A work with this title is cited by Erotian, Cælius Aurelianus,[216] and by Galen,[217] but so confusedly that we must come to the conclusion regarding these Books, that the ancient authority in support of their genuineness is by no means satisfactory. Galen evidently inclines to the opinion of Dioscorides the Commentator, that the Second Book is the work of the younger Hippocrates, this is to say, of a grandson of our author. Almost all the modern authorities, as, for example, Foës, Haller, Ackerman, Gruner, and Littré, concur in rejecting the whole four as spurious. The Fourth Book in particular is separated by M. Littré from the other three, as being a portion of the work “On the Diseases of Women,” rather than of the work “On Diseases.” We shall be better enabled to speak decidedly on this and the other questions regarding the authenticity of these books, when we have examined the nature of their contents.
After a very striking exordium, in which it is stated that the first object of him who turns his attention to the healing art should be to consider the causes of disease, and the natural tendencies of every one of them, that is to say, of their dispositions to death, or to loss of parts, the author proceeds to deliver his doctrine as to the causes of them, which he assumes to be either internal, namely, bile and phlegm; or external, such as labor, wounds and excess in heat, cold, dryness, and humidity. The following accidents are said to be mortal: a wound of the brain, of the spinal marrow, of the liver, of the diaphragm, of the bladder, of a large blood-vessel, or of the heart. He ranks the following as fatal diseases: phthisis, dropsy, and, when they attack a pregnant woman, pneumonia, causus, pleurisy, phrenitis, and erysipelas of the womb. The issue of the following is set down as doubtful in ordinary circumstances: pneumonia, causus, phrenitis, pleuritis, quinsy, enlargement of the uvula, hepatitis, splenitis, nephritis, dysentery, menorrhagia. The following are not deadly: chronic defluxions on the joints (κέδματα), melancholy, gout, ischiatic disease, tenesmus, quartan and tertian fevers, strangury, ophthalmy, leprosy, lichen, arthritis; yet even from these patients often become maimed in particular members, such as in the limbs from arthritis, or in the eyes from ophthalmy. Diseases also have a tendency to pass into one another, as, for example, pleurisy into causus, phrenitis into pneumonia, tenesmus into dysentery, and lientery; and pleurisy and pneumonia into empyema. He makes the following curious observations on the awkward mistakes which a physician may commit in the practice of his profession: not to know when there is matter in an abscess or tubercle; not to ascertain the existence of fractures or dislocations; having probed the head in case of injury thereof, not to ascertain that there is a fracture of the skull; not to be able to introduce an instrument into the bladder, nor to be able to ascertain whether there is a stone in it or not; in the case of empyema, not to ascertain the existence of matter by succussion; and in using the knife or cautery, to apply either of them to too great or too small an extent. The treatise also contains many other general observations, which are very ingeniously stated, as, for example, the following enumeration of the untoward accidents which may occur to a medical practitioner: Having administered an emetic for the purpose of evacuating bile or phlegm upwards, to induce rupture of a vessel by the act of vomiting, although the patient had previously been sensible of no pain in the region; having given an emetic to a woman with child, to induce abortion in consequence; in curing empyema, when looseness of the bowels is superinduced, and cuts off the patient; in applying an ointment for a disease of the eyes, when acute pains supervene, which end either in rupture of the eye or amaurosis, the physician in such a case gets the blame for having applied the ointment; and when a physician gives anything to a woman in labor on account of pains in the bowels, and the woman gets worse or dies, the physician incurs censure. And in diseases and injuries, when there is a necessary succession of bad symptoms, the physician gets the blame, as men do not perceive that the aggravation of the symptoms is a necessary consequence of the nature of the disease. And if a physician visits a patient in fever, or who has met with an injury, and if the patient gets worse after the first medicine that is administered, the physician is blamed; whereas he does not get the same amount of credit if the patient improves, as the amendment is attributed to the nature of the case. This book contains what I believe is the most circumstantial detail of the phenomena of empyema that is to be met with in any ancient work on medicine. The author ascribes the disease principally to three causes: to the termination of pneumonia, to a defluxion from the head, and to the consequences of a ruptured vessel. Whoever is acquainted with the modern literature of the subject, or possesses a practical knowledge of the disease, will not fail, from the accompanying description of the last of these, to recognize a case of cavity of the lungs produced by the ulceration of tubercles. True empyema, however, as the result of chronic inflammation, is also described in distinct terms. The never-failing test by succussion is constantly adverted to in these cases. Distinct mention is also made of the râle, by which the existence of matter in the lungs is ascertained. Allusion is probably made here to the well-known gurgling sound produced by matter in a cavity. There is a good deal of other important matters in this book, but these my necessary limits oblige me to pass over unnoticed. I shall merely allude to the distinct mention which is made of ruptures, by which was meant a severe sprain or other injury ending in suppuration, or protracted pains in the part. Fever is said to be formed in this manner: when bile or phlegm is heated, the whole of the body is heated, and they are heated either by internal things, such as food or drink, or by external, such as labor, wounds, excess of heat or cold; also from the sight or hearing, but rarely from these. In the treatment of pneumonia, venesection in the arm is recommended. Altogether this book contains much valuable matter, but mixed up with hypothesis in a way not usually met with in the genuine works of Hippocrates.
The second book, at the very commencement, betrays a strong disposition to diagnosis. Eight diseases at the head are described, but in such terms that we fail to recognize the distinguishing features of each. Besides these, a little way further on the author describes several other diseases of the head, including hydrocephalus, the symptoms of which are given with great precision, namely, acute pain about the bregma and temples, alternate rigor and fever, impairment of the sight, double vision, vertigo, etc. He recommends errhines, purgatives, and even trepanning of the skull. Even of this disease several varieties are described in very striking terms; so that for once at least we are tempted to question the correctness of the judgment which Hippocrates pronounced against the rival school of Cnidos, for cultivating diagnosis to an undue extent.
Several varieties of quinsy are likewise described, including various diseases of the parts about the fauces, and among them the disease named hypoglottis, by which appears to be meant an abscess below the tongue, attended with swelling of that organ. Five varieties of polypus nasi are next described, and suitable plans of treatment recommended, namely, with the ligature, the knife, and the cautery. Pleurisy and pneumonia are described, and their termination in empyema, the symptoms of which are circumstantially described again; and, moreover, three varieties of it are noticed. Here, again, we find mention made of the diagnostic method, by succussion, and a recommendation of the operation of paracentesis thoracis, to evacuate the fluid. Next are described several varieties of phthisis, including the tabes dorsalis, of which a curious description is given. An interesting account is also given of spermatorrhœa. The treatment consists in abstinence from immoderate drinking, venery, and excessive exercises, except walking, for a year, avoiding cold and the sun, and taking the tepid bath. The description of the varieties of pulmonic disease is most interesting, although some of them are not sufficiently well defined. Hydrothorax is also described, and paracentesis recommended in the treatment of it. After describing lethargy, which was clearly a species of remittent fever, he gives descriptions of certain diseases, under the names of morbus resiccatorius (ἀυαντή), Febris mortifera, Lividus morbus, morbus ructus ciens, and morbus pituitosus. No one can fail to recognize in these descriptions the spirit of the Cnidian school of medicine, and one very different from that of Hippocrates. Indeed we have positive authority for referring this work to the Cnidian school, for Galen assigns the description of the morbus lividus to the Cnidian physician Euryphon.[218] The author describes a singular species of melancholy, which, he says, is sometimes epidemic in spring; he calls it cura, morbus gravis. It appears to have been a variety of the lycanthropia. See Paulus Ægineta, III., 16. The book concludes with a description of two species of melæna, and of sphacelotes, the latter being a variety of the other. Now what strikes one in going over this book is, that it cannot be a portion of the same work as the First Book, for we cannot conceive it probable that an author would have treated twice of the very same subjects in one work. Moreover, as we have stated, there are evidently many things in it which are not at all in accordance with the principles of the Coan school.
In the third book very much the same ground is again gone over as in the two preceding books. In the first place, diseases of the head are described under the names of tumor cerebri, plenitudo cerebri dolorem inferens, sydere icti, sphacelismus, lethargus (then intervenes a brief account of Febris ardens, quite out of place), of dolor capitis, and phrenitis. Afterwards comes a description of cynanche, and paracynanche, next of icterus, and afterwards of tetanus, for the cure of which the author recommends the cold affusion. (On the merits and demerits of this practice, see the English edition of Paulus Ægineta, III., 20.) For ileus, as in a preceding book, among other modes of treatment, it is directed to inflate the bowels by means of a pipe and bladder, and then to evacuate their contents with a clyster. Afterward, pneumonia and pleurisy are most circumstantially described, and the treatment of them laid down with a degree of prolixity very unlike the usual manner of Hippocrates. Thus, to promote the expectoration in pleurisy, he recommends the flos æris, asafœtida, trefoil, pepper, etc.[219] I am not aware that any other ancient authority recommends these medicines for the cure of this disease. The symptoms and diagnosis of empyema as the consequence of pleurisy, are given in much the same terms as in the preceding book. Succussion is particularly alluded to. For empyema, burning and incision are recommended. In performing paracentesis, he forbids all the matter to be evacuated at once. Altogether, a perusal of this book leads me to the positive inference that it is not the production of the same author as the two preceding books; for what could induce the author to go over the same ground three different times in one work?
The fourth book is manifestly the production of a different author from the others, indeed, as appears evident from the conclusion of the work, it is continuous with the treatise “On the Nature of Women.” It commences with an elaborate discussion on the four humors, blood, phlegm, water, and bile, from which all diseases are said to derive their origin. The whole book is tinged with the exposition of this doctrine; indeed all the contents of it are for the most part hypothetical, and very unlike the matter contained in the genuine compositions of Hippocrates. From first to last there is no well-defined description of disease in it. The observations on lumbrici and calculus are the portions of it which command the greatest interest.
I shall now briefly recapitulate the conclusions which I am prepared to draw from a careful examination of the contents of this work. 1. As the same diseases, for example, pleurisy, pneumonia, and empyema, are all circumstantially treated of in each of the first three books, it is impossible to suppose them all portions of the same work, or even the productions of the same author. 2. In the fourth a different hypothesis is advanced from that which is laid down in the first, and from this circumstance, joined to many other considerations already enumerated, there can be no doubt that it is the production of an entirely different author. 3. Although all parts of these books contain abundance of valuable materials, many of the principles and rules of practice which are developed in them are not akin to those of Hippocrates, but rather savor of the Cnidian school, which trusted too much to a fanciful diagnosis, instead of cultivating prognosis as the basis of its system, like the school of Hippocrates and his followers. 4. The internal evidence in the present instance against their genuineness, more than counterbalances the small amount of ancient authority which there is in support of these books.
XXXI. Περὶ ἑπταμήνου—On the Seven Months’ Birth.
XXXII. Περὶ ὀκταμήνου—On the Eight Months’ Birth.
Although the genuineness of these two works is admitted by Galen[220] and by Foës,[221] they are not looked upon as the productions of Hippocrates by almost any other of the authorities, whether ancient or modern, and in particular, Palladius, Ackerman, Gruner, Littré, and Greenhill reject them. Yet all admit them to be of very high antiquity, so that, in this respect, they are not destitute of considerable interest. The contents of them are altogether of a philosophical nature, and such as we might expect the school of Democritus to produce. The author of them holds that fœtuses born at the seventh month survive, but not those of the eighth. It is clear that he was imbued with the Pythagorean notions regarding the mystical power of the number seven.[222] Altogether, the style and matter of these treatises do not appear to me to accord well with the spirit which prevails in the true Hippocratic works, but at the same time it must be admitted that the preponderance of authority for or against their authenticity is not decided.[223]