THE
GENUINE WORKS
OF
HIPPOCRATES
TRANSLATED FROM THE GREEK
WITH
A PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE AND ANNOTATIONS
BY
FRANCIS ADAMS, LL.D.
SURGEON
IN TWO VOLUMES
VOL. I
NEW YORK
WILLIAM WOOD AND COMPANY
56 & 58 LAFAYETTE PLACE
1886
THE PUBLISHERS’
BOOK COMPOSITION AND ELECTROTYPING CO.,
157 AND 159 WILLIAM ST.,
NEW YORK.
TRANSLATOR’S PREFACE.
The Council of the Sydenham Society having done me the honor of
consulting me respecting a proposed volume of translations from the
Works of Hippocrates, I ventured to give it as my opinion that such a
selection ought to comprehend the whole of those Treatises which are
now regarded as genuine; and this suggestion having been approved of,
I was appointed to the task of translating and editing them according
to the best of my judgment. The design, then, of the present Work,[1]
is to give a translation of all the genuine remains of the GREAT
HIPPOCRATES, along with such an amount of illustration as may be
sufficient to render them intelligible to any well-educated member
of the profession at the present day. It was understood, indeed,
when I first engaged in this undertaking, that I was merely to give
a faithful translation of the original; but I soon became satisfied,
that a considerable amount of illustration, in the form of Annotations,
Arguments, and so forth, would be indispensable to the general utility
of such a publication. It is well known that many parts of my author’s
works are very obscure, owing to the conciseness of the language,
and the difficulty which now exists of properly apprehending the
views entertained on certain abstruse questions at so very distant
a period; and, consequently, it will readily be understood, that a
simple version, without either comment or illustration, would have
been nearly as unintelligible to most of my readers as the original
itself. And that the works of Hippocrates stand in need of illustration
is rendered apparent from the number of commentaries which have been
written upon them in all ages, commencing almost with his own time.
But whether or not I have been fortunate enough to give just such an
amount of illustration as was necessary, and have taken proper care at
the same time not to load my pages with superfluous matters of this
description, must be left to the judgment of my readers to determine.
However, I may be permitted to say, that whatever value shall be put
upon my performances in this line, I have certainly spared no pains
to make myself well acquainted with the true doctrines of my author,
and that for this purpose I have consulted all the best authorities to
which I could obtain access, from the commentaries of Apollonius and
Galen down to the learned labors of several continental scholars, my
contemporaries, especially Dr. Ermerins, of Holland, and MM. Littré and
Malgaigne, of France. I flatter myself it will also be admitted, that I
have further collected from a variety of sources, a considerable store
of valuable material, for which I am in nowise indebted to any of my
predecessors in the same field of research.
Considering how scanty all the information is which the English
language can supply on many questions connected with the medical
literature of the ancients, I have judged it necessary to enter into a
discussion of several of those subjects, in order to prepare my readers
for understanding the doctrines of my author. These are contained in
the Preliminary Discourse, and will be found to relate principally to
the origin of Grecian Medicine, to the Biography of Hippocrates, and
an analysis of the works which bear his name, and to an exposition
of the principles of the Physical Philosophy which form the basis of
most of the hypotheses which occur in the Hippocratic Collection.
Having bestowed much pains on the illustration of the philosophical
tenets of the ancients, I shall feel anxious to learn how far the
judgment pronounced by me on various controverted points is approved
of by persons possessing the necessary degree of information to enable
them to form a correct estimate of them, along with a proper degree
of candor in judging between the conventional opinions of the present
time, and those which prevailed in so remote an age.
That I have imposed upon myself a very serious additional task, by
engaging not only to give a true version of the language of my author,
but also to expound his opinions, and place them, so to speak, in
juxtaposition with those of the present age, will be readily admitted;
and I have reason perhaps to apprehend, that I have thereby exposed
myself to the strictures of a certain class of critics, who have formed
to themselves a very different ideal of the duties of a translator,
fancying that he ought merely to concern himself with the words of the
original author, and not venture to sit in judgment on the doctrines.
I shall not attempt, however, any formal defense of the method which
I have pursued, but may be allowed to remark, that, if I shall be
found to have failed in satisfying the reasonable expectations of such
readers as are sincerely desirous of becoming familiarly acquainted
with the opinions of an author, whom I verily believe to be the highest
exemplar of professional excellence which the world has ever seen, it
is not from want of zeal in the discharge of the arduous duties which I
had undertaken.
I have little left to say in this place respecting most of the critical
subjects connected with the work, as I have entered at considerable
length into the discussion of these matters in the Preliminary
Discourse. It is proper, however, to acknowledge that I have derived
great assistance from M. Littré’s excellent edition, of which the
parts already published embrace all the treatises here given, with the
exception of the last four. On all occasions I have freely availed
myself of his labors, more especially in amending the text, in which
respect his edition undoubtedly surpasses all those which preceded
it. I have also not neglected to consult all the other standard
editions, especially those of Foës, Van der Linden, and Kühn, and
likewise, as will be seen, many other editions of separate treatises,
so that, altogether, I trust it will be found that I have not often
failed in attaining the true meaning of my author, as far as it can
now be ascertained. I am aware, indeed, that, situated as I am, at a
distance from public libraries, and deprived of personal intercourse
with learned men of congenial pursuits whom I could consult in cases
where I felt myself in doubt, I have labored under disadvantages which
may render my work not so perfect in all respects as could have been
wished; and that, by sending it to the press as soon as completed, it
is not unlikely I may have left it disfigured by certain blemishes
which _multa dies et multa litura_ might have enabled me to remove.
But the urgency of my other professional and private concerns forbade
me to devote much longer time to any one task, however interesting or
important; while the weight of increasing years, and the confirmed
conviction of the endless nature of literary research on such a subject
as this, disposed me, on the present occasion, to keep in mind the
solemn admonition of my Author, that “Life is short, and Art is long.”
F. A.
CONTENTS OF VOL. I.
PAGE
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE 1
Sect. I.--On the Origin of Grecian Medicine 3
Sketch of the Life of Hippocrates 8
Sect. II.--Disquisition on the Authenticity of the different
Treatises which have been attributed to
Hippocrates 20
Sect. III.--On the Physical Philosophy of the Ancients,
and more especially their Doctrines with
regard to the Elements 107
The Pythagoreans 108
The Platonists 110
The Peripatetics 113
The Stoics 115
The Epicureans 116
ON ANCIENT MEDICINE 127
The Argument 129
The Work 132
ON AIRS, WATERS, AND PLACES 147
The Argument 149
The Work 156
ON THE PROGNOSTICS 185
The Argument 187
The Work 194
Appendix to the Book of Prognostics 214
ON REGIMEN IN ACUTE DISEASES 225
The Argument 227
The Work 234
Appendix to the work on Regimen in Acute Diseases 254
The Argument ib.
The Work 260
FIRST AND THIRD BOOKS OF THE EPIDEMICS 281
Book I.--The Argument 283
The Work 293
Book III.--The Argument 318
The Work 323
ON INJURIES OF THE HEAD 351
The Argument 353
The Work 370
PLATES I., II., III., WITH DESCRIPTION.
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE.
BY THE EDITOR.
PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE.
SECTION I
ON THE ORIGIN OF GRECIAN MEDICINE, WITH A SKETCH OF THE
LIFE OF HIPPOCRATES.
It is well known that the oldest documents which we possess relative
to the practice of Medicine, are the various treatises contained
in the Collection which bears the name of Hippocrates. Their great
excellence has been acknowledged in all ages, and it has always been a
question which has naturally excited literary curiosity, by what steps
the art had attained to such perfection at so early a period. This
investigation, however, is attended with peculiar difficulties, and
has never been marked by any very satisfactory results. At one time,
indeed, it was usual to solve the question by supposing that Greece
had derived all the arts and sciences, in a state of considerable
advancement, from the oriental nations, who are admitted to have
possessed a considerable degree of civilization before the Hellenic
race became distinguished for intellectual development.[2] The question
with regard to the origin of Medicine was thus supposed to have met
with a satisfactory solution. For, it being generally admitted that the
Hippocratic Medicine had emerged from the schools of philosophy, and it
having been assumed as incontrovertible that the early philosophy of
the Greeks had been derived from the East, the inference appeared to be
quite legitimate that medicine, in a state of considerable advancement,
had been imported from the same quarter. Recent research, however, has
cast great doubts on the supposed descent of Grecian philosophy from
a foreign source, and it is now pretty generally admitted that the
Orientals, in early times, had never made any considerable progress in
mental science.[3] Instead, then, of looking upon philosophy as having
been an exotic production in the land of Hellas, we have every reason
to believe that it was, what its inhabitants, in the noble pride of
political freedom and intellectual superiority, boasted that their
forefathers had been, namely, “the offspring of their own soil.”[4]
Since the philosophy of the Greeks was indigenous, there is every
reason to suppose that their medicine was so in like manner. How long
the union between medicine and philosophy had subsisted before the time
of Hippocrates, has not been determined upon any contemporary evidence,
but the disciples of Pythagoras, in after ages, did not hesitate to
ascribe to him the honor of effecting this alliance.[5] However this
may be, it appears to me very doubtful whether these philosophers ever
practised medicine as a craft. Indeed, it is much more likely that they
merely speculated upon the phenomena of disease. Thus we shall see
afterwards, that Plato himself did not discard speculative medicine
from his system of philosophy, although we are quite sure that he
never practised it as an art. But this connection between medicine and
philosophy was by no means regarded, in after times, as having been
favorable to the advancement of the former, for we find Hippocrates
complimented by Celsus for having brought about a separation between
them.[6]
It is clearly established that, long before the birth of philosophy,
medicine had been zealously and successfully cultivated by the
Asclepiadæ, an order of priest-physicians that traced its origin to
a mythical personage bearing the distinguished name of Æsculapius.
Two of his sons, Podalirius and Machaon, figure in the Homeric poems,
not however as priests, but as warriors possessed of surgical skill
in the treatment of wounds, for which they are highly complimented by
the poet. It was probably some generations after this time (if one may
venture a conjecture on a matter partaking very much of the legendary
character) that Æsculapius was deified, and that Temples of Health,
called _Asclepia_, presided over by the Asclepiadæ, were erected
in various parts of Greece, as receptacles for the sick, to which
invalids resorted in those days for the cure of diseases, under the
same circumstances as they go to hospitals and spas at the present
time. What remedial measures were adopted in these temples we have no
means of ascertaining so fully as could be wished, but the following
facts, collected from a variety of sources, may be pretty confidently
relied upon for their accuracy. In the first place, then, it is well
ascertained that a large proportion of these temples were built in
the vicinity of thermæ, or medicinal springs, the virtues of which
would no doubt contribute greatly to the cure of the sick.[7] At his
entrance into the temple, the devotee was subjected to purifications,
and made to go through a regular course of bathing, accompanied with
methodical frictions, resembling the oriental system now well known
by the name of _shampooing_. Fomentations with decoctions of
odoriferous herbs were also not forgotten. A total abstinence from food
was at first prescribed,[8] but afterwards the patient would no doubt
be permitted to partake of the flesh of the animals which were brought
to the temples as sacrifices. Every means that could be thought of was
used for working upon the imagination of the sick, such as religious
ceremonies of an imposing nature, accompanied by music, and whatever
else could arouse their senses, conciliate their confidence, and in
certain cases, contribute to their amusement.[9] In addition to these
means, it is believed by many intelligent Mesmerists of the present
day, that the aid of Animal magnetism was called in to contribute to
the cure;[10] but on this point the proof is not so complete as could
be wished. Certain it is, however, that as the Mesmerists administer
medicines which are suggested to the imagination of patients during the
state of clairvoyance, the Asclepiadæ prescribed drugs as indicated in
dreams. These, indeed, were generally of a very inert description; but
sometimes medicines of a more dangerous nature, such as hemlock and
gypsum, were used in this way,[11] and regular reports of the effects
which they produced were kept by the priests in the temples. It is
also well known that the Asclepiadæ noted down with great care the
symptoms and issue of every case, and that, from such observations,
they became in time great adepts in the art of prognosis. When we come
to an analysis of the different Hippocratic treatises, it will be seen
that there is strong reason to believe we are still possessed of two
documents composed from the results of observations made in the ancient
Temples of Health. It would also contribute much to the increase of
medical knowledge in this way, that the office of priesthood was
hereditary in certain families, so that information thus acquired
would be transmitted from father to son, and go on accumulating
from one generation to another.[12] Whether the Asclepiadæ availed
themselves of the great opportunities which they must undoubtedly
have had of cultivating human and comparative anatomy, has been much
disputed in modern times; indeed, the contrary is expressly maintained
by some eminent authorities, such as Gruner[13] and Sprengel.[14]
But it will be shown in another place, that there is good reason for
believing that these two scholars have greatly underrated the amount
of anatomical knowledge possessed by Hippocrates, and his predecessors
the priest-physicians in the Temples of Health. Moreover, it is worthy
of remark, that Galen holds Hippocrates to have been a very successful
cultivator of anatomy.[15] Galen further states, upon the authority of
Plato,[16] that the Asclepiadæ paid no attention to dietetics; but this
opinion would require to be received with considerable modification,
for, most assuredly, whoever reflects on the great amount of valuable
information on this subject which is contained in the Hippocratic
treatises, will not readily bring himself to believe that it could have
been all collected by one man, or in the course of one generation. It
is worthy of remark, moreover, that Strabo, whose authority I need
scarcely say stands deservedly high in all literary matters, does not
hesitate to affirm that Hippocrates was trained in the knowledge of
dietetics, from documents preserved in the Asclepion of Cos.[17] That
gymnastics, as stated by Galen,[18] wire not recognized as a regular
branch of the healing art, until the age of Hippocrates, is indeed
not improbable, and this perhaps is what Plato meant when he says
that the Asclepiadæ did not make any use of the pedagogic art until
it was introduced by Herodicus. But at the same time there can be no
doubt, as further stated by Galen,[19] that exercise, and especially
riding on horseback, constituted _one_ of the measures used by
the Asclepiadæ for the recovery of health, having been introduced by
Æsculapius himself.
Of the _Asclepia_ we have mentioned above, it will naturally be
supposed that some were in much higher repute than others, either from
being possessed of peculiar advantages, or from the prevalence of
fashion. In the beginning of the fifth century before the Christian
era, the temples of Rhodes, Cnidos, and Cos were held in especial
favor, and on the extinction of the first of these, another rose up in
Italy in its stead.[20] But the temple of Cos was destined to throw the
reputation of all the others into the background, by producing among
the priests of Æsculapius the individual who, in all after ages, has
been distinguished by the name of the GREAT HIPPOCRATES.[21]
Before proceeding, however, to give a brief sketch of his biography, I
may state, partly by way of recapitulation, and partly in anticipation
of what will be found in a subsequent part of this work, the leading
facts which are known relative to the state of medicine before his time.
1. The origin of Grecian medicine is involved in impenetrable darkness,
being anterior to all authentic history, and nothing being known either
as to its rise or the steps by which it grow up to be a regular art.
2. There is no reason to suppose that the germs of medical science, any
more than those of philosophy, had been originally imported into Greece
from the East.
3. The earliest practitioners of medicine concerning whom we have any
authentic information, were the Asclepiadæ, or priest-physicians, who
endeavored to cure the sick partly by superstitious modes of working
upon the imagination, and partly by more rational means, suggested by
observation and a patient study of the phenomena of disease.
4. Though the men of letters who directed their attention to the
phenomena of disease, as constituting a branch of philosophy, may in
so far have improved the theory of medicine by freeing it from the
trammels of superstition, it is not likely they could have contributed
much to the practice of medicine, which is well known to be founded on
observation and experience.
5. Though there can be little or no doubt that the priest-physicians,
and the philosophers together, were possessed of all the knowledge of
medicine which had been acquired at that time, it is not satisfactorily
ascertained by what means the art had attained that remarkable degree
of perfection which we shall soon see that it exhibited in the hands of
Hippocrates. But I must now proceed with my Sketch of his Life.
* * * * *
That Hippocrates was lineally descended from Æsculapius was generally
admitted by his countrymen, and a genealogical table, professing to
give a list of the names of his forefathers, up to Æsculapius, has
been transmitted to us from remote antiquity. Although I am well aware
that but little reliance can be put on these mythical genealogies, I
will subjoin the list to this section, in order that it may be at hand
for reference, as many allusions will have to be made to it in the
subsequent pages.[22]
Of the circumstances connected with the life of Hippocrates little
is known for certain, the only biographies which we have of him being
all of comparatively recent date, and of little authority. They are
three in number, and bear the names of Soranus Ephesins, Suidas, and
Tzetzes. Of the age in which the first of these authors flourished,
nothing is known for certain; the second is a lexicographer, who lived
in the beginning of the eleventh century; and the third flourished
in the twelfth century. The birth of Hippocrates is generally fixed,
upon the authority of Soranus, as having occurred in the first year
of the 80th Olympiad, that is to say, in the 460th year before the
vulgar era. On this point, however, I must say that I see no good
grounds for the unanimity of opinion which has generally prevailed
among modern scholars. In fact, the counter-evidence of Aulus Gellius
has always appeared to me to be unjustly overlooked, as I cannot
but think that his authority ought to rank much higher than that of
Soranus, of whom nothing is known, not even the century in which he
lived. Aulus Gellius, then, in an elaborate disquisition on Greek and
Roman chronology, states decidedly that Socrates was contemporary with
Hippocrates, but younger than he.[23] Now it is well ascertained, that
the death of Socrates took place about the year 400 A.C., and
as he was then nearly seventy years old, his birth must be dated as
happening about the year 470 A.C. This statement would throw
the birth of Hippocrates back several years beyond the common date,
as given by Soranus. There is also much uncertainty as to the time
of his death: according to one tradition he died at the age of 85,
whereas others raise it to 90, 104, and even 109 years. These dates
of his birth and death, although vague, are sufficient to show that
the period at which we may reasonably suppose he had practised his
profession with the greatest activity and reputation, must have been
the latter part of the fifth century A.C. It will readily
occur to the reader, then, that our author flourished at one of the
most memorable epochs in the intellectual development of the human
race. He had for his contemporaries, Pericles, the famous statesman;
the poets Æschylus, Sophocles, Euripides, Aristophanes, and Pindar;
the philosopher Socrates, with his distinguished disciples Plato
and Xenophon; the venerable father of history, Herodotus, and his
young rival, Thucydides; the unrivalled statuary, Phidias, with his
illustrious pupils, and many other distinguished names, which have
conferred immortal honor on the age in which they lived, and exalted
the dignity of human nature. Nor was Greece the only region of the
earth remarkable at this time for moral and intellectual improvement;
for, if we may believe oriental chronology, Confucius and Zoroaster had
gone off the stage of life only a very few years before the dawn of
this celebrated age of Grecian superiority in the arts and sciences.
Hippocrates, it thus appears, came into the world under circumstances
which must have co-operated with his own remarkable powers of intellect
in raising him to that extraordinary eminence which his name has
attained in all ages. From his forefathers he inherited a distinguished
situation in one of the most eminent hospitals, or Temples of Health,
then in existence, where he must have enjoyed free access to all the
treasures of observations collected during many generations, and at
the same time would have an opportunity of assisting his own father in
the management of the sick.[24] Thus from his youth he must have been
familiar with the principles of medicine, both in the abstract and in
the concrete,--the greatest advantage, I may be permitted to remark,
which any tyro in the healing art can possibly enjoy. In addition to
all this, he had excellent opportunities of estimating the good and
bad effects resulting from the application of gymnastic exercises in
the cure of diseases, under the tuition of Herodicus, the first person
who is known for certain to have cultivated this art as a branch of
medicine.[25] He was further instructed in the polite literature and
philosophy of the age, by two men of classical celebrity, Gorgias
and Democritus; the latter of whom is well known to have devoted
much attention to the study of medicine, and its cognate sciences,
comparative anatomy and physiology.
Initiated in the theory and first principles of medicine, as now
described, Hippocrates no doubt commenced the practice of his art in
the Asclepion of Cos, as his forefathers had done before him. Why he
afterwards left the place of his nativity, and visited distant regions
of the earth, whither the duties of his profession and the calls of
humanity invited him, cannot now be satisfactorily determined. The
respect paid to him in his lifetime by the good and wise in all the
countries which he visited, and the veneration in which his memory
has been held by all subsequent generations, are more than sufficient
to confute the base calumny, invented, no doubt, by some envious
rival, that he was obliged to flee from the land of his nativity in
consequence of his having set fire to the library attached to the
Temple of Health, at Cnidos, in order that he might enjoy a monopoly
of the knowledge which he had extracted from the records which it had
contained.[26] Certain it is, that he afterwards visited Thrace, Delos,
Thessaly, Athens, and many other regions, and that he practised, and
probably taught, his profession in all these places.[27] There are many
traditions of what he did during his long life, but with regard to
the truth of them, the greatest diversity of opinion has prevailed in
modern times. Thus he is said to have cured Perdiccas, the Macedonian
king, of love-sickness; and although there are circumstances connected
with this story which give it an air of improbability, it is by no
means unlikely that he may have devoted his professional services to
the court of Macedonia, since very many of the places mentioned in
his works as having been visited by him, such as Pella and Acanthus,
are situated in that country; and further, in confirmation of the
narrative, it deserves to be mentioned, that there is most satisfactory
evidence of his son Thessalus having been court physician to Archelaus,
king of Macedonia;[28] and it is well ascertained that another of his
descendants, the Fourth Hippocrates, attended Roxane, the queen of
Alexander the Great.[29] Our author’s name is also connected with the
great plague of Athens, the contagion of which he is reported to have
extinguished there and in other places, by kindling fires.[30] The only
serious objection to the truth of this story is the want of proper
contemporary evidence in support of it. It is no sufficient objection,
however, that Thucydides, in his description of the circumstances
attending the outbreak of the pestilence in Attica, makes no mention
of any services having been rendered to the community by Hippocrates;
while, on the contrary, he states decidedly that the skill of the
physicians could do nothing to mitigate the severity of this malady.
It is highly probable, that, if Hippocrates was actually called upon
to administer professional assistance in this way, it must have been
during one of the subsequent attacks or exacerbations of the disease
which occurred some years afterwards. We know that this plague did
not expend its fury in Greece during one season, and then was no more
heard of; but on the contrary, we learn that it continued to lurk
about in Athens and elsewhere, and sometimes broke out anew with all
its original severity. Thucydides briefly mentions a second attack of
the plague at Athens about two years after the first,[31] attended
with a frightful degree of mortality; nor is it at all improbable
that this was not the last visitation of the malady. Though the
name of Hippocrates, then, may not have been heard of at its first
invasion, it is not at all unlikely that, after he had risen to the
head of his profession in Greece, as we know that he subsequently
did, he should have been publicly consulted regarding the treatment
of the most formidable disease which was prevailing at the time.[32]
What adds an appearance of truth to the tale is, that several of the
genuine works of Hippocrates, which were probably published in its
lifetime, relate to the causes and treatment of epidemic and endemic
diseases.[33] That the magistrates of Athens, then, should have applied
to him as the most eminent authority on the subject, to assist them
in their sanitary regulations[34] during the prevalence of this great
pestilence, is so far from being improbable, that I think it would have
been very extraordinary if they had omitted to consult him, seeing that
he was undoubtedly looked up to as the _facile princeps_ among
the physicians of the day. That his services in this way have been
exaggerated by the blind admiration of his worshipers, both at that
time and in after ages, may be readily admitted; but this circumstance
ought not to make us reject the whole story as being fabulous. I
repeat, then, that although this part of the history of Hippocrates
be not vouched by any contemporary evidence, it is by no means devoid
of probability, while the objections which have been started to it by
modern authorities have not so much weight as is generally supposed.
Another circumstance in the life of Hippocrates, for the truth of
which Soranus, Suidas, and a host of ancient authorities concur
in vouching, namely, that he refused a formal invitation to pay a
professional visit to the court of Persia, is rejected with disdain
by almost all the modern scholars who have touched upon this subject.
But was it an uncommon thing for the king of Persia to manœuvre in
this way with Grecian talent in order to attract it to his court? So
far is the contrary known to be the case that, as every person who
is familiar with the early history of Greece must be well aware, the
manner in which “the Great King” rendered himself most formidable to
the Grecian Republics after the humiliating defeats which the military
forces of Persia had sustained at Marathon, Salamis, and Platæa, was
by intriguing with all those distinguished persons in Greece who would
render themselves accessible to his bribes and flatteries, and thus
endeavoring to detach them from the cause of their country. Of this
we have notable examples in the case of two illustrious individuals,
who were nearly contemporary with Hippocrates--I mean Pausanias and
Themistocles. Moreover, it is well known that Grecian physicians at
all times were in high repute at the court of Babylon;[35] witness
Ctesias, the contemporary and kinsman of Hippocrates,[36] who was court
physician to the king of Persia, and was employed in that capacity in
the most serious emergencies.[37] What more natural, then, or more
likely to happen, than that the king of Persia, when he saw his country
overrun by the plague,[38] should seek advice from a neighboring
people, whose superiority to his own subjects in all the arts of war
and peace he and his predecessors had learned from sad experience? I
readily admit that the letters in the Hippocratic Collection which
relate to this story can scarcely be received as genuine; but does this
prove that the event upon which they are made to turn is also devoid
of truth? I can see no probability in this supposition; for whether
we regard these documents as willful forgeries, executed with the
fraudulent intention of palming them on the literary world as genuine
productions, or whether we look upon them as mere exercises made on
given subjects by the Sophists or Scholiasts to display their ability
in sustaining an assumed character, it would have been preposterous
to make them relate to stories of which every person of that age must
have been able to detect the falsehood. Were any person at the present
day, from whatever motive, desirous of palming upon the public certain
letters said to have been written by the celebrated John Hunter, he
would surely not be so imprudent as to endeavor to pass off as genuine
a correspondence purporting to have taken place between him and the
king of France, as every one at all acquainted with professional
biography, would at once perceive that the authenticity of the
documents in question was completely disproved by the falsity of the
narrative upon which they are founded. Seeing, then, that these letters
are admitted on all hands to be very ancient, that is to say, of a date
not much later than the time of Hippocrates, we may rest assured that
the main facts to which they allude were believed at the time to be of
an authentic nature.
For the like reasons I am disposed to think that, although the letters
in the Collection which refer to a pretended correspondence between him
and Democritus are most probably to be regarded as spurious, it is far
from being improbable that the physician may have rendered the services
of his profession to the philosopher. Had there been no grounds
whatever for this story, why so many ancient authors should have agreed
in giving credit to it I cannot imagine.
According to all the accounts which have come down to us of his life,
he spent the latter part of it in Thessaly, and died at Larissa, when
far advanced in years. The corruptions with regard to numbers which,
in the course of transcription, have crept into all works of great
antiquity, sufficiently account for the differences already mentioned
in the statements respecting his age at the time of his death.
These are all the particulars of any importance which can now be
gathered regarding the life of him who has been venerated in all
ages as “The Father of Medicine.” That they are scanty and rather
unsatisfactory, must be admitted; but yet what more, in general, can we
desire to know respecting the biography of a physician than the manner
in which he was educated, how he was esteemed by his contemporaries,
and what he did and wrote to reflect credit on his profession? The
approbation and gratitude of those who have consulted him for the cure
of their maladies are the best testimony to the public character of a
physician, and the estimation in which his writings are held by the
members of his own profession is what constitutes his professional
reputation. I need scarcely say that, as a medical author, the name
of Hippocrates stands pre-eminently illustrious. In this way he has
left monuments of his genius more durable than the marble statues
of Phidias, his contemporary, and as enduring as the tragedies of
Sophocles, or the Olympian odes of Pindar.
In the next section I intend to give a careful analysis of all
the writings which have come down to us from antiquity under
the name of Hippocrates, and to state clearly the grounds upon
which some are to be received as genuine, and others rejected as
supposititious. I shall conclude the present section, although it
may appear that I am anticipating some things which had better have
come after the succeeding one, with a brief account of our author’s
general principles, both as regards the theory and the practice of
medicine; and in doing this I mean not to confine myself strictly
to the treatises which are acknowledged to be genuine, as they are
unfortunately so few in number, that we are often obliged to guess at
the tenets of our author from those held by his immediate successors
and disciples.
The opinions which he held as to the origin of medicine, and the
necessities in human life which gave rise to it, are such as bespeak
the soundness of his views, and the eminently practical bent of his
genius. It was the necessity, he says,[39] which men in the first
stages of society must have felt of ascertaining the properties of
vegetable productions as articles of food that gave rise to the science
of Dietetics; and the discovery having been made that the same system
of regimen does not apply in a disordered as in a healthy condition of
the body, men felt themselves compelled to study what changes of the
aliment are proper in disease; and it was the accumulation of facts
bearing on this subject which gave rise to the art of Medicine. Looking
upon the animal system as one whole, every part of which conspires and
sympathizes with all the other parts, he would appear to have regarded
disease also as one, and to have referred all its modifications to
peculiarities of situation.[40] Whatever may now be thought of his
general views on Pathology, all must admit that his mode of prosecuting
the cultivation of medicine is in the true spirit of the Inductive
Philosophy; all his descriptions of disease are evidently derived from
patient observation of its phenomena, and all his rules of practice are
clearly based on experience. Of the fallaciousness of experience by
itself he was well aware, however, and has embodied this great truth in
a memorable aphorism,[41] and therefore he never exempts the apparent
results of experience from the strict scrutiny of reason. Above all
others, Hippocrates was strictly the physician of experience and common
sense. In short, the basis of his system was a rational experience, and
not a blind empiricism, so that the Empirics in after ages had no good
grounds for claiming him as belonging to their sect.[42]
What he appears to have studied with particular attention is the
natural history of diseases, that is to say, their tendencies to a
favorable or fatal issue; and without this knowledge, what can all
medical practice be but blind empiricism?--a haphazard experiment,
which perchance may turn out either to cure or to kill the patient?
In a word, let me take this opportunity of saying, that the physician
who cannot inform his patient what would be the probable issue of his
complaint, if allowed to follow its natural course, is not qualified to
prescribe any rational plan of treatment for its cure.
One of the most distinguishing characteristics, then, of the
Hippocratic system of medicine, is the importance attached in it to
_prognosis_, under which was comprehended a complete acquaintance
with the previous and present condition of the patient, and the
tendency of the disease. To the overstrained system of Diagnosis
practised in the school of Cnidos, agreeably to which diseases were
divided and subdivided arbitrarily into endless varieties, Hippocrates
was decidedly opposed; his own strong sense and high intellectual
cultivation having, no doubt, led him to the discovery, that to
accidental varieties of diseased action there is no limit, and that
what is indefinite cannot be reduced to science.[43]
Nothing strikes one as a stronger proof of his nobility of soul, when
we take into account the early period in human cultivation at which he
lived, and his descent from a priestly order, than the contempt which
he everywhere expresses for ostentatious charlatanry, and his perfect
freedom from all popular superstition.[44] Of amulets and complicated
machines to impose on the credulity of the ignorant multitude, there
is no mention in any part of his works. All diseases he traces to
natural causes, and counts it impiety to maintain that any one more
than another is an infliction from the Divinity. How strikingly the
Hippocratic system differs from that of all other nations in their
infantine state must be well known to every person who is well
acquainted with the early history of medicine.[45] His theory of
medicine was further based on the physical philosophy of the ancients,
more especially on the doctrines then held regarding the elements of
things, and the belief in the existence of a spiritual essence diffused
through the whole works of creation, which was regarded as the agent
that presides over the acts of generation, and which constantly strives
to preserve all things in their natural state, and to restore them
when they are preternaturally deranged. This is the principle which
he called Nature, and which he held to be a _vis medicatrix_.
“Nature,” says he, or at least one of his immediate followers says, “is
the physician of diseases.”[46] His physical opinions are so important,
that I have resolved to devote an entire section to an exposition of
the ancient doctrines on this head. (See Sect. III.)
Though his belief in this restorative principle would naturally
dispose him to watch its operations carefully, and make him cautious
not to do anything that would interfere with their tendencies to
rectify deranged actions, and though he lays it down as a general
rule by which the physician should regulate his treatment, “to do
good, or at least to do no harm,”[47] there is ample evidence that on
proper occasions his practice was sufficiently bold and decided. In
inflammatory affections of the chest he bled freely, if not, as has
been said, _ad deliquum animi_,[48] and in milder cases he practised
cupping with or without scarification.[49] Though in ordinary cases
of constipation he merely prescribed laxative herbs, such as the
mercury (_mercurialis perennis_),[50] beet,[50] and cabbage,[50] he
had in reserve elaterium,[51] scammony,[52] spurges,[53] and other
drastic cathartics, when more potent medicines of this class were
indicated. And although when it was merely wished to evacuate upwards
in a gentle manner, he was content with giving hyssop,[54] and other
simple means, he did not fail, when it was desirable to make a more
powerful impression, to administer the white hellebore with a degree
of boldness, which his successors in the healing art were afraid
to imitate.[55] A high authority has expressly stated that he was
the discoverer of the principles of derivation and revulsion in the
treatment of diseases.[56] Fevers he treated as a general rule, upon
the diluent system, but did not fail to administer gentle laxatives,
and even to practise venesection in certain cases.[57] When narcotics
were indicated, he had recourse to mandragora, henbane, and perhaps to
poppy-juice.[58]
In the practice of surgery he was a bold operator. He fearlessly,
and as we would now think, in some cases unnecessarily, perforated
the skull with the trepan and the trephine in injuries of the head.
He opened the chest also in empyema and hydrothorax. His extensive
practice, and no doubt his great familiarity with the accidents
occurring at the public games of his country, must have furnished him
with ample opportunities of becoming acquainted with dislocations
and fractures of all kinds; and how well he had profited by the
opportunities which he thus enjoyed, every page of his treatises “On
Fractures,” and “On the Articulations,” abundantly testifies. In fact,
until within a very recent period, the modern plan of treatment in such
cases was not at all to be compared with his skillful mode of adjusting
fractured bones, and of securing them by means of waxed bandages. In
particular, his description of the accidents which occur at the elbow-
and hip-joints will be allowed, even at the present day, to display
a most wonderful acquaintance with the subject. In the treatment of
dislocations, when human strength was not sufficient to restore the
displacement, he skillfully availed himself of all the mechanical
powers which were then known.[59] In his views with regard to the
nature of club-foot, it might have been affirmed of him a few years
ago, that he was twenty-four centuries in advance of his profession
when he stated that in this case there is no dislocation, but merely a
declination of the foot; and that in infancy, by means of methodical
bandaging, a cure may in most cases be effected without any surgical
operation. In a word, until the days of Delpech and Stromeyer, no
one entertained ideas so sound and scientific on the nature of this
deformity as Hippocrates.
But I must not allow my enthusiastic admiration to carry me too
far. I will therefore conclude the present section by making a few
observations on the peculiar style of our author’s writings. According
to Galen, whose extensive acquaintance with Greek literature rendered
him a most competent judge, the characteristics of his style are
extreme conciseness, precision, and, in certain cases, obscurity, as
the natural result of labored brevity.[60] To these traits of character
he adds, elsewhere, that Hippocrates makes it a rule to avoid all
superfluity of discussion and unnecessary repetitions, and never says
more than what is indispensable.[61] Now, it is no proper objection
to this general view of the character of his style, as stated by M.
Littré, that it is not the same in all his works; as, for example,
in his treatise “On Airs, Waters, and Places,” where the style is
certainly not so laconic as in some of his others; although, even with
regard to it, I must be permitted to say that I agree with a most
competent authority, the late Dr. Coray, that its style is remarkable
for conciseness.[62] And, indeed, if brevity of expression, bordering
at times upon obscurity, be not the characteristic of the style of
Hippocrates, we must admit that his mode of composition is not in
accordance with the taste of his age. There can be no doubt that the
style of Hippocrates is nearly akin to that of his contemporary,
the historian Thucydides, which is thus described by a very acute
and original critic: “The most obvious and characteristic of his
peculiarities is an endeavor to express as much matter as possible
in as few words as possible, to combine many thoughts into one, and
always to leave the reader to supply something of his own. Hence his
conciseness often becomes obscure.”[63] I would beg leave to add that
other peculiarities in the style of Thucydides, which are severely
animadverted upon by Dionysius, may be clearly recognized also in the
writings of Hippocrates, especially irregularities of syntax, with a
somewhat rude and inartificial mode of constructing his sentences. I
mention this the rather that the English reader may not expect to find
in my translation any of those well-turned periods and graceful modes
of construction by which elegant composition is now distinguished. I
wish it to be known that in making this translation, I have followed
the example of the modern authority lately referred to, that is to
say, I have been more studious of fidelity than of elegance, and have
endeavored to give not only the matter, but also the manner, of my
author.[64]
* * * * *
As promised above, I here subjoin that Mythical Genealogy of
Hippocrates from Tzetzes.
Æsculapius was the father of Podalirius, who was the father of
Hippolochus, who was the father of Sostratus, who was the father
of Dardanus, who was the father of Crisamis, who was the father of
Cleomyttades, who was the father of Thedorus, who was the father of
Sostratus II., who was the father of Theodorus II., who was the father
of Sostratus III., who was the father of Nebrus, who was the father of
Gnosidicus, who was the father of Hippocrates I., who was the father of
Heraclides, who was the father of HIPPOCRATES II., otherwise
called the GREAT HIPPOCRATES. (Chiliad. vii., 155.)
I may also add a few particulars, deserving to be known, respecting
the family of Hippocrates. As Galen relates, he had two sons, Thessalus
and Draco, each of whom had a son who bore the name of Hippocrates.
(Comment. ii., in Lib. de Nat. Human.) It thus appears that there were
in the family four persons of the name of Hippocrates, closely related
to one another. First, the father of Heraclides, and grandfather
of Hippocrates II.; second, Hippocrates II., our author; third and
fourth, his grandchildren, the sons of Thessalus and Draco. Besides
these, three or four other members of the family bearing the name of
Hippocrates are enumerated by Suidas. Of Thessalus, it is related by
Galen (l.c.) that he adhered strictly to the principles of his father,
and became physician to Archelaus, king of Macedonia. Of Draco little
mention is made, only it is well known that he also followed his
father’s profession. But of all the family of Hippocrates the Great,
Polybus, his son-in-law, is the most celebrated. Galen calls him the
disciple of Hippocrates and successor in his school, and adds, that he
made no innovations on the doctrines of his teacher. (Comment. i., in
Libr. de Nat. Hum.)