Grimm, the German translator of Hippocrates, professes also, like Ackerman, to be guided principally by ancient authority, such as that of Galen and Erotian, but he only reposes full confidence in it when confirmed by internal evidence. The style, he says, should be simple, brief, and expressive, and the language in accordance with the epoch. He adds, no hypothesis, no subtlety, however ancient, no extraordinary remedies or modes of treatment, should be found in these books. Starting from these principles, which, it will be remarked, are rather fancifully laid down, Grimm reduces the number of genuine works to the following very meagre list:
- Popularium Morborum, i., iii.
- Prognostica.
- Aphorismi.
- De Victu Acutorum, p. i.
- De Aëre, Aquis, Locis.
The reader will not fail to remark, in this result of Grimm’s inquiry, indications of that bold spirit of scepticism for which the learned criticism of Germany has been distinguished of late—the spirit of her Wolfs and Lachmans, of her Asts and Schliermachers, which has deprived the Iliad and Odyssey of their ancient authorship, and reduced the bulky tomes of Plato to a very small volume. It is impossible not to admire the learning, the ingenuity, and the love of truth which these critics display, but surely the sober judgment of other scholars, not infected with the same spirit of innovation, will pause before acquiescing in the justness of a verdict which would deprive so many immortal performances of the prestige with which they have so long been regarded. For my own part, I would venture to say, pace tantorum virorum, that these learned critics are deficient in a practical acquaintance with the laws of evidence, and do not properly take into account that, in matters of common life, negative evidence is never allowed to bear down positive, unless the former be remarkably strong, and the latter particularly weak. When, then, the voice of antiquity pronounces strongly and consistently in favor of any work, no negative evidence, unless of a very remarkable character, ought to be allowed to counterbalance the positive. In short, what I object to in Grimm is, that he gives an undue preponderance to the internal evidence over the external, that is to say, over the traditionary evidence of antiquity, and that in this respect he goes to greater lengths than even Gruner and Ackerman.
Kurt Sprengel is the author of a separate work on the Hippocratic writings[83] which I have not seen, but I have reason to believe that the substance of it is contained in his “History of Medicine,” where (t. i., p. 295) he enters into a very elaborate disquisition on the authenticity of the works ascribed to Hippocrates. He insists much, as a test of authenticity, upon the style, which, in imitation of Galen, he describes as being concise and laconic to a degree which sometimes renders it obscure. Hippocrates, he adds, avoids all superfluous discussion and unseasonable repetitions, and expresses himself as briefly as possible, without adding conditions or restrictions. He justly remarks, that what Celsus says of Hippocrates, namely, that he separated philosophy from medicine, must be received with considerable limitations, and not in too strict a sense, as if there were no philosophical tenets in his works. On the other hand, Sprengel uses these philosophical doctrines as a guide for determining the date of the different treatises. This is a new, and no doubt a very important, element in the criticism of these works; but it is one very liable to be abused, as our information on many occasions, with regard to the introduction of new doctrines in philosophy, is by no means such as can be safely trusted to. Sprengel’s opinion on the various works in question we shall have occasion to state when we come to revise them separately.
We now proceed to the examination of the labors of two very learned and ingenious critics, Link and Petersen, who, treading in the footsteps of Sprengel, have expended much research in endeavoring to solve the question regarding the date of the Hippocratic treatises, by considering the philosophical and pathological theories which prevail in them. I think it right to state that I have not had an opportunity of consulting the work of Link, and therefore have been obliged to judge of his opinions, in a great measure, from Petersen’s essay, which is professedly based on the principles of Link. Of Peterson’s little tract, I have no hesitation in declaring that I have seldom seen a work of the kind which displays more critical acumen and deep research; and although I cannot bring myself to subscribe to many of his general conclusions, I feel bound in gratitude to acknowledge the benefits which I have derived from many of his special investigations.[84] On one important point, which he is at great pains to make out, I have already stated that I am disposed to agree with him, namely, respecting the date of our author’s birth, which I certainly think he has proved by the most unexceptionable authorities to have been considerably earlier than as generally stated. Petersen divides the Hippocratic works into nine classes, in the following chronological order:—The first contains those treatises in which the flow of bile and phlegm is considered to be the cause of disease;[85] the second recognizes fire,[86] and the third, air, as the principle of things;[87] in the fourth, bile and phlegm are spoken of as the primary humors of the human body;[88] in the fifth, spirit (πνεῦμα) and humidity are held to be the first principles of generation;[89] in the sixth, the elements of the body are held to be contrary to one another;[90] in the seventh, yellow and black bile, phlegm, and blood are set down as being the primary humors of the human body:[91] in the eighth bile, water, phlegm, and blood are held to be the primary humors;[92] and in the ninth, fire and water are held to be the principles of things.[93]
Now, assuredly, no reasonable person will deny to the author of this distribution the praise of great boldness and originality of thought. We may well apply to him the words of the poet, that if he has failed in attaining his object, “magnis tamen excidit ausis.” For my own part, I cannot but regret to see so much talent and research expended upon conjectural points of criticism, which, from their nature, can never be determined with any degree of certainty; for, after all his labors, few scholars, I venture to predict, will prefer being guided by his hypothetical reasoning, however ingenious, rather than by the authority of the ancient commentators. I must also use the liberty to remark, that M. Petersen appears to me to have no well defined ideas regarding the doctrines which the ancient philosophers held respecting the elements of things. For example, when he states, as the basis of the theory which prevails in the tract “On Ancient Medicine,” that the elements are the contraries to one another, he evidently confounds the elements, namely, fire, air, earth, and water, with the powers, or, as we should now call them, the qualities, hot, cold, moist, and dry. (See the next Section.) And although, in the treatises “On the Seventh Month Fœtus,” and “On the Eighth Month Fœtus,” much and deserved importance is attached to heat as the prime mover of conception, and although, in the treatise “On Airs,” the importance of air as a cause of disease be strongly insisted upon, one is not warranted, as he contends, in concluding that the authors of these treatises recognize respectively fire and air as the first principle of all things. M. Littré, also, in his candid reviews of M. Petersen’s work, points out some very striking oversights which M. Petersen has committed in his arrangement of the different treatises.[94]
I now come to M. Littré, who, in the Introduction to his edition of Hippocrates, has certainly surpassed all who went before him, in the extent of his labors on the general literature of the Hippocratic Treatises. How highly I estimate his work I need not here stop to declare; indeed the reputation it has already gained is so established, that it would be vain to blame and useless to praise it. I have to express my regret, however, in entering upon my exposition of his opinions, that they are given in a very expanded form, and with a degree of diffuseness, plus quam Galenica, so that I find it difficult, within my necessary limits, to convey to the reader a distinct view of the very important matters which M. Littré has brought together to bear upon his subject.
He is at great pains to establish the following positions with regard to the various treatises contained in the Collection which bears the name of Hippocrates: 1st. That the Collection did not exist in an authentic form, earlier than the date of Herophilus and his disciples, that is to say, until nearly 100 years after the death of Hippocrates. 2d. That it contains portions which certainly do not belong to Hippocrates; and, 3d, also Collections of Notes, etc., which would never have been published by the author in their present form; and, 4th, Compilations, which are either abridged, or copied word for word from other works which still form part of the Collection. 5th. As the different treatises do not belong to the same author, so neither were they all composed at the same time, some being much more modern than the others. 6th. We find in the Collection mention made of numerous treatises written by the followers of Hippocrates, which are now lost, and which were no longer in existence when the Collection was first published. 7th. The most ancient writers do not know, for certain, to whom the several works forming the Collection belonged; 8th, with the exception of a small number, which all of them, for one reason or another, agreed in attributing to Hippocrates himself.[95]
I have now a few observations to make upon each of these positions. The first, which is a most important one in connection with our present subject, I regret to say, is, I think, by no means satisfactorily made out by M. Littré. He shows, it is true, that Herophilus is the first commentator on any of the Hippocratic Treatises of whom there is any mention, but all we know of his labors in this line merely amounts to this, that he had commented on certain passages in the “Prognostics,” and probably also in the “Aphorisms,”[96] but I do not see that this amounts to any proof either that the Collection was or was not formed in his time. The proof of the second position is made to rest upon a fact, which has attracted the attention of all the critics on the Hippocratic Treatises, namely, that a memorable description of the veins, which appears in the Hippocratic treatise “On the Nature of Man,” is published by Aristotle, in the third book of his “History of Animals,” as the production of his son-in-law, Polybus. Now, M. Littré argues here, that as the publication of the Aristotelian Collection did not take place until long after that of the Hippocratic, the persons who made the latter could not have taken the passage in question from the other, and the only way in which we can account for the change of title, is by supposing that the works of Polybus had retained the name of their true author in the days of Aristotle, but had lost it at the time the Hippocratic Collection was made. Hence he infers that the Hippocratic Collection must have been made subsequently to the time of Aristotle.[97] But I must say that I do not recognize the force of this argument; for, although the whole of Aristotle’s works were not published in a collected form, until the time of Apellicon, we have every reason to believe that many of his works were published separately, in his own lifetime. The fact, then, would rather tell the other way, and it might be argued, that the Hippocratic Collection must have been made before the time of Aristotle, otherwise the persons who made it would never have fallen into the mistake of attributing to Hippocrates a passage which so high an authority as Aristotle had referred to Polybus. But the truth is, that we are not entitled to draw any positive inference from all this, with regard to the epoch in question. It is well known that, in all ages, literary publications have sometimes come abroad into the world in an anonymous shape; and it need excite no surprise that with regard to the fragment in question, as in many other cases, there should have been a diversity of opinion as to its authorship.
The third we shall see fully made out in our analysis of the different treatises given below.