. The earliest practitioners of medicine concerning whom we have any authentic information, were the AsclepiadÃ¦, or priest-physicians, who endeavored to cure the sick partly by superstitious modes of working upon the imagination, and partly by more rational means, suggested by observation and a patient study of the phenomena of disease.

4. Though the men of letters who directed their attention to the phenomena of disease, as constituting a branch of philosophy, may in so far have improved the theory of medicine by freeing it from the trammels of superstition, it is not likely they could have contributed much to the practice of medicine, which is well known to be founded on observation and experience.

5. Though there can be little or no doubt that the priest-physicians, and the philosophers together, were possessed of all the knowledge of medicine which had been acquired at that time, it is not satisfactorily ascertained by what means the art had attained that remarkable degree of perfection which we shall soon see that it exhibited in the hands of Hippocrates. But I must now proceed with my Sketch of his Life.

That Hippocrates was lineally descended from Ã†sculapius was generally admitted by his countrymen, and a genealogical table, professing to give a list of the names of his forefathers, up to Ã†sculapius, has been transmitted to us from remote antiquity. Although I am well aware that but little reliance can be put on these mythical genealogies, I will subjoin the list to this section, in order that it may be at hand for reference, as many allusions will have to be made to it in the subsequent pages.[22]

Of the circumstances connected with the life of Hippocrates little is known for certain, the only biographies which we have of him being all of comparatively recent date, and of little authority. They are three in number, and bear the names of Soranus Ephesins, Suidas, and Tzetzes. Of the age in which the first of these authors flourished, nothing is known for certain; the second is a lexicographer, who lived in the beginning of the eleventh century; and the third flourished in the twelfth century. The birth of Hippocrates is generally fixed, upon the authority of Soranus, as having occurred in the first year of the 80th Olympiad, that is to say, in the 460th year before the vulgar era. On this point, however, I must say that I see no good grounds for the unanimity of opinion which has generally prevailed among modern scholars. In fact, the counter-evidence of Aulus Gellius has always appeared to me to be unjustly overlooked, as I cannot but think that his authority ought to rank much higher than that of Soranus, of whom nothing is known, not even the century in which he lived. Aulus Gellius, then, in an elaborate disquisition on Greek and Roman chronology, states decidedly that Socrates was contemporary with Hippocrates, but younger than he.[23]Now it is well ascertained, that the death of Socrates took place about the year 400A.C., and as he was then nearly seventy years old, his birth must be dated as happening about the year 470A.C.This statement would throw the birth of Hippocrates back several years beyond the common date, as given by Soranus. There is also much uncertainty as to the time of his death: according to one tradition he died at the age of 85, whereas others raise it to 90, 104, and even 109 years. These dates of his birth and death, although vague, are sufficient to show that the period at which we may reasonably suppose he had practised his profession with the greatest activity and reputation, must have been the latter part of the fifth centuryA.C.It will readily occur to the reader, then, that our author flourished at one of the most memorable epochs in the intellectual development of the human race. He had for his contemporaries, Pericles, the famous statesman; the poets Ã†schylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, and Pindar; the philosopher Socrates, with his distinguished disciples Plato and Xenophon; the venerable father of history, Herodotus, and his young rival, Thucydides; the unrivalled statuary, Phidias, with his illustrious pupils, and many other distinguished names, which have conferred immortal honor on the age in which they lived, and exalted the dignity of human nature. Nor was Greece the only region of the earth remarkable at this time for moral and intellectual improvement; for, if we may believe oriental chronology, Confucius and Zoroaster had gone off the stage of life only a very few years before the dawn of this celebrated age of Grecian superiority in the arts and sciences. Hippocrates, it thus appears, came into the world under circumstances which must have co-operated with his own remarkable powers of intellect in raising him to that extraordinary eminence which his name has attained in all ages. From his forefathers he inherited a distinguished situation in one of the most eminent hospitals, or Temples of Health, then in existence, where he must have enjoyed free access to all the treasures of observations collected during many generations, and at the same time would have an opportunity of assisting his own father in the management of the sick.[24]Thus from his youth he must have been familiar with the principles of medicine, both in the abstract and in the concrete,â€”the greatest advantage, I may be permitted to remark, which any tyro in the healing art can possibly enjoy. In addition to all this, he had excellent opportunities of estimating the good and bad effects resulting from the application of gymnastic exercises in the cure of diseases, under the tuition of Herodicus, the first person who is known for certain to have cultivated this art as a branch of medicine.[25]He was further instructed in the polite literature and philosophy of the age, by two men of classical celebrity, Gorgias and Democritus; the latter of whom is well known to have devoted much attention to the study of medicine, and its cognate sciences, comparative anatomy and physiology.

Initiated in the theory and first principles of medicine, as now described, Hippocrates no doubt commenced the practice of his art in the Asclepion of Cos, as his forefathers had done before him. Why he afterwards left the place of his nativity, and visited distant regions of the earth, whither the duties of his profession and the calls of humanity invited him, cannot now be satisfactorily determined. The respect paid to him in his lifetime by the good and wise in all the countries which he visited, and the veneration in which his memory has been held by all subsequent generations, are more than sufficient to confute the base calumny, invented, no doubt, by some envious rival, that he was obliged to flee from the land of his nativity in consequence of his having set fire to the library attached to the Temple of Health, at Cnidos, in order that he might enjoy a monopoly of the knowledge which he had extracted from the records which it had contained.[26]Certain it is, that he afterwards visited Thrace, Delos, Thessaly, Athens, and many other regions, and that he practised, and probably taught, his profession in all these places.[27]There are many traditions of what he did during his long life, but with regard to the truth of them, the greatest diversity of opinion has prevailed in modern times. Thus he is said to have cured Perdiccas, the Macedonian king, of love-sickness; and although there are circumstances connected with this story which give it an air of improbability, it is by no means unlikely that he may have devoted his professional services to the court of Macedonia, since very many of the places mentioned in his works as having been visited by him, such as Pella and Acanthus, are situated in that country; and further, in confirmation of the narrative, it deserves to be mentioned, that there is most satisfactory evidence of his son Thessalus having been court physician to Archelaus, king of Macedonia;[28]and it is well ascertained that another of his descendants, the Fourth Hippocrates, attended Roxane, the queen of Alexander the Great.[29]Our authorâ€™s name is also connected with the great plague of Athens, the contagion of which he is reported to have extinguished there and in other places, by kindling fires.[30]The only serious objection to the truth of this story is the want of proper contemporary evidence in support of it. It is no sufficient objection, however, that Thucydides, in his description of the circumstances attending the outbreak of the pestilence in Attica, makes no mention of any services having been rendered to the community by Hippocrates; while, on the contrary, he states decidedly that the skill of the physicians could do nothing to mitigate the severity of this malady. It is highly probable, that, if Hippocrates was actually called upon to administer professional assistance in this way, it must have been during one of the subsequent attacks or exacerbations of the disease which occurred some years afterwards. We know that this plague did not expend its fury in Greece during one season, and then was no more heard of; but on the contrary, we learn that it continued to lurk about in Athens and elsewhere, and sometimes broke out anew with all its original severity. Thucydides briefly mentions a second attack of the plague at Athens about two years after the first,[31]attended with a frightful degree of mortality; nor is it at all improbable that this was not the last visitation of the malady. Though the name of Hippocrates, then, may not have been heard of at its first invasion, it is not at all unlikely that, after he had risen to the head of his profession in Greece, as we know that he subsequently did, he should have been publicly consulted regarding the treatment of the most formidable disease which was prevailing at the time.[32]What adds an appearance of truth to the tale is, that several of the genuine works of Hippocrates, which were probably published in its lifetime, relate to the causes and treatment of epidemic and endemic diseases.[33]That the magistrates of Athens, then, should have applied to him as the most eminent authority on the subject, to assist them in their sanitary regulations[34]during the prevalence of this great pestilence, is so far from being improbable, that I think it would have been very extraordinary if they had omitted to consult him, seeing that he was undoubtedly looked up to as thefacile princepsamong the physicians of the day. That his services in this way have been exaggerated by the blind admiration of his worshipers, both at that time and in after ages, may be readily admitted; but this circumstance ought not to make us reject the whole story as being fabulous. I repeat, then, that although this part of the history of Hippocrates be not vouched by any contemporary evidence, it is by no means devoid of probability, while the objections which have been started to it by modern authorities have not so much weight as is generally supposed.

Another circumstance in the life of Hippocrates, for the truth of which Soranus, Suidas, and a host of ancient authorities concur in vouching, namely, that he refused a formal invitation to pay a professional visit to the court of Persia, is rejected with disdain by almost all the modern scholars who have touched upon this subject. But was it an uncommon thing for the king of Persia to manÅ“uvre in this way with Grecian talent in order to attract it to his court? So far is the contrary known to be the case that, as every person who is familiar with the early history of Greece must be well aware, the manner in which â€œthe Great Kingâ€ rendered himself most formidable to the Grecian Republics after the humiliating defeats which the military forces of Persia had sustained at Marathon, Salamis, and PlatÃ¦a, was by intriguing with all those distinguished persons in Greece who would render themselves accessible to his bribes and flatteries, and thus endeavoring to detach them from the cause of their country. Of this we have notable examples in the case of two illustrious individuals, who were nearly contemporary with Hippocratesâ€”I mean Pausanias and Themistocles. Moreover, it is well known that Grecian physicians at all times were in high repute at the court of Babylon;[35]witness Ctesias, the contemporary and kinsman of Hippocrates,[36]who was court physician to the king of Persia, and was employed in that capacity in the most serious emergencies.[37]What more natural, then, or more likely to happen, than that the king of Persia, when he saw his country overrun by the plague,[38]should seek advice from a neighboring people, whose superiority to his own subjects in all the arts of war and peace he and his predecessors had learned from sad experience? I readily admit that the letters in the Hippocratic Collection which relate to this story can scarcely be received as genuine; but does this prove that the event upon which they are made to turn is also devoid of truth? I can see no probability in this supposition; for whether we regard these documents as willful forgeries, executed with the fraudulent intention of palming them on the literary world as genuine productions, or whether we look upon them as mere exercises made on given subjects by the Sophists or Scholiasts to display their ability in sustaining an assumed character, it would have been preposterous to make them relate to stories of which every person of that age must have been able to detect the falsehood. Were any person at the present day, from whatever motive, desirous of palming upon the public certain letters said to have been written by the celebrated John Hunter, he would surely not be so imprudent as to endeavor to pass off as genuine a correspondence purporting to have taken place between him and the king of France, as every one at all acquainted with professional biography, would at once perceive that the authenticity of the documents in question was completely disproved by the falsity of the narrative upon which they are founded. Seeing, then, that these letters are admitted on all hands to be very ancient, that is to say, of a date not much later than the time of Hippocrates, we may rest assured that the main facts to which they allude were believed at the time to be of an authentic nature.

For the like reasons I am disposed to think that, although the letters in the Collection which refer to a pretended correspondence between him and Democritus are most probably to be regarded as spurious, it is far from being improbable that the physician may have rendered the services of his profession to the philosopher. Had there been no grounds whatever for this story, why so many ancient authors should have agreed in giving credit to it I cannot imagine.

According to all the accounts which have come down to us of his life, he spent the latter part of it in Thessaly, and died at Larissa, when far advanced in years. The corruptions with regard to numbers which, in the course of transcription, have crept into all works of great antiquity, sufficiently account for the differences already mentioned in the statements respecting his age at the time of his death.

These are all the particulars of any importance which can now be gathered regarding the life of him who has been venerated in all ages as â€œThe Father of Medicine.â€ That they are scanty and rather unsatisfactory, must be admitted; but yet what more, in general, can we desire to know respecting the biography of a physician than the manner in which he was educated, how he was esteemed by his contemporaries, and what he did and wrote to reflect credit on his profession? The approbation and gratitude of those who have consulted him for the cure of their maladies are the best testimony to the public character of a physician, and the estimation in which his writings are held by the members of his own profession is what constitutes his professional reputation. I need scarcely say that, as a medical author, the name of Hippocrates stands pre-eminently illustrious. In this way he has left monuments of his genius more durable than the marble statues of Phidias, his contemporary, and as enduring as the tragedies of Sophocles, or the Olympian odes of Pindar.

In the next section I intend to give a careful analysis of all the writings which have come down to us from antiquity under the name of Hippocrates, and to state clearly the grounds upon which some are to be received as genuine, and others rejected as supposititious. I shall conclude the present section, although it may appear that I am anticipating some things which had better have come after the succeeding one, with a brief account of our authorâ€™s general principles, both as regards the theory and the practice of medicine; and in doing this I mean not to confine myself strictly to the treatises which are acknowledged to be genuine, as they are unfortunately so few in number, that we are often obliged to guess at the tenets of our author from those held by his immediate successors and disciples.

The opinions which he held as to the origin of medicine, and the necessities in human life which gave rise to it, are such as bespeak the soundness of his views, and the eminently practical bent of his genius. It was the necessity, he says,[39]which men in the first stages of society must have felt of ascertaining the properties of vegetable productions as articles of food that gave rise to the science of Dietetics; and the discovery having been made that the same system of regimen does not apply in a disordered as in a healthy condition of the body, men felt themselves compelled to study what changes of the aliment are proper in disease; and it was the accumulation of facts bearing on this subject which gave rise to the art of Medicine. Looking upon the animal system as one whole, every part of which conspires and sympathizes with all the other parts, he would appear to have regarded disease also as one, and to have referred all its modifications to peculiarities of situation.[40]Whatever may now be thought of his general views on Pathology, all must admit that his mode of prosecuting the cultivation of medicine is in the true spirit of the Inductive Philosophy; all his descriptions of disease are evidently derived from patient observation of its phenomena, and all his rules of practice are clearly based on experience. Of the fallaciousness of experience by itself he was well aware, however, and has embodied this great truth in a memorable aphorism,[41]and therefore he never exempts the apparent results of experience from the strict scrutiny of reason. Above all others, Hippocrates was strictly the physician of experience and common sense. In short, the basis of his system was a rational experience, and not a blind empiricism, so that the Empirics in after ages had no good grounds for claiming him as belonging to their sect.[42]

What he appears to have studied with particular attention is the natural history of diseases, that is to say, their tendencies to a favorable or fatal issue; and without this knowledge, what can all medical practice be but blind empiricism?â€”a haphazard experiment, which perchance may turn out either to cure or to kill the patient? In a word, let me take this opportunity of saying, that the physician who cannot inform his patient what would be the probable issue of his complaint, if allowed to follow its natural course, is not qualified to prescribe any rational plan of treatment for its cure.

One of the most distinguishing characteristics, then, of the Hippocratic system of medicine, is the importance attached in it toprognosis, under which was comprehended a complete acquaintance with the previous and present condition of the patient, and the tendency of the disease. To the overstrained system of Diagnosis practised in the school of Cnidos, agreeably to which diseases were divided and subdivided arbitrarily into endless varieties, Hippocrates was decidedly opposed; his own strong sense and high intellectual cultivation having, no doubt, led him to the discovery, that to accidental varieties of diseased action there is no limit, and that what is indefinite cannot be reduced to science.[43]

Nothing strikes one as a stronger proof of his nobility of soul, when we take into account the early period in human cultivation at which he lived, and his descent from a priestly order, than the contempt which he everywhere expresses for ostentatious charlatanry, and his perfect freedom from all popular superstition.[44]Of amulets and complicated machines to impose on the credulity of the ignorant multitude, there is no mention in any part of his works. All diseases he traces to natural causes, and counts it impiety to maintain that any one more than another is an infliction from the Divinity. How strikingly the Hippocratic system differs from that of all other nations in their infantine state must be well known to every person who is well acquainted with the early history of medicine.[45]His theory of medicine was further based on the physical philosophy of the ancients, more especially on the doctrines then held regarding the elements of things, and the belief in the existence of a spiritual essence diffused through the whole works of creation, which was regarded as the agent that presides over the acts of generation, and which constantly strives to preserve all things in their natural state, and to restore them when they are preternaturally deranged. This is the principle which he called Nature, and which he held to be avis medicatrix. â€œNature,â€ says he, or at least one of his immediate followers says, â€œis the physician of diseases.â€[46]His physical opinions are so important, that I have resolved to devote an entire section to an exposition of the ancient doctrines on this head. (See Sect. III.)

Though his belief in this restorative principle would naturally dispose him to watch its operations carefully, and make him cautious not to do anything that would interfere with their tendencies to rectify deranged actions, and though he lays it down as a general rule by which the physician should regulate his treatment, â€œto do good, or at least to do no harm,â€[47]there is ample evidence that on proper occasions his practice was sufficiently bold and decided. In inflammatory affections of the chest he bled freely, if not, as has been said,ad deliquum animi,[48]and in milder cases he practised cupping with or without scarification.[49]Though in ordinary cases of constipation he merely prescribed laxative herbs, such as the mercury (mercurialis perennis),[50]beet,[50]and cabbage,[50]he had in reserve elaterium,[51]scammony,[52]spurges,[53]and other drastic cathartics, when more potent medicines of this class were indicated. And although when it was merely wished to evacuate upwards in a gentle manner, he was content with giving hyssop,[54]and other simple means, he did not fail, when it was desirable to make a more powerful impression, to administer the white hellebore with a degree of boldness, which his successors in the healing art were afraid to imitate.[55]A high authority has expressly stated that he was the discoverer of the principles of derivation and revulsion in the treatment of diseases.[56]Fevers he treated as a general rule, upon the diluent system, but did not fail to administer gentle laxatives, and even to practise venesection in certain cases.[57]When narcotics were indicated, he had recourse to mandragora, henbane, and perhaps to poppy-juice.[58]

In the practice of surgery he was a bold operator. He fearlessly, and as we would now think, in some cases unnecessarily, perforated the skull with the trepan and the trephine in injuries of the head. He opened the chest also in empyema and hydrothorax. His extensive practice, and no doubt his great familiarity with the accidents occurring at the public games of his country, must have furnished him with ample opportunities of becoming acquainted with dislocations and fractures of all kinds; and how well he had profited by the opportunities which he thus enjoyed, every page of his treatises â€œOn Fractures,â€ and â€œOn the Articulations,â€ abundantly testifies. In fact, until within a very recent period, the modern plan of treatment in such cases was not at all to be compared with his skillful mode of adjusting fractured bones, and of securing them by means of waxed bandages. In particular, his description of the accidents which occur at the elbow- and hip-joints will be allowed, even at the present day, to display a most wonderful acquaintance with the subject. In the treatment of dislocations, when human strength was not sufficient to restore the displacement, he skillfully availed himself of all the mechanical powers which were then known.[59]In his views with regard to the nature of club-foot, it might have been affirmed of him a few years ago, that he was twenty-four centuries in advance of his profession when he stated that in this case there is no dislocation, but merely a declination of the foot; and that in infancy, by means of methodical bandaging, a cure may in most cases be effected without any surgical operation. In a word, until the days of Delpech and Stromeyer, no one entertained ideas so sound and scientific on the nature of this deformity as Hippocrates.

But I must not allow my enthusiastic admiration to carry me too far. I will therefore conclude the present section by making a few observations on the peculiar style of our authorâ€™s writings. According to Galen, whose extensive acquaintance with Greek literature rendered him a most competent judge, the characteristics of his style are extreme conciseness, precision, and, in certain cases, obscurity, as the natural result of labored brevity.[60]To these traits of character he adds, elsewhere, that Hippocrates makes it a rule to avoid all superfluity of discussion and unnecessary repetitions, and never says more than what is indispensable.[61]Now, it is no proper objection to this general view of the character of his style, as stated by M. LittrÃ©, that it is not the same in all his works; as, for example, in his treatise â€œOn Airs, Waters, and Places,â€ where the style is certainly not so laconic as in some of his others; although, even with regard to it, I must be permitted to say that I agree with a most competent authority, the late Dr. Coray, that its style is remarkable for conciseness.[62]And, indeed, if brevity of expression, bordering at times upon obscurity, be not the characteristic of the style of Hippocrates, we must admit that his mode of composition is not in accordance with the taste of his age. There can be no doubt that the style of Hippocrates is nearly akin to that of his contemporary, the historian Thucydides, which is thus described by a very acute and original critic: â€œThe most obvious and characteristic of his peculiarities is an endeavor to express as much matter as possible in as few words as possible, to combine many thoughts into one, and always to leave the reader to supply something of his own. Hence his conciseness often becomes obscure.â€[63]I would beg leave to add that other peculiarities in the style of Thucydides, which are severely animadverted upon by Dionysius, may be clearly recognized also in the writings of Hippocrates, especially irregularities of syntax, with a somewhat rude and inartificial mode of constructing his sentences. I mention this the rather that the English reader may not expect to find in my translation any of those well-turned periods and graceful modes of construction by which elegant composition is now distinguished. I wish it to be known that in making this translation, I have followed the example of the modern authority lately referred to, that is to say, I have been more studious of fidelity than of elegance, and have endeavored to give not only the matter, but also the manner, of my author.[64]

As promised above, I here subjoin that Mythical Genealogy of Hippocrates from Tzetzes.

Ã†sculapius was the father of Podalirius, who was the father of Hippolochus, who was the father of Sostratus, who was the father of Dardanus, who was the father of Crisamis, who was the father of Cleomyttades, who was the father of Thedorus, who was the father of Sostratus II., who was the father of Theodorus II., who was the father of Sostratus III., who was the father of Nebrus, who was the father of Gnosidicus, who was the father of Hippocrates I., who was the father of Heraclides, who was the father ofHippocratesII., otherwise called theGreat Hippocrates. (Chiliad. vii., 155.)

I may also add a few particulars, deserving to be known, respecting the family of Hippocrates. As Galen relates, he had two sons, Thessalus and Draco, each of whom had a son who bore the name of Hippocrates. (Comment. ii., in Lib. de Nat. Human.) It thus appears that there were in the family four persons of the name of Hippocrates, closely related to one another. First, the father of Heraclides, and grandfather of Hippocrates II.; second, Hippocrates II., our author; third and fourth, his grandchildren, the sons of Thessalus and Draco. Besides these, three or four other members of the family bearing the name of Hippocrates are enumerated by Suidas. Of Thessalus, it is related by Galen (l.c.) that he adhered strictly to the principles of his father, and became physician to Archelaus, king of Macedonia. Of Draco little mention is made, only it is well known that he also followed his fatherâ€™s profession. But of all the family of Hippocrates the Great, Polybus, his son-in-law, is the most celebrated. Galen calls him the disciple of Hippocrates and successor in his school, and adds, that he made no innovations on the doctrines of his teacher. (Comment. i., in Libr. de Nat. Hum.)

There can scarcely be a doubt that Hippocrates followed the practice which we know to have been adopted by almost all the great writers of antiquity with regard to the publication of their works, namely, that of publishing them separately, at the time they were composed. We know, for example (to begin with a distinguished author, regarding whom our information is particularly ample), that Horace published his books of satires, epistles, odes, and epodes separately, and at different times; and that the collection of them in its present form was not compiled until after his death.[65]We have every reason for concluding that the same rule was followed by Martial,[66]Cicero,[67]and other Roman authors. It is further well ascertained (to come to a period not far removed from the age of Hippocrates) that Plato[68]and Aristotle[69]likewise gave their works to the literary world upon the same plan. We have every reason, therefore, to suppose that Hippocrates published several of his works separately, in his life time; and indeed Galen often expresses himself so as to leave little or no ground for doubt on this point.[70]It would be most interesting and important then to know, were this possible, in what order the different works of our author were published. But unfortunately this is a question which we have no proper data for solving satisfactorily, only as the â€œAphorismsâ€ are evidently made up in a great measure of conclusions drawn from the results of discussions and observations recorded in other of his works, we have every reason to infer that this important work was among that latest of his literary labors.[71]But although we may not be able to determine the order in which the different pieces were composed and published, we need have no hesitation in deciding with all the best authorities, ancient and modern, that all the following treatises were composed by him, and, from the first, obtained the sanction of his name, viz.: the â€œPrognostics;â€ the â€œFirst and Third Epidemics;â€ â€œOn Regimen in Acute Diseases;â€ â€œOn Airs, Waters, and Places;â€ â€œOn Wounds of the Head;â€ the â€œAphorisms.â€ It is in so far satisfactory, then, to know, that respecting the authorship of these works there has never been any reasonable question, and that whoever entertains doubts on this point of literary history, ought, on the same principles of criticism, to dispute the authenticity of the â€œProtagorasâ€ and â€œPhÃ¦doâ€ of Plato; of the â€œHistory of Animalsâ€ and â€œPoliticsâ€ of Aristotle; and of the â€œOlynthiacsâ€ and â€œPhilippicsâ€ of Demosthenes. In a word, nothing but the most lawless spirit of scepticism can lead any one to challenge the genuineness of the works which I have just now enumerated. These, however, it will be seen, constitute but a very small portion of the treatises contained in the Hippocratic Collection; and with regard to a very great number of the others, it is unfortunately not only impossible to bring any competent evidence of their genuineness, but it is also quite apparent that they betray marks of an entirely different authorship; and this is abundantly obvious, whether we look to the matters which they contain, or the manner in which these are given. Thus in some of the treatises we discover hypothetical doctrine and rules of practice utterly at variance with those which are contained in the works of acknowledged authenticity; and in some of them, instead of that nervous conciseness which, as we have already stated, has always been held to be characteristic of the style of Hippocrates, we find an insipid verbosity and vagueness of expression, which clearly stamp them as being productions of a very different hand. But, besides this internal evidence which we have to assist us in forming a correct judgment on these works, we fortunately still possess a considerable number of ancient Commentaries, written expressly in illustration of them, from which, in many instances, modern critics have been enabled to draw very satisfactory data for forming a correct judgment on the points at issue. Before proceeding further, it is but fair to acknowledge that I have freely availed myself of the labors of Vander Linden, Ackerman, Gruner, LittrÃ©, and other learned men, who have preceded me in this field of investigation, but at the same time I may venture to assure the reader that there is scarcely a passage in any of the ancient authorities, bearing on the points in discussion, which I have not examined carefully for myself.

The oldest commentator of whom we have any mention, is the celebrated Herophilus, who flourished about the year 300A.C.[72]But of his Commentaries we have no remains, nor of those of the other commentators down to Apollonius Citiensis, a writer of the first centuryA.C.His Scholia on the Hippocratic treatise, â€œDe Articulis,â€ along with those of Palladius, Stephanus, Theophilus, Meletius, and Joannes Alexandrinus, all writers of an uncertain date, but certainly much later than the Christian era, were published by the late Dr. Dietz, at Konigsburg, in 1834. To these we have to add two others, of much higher celebrity, namely, Erotian, who lived during the reign of Nero, and the famous Galen, who, it is well known, flourished in the latter part of the second century,P.C.It is from the works of these two writers that the most important facts are to be elicited, for forming a correct judgment respecting the authenticity of the Hippocratic treatises. As we shall have occasion to quote their opinions on the different heads of our inquiry, it would be useless to occupy room by giving their entire list in this place. Suffice it to say, that Erotian rarely assigns any reason for admitting the treatises into his list of genuine works, and that Galen generally rests his judgment, when he assigns any grounds for it, upon the evidence of preceding authorities, and upon what he holds to be the characteristics of the doctrines and style of Hippocrates. These, assuredly, are most sound and legitimate principles of criticism; but it has been often supposed, that in applying them the great commentator is at times very dogmatic, and not always consistent with himself. But, upon the whole, all must allow that Galen is our best guide on the subject of our present inquiry. And, moreover, it is from his works especially that we are enabled to glean whatever information we possess with regard to the opinions of the earlier commentators, from Herophilus down to his own times.

I will now proceed to give a brief sketch of the labors of modern critics in this department.

The earliest modern authority is Lemos, whose work was published in the end of the sixteenth century. It appears that he follows almost entirely the opinions of Galen, and seldom or never ventures to exercise an independent judgment of his own.

The work of Mercuriali is a much more elaborate and important performance, and his principles of judgment appear to me most unexceptionable, being founded entirely upon ancient authority and peculiarity of style; only it may, perhaps, be objected, that he rather exaggerates the importance of the latter at the expense of the former; for it must be admitted that very contradictory conclusions have sometimes been founded on imaginary peculiarities of style. I cannot agree with M. LittrÃ©, however, that the whole system of Mercuriali is founded on apetitio principii; as if, before describing the style of his author, he ought to have decided which were his genuine writings.[73]For, as already stated, any one is perfectly warranted in assuming that certain of the works which bear the name of Hippocrates are genuine, and from them, and the general voice of antiquity, Mercuriali was further justified in deciding what are the peculiarities of the style of Hippocrates, and in applying them as a test of the genuineness of other works which had been attributed to the same author. Mercuriali divides the Hippocratic treatises into four classes, as follows: The first comprehends those which bear the characters of his doctrine and style. The second comprises those which are composed of notes taken from memory, and published by Thessalus, Polybus, or other of his disciples, and contain foreign matter interpolated with them. The third class consists of those which have not been composed by Hippocrates, but are the work of his sons or disciples, and represent his doctrines with greater or less exactness. The fourth includes those tracts which have nothing to do with the school of Hippocrates. As the views and principles of Mercuriali accord, in the main, very well with my own, I think it proper to set down his classification of the treatises.

CLASSIS I.

Back to Index Next