Before proceeding further, I must state the rules by which I test the genuineness of the works in the Hippocratic Collection:
1. All the works which are acknowledged as genuine by the ancient commentators and lexicographers which have come down to us, and especially by Erotian and Galen, are to be admitted as such, unless it can be shown that still older authorities held a different opinion regarding them, or that they contain doctrines and views decidedly at variance with those contained in the treatises which all allow to be genuine, or that the style and mode of handling the subject matter be altogether different from the well-known method of Hippocrates.
2. The peculiar style and method of Hippocrates are held to be—conciseness of expression, great condensation of matter, and disposition to regard all professional subjects in a practical point of view, to eschew subtle hypotheses, and modes of treatment based on vague abstractions.
The Hippocratic Collection consists of | +-----------------------+------------------------+ | | | Works certainly written Works certainly not Works perhaps written by Hippocrates, written by by Hippocrates, Class I.[101] Hippocrates. Class II.[102] | +-----------------------+-----------------------+ | | | Works earlier than Works later than Works about Hippocrates, Hippocrates. contemporary with Class III.[103] | Hippocrates. | | | +---------+-----+ | | | | Works whose Works whose | author is author is | conjectured, unknown, | Class IV.[104] Class V.[105] | +-------------------------+ | | Works authentic, but Works neither genuine not genuine, i. e. nor authentic, i. e. not willful willful forgeries, forgeries. Class VIII.[106] | +--+--------------+ | | Works by the Works by various same author, authors, Class VI.[107] Class VII.[108]
3. No treatise is to be received as genuine which is not recognized as such by any one of the ancient authorities, however strong a case may be made out in favor of its claims by modern critics from internal evidence.
I. Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰητρικῆς—On Ancient Medicine.
Of all the treatises which are recognized as the genuine productions of “The Great Hippocrates,” by M. Littré, this is decidedly the one which possesses the most questionable title to that honor. The only ancient authority that admits it as such is Erotian; it is passed over unnoticed by Galen and Palladius; and Athenæus does not scruple to affirm, respecting it, that some considered the one half of it spurious, and others the whole. (Deipn., ii., 16.) Foës, Schulze, and Zuinger,[109] are almost the only modern names in its favor; and it is rejected by Mercuriali, Gruner, Conringius, Ackerman, and Kühn.[110] The grounds, however, upon which Ackerman decides against its authenticity are of little weight, namely, that as it is stated in it (§ 1, 2) that medical works were numerous at the time it was composed, this circumstance implies a date considerably posterior to Hippocrates. But it is to be borne in mind, that Xenophon, who was almost contemporary with Hippocrates, puts into the mouth of Socrates, who was certainly nearly of the same age, the saying, that there were many medical works then in existence (Memorab., iv.), so that at all events the argument of Ackerman falls to the ground. M. Littré, moreover, espouses its claims with remarkable zeal, and persuades himself that he has settled this point by showing that a passage in the Phædrus of Plato,[111] which is quoted by Galen, as referring to a sentiment contained in the Hippocratic treatise “De Natura Pueri,”[112] does, in fact, have reference to the work now under consideration. This position he labors hard to establish, and succeeds at last so much to his own satisfaction, that he does not hesitate to declare, as the result of his elaborate disquisition, “that he had demonstrated the treatise “On Ancient Medicine” to be the work of Hippocrates.”[113] Now, I must be permitted to say, with great deference to M. Littré, that his prolix process of argumentation, spun out as it is over twenty-six pages, does not carry the same conviction to my mind as it does to his own.[114] But still, as this treatise has, at all events, one ancient authority in its favor, and as the matter contained in it appears to me to be highly valuable, I have not scrupled to follow the example of M. Littré in placing it at the head of the Works of Hippocrates. I shall have occasion to say more on the contents of it in the Argument prefixed to my translation.
II. Προγνωστικόν—Prognostics.
Of the genuineness of this work there has never been any question, so far as I am aware, from the time of the earliest of the ancient commentators, Herophilus, down to the present day.[115] That it is an admirable specimen of the plan upon which the Hippocratic practice was founded, there can be no doubt. The most important critical question to be decided with regard to it is the relation it bears to two other treatises on the same subject, namely, the “Prorrhetica,” and “Coacæ Prænotiones,” whether the “Prognostics” be founded on them, or whether they be made up from the “Prognostics.” This question will come more properly to be discussed in the Argument to the “Prognostics.”