XLI. Περὶ ἐπικυήσιος—On Superfœtation.
This treatise, I believe, is not mentioned by any one of the ancient authorities, and it is almost universally rejected by the modern.
I need scarcely remark that it relates to a very curious subject, and that great doubts are now entertained whether or not superfœtation in women ever actually takes place. I can state, however, that two trustworthy persons, the one a surgeon and the other a sage femme, informed me, some years ago, that they once attended together a case in which a woman was first delivered of a fœtus about four months old, and, about thirty-six hours afterwards, of a fully grown child. The ancient savants all believed in the occurrence of superfœtation. See in particular Aristotle (Hist. Anim. vii., 5); and Pliny, (H. N., vii., 11.)
The following are a few of the most interesting observations which I have remarked in perusing this treatise. When the secundines are evacuated before the child, they cause difficult parturition, and the case is dangerous unless the head present. Presentations of the hand and foot are directed to be replaced. When the placenta is retained after the expulsion of the child, the child is to be laid upon wool, or upon two bladders, filled with water, either of which is to be pricked, so that the water may run off gradually, and thus draw down the placenta. When there is a copious discharge of blood before labor, there is a risk that the child may be dead, or at least not viable. When women with child long for coals, the appearance of these things is to be seen on the child’s head. (For the opinions of the ancients on the effect of imagination on the fœtus in utero, see the commentary on B. I., § 1, of Paulus Ægineta, Syd. Soc. edition.) Some ridiculous things are contained in this work, such as the following; when a man wishes to beget a male child let his left testicle be tied, and when a female the right.[255] The composition of suppositories for cleansing the uterus is described at considerable length towards the end of the treatise. Altogether, the work is by no means devoid of interest, but, as I have already said, it is certainly not the composition of Hippocrates. Littré, on the authority of the passage quoted from Aristotle on this head, refers the treatise to Leophanes. From the account which we have given of its contents, it will be remarked that the title and contents of it do not well accord together. This remark, however, applies to other of the Hippocratic treatises besides the one we are now treating of.
XLII. Περὶ γυναικείης—On the Female Nature.
As Foës remarks, this work is mostly made up of excerpts from the treatise “De Muliebribus.” I need not, therefore, occupy time in discussing its claims to be regarded as genuine, nor in giving an outline of its contents.
XLIII. Περὶ καρδίης—On the Heart.
Galen, in one place, appears to cite a passage in this treatise, but without naming it.[256] It is not found in Erotian’s list, and all the modern authorities, including even Foës, who is more disposed than most of the others to deal leniently with the claims of the treatises which bear the name of Hippocrates, concur in refusing to admit it as genuine. Still, however, there can be no question as to its being a work of very high antiquity. It is to be regretted, then, that the text is in a very unsatisfactory state. It contains, upon the whole, a wonderfully accurate description of all the parts about the heart—of its substance, which is said to be a strong muscle; of its pericardium, which is described as being a smooth tunic, containing a little fluid resembling urine; of its ventricles (γαστέρες); of its auricles (ὄυατα); of the origin of the veins from it; of its sigmoid valves; of its office, to be, as it were, the fountain head, from which all parts of the body are irrigated, and the seat of the understanding, which is said to be in the left ventricle. The understanding, it is added, is not nourished by the blood, but by a pure and luminous (φωτοειδὴς) superfluity from it. Altogether, this little treatise bespeaks much practical acquaintance with human anatomy, and, considering the age in which it was written, must be the production of a very superior mind. It contains an account of an experiment which has been much animadverted upon, both by ancient and modern authorities. The writer says, if a colored fluid be given to an animal, such as a sow, to drink, and if its throat be cut while it is in the act of swallowing, it will be found that part of the fluid has passed down by the gullet to the lungs. See in particular Aulus Gellius (Noctes Atticæ, xvii., 11); Macrobius (Saturnal. vii., 15); and Plutarch (Sympos. vii., 1.) Aulus Gellius says decidedly that Plato had adopted this opinion from Hippocrates. Aulus Gellius and Macrobius also quote Plutarch as having stated, in his ‘Symposiacon,’ that Hippocrates is the author of this opinion; but the text of Plutarch (l.c.) is in an unsatisfactory state. See Schulze (Hist. Med. i., iii., vi., 12.)
XLIV. Περὶ τροφῆς—On Aliment.
It must be admitted that this treatise has very high authorities in favor of its authenticity, such as Erotian, Galen,[257] Aulus Gellius,[258] Palladius,[259] Stephanus;[260] and, in modern times, Mercuriali, Foës, Haller, and Le Clerc.[261] It is rejected by Casper Hoffman,[262] Gruner, Ackerman, Kühn, Littré, and Greenhill, though, by the last two, not in decided terms. Considering the respectability of the external evidence in its favor, I should certainly not have hesitated in admitting it as genuine, had not a careful examination of its contents led me to form the unbiassed decision that it must be the production of some metaphysician, rather than of a medical practitioner, such as we know Hippocrates to have been. The physiological dogmata with which it abounds are announced in so antithetical, not to say paradoxical, a manner, that I can conceive nothing more foreign to the style and character of the true writings of Hippocrates. I shall give a few specimens:—“The species of aliment is one and many; all these (kinds of aliment?) are one nature and not one. Purging is upwards and downwards, and neither upwards nor downwards. Purging in aliment is excellent, purging in aliment is bad. Aliment not aliment, unless it conveys nourishment; it is aliment in name but not in deed; aliment in deed and no longer in name only. Sweet and not sweet; sweet potentially, as water, sweet to the taste, as honey. Things not animals are animated; animals are animated, the parts of animals are animated. It (the embryo) is and is not.” Now, I must say, that all this appears to me to savour more of the taste of Democritus than of Hippocrates himself. It may be said, indeed, that the very circumstance of Galen’s having admitted the work as genuine, and having composed an elaborate commentary on it, is a most presumptive proof of its authenticity; for where shall we find so excellent a judge of the doctrines of Hippocrates as his great commentator? But then it must be taken into account that Galen himself had a great penchant towards metaphysical subtleties, and this would lead him to believe that what was in accordance with his own tastes must have been in accordance with those of his great professional hero. But, notwithstanding the doubts which hang over the question of its authorship, it may be confidently affirmed regarding this treatise that, illustrated as it is by Galen’s commentary (even although it has come down to us in a mutilated state), few works in the Collection are more suggestive than the present one. I shall merely give a few more specimens of it:—“The root of the veins is the liver, and the root of the arteries is the heart; and from them blood and spirits are carried to all parts, and heat passes to the same.” This passage is frequently quoted and commented upon by ancient authors; as by Galen,[263] and Aretæus.[264] We have seen it stated in the preceding treatise that the heart is the place from which both veins and arteries originate. This seems a presumptive proof that these two treatises must have had a distinct authorship. “The aliment reaches to the hairs, the nails, and the outer surfaces from within; and aliment from without passes from the most external to the most internal parts, there is one conflux and one conspiration (ξύρροια μία, ξύμπνοια μία). All parts sympathize throughout the whole frame, but in so far every part has its own peculiar action.” This passage, also, is very celebrated and frequently quoted.[265] I need scarcely remark that it embraces a grand and most important view of the animal economy. “Milk is food to some with whom it agrees, and to others not. To some wine is food, and to others not; and so with flesh and many other kinds of aliment. We must look to situation and habit. Humidity is the vehicle of food. The natures (instincts?) of all things are untaught. Persons who perspire freely are weak, more healthy, and have easier recoveries than others. Those who perspire ill are stronger than others before they become indisposed, but being indisposed have more difficult recoveries. These remarks apply to the whole and to the parts.”