This work is acknowledged as genuine by Erotian, Galen,[183] and Cælius Aurelianus,[184] but is rejected by Lemos, Mercuriali, Haller, Gruner, Ackerman, Kühn, and even by M. Littré, although the last of these admits that the grounds upon which it had been refused a place among the genuine works are very equivocal. I feel very much at a loss what to decide with regard to it. It is unquestionably the work of a man possessed of a highly cultivated mind, free from the popular superstition of his age, and familiarly acquainted with comparative anatomy, and having no contemptible knowledge of human physiology. There is, in fact, no name, whether in ancient or modern times, to which it might not do honor. That it is not unworthy, then, of the great Hippocrates, all must allow, but whether or not he be the actual author of it, there is much difficulty in determining satisfactorily. That, in certain respects, it is very unlike his other works, must be admitted; the talent which it displays is more of a reflective than of a perceptive nature, which is the reverse of the common character of Hippocrates, who, in his genuine works, evidently evinces a disposition to trust to accurate observation rather than to acute ratiocination. The style, too, I must admit, is more diffuse than the true Hippocratic style generally is. All this might, no doubt, be accounted for, upon the supposition that the work was addressed to the general reader, and not to the professional. Other reasons might be imagined, to account for the diversity of style and matter, but these I shall not occupy time in discussing, as I have decided upon giving a translation of it, so that the English reader may be enabled to judge for himself as to its genuineness. Whether the tract in question be the work of Hippocrates, or, as some have supposed, of his philosophical friend Democritus,[185] there can be little or no doubt that it is a production of that age, for it appears to me that their contemporary, Plato, has evidently made reference to it. Thus, in that portion of his “Timæus” which treats of the causes of diseases, he clearly seems, in accounting for epilepsy, to have had in view the doctrines contained in this treatise. For although he uses the term “sacred disease,” and applies “most divine,” as an epithet to the cavities (ventricles?) of the head, he still, in imitation of the author of this work, accounts for the disease upon natural causes, that is to say, from derangements of the pneuma and phlegm.[186]
XXIII. Περὶ φυσὠν—On Airs.
This treatise deserves, in many respects, to be put in the same category as the last; that is to say, it is generally admitted by the ancient authorities, but rejected by the modern. Thus it is noticed as genuine by Erotian and Galen, and by Gregory Nazianzen and Stobæus.[187] On the other hand Mercuriali, Le Clerc,[188] Haller, Gruner, Ackerman, and Kühn reject it. M. Littré, also, in deference to the opinion of later critics, refuses it a place in his list of genuine works, but, at the same time, expresses himself doubtfully on this point. Le Clerc, although, as we have stated, he inclines to the opinion of those who reject it, does not hesitate to declare, “that this book, upon reading it, seems to be one of the most rational and coherent of all Hippocrates’s works.” And I in so far agree with Le Clerc, that the contents of it are of great importance for the right understanding of the ancient theory of medicine, whether we refer the tract in question to Hippocrates or not. I shall now give a summary of the doctrines contained in it, which I must say appear to me to smack rather of the school of philosophy, than of the practical good sense for which the author of the First and Third Epidemics, and of the Prognostics, is so remarkable.
The author sets out with stating “that there are certain arts which are of laborious acquisition, but are profitable to those who practise them; of general utility to the common people, but painful to those who exercise them. Of such a nature is the art of medicine. The physician contemplates dreadful things (δεινὰ), comes in contact with what are unpleasant, and reaps sorrow to himself from the afflictions of others; but the sick are freed from the greatest evils by the art, namely, from diseases, pains, sorrow, and death; for medicine has been found decidedly to be a cure for all these. In the manual parts of medicine (surgery) practice is necessary. For in all that relates to manipulation, usage is the best teacher. But with regard to the most obscure and difficult diseases, a judgment is to be formed rather from opinion than art; and it is in such cases that experience differs much from inexperience. And it is a most important consideration to determine what is the cause of diseases, and what the beginning and fountain-head, as it were, of the evils in the body; for if one be acquainted with the cause of the disease, he may be able to apply the suitable remedies to the affections of the body, judging of diseases from their contraries: for this mode of cure is that which is most in accordance with nature. Thus, for example, hunger is a disease; for whatever afflicts man is called a disease. What, then, is the cure of hunger? Whatever will allay hunger, that is to say, food, and by it the other is to be cured. Again, drink cures thirst; and, moreover, evacuation cures repletion, and repletion evacuation, and rest labor, and labor rest; and, in a word, the contraries are the cure of contraries. For medicine consists of addition and subtraction—the subtraction of what is redundant, and the addition of what is deficient. And he that does these things best, is the best physician; and he that is most removed from this system, is the most removed from a knowledge of the art. The manner of all diseases is the same, but they differ in place; and hence diseases appear to have no resemblance to one another, owing to the diversity and dissimilarity of situations. For there is but one form (ἰδίη) of all disease, and the cause is the same. What that is I will attempt to explain in the following discourse. The bodies of men and of other animals are nourished by three kinds of aliment, namely, food, drink, and airs; and those winds in the body are called spirits, which are named airs out of it. This it is which exercises the greatest power over the symptoms, and it is worth while to attend to the power of it; for the wind is a current and stream of air. When, then, much air makes a strong current, trees are torn from their roots by the force of the blast, and the sea is raised in billows, and ships of immense size are tossed aloft. Such power it possesses, and yet it is invisible to the sight, and is manifest only to the understanding. And what would there be without it, and from what thing is it absent? and with what is it not present? For the whole space between the earth and heaven is full of air, and it is the cause of winter and of summer; in winter becoming condensed and cold, and in summer mild and tranquil. The path also of the sun, moon, and stars is through air—for air is the pabulum of fire, and fire deprived of air could not live.... And with regard to the sea, that it contains a portion of air is obvious to everybody. For water-animals could not exist if they did not participate in the air; and how could they participate in it otherwise, except by means of the water, and by drawing in the air along with it. And the moon’s foundation is upon it, and this it is which supports the earth,[189] and nothing is void of it. And why the air is possessed of such power in other things has been now stated; but in men this is the cause of life, and of disease to those who are in ill health. And all bodies stand so much in need of air, that whereas if deprived of everything else, such as food and drink, a man may subsist for two, three, or more days; if the passage of air into the body be stopped, he will perish in a short part of a day, so necessary is air to the body. And, besides, there is some intermission of every other operation which men perform, for life is full of change; but this operation alone living animals perform incessantly, sometimes inspiring, and sometimes expiring. That all living animals, then, are closely connected with air has now been shown. After this we must forthwith declare what infirmities probably arise in an especial manner from this source—when it is redundant or deficient in quantity, or when polluted with morbific miasmata it enters the body. That diseases are the offspring of air I will show from the most common of all diseases, I mean, fever; for this disease accompanies all others, and most especially inflammations. This is well illustrated by the accidents which befall the feet; for along with the inflammation a bubo and fever speedily supervene. There are two kinds of fever (that I may touch upon that subject); the one common to all, which is called the plague, and the other being connected with vitiated food in those who use it. The air, then, is the cause of both these. A common fever (epidemic?) therefore is such, because all draw in the same breath (pneuma).” The author afterwards attempts an explanation of the phenomena of rigors, which, however, is not very intelligible, and then of the febrile heat and sweats which succeed them. The latter he compares to the condensed steam of boiling-water. He afterwards proceeds to explain that when the blood is mixed up with vitiated air (gases?), it occasions diseases in various parts of the body; for example, pain in the eyes, when it fixes there; when in the ears, the disease is seated there; when in the nose, coryza is the consequence; and when in the chest, branchus (bronchitis?), and so forth. To the same cause he ascribes the origin of dropsy, namely, to the prevalence of airs, and the melting down of the flesh. He also accounts for the formation of apoplexy, by supposing that it arises from the flesh of the parts being filled up with gases; and in the same way he explains the origin of epilepsy very elaborately, and most ingeniously, but at too great length to suit my limits in this place. Altogether the treatise is one of the most interesting pieces of medical philosophy which has come down to us from antiquity. It shows very decidedly what a talent for dealing with abstract ideas the ancient Greeks were endued with.
XXIV. Περὶ τόπων τῶν κατ’ ἄνθρωπον—On the Places in Man.
The ancient authority in favor of this treatise is pretty strong. It is included in Erotian’s list, is quoted by Cælius Aurelianus,[190] and by Ruffus Ephesius,[191] and is incidentally noticed by Galen in two places of his Glossary.[192] That it is further quoted by Athenæus, as stated by Gruner and Ackerman, would appear to me to be a mistake.[193] It is admitted to be genuine by Le Clerc, Schulze, Haller, Triller, Sprengel, Zuinger, Petersen, and others. It is rejected, however, by Lemos, Mercuriali, Duret, Reinsius, Gruner, and Ackerman. M. Littré does not venture to assign it a place among the genuine treatises, and yet he evidently inclines to the opinion that later critics had rejected it on very doubtful grounds, and leaves the question undecided. The following summary of its contents will show that it is not destitute of valuable matter.
The author of it commences with announcing this important physiological principle, which microscopical observations on the development of the chick have amply confirmed: “It appears to me that in the body there is no beginning, but that all parts are alike beginning and end; for in a described circle no beginning is to be found.” He goes on to remark that, in consequence of this, diseases affect the whole body; that when seated in the dry parts of it they are more permanent, but when in the fluid, more changeable: that one part of the body imparts disease to the other parts, namely, the stomach to the head, and the head to the stomach; and that if the very smallest part of the body suffer, it will impart its suffering to the whole frame. He afterwards enters into a lengthened anatomical description of the parts of the body which, although quoted by Galen,[194] and not unfavorably noticed by Gruner,[195] cannot now command much interest. He then describes seven defluxions from the head, namely, to the nose; to the ears; to the eyes; to the chest—producing empyema and phthisis; to the spine—producing another species of phthisis (tabes dorsalis?); to the fleshy parts—inducing dropsy; and to the joints—occasioning ischias and kedmata (morbus coxarius?) All this seems very hypothetical, and does not appear to savor of the strict process of induction which we remark in the genuine treatises of Hippocrates. When the disease is seated in the head, he directs numerous and deep incisions to be made in the scalp, down to the bone. He notices pleurisy, and its termination in empyema; the latter, he further remarks, may originate in ruptures (sprains?), and in this case, on succussion, an undulatory sound may be heard. He also states decidedly that empyema forms in phthisical persons, and that, in their case, too, a sound like that of water in a bladder may be heard on succussion. The symptoms accompanying empyema are given very graphically. He also describes the tabes dorsalis. He afterwards gives the treatment of pleurisy and pneumonia, in which it is remarkable that no mention is made of venesection, notwithstanding that, in the work “On Regimen in Acute Diseases,” Hippocrates recommends bleeding ad deliquium in these diseases; and Galen accounts for his silence respecting venesection in his treatment of fevers on the supposition that he did not notice it, because he took it for granted, as a general rule, that the operation was performed.[196] This consideration, as much as any other, inclines me to doubt the authenticity of this treatise. Ischiatic disease he directs to be treated by cupping-instruments and heating medicines, administered internally. Anasarca, in a young person, he treats by scarifications. In the brief notice of injuries of the head here introduced, much the same views are advocated as in the work on that subject, of which a translation is given in this volume. The treatment of callous ulcers, as here laid down, is deserving of great attention; “remove the indurated parts by a septic medicine, and then produce reunion of the parts.” Every practical surgeon must recognize this as a very sound and important rule of practice.
The treatment of suicidal mania appears singular:—“Give the patient a draught made from the root of mandrake, in a smaller dose than will induce mania.” He also, in like manner, recommends mandragora in convulsions, applied by means of fires lighted around the patient’s bed. Pains of the head he directs to be treated by opening the veins of the temples, or by applying the cautery to them. He then insists, in strong terms, that, under certain circumstances, purgatives will bind the bowels, and astringents loosen them. And he further makes the important remark that, although the general rule of treatment be “contraria contrariis curantur,” the opposite rule also holds good in some cases, namely, “similia similibus curantur.” It thus appears that the principles of Allopathy and Homœopathy are recognized by the author of this treatise. In confirmation of the latter principle, he remarks that the same substance which occasions strangury will also sometimes cure it, and so also with cough. And further, he acutely remarks, that warm water, which, when drunk, generally excites vomiting, will also sometimes put a stop to it by removing its cause. He estimates successful and unsuccessful practice according to the rule whether the treatment was rightly planned or not; for he argues what is done in ignorance cannot be said to be correctly done, even if the results are favorable. The work concludes with a short passage on the diseases of women, all of which are said to be connected with the uterus. We find here the first mention that is anywhere made of the globus hystericus; indeed, I do not remember to have met with the term in any of the ancient medical works, with the exception of the Hippocratic treatises. He recommends fetid things to be applied to the nose, and aromatic and soothing things to the genital organs. The process of fumigating the uterus is fully described; and likewise suppositories and pessaries are mentioned. In the treatment of uterine hemorrhage the rules here laid down are most important. All heating things, diuretics, and purgatives are to be avoided; the foot of the patient’s bed is to be raised, and astringent pessaries are to be introduced. My own opinion of the work may now be given in a few words. It undoubtedly contains much valuable matter which would be no discredit to Hippocrates, nor to any of the greatest medical authorities, whether of ancient or modern times. I desiderate in it, however, a proper unity of design, and think I see too much of a speculative disposition to suit with the character of the Coan sage. That it is to be referred to the Cnidian school, as suggested by Gruner, seems doubtful; for, as we are informed by Hippocrates himself, the Cnidian physicians only gave the most obvious symptoms, while their practice was very inert, consisting entirely of drastic purgatives, whey, and milk, whereas in this work the diagnostic symptoms are more profoundly stated then they are in most of the Hippocratic treatises, and the practice, in many instances, is very bold and decided. The knife, the actual cautery, the use of strong purgatives and narcotics, are freely recommended in various diseases. Altogether, then, although I would hesitate to ascribe the present work to Hippocrates himself, I must admit myself inclined rather to refer it to the Coan than the Cnidian school. I see no proper data, however, for forming a decided opinion on this head, more especially as we are but very imperfectly acquainted with the tenets of the Cnidian school.[197]
XXV. Περὶ τέχνης—On Art.
This treatise is sustained as genuine by Erotian, and even by one of the older commentators, Heraclides of Tarentum, but it is nowhere noticed by Galen, and Suidas would appear to refer it to Hippocrates, the son of Gnosidicus.[198] Mercuriali, Gruner, Haller, Ackerman, Kühn, and most of the modern authorities hold it decidedly to be spurious. Foës and Zuinger, however, do not object to its authenticity; and Littré, although he excludes it from his list of the genuine works of Hippocrates admits that it is very ancient, and formed a portion of the Collection from the commencement. To me it appears that it is written in too subtle and abstract a style to admit the supposition of its being the work of a practical physician like Hippocrates. Although it contains a good deal of original thought, there is not much in it which would prove interesting to the medical reader of the present day. It is an elaborate defense of the art of medicine against the attacks of those who maintain that it is no art at all, or one of an uncertain nature. According to the author’s definition, the aim of the physician should be to remove the pains of the sick, to blunt the intensity of diseases, and not to interfere with those that are mastered by disease, as knowing that medicine can be of no avail in such a case. In conclusion, I shall merely remark that the evidence, both internal and external, is against the supposition of its being genuine, but still there appears no good reason for doubting that it emanated from the school of Cos.