Many readers, I fear, will find considerable difficulty with the names of the Compound Medicines which occur throughout this volume; and may be disposed to think it was the duty of the Commentator to explain them as they occur. In answer to this objection, I beg to state, that these compositions will be fully described in the third and last volume, which treats of the Materia Medica and Pharmacy; and on this account I thought it unnecessary to notice them elsewhere. The General Index, which will be given at the end of the work, will also facilitate reference in such cases.
F. A.
Banchory, August 17th, 1844.
EDITOR’S PREFACE
TO THE FIRST EDITION OF VOL. I.
Notwithstanding the additions which have been made of late years to the history of medical literature, it must still be admitted that there is not, in the English language, any work which contains a full and accurate account of the theoretical and practical knowledge possessed by the Greeks, Romans, and Arabians, on matters connected with medicine and surgery. Nor, as far as I can learn, is the case very different with the continental languages. For, although the German and French have lately acquired several histories of medicine distinguished for their ability and research, the object of these works would appear to be confined to a general exposition of the leading discoveries and revolutions in doctrine which marked each particular age or epoch in the profession; and I will venture to affirm that no person will be able to acquire from a perusal of them anything like a competent acquaintance with the minute details of ancient practice. The design of the present publication is to supply the deficiency, now adverted to, by giving a complete Manual of the Surgery and Medicine of the Ancients, with a brief but comprehensive outline of the sciences intimately connected with them, especially Physiology, the Materia Medica, and Pharmacy. At first it was my intention to accomplish this purpose in the form of an original work, but, being perplexed what plan to choose in arranging the multifarious matters which I had to treat of, I at last resolved upon taking for my text-book the celebrated synopsis of Paulus Ægineta, whereby I was at once supplied with a convenient arrangement of my subject, and at the same time, by giving a close translation of it into English, I saw that I would be enabled to enrich our medical literature with one of the most valuable relics of ancient science. By following this correct and faithful guide, by supplying his omissions and enlarging his plan, when necessary, from the more copious works of his predecessors, and by adding, in all cases, the improvements of subsequent ages, down to the latest date of ancient literature, I am in hopes that I have been able to present the reader with a work from which he may, at one view, become acquainted with the prevailing opinions upon all the most important matters connected with medical practice during a period of more than fifteen centuries. Impressed with a sense of the arduous nature of the task which I had undertaken, and sensible that its value consists entirely in its completeness on all points, I have endeavoured to discharge this duty faithfully and to the best of my ability. I trust then it will be found that not only have I overlooked no treatise connected with the medical art which has come down to us from antiquity, but that I have turned to good account my acquaintance with the learned labours of modern commentators, especially in the department of the Materia Medica, in order to adopt the nomenclature of the ancients on these subjects to the terminology of Botany, Chemistry, and Mineralogy, in the present time.
And here may I be permitted to express my conviction that it is not altogether the blindness of partiality contracted towards intellectual pursuits upon which my mind has been so long engaged, that leads me to think that the original authors from whose stores I have drawn so liberally, will yet be found and acknowledged to have been well entitled to the confidence and reputation which they once enjoyed, and to which it is my wish that the present publication should, in some degree, restore them? It appears to me that, at certain periods of ancient times, the standard of professional excellence was such as would not easily be attained at the present day, with all our vaunted improvements in knowledge; and that many of those early masters of our art were distinguished for varied stores of erudition, an ardent love of truth, and an aptitude to detect the fallacies of error, such as few of us even now can lay claim to. The Father of Medicine held that, to become an eminent physician, it was necessary not only to be well acquainted with the structure of the human frame, but also to be skilled in logic, astronomy, and other sciences (De Aer. Aq., &c.); and of him it may be truly asserted, that he cultivated the art of medicine upon the strict principles of the inductive philosophy more than two thousand years before the world gave Lord Bacon the credit of introducing this method of philosophising. His devoted admirer and follower, Galen, was evidently the very beau ideal of an accomplished physician; skilled in all the sciences of the day, in logic, mathematics, rhetoric, and the first philosophy; to all these ornamental branches of knowledge he added a minute acquaintance with anatomy and physiology; a practical experience with the phenomena of diseases as diversified by climate, situation, and the varied modes of life; a singular perseverance in collecting facts; and an extraordinary ability for generalizing them. The contemporaries of Celsus regarded him not only as well acquainted with medical literature, but also as being minutely skilled in every elegant and useful science which was known and cultivated at that remarkable period. And Rhases, the Arabian, requires of him who aspires to eminence in the medical profession, that, instead of wasting his earlier years in frequenting musical and drinking parties, he should have spent them in conning over the valuable records of ancient wisdom. “But the Sciolist,” says he, “who gives himself out for a proficient in the art, while he has scarcely even a smattering of learning, will never be deserving of much confidence, nor ever attain any great eminence in his profession. For it can never be that any individual, to whatever age he may reach, should be able to comprehend in his mind a subject so vast and diffuse, except by treading upon the footsteps of the ancients; since the boundaries of the science far exceed the narrow limits of the life of man, as is the case with most of the liberal arts as well as with medicine. The number of authors is not small by whose labours the art has attained its present growth; and yet one may hope to master the monuments of their industry within the space of a few years. Let us suppose that, in the course of a thousand years, a thousand authors had made improvements in the profession; and then a person who has diligently studied their works may improve his mind as much in knowledge as if he had devoted a thousand years to the study of medicine. But, when an acquaintance with former authors is despised, what need be expected from the efforts of a single person? For, however much he may surpass others in abilities, how is it to be supposed that his private stock of knowledge should be at all worthy to compare with the accumulated treasures of antiquity? In a word, he who has never turned over the pages of the ancient physicians, nor has formed to his mind a distinct conception of the nature of diseases before he enters the chambers of the sick, will find that, from ignorance and misapprehension, he will confound one complaint with another, for this obvious reason, that he has come to his task unprepared and uninstructed.”
And here I would beg to call the attention of my readers to the fact that there is no legitimate mode of cultivating medical knowledge which was not followed by some one or other of the three great sects into which the profession was divided in ancient times. The Empirics held that observation, experiment, and the application of known remedies in one case to others presumed to be of a similar nature, constitute the whole art of cultivating medicine. Though their views were narrow, and their information scanty, when compared with some of the chiefs of the other sects; and although they rejected, as useless and unattainable, all knowledge of the causes and recondite nature of diseases, it is undeniable that, besides personal experience, they freely availed themselves of historical detail, and of a strict analogy founded upon observation and the resemblance of phenomena. To this class we may refer Scribonius Largus, Marcellus, Plinius Valerianus, and a few others, frequently quoted by us. The sect called the Rational, Logical, or Dogmatical, holding that there is a certain alliance and connexion among all the useful and ornamental arts, maintained that it is the duty of the physician not to neglect any collateral science or subject. They therefore inquired sedulously into the remote and proximate causes of diseases, and into the effects of airs, waters, places, pursuits, food, diet, and seasons, in altering the state of the human body, and in rendering it more or less susceptible of morbid changes. Looking upon general rules as not being of universal application, they held that the treatment ought to be modified according to the many incidental circumstances under which their patients might be placed. They freely and fully availed themselves of whatever aid they could derive from experience, analogy, and reasoning. Hippocrates, Galen, Aëtius, Oribasius, Paulus Ægineta, Actuarius, and all the Arabian authorities, may be looked upon as belonging to this sect. The Pneumatic sect, to which Aretæus probably belonged, was nearly allied to the Dogmatical. The sect of the Methodists, rejecting altogether the consideration of remote causes, which they held to be of no importance to the cure, and giving themselves up to too bold a classification of diseases, according to certain hypothetical states of the body in which they were supposed to originate, fettered themselves too much with a few general rules, which they held to be so universally applicable, that they would scarcely allow of their being modified by incidental circumstances in any possible contingency. Notwithstanding this defect, it is undeniable that their speculations as to the nature of diseases are generally very acute, and their modes of treatment frequently very rational. Upon the whole, the general outline of their system would appear to have borne a striking resemblance to that of the sect which started up in Edinburgh towards the end of the last century, called the Brunonian, from the name of its ingenious but fanciful founder, Dr. Brown. The only perfect model of ancient Methodism that has come down to us is Cælius Aurelianus, an author so truly eminent that some of his admirers in modern times have not scrupled to maintain that his works are even better worth being attentively studied than those of Hippocrates and Galen. Moschion and Theodore Priscian (otherwise known by the name of Octavius Horatianus) belonged to this sect; Alexander of Tralles also had a considerable leaning to its principles; and some would even refer the illustrious Celsus to the same class, but probably without good reason, for he would rather seem to have imbibed the genuine spirit of Eclecticism, and like his distinguished correspondent Horace, to have been
“Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri.”
Before concluding these prefatory remarks, it will be naturally expected that I should say something of the author whose work I have bestowed so much pains in translating and commenting upon. Here, however, I must regret that the information which I have to supply is exceedingly scanty and unsatisfactory. So little is known of him that it is not even ascertained in what century he flourished. Vossius is wholly undecided; Moreau and Le Clerc place him in the fourth century; Vander Linden and Conringius, in the fifth; but Freind, Albertus Fabricius, Hutcheson, Sprengel, and most of the late writers of the Ancient History of Medicine, bring him down as low as the seventh century, upon the authority of Abulfaragius; but every person who is at all acquainted with his works will agree with me that any opinion of his on chronological matters is entitled to very little consideration indeed.