What confidence does a writer deserve who states, for example, that Andromachus, the physician who added the flesh of vipers to the celebrated electuary of Mithridates, lived in the time of Alexander the Great!—that Dioscorides, of Ain Zarba, flourished in the reign of Ptolemy Physcon, namely, about one hundred and twenty years before Christ, whereas it can scarcely admit of a doubt that the celebrated author of the Greek Materia Medica did not live earlier than the end of the first century of the Christian era!—and that Ruffus was contemporary with Plato, when we have the authority of Suidas that he lived in the reign of Trajan! Dr. Milward, in his epistle to Sir Hans Sloane, endeavours to settle the age of our author from the following train of inferences: In the first place, then, since Paulus quotes Alexander Trallian and Alexander Aëtius, it is quite certain that our author was posterior to both these writers. Now the age of Aëtius may be made out from the following circumstances: Aëtius mentions St. Cyril, Archbishop of Alexandria, whose death is ascertained from ecclesiastical history to have happened as late as the middle of the fifth century. Nay, he also takes notice of a medicine much recommended by Petrus Archiater, chief physician to Theodoric, who was posterior to St. Cyril. We cannot possibly suppose it likely, then, that Aëtius flourished earlier than the end of the fifth century. But what brings him still further down, is the circumstance that his predecessor, Alexander, is mentioned by Agathias, the historian, about the middle of the sixth century. (Hist. v, 6.) It would seem almost certain, therefore, taking all these things into consideration, that our Author cannot have lived at an earlier period than in the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century.
But, whatever may have been the period at which he lived, there can be no doubt that he attained great eminence in his profession, and continued to be looked up to as one of the highest authorities in Medicine and Surgery during a long succession of ages. His countryman Nonnus, although he does not mention him by name, gives a brief compendium of a considerable portion of his work; and Psellus does the same in politic verses of some elegance. All the medical authors, in a word, of the distinguished Arabian period, quote his opinions in almost every page of their works, and never fail to recognize him as one of the most eminent of their Grecian masters. At the revival of literature in modern times, the Latin translations of the Arabians continued for a time to be the ordinary guides to practice; but when the superior merit of their Greek originals came to be properly appreciated, our Author rose again into high consideration. As a proof of this, I may mention that the surgery of Fabricius ab Aquapendente is made up almost entirely from his works. Portal, therefore, had no good occasion for representing him as “one of those unfortunate writers to whom posterity had not done justice.” I admit, indeed, that for some time past, since professional research and the study of ancient models have been superseded by a restless desire of novelty in theory and in practice, he has not enjoyed that consideration to which he is justly entitled; but, in this respect, he has only shared the fate of other names, equally eminent for their contributions to medical science, who have now been suffered to fall into neglect.
Of the Latin translations, which are very numerous, the most celebrated is that of Cornarius, published by Henry Stephens in his ‘Medicæ Artis Principes;’ which, however, after a careful examination, I have not found to be so trustworthy as I expected to find it. There once existed an Arabic edition by Honain, or Joannitius, (see Choulant, Handb. der Bücherkunde für die Aeltere Medicin,) but of it I know nothing. The only part which has been translated into any modern language is the Sixth Book, a French translation of which was published at Lyons, A. D. 1539. Of the original there are two editions, namely, the Aldine of 1528 and the Basle of 1538, in neither of which is the text so accurate as could be wished.
F. A.
Banchory-Ternan; Nov. 12th, 1833.
THE AUTHOR’S PREFACE.
It is not because the more ancient writers had omitted anything relative to the Art that I have composed this work, but in order to give a compendious course of instruction; for, on the contrary, everything is handled by them properly, and without any omissions, whereas the moderns have not only in the first place neglected the study of them, but have also blamed them for prolixity. Wherefore, I have undertaken the following Treatise, which, it is like, will serve as a commentary to those who may choose to consult it, whilst it will prove an exercise to me. For it appears strange that lawyers should be possessed of compendious and, as they call them, popular legal synopses, in which are contained the heads of all the laws, to serve for immediate use, whilst we neglect these things, although they have it generally in their power to put off the investigation of any point not only for little but even for a considerable time, whereas we can seldom or very rarely do so; for, in many cases, necessity requires that we act promptly, and hence Hippocrates has properly said, “the season is brief.” (Aph. 1, i.) For their business is generally conducted in the midst of cities, where there is an abundant supply of books, whereas physicians have to act not only in cities, in the fields, and in desert places, but also at sea in ships, where such diseases sometimes suddenly break out as, in the event of procrastination, would occasion death, or at least incur the most imminent danger. But to remember all the rules of the healing art, and all the particular substances connected with it, is exceedingly difficult if not altogether impossible. On this account I have compiled this brief collection from the works of the ancients, and have set down little of my own, except a few things which I have seen and tried in the practice of the art. For being conversant with the most distinguished writers in the profession, and in particular with Oribasius, who, in one work, has given a select view of everything relating to health (he being posterior to Galen, and one of the still more recent authors), I have collected what was best in them, and have endeavoured, if possible, not to pass by any one distemper. For the work of Oribasius, comprehending seventy books, contains indeed an exposition of the whole art, but it is not easily to be procured by people at large on account of its bulk, whilst the epitome of it, inscribed to his son Eustathius, is deficient in some diseases altogether, and gives but an imperfect description of others, sometimes the causes and diagnosis being omitted, and sometimes the proper plan of treatment being forgotten, as well as other things which have occurred to my recollection. Wherefore the present work will contain the description, causes, and cure of all diseases, whether situated in parts of uniform texture, in particular organs, or consisting of solutions of continuity, and that not merely in a summary way, but at as great length as possible.
In the [First Book], you will find everything that relates to Hygiene, and to the preservation from, and correction of, distempers peculiar to the various ages, seasons, temperaments, and so forth; also, the powers and uses of the different articles of food, as is set forth in the chapter of contents.