Perhaps we may venture to affirm, without much risk of challenge, that the works of no ancient author owe more to the exertions of a single individual than those of Hippocrates due to the labors of Foës. Of his excellencies as an editor, and expositor of the meaning of his author, I will have occasion to speak afterwards; and here I shall merely state regarding him, that as a critic called upon to decide with regard to the authenticity and spuriousness of the different works, his merits are by no means proportionally high. He rarely or never ventures to differ from Galen, and everywhere evinces so easy a disposition to recognize the works in question as being the productions of his beloved author, that his opinion on any point connected with their authenticity is not deserving of much weight.
Haller arranges the Hippocratic treatises in the following classes: The first contains those which in all ages have been admitted as being genuine.[75] The second embraces those which contain doctrines at variance with those “of the divine old man,” or inventions of a later date, or vices which Hippocrates disclaims. The third embraces those which are manifestly spurious, as is obvious from their being mere compendia of the works of Hippocrates, or which betray a manner totally at variance with his. The fourth embraces a certain number of pieces not contained in the preceding classes. Such is Haller’s arrangement, which, however, is not entitled to much consideration; for the illustrious author himself seems to admit, candidly, that his critical knowledge of the language was too slender to warrant him in trusting his own judgment when it came into collision with any high authority, such as Foës; and, moreover, it would appear, that his edition of the works of Hippocrates had been got up in a very slovenly manner, by some incompetent person, after his death.
Gruner is one the most learned and original of our authorities on the literature of the Hippocratic works.[76] His decision, with regard to the authenticity of the different pieces, is made to rest mainly on internal evidence, that is to say, upon their possessing the proper characteristics of the language and style of Hippocrates. These he is at great pains in showing to be, in the first place, brevity, approaching to the laconic, which he justly holds with Galen[77] to be one of the most striking peculiarities of the ancient style of writing. To conciseness and simplicity, he adds gravity of manner, and an absence of all subtlety of reasoning. This last trait in the literary character of Hippocrates I hold to be particularly apparent in the works which are generally admitted to be genuine. Some stress is also laid by him on the use of the Ionic dialect, but this is a most fallacious criterion, and had better have been left out of the question altogether; as there is good reason to believe that great liberties were used with the language of Hippocrates by the ancient editors and commentators, more especially by Artemidorus Capito, who lived a short time before Galen.[78] And besides, as every person who is generally acquainted with Greek literature knows, although the Ionic dialect in the age of Hippocrates had been fused into the Attic,[79] for several centuries afterwards it continued to be arbitrarily used by many writers, both of prose and verse, owing to the high character which it possessed, as being the dialect of the Homeric poems. Hence it is used in later times, not only by the poets such as Quintus Smyrnæus, Nonnus, and Oppian, but also by at least one great medical author, I mean Aretæus. It would appear, however, that Gruner himself was sensible that much stress ought not to be laid on peculiarity of dialect; for, in resuming his conclusions as to the proper tests of genuineness in judging of the Hippocratic writings, he determines them to be conciseness and gravity of language, paucity of reasoning, and accuracy of observation, along with the authority of the ancient critics, that is to say, of the commentators. Now, it certainly must be admitted that, taken together, these principles are most just and reasonable; only it is apparent, that, like Mercuriali, he has ranked last what he ought to have laid most stress upon, namely, ancient authority. For, as remarked above, unless ancient authority had previously determined certain works in the Collection to be genuine, the modern critic would have had no premises from which he could have drawn conclusions as to the characteristics of our author’s style. Starting, then, from the principles now stated, Gruner arranges the works of Hippocrates in two divisions, namely, the genuine and the supposititous. We shall only give the former list, which embraces the following ten treatises:
- Jusjurandum.
- Aphorismi.
- De Aëre, Aquis, et Locis.
- Prænotiones.
- Prædictionum, ii.
- De Officina Medici.
- Popularium Morborum, i., iii.
- De Victu Acutorum.
- De Vulneribus Capitis.
- De Fracturis.
It will be shown below that in this list he has admitted one work (Prædict. ii.), which certainly has not sufficient claims to the place which he has assigned it; and, on the other hand, he has acted most inconsistently in rejecting the work “De Articulis,” while he admitted “De Fracturis,” for, as we shall see, there is the strongest reason for believing that the two originally constituted one work. But the truth of the matter is, that Gruner having hastily adopted the notion that Hippocrates was altogether ignorant of human anatomy, the celebrated passage in this treatise which so strikingly alludes to the dissection of the human body[80] would decide him to reject it from his list of genuine works.
Though Le Clerc, in his “History of Medicine” (b. iii.), shows himself to be well acquainted with the fact that many of the treatises ascribed to Hippocrates are supposititious, he nowhere lays down any rules for distinguishing the genuine from the spurious, only he insists strongly on conciseness as being one of the most striking characteristics of the style of Hippocrates, and shrewdly remarks that the treatises which abound most in reasoning are those which are most suspected of being spurious.
Schulze also, in his “History of Medicine,” with much learning and excellent judgment, enters cursorily upon the examination of the question regarding the genuineness of the works ascribed to Hippocrates, but he scarcely ever deviates from the rules laid down by Mercuriali and Le Clerc. Indeed, he almost always agrees with the latter. We shall have occasion to refer pretty frequently to his opinions when we come to give our own judgment on the authenticity of the particular treatises contained in the Hippocratic Collection.
Ackerman,[81] in the first place, gives an elaborate and very lucid exposition of the labors of all preceding critics in the same line, and then proceeds to deliver his own opinions seriatim on the different treatises. He rests his judgment generally on the authority of the ancients, and more especially of Erotian and Galen; and in so doing, M. Littré thinks he acted so judiciously, that he does not hesitate to pronounce Ackerman to be the safest guide which we can follow. Like Gruner, he divides the works into two classes, the genuine and the spurious. The former list is as follows:—
- Epidemica, i., iii.
- Prænotiones.
- Prædictorum, ii.
- Aphorismi.
- De Victu Acutorum.
- De Aëre, Aquis, Locis.
- De Vulneribus Capitis.
This, it will be remarked, is the smallest list which we have yet encountered, and one cannot but feel saddened to find the remains of the great Hippocrates thus reduced to so small a compass. We shall have occasion, however, by and by, to show that Ackerman has been too unsparing in applying the obelisk[82] to treatises of suspected authenticity.