Commentary. See Hippocrates (de Morbis, iii, 5); Celsus (iii, 20); Galen (Meth. Med. xiii); Aretæus (Cur. Morb. Acut. i, 2); Oribasius (Synops. viii, 1); Aëtius (vi, 3); Alexander (i, 14); Actuarius (Meth. Med. iv, 2); Nonnus (c. 22); Octavius Horatianus (ii, 2); Cælius Aurelianus (de Morb. Acut. i, 2); Avicenna (iii, i, 3, 7); Serapion (i, 17); Mesne (de Ægrit. Cap. 22); Haly Abbas (Theor. ix. 5, and Pract. v, 15); Rhases (Divis. c. 6, Contin. 1.)
The ancients, it will be remarked, ascribe the disease to serious congestion, which is a very plausible theory. All the other authorities recommend nearly the same treatment as our author.
There can be no doubt that by lethargus Hippocrates meant a remittent fever, resembling the causus. The other authorities on this subject also describe the disease as a febrile affection.
Aëtius, as usual, is minute and judicious. He remarks that purging is not only useful, by producing evacuation of the bowels, but also by occasioning revulsion. When the disease comes on after frenzy, he forbids venesection, but otherwise approves of it. He and Alexander strongly commend castor. Alexander directs venesection, if the patient’s strength permit; the application of vinegar and rose-oil to the head; and, when the disease is on the decline, applications containing castor and other such stimulants. It is to be remarked, by the way, that Haly Abbas states this as the mode of treatment directed by Alexander Aphrodisiensis, from which it may be inferred that A. Trallian and A. Aphrodisiensis were the same person.
Celsus speaks favorably of the affusion of cold water.
Aretæus gives the plan of treatment very circumstantially, but his chapter on the symptoms of lethargy is lost. He lays it down that the disease is the counterpart to phrenitis, being occasioned by a cold humour oppressing the brain. The principle of his treatment seems to be to produce revulsion; for which purpose he recommends drastic purgatives and stimulant applications of all kinds to the skin. He is guarded in speaking of bleeding.
The methodical treatment recommended by Cælius Aurelianus is not much different from that of the other sects. He approves of bleeding, of shaving the head, and applying cupping-instruments to it, or else leeches; of making the patient lie in a bright light; of using gentle means to rouse him; but he justly condemns Diocles for recommending measures of great severity, which, he says, will but increase the disorder of the brain. He also disapproves of the practice of Praxagoras, who gave wine and hot stimulants; and further ridicules him for neglecting the head, and merely applying fomentations to the feet. He does not approve of Asclepiades’ practice of treating the disease with strong sternutatories, sinapisms to the head, and analeptics. He finds fault with Themison for making his patient lie in a dark place. He also condemns Themison’s practice of giving aloes by the mouth before food, as it will make the food in the stomach spoil, that is to say, will interrupt the digestive process, or, in case of its not operating downwards, will be absorbed, and increase the constitutional disorder. He further disapproves of Themison’s practice of carrying gestation to an inconsiderate length. He likewise condemns the use of the cold bath, which had been recommended by Themison. He then gives an account of the practice enjoined by Heraclides Tarentinus, the empiric, which, of course, he does not approve of; although, judging of it from modern views, we do not think it particularly objectionable. We dare not enter upon the detail of it, owing to its length.
The Arabians generally treat of it by the name of sirsen frigidum. Like the other authorities, Haly Abbas states the causes of the disease to be a cold and humid intemperament of the brain, or a collection of pituitous humours. As stated above, he quotes the practice of Alexander with approbation. He particularly recommends acrid clysters, drastic purgatives, shaving the head, applying stimulants to it, rubbing the feet, and in certain cases sternutatories. Rhases does not mention venesection; but Avicenna and most of his countrymen do. Avicenna and Mesue recommend emetics. Their treatment otherwise, like our author’s, consists of acrid clysters, friction of the extremities, masticatories, calefacient and repellent applications to the head. With regard to the last, Mesue may be consulted with advantage. Rhases, in his ‘Continens,’ recommends bleeding, fetid pills, leeches, cupping, and afterwards sternutatories, friction of the extremities, and so forth.