SECTION III.

ON THE PHYSICAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE ANCIENTS, AND MORE ESPECIALLY

THEIR DOCTRINES WITH REGARD TO THE ELEMENTS.

As it is impossible to understand properly the medical theories which

occur in the Hippocratic treatises without a competent acquaintance

with the Physical Philosophy of the ancients, I have thought it

necessary to devote an entire chapter to an exposition of the tenets

held by the philosophers regarding the elements of things. I might

have been able to dispense with this labor provided there had been any

modern publication to which I could refer the reader for the necessary

information on the subject in question; but, unfortunately, there is no

work in the English language, as far as I am aware, in which the nature

of the ancient doctrines is properly described. To give an example

in point: Dr. Watson, the bishop of Llandaff, in his essay “On the

Transmutability of Water into Earth,” makes the following remarks on

the ancient doctrine concerning the elements: “If but one particle of

water can, by any means, be changed into a particle of earth, the whole

doctrine of the Peripatetic sect concerning the elements of things

will be utterly subverted: the diversities of bodies subsisting in the

universe will no longer be attributed to the different combinations of

earth, air, fire, and water, _as distinct, immutable principles, but

to the different magnitudes, figures, and arrangements of particles of

matter of the same kind_.”[278]

Now it will at once be perceived by any person who is at all

acquainted with modern science, that if the ancient dogmata be as here

represented, they are altogether destitute of any solid foundation in

truth and nature, and we may well wonder that such a baseless structure

should have endured for so long a period. But before passing this

severe judgment on the tenets of our great forefathers in philosophy,

it will be well to investigate their doctrines more accurately than Dr.

Watson appears to have done in this instance.

In pursuing the present investigation, I shall, in the first place,

give literal translations of extracts from the works of the most

celebrated sects of philosophers; namely, the Pythagoreans, Platonists,

Peripatetics, Stoics, and Epicureans. It will, of course, be readily

perceived, from what I have now stated, that I do not mean to confine

my inquiry to the period of ancient philosophy which preceded

Hippocrates, but that I am to bring it down to a pretty late age. This

course I find it indispensably necessary to follow, as I could not

derive sufficient illustration of the subject were I to restrict myself

to the works of the earlier philosophers, who either preceded our

author or were his contemporaries. I shall first give the extracts by

themselves, and then make some remarks in illustration of the doctrines

which they expound. I think it proper to mention further, that I am

answerable for the correctness of the translations in all cases, unless

where it is otherwise stated.

THE PYTHAGOREANS.

“Fire being compressed produces air, and air water, and water earth:

and from earth the same circuit of changes takes place till we come to

fire.”[279]

“In that part of the universe where Nature and Generation exert their

powers, it is necessary that there should be these three things: In

the first place, that thing which being tangible furnishes a body to

everything which comes into existence. This is the universal recipient

and substance of impression for things generated, bearing the same

relation to things which are generated from them that water does to

juice, and silence to sound, and darkness to light, and materials

to the things fabricated from them. For water is void of taste and

quality, bearing the same relation to sweet and bitter, and to sharp

and salt. The air is unformed as to sound, or speech, or melody. And

darkness is devoid of color and shape, and bears the same relation

towards bright, and yellow, and white. But white bears reference also

both to the statuary art and that which forms figures of wax. But

matter admits of another comparison with the art of statuary. For

all things exist in it _potentially_ before they are made, but

_actually_ after they are made and have received their nature. In

order, therefore, that there should be generation, it is necessary that

there should be some one substance as a substratum. In the second place

there are the _contraries_, in order that they may be changes and

transmutations, the primary matter undergoing passion and affection, in

order that the qualities (_or_ powers, δυναμεις), being mutually

passive, may not destroy, nor be destroyed, by one another. These (the

contraries) are, heat and cold, moisture and dryness. In the third

place are those substances in which these powers reside, namely, fire

and water, air and earth. For these differ from the powers (qualities?)

For the substances are consumed in place by one another, but the powers

are neither consumed nor formed, for they are the incorporeal reasons

of these.[280] Of these four, heat and cold are causes, and active; but

dryness and humidity are as the materials, and passive. In the first

place there is matter, the universal recipient, for it is the common

subject (_or_ substratum) of all things, so that it is the first

sensible body in potentiality, and the original of all things: next are

the contraries, such as heat and cold, moisture and dryness; and in the

third place there are fire, water, earth, and air: _these all change

into one another_, but the contraries do not change.”[281]

The primary matter is afterwards defined to be “the subject body, that

which receives all the changes, the universal recipient, and that which

potentially is the first to the touch.”[282]

“The first principles of all created things are the substratum, matter,

and the reason of shape; namely, form. The bodies are their offspring,

namely, fire, air, earth, water.”[283]

“Pythagoras taught that the original of all things is the monad, that

from the monad sprung the duad, which is the subject matter to the

efficient monad: that from the monad and infinite duad were formed the

numbers: from the numbers the points; from them the lines, from these

figures of superficies; from the superficies the solid figures; from

these the solid bodies, of which are the elements, fire, water, earth,

air:--_that from these, changed and converted into every shape_,

is formed the world, which is animated, intelligent, of a spherical

shape, comprehending in its middle the earth, which also is spherical

and inhabited all round.[284]

“Pythagoras said, that none of the elements is pure, for that earth

contains fire, and fire air, and water air, etc.”[285]

“Nor those which elements we call abide,

Nor to this figure, nor to that are ty’d:

For this eternal world is said of old

But four prolific principles to hold,

Four different bodies: two to heaven ascend,

And other two down to the centre tend:

Fire first with wings expanded mounts on high,

Pure, void of weight, and dwells in upper sky:

Then air, because unclogged, in empty space

Flies after fire, and claims the second place;

But weighty water, as her nature guides,

Lies on the lap of earth; and mother Earth subsides.

All things are mixed of these, which all contain,

And into these are all resolved again:

Earth rarefies to dew; expanding more

The subtile dew in air begins to soar:

Spreads as she flies and weary of the name,

Extenuates still and changes into flame.

Thus having by degrees perfection won,

Restless they soon untwist the web they spun.

And fire begins to lose her radiant hue,

Mix’d with gross air, and air descends in dew:

_And dew condensing does her form forego

And sinks a heavy lump of earth below_,

Thus are their figures never at a stand,

But changed by Nature’s innovating hand.”[286]

THE PLATONISTS.

“Let us therefore say that the mother, _or_ receptacle of every

visible, nay of every sensible production, is neither earth, nor air,

nor fire, nor water, nor any of the things which arise out of these,

nor out of which these arise, but a certain invisible and formless

being, the universal recipient, concerning which being, if we say that

it is in a very dubious way intelligible, and something most hard to be

apprehended, we shall not speak false.”[287]

The primary matter “admits of everything, but partakes of no shape

nor resemblance to anything which enters into it. It is the substance

of impression[288] to everything in nature, being moved and altered

by those things which enter into it (_the forms_?), and by their

means it appears sometimes one thing and sometimes another.”[289]

“In the first place, we see that which we call water, being

compressed, become stones and earth. But being dissolved and expanded,

it becomes breath and air. Air, by combustion, is converted into fire,

which, being compressed and extinguished, assumes its original form.

Fire and air meeting together, and being condensed, become cloud and

vapor; and from the condensation of these, running water is formed.

_And from water again, earth and stones are formed._”[290]

Plato taught “that God, matter, and form, are the originals of all

things:--that matter is increate and incorruptible, neither fire, nor

water, nor any of the principles nor elements, but a substance capable

of form and subject to fabrication: that when rude and deprived of

every quality of configuration, God, the artificer, formed the universe

from it. He taught, that matter is the original of all bodies, that it

was stamped with the impression of forms, and hence were produced the

elements, namely, fire, water, earth, and air.”[291]

“Earth contains water, and water, as some suppose, carries earth: air

is formed from water, and from dense air fire is formed.”[292]

“There being four kinds of bodies, by the mutual changes of them

the nature of the world is preserved. _For water is formed from

earth_, and air from water, and ether from air: and then inversely,

from ether, air; from air, water; and from water, earth, which is

lowest in the scale.”[293]

“Those who have investigated matter, if they have formed any right

conception of it, have agreed in considering it as the subject and

receptacle of forms.”[294]

“Concerning the receptacle of bodies this may be said. In the first

place, that there must be a certain substratum to bodies different from

themselves, _is demonstrated by the transmutation of the elements

into one another_. For that which is changed is not altogether

consumed, or, if it is, a substance is changed into a non-entity. And

neither has that which is born come into existence from nothing, but

it has undergone a change from one form into another. For something

remains which has received the new form and cast off the other. And

this is shown by destruction, for it applies only to a compound body;

and, if this be true, every such body is compounded of matter and

form. Induction bears testimony to the truth of this, by showing, that

whatever is dissolved was compounded; and analysis in the same manner,

as, for example, if a phial be resolved into gold, and gold into water;

and water, in like manner, when it perishes, requires to be something

analogous. But the elements must be either form, or primary matter, or

a compound of form and matter. But they cannot be form, for without

matter, how could they be possessed of bulk and magnitude? But they

are not primary matter, for it is not consumed. It follows, then, that

they must consist of form and the primary matter. But form regards

quality and shape, but it (the primary matter) pertains to the subject

which is indeterminate, (ἀόριστον _or_ ἀόρατον) because it is not

form.”[295]

“Matter of itself is devoid of form, matter is the subject of all

things.”[296]

“The followers of Plato and Aristotle are of opinion, that there is

a difference between the first principles and the elements. For, the

elements are compounded, but the first principles are not compounded

nor formed from any thing. What we call the elements are fire, air,

earth, and water; but we call that a principle which has nothing

from which it is formed, since otherwise it is not a principle, but

that from which it is formed. But there is something antecedent to

water and earth, from which they are formed; namely, the first matter

which is devoid of shape and form; then there is form (which we call

_entelocheia_) and privation.”[297]

“Plato, wishing to prove that the elements have one common matter as a

substratum to all, in his ‘Timæus,’ enters into a discussion regarding

their transmutation into one another. But he being well acquainted with

the art of demonstration, has treated properly of the change of the

first bodies into one another. But Thales, Anaximenes, Anaximander,

and Heraclitus, assuming each that there is some one element, endeavor

to prove this from their changing into one another. Yet all these

seem to me to have had an obscure idea (ὀνειράττειν) of some matter,

which is a common substratum to all the elements, and seeing that it

is single they supposed that there is but one element. But instead of

saying that this is a common element from which the others, I mean air,

fire, water, and earth, are formed, they passed it over altogether and

endeavored to demonstrate the same thing of some one of the elements,

all proceeding upon the same mode of demonstration, although they did

not all make choice of the same element.”[298]

“With regard to the old philosophers, called physical, it will be

obvious to us when we read their writings on Nature, that they held the

existence of a first matter which is increate and eternal, being the

substratum to all created and perceptible things.”[299]

“That the elements change into one another is admitted, even by the

followers of Thales, it being so apparent. Hence it is inferred that

the elements have one common matter for a substratum.”[300]

Philo, the platonic Jew of Alexandria, in his treatise “On the

Creation of the World,” thus expresses his opinions regarding the

original state of matter. “Whoever would wish to discover the cause

why this universe was framed, would not be far from the truth, in my

opinion, if he said with one of the ancients, that the Father and Maker

of it is good, and for that reason he spared not to impart of his most

excellent nature to a substance having nothing beautiful in itself, but

possessing the capacity of becoming all things. Of itself it was devoid

of form, quality, and life; and was full of contrariety, confusion, and

dissonance.”

“Moses, the chief of philosophers, and instructed in many of the most

comprehensive secrets of Nature by oracles, was aware that it was

most necessary that there should be in the universe an active cause

and a passive subject. That the active is the most pure and perfect

soul of the universe, more excellent than virtue, more excellent than

knowledge, more excellent than even goodness and beauty. That the

passive is of itself without life and motion, but being moved and

figured, and enlivened by mind, it was changed into a most perfect

work.”[301]

His opinion regarding the elements may be collected from the following

passages:--“Fire being extinguished is converted into thick air, and

air being compressed subsides into water, and water being still more

compressed is changed into earth, the densest of the elements.”[302]

“Nothing that is pure can be comprehended by the senses.”[303]

“The elements are inanimate matter, of itself devoid of motion, and

subjected to the artificer, by whom it is transformed into all kinds of

shapes and qualities.”[304]

I shall venture to give under this head the opinions of one of the

Arabian medical authors.

“It is to be kept in mind that the elements which are perceived by the

senses, namely, fire, air, earth, and water, are by no means the pure

elements, but such as are comprehended by the mind. These are not to be

perceived by the senses. None of the others is pure, nor without some

admixture.”[305]

THE PERIPATETICS.

Aristotle defines the first matter as follows: “I call matter the first

subject of everything, all things being formed from it existing in them

not accidentally; and when anything is destroyed, it comes to this at

last.”[306]

In his Logical work he thus defines his ideas regarding the first

substances, namely, mind and matter. “The first substances being

the subjects of all other things, and as every other thing may

be predicated by them and exists in them, are called the prime

substances.[307] “We must distinguish the first bodies from matter,

for we must suppose concerning them that they have a first principle

and origin, namely, matter, which is inseparable from them, and is the

subject of the contraries. For heat does not furnish the materials to

cold, nor it to heat, but the subject to both. So that we have first

the sensible body in potentiality, the first principle; then we have

the contraries, I mean cold and heat; and thirdly, fire and water, and

the like. These change into one another, and not as Empedocles and

others say of them.[308]

“The _material_ of all bodies, great and small, is the same.

This is apparent; for when air is formed from water, the same matter,

when it becomes another thing, acquires nothing new, only that which

formerly existed in capacity now exists actually.”[309]

The following extracts will show the opinions of his most celebrated

commentators:

“Air and fire have one common character, namely, heat; therefore they

readily change into one another. Air and water readily change into

one another, for they have a common character, namely, moisture. In

like manner, water and earth, for they have an alliance, namely,

coldness.”[310]

“The physical philosophers analyze any substance, as, for example,

a man into head, hands, and feet; and these into bones, flesh, and

nerves; and these into the four elements; and these again into matter

and form.”[311]

“Water is formed from air, and air from water, and fire from air,

because they all have one common substratum, matter.”[312]

The next two extracts will show the opinions entertained by Aristotle’s

successor in the Peripatetic school of philosophy.

“Of the simple substances, fire has peculiar powers. _For air, water,

and earth, admit only of changes into one another_, but none of them

can produce itself.”[313]

“The nature of those substances called simple is mixed, and existing in

one another.”[314]

“The Peripatetics divided Nature into two things, the one of which is

efficient, and the other that which furnishes it with the materials

from which anything is made. Power exists in the one, and matter is the

essence of the other.”[315]

“The first principles are air, fire, water, and earth, for from them

are formed all living things and the productions of the earth: they are

therefore called elements; of these, air and fire have the power of

moving and forming the others (I mean water and earth), of receiving

or suffering. Besides these, Aristotle thought that there is a fifth

element, from which the stars and the souls of individuals are made;

but that all these had for a substratum a certain matter devoid of

form and quality, from which all things are framed, a substance which

has a capacity for all things, and admits of all changes, that when it

perishes it is not reduced to nothing, but into its parts, which can be

cut and divided infinitely, since there is nothing in Nature that is

not divisible.”[316]

THE STOICS.

“They are of opinion that the first principles of all things are

two--the active and the passive: that the passive is matter, a

being devoid of all qualities; the active, or efficient, is the

reason (λόγος) residing in it, that is, God. That he, being eternal,

fabricates all things from it all (all matter?). That there is a

difference between the first principles and the elements--that the

former are increate and indestructible, whilst the elements are

destructible by burning (ἐκπύρωσιν).--That the first principles are

bodies devoid of form, whereas the elements are possessed of form.

That God and Mind, Fate and Jupiter, are one and the same being under

different appellations; that he formed the four elements, fire, air,

water, earth.”[317]

“Our Stoics say, that there are two principles in Nature from which

all things are formed, namely, cause and matter. That matter lies

inert, a being prepared for all things, but inactive, unless some one

move it.--That cause, that is, reason, forms matter, and changes it at

will. There must be something _by_ which everything is made and

_of_ which it is made: the former is the cause, the latter the

matter.”[318]

“Some of our sect are of opinion that air, being changeable into fire

and water, etc.”[319]

“We are of opinion that earth is changeable. To this we may add that

all things are formed from all things--air from water--water from

air--fire from air--air from fire; _why, then, should not earth be

formed from water, and water from earth?_ Earth is formed from

water--why then not water from earth?”[320]

“The Stoics divided Nature into two things, the one of which is the

efficient, and the other that which furnishes itself as the materials

from which anything is made.”[321]

Suidas says, regarding the first principles: “The first principles of

all things are two, the efficient and the passive. The passive, then,

is a being devoid of qualities--earth, matter. The efficient is the

reason residing in it, namely, God. The principles and elements are

different, inasmuch as the former are increate and indestructible,

while the elements are destructible by burning. Besides, the first

principles are without body and form, but the elements have form.”[322]

“Zeno, the son of Mnaseas, the Citiensian, taught that there are two

principles, God and matter, the one efficient and the other passive;

and that there are four elements.”[323]

“The Stoics maintain that the first principles are two, God and matter;

not that they consider God as an element, but as the active principle,

whilst matter is the passive.”[324]

“Always remember the saying of Heraclitus, _that the dissolution of

earth is to become water, and the dissolution of water to become earth;

and the dissolution of air to become fire, and conversely_.”[325]

“Contemplate the courses of the stars as if carried about with them,

and frequently revolve in your mind the mutual transmutations of the

elements into one another.”[326]

“Acquire the habit of contemplating the transmutation of all things

into one another.”[327]

“Fire, air, water, earth, were so formed by Nature as to furnish

aliment by turns to one another.”[328]

THE EPICUREANS.

“Therefore all those who teach things took their birth

From simple fire, or water, air, or earth,

Lie under palpable mistakes. And those

That teach from doubled elements they rose,

As air and fire, as earth and water joined,

Or all four, earth, air, water, fire combined:

Thus sung Empedocles.

* * * * *

If all things from four elements arose,

And are again by death dissolved to those:

What reason we should rather fondly deem

Them principles of things, than things from them?

_For they alternately are changed and show

Each other’s figure and their nature too._”[329]

The following passage will show the opinions of Democritus, the

contemporary and friend of Hippocrates, from whom Epicurus took his

system of physics.[330] “He taught that the atoms are infinite in

magnitude and number, that they revolve in all space, and that thus

they formed _the compound bodies fire, water, air, earth_; for

that even these are composed from the atoms, which are impassive and

unchangeable owing to their hardness.”[331]

These extracts prove clearly that the great philosophers of

antiquity stand acquitted of having held the erroneous opinions

generally ascribed to them respecting the elements of things, and

that nothing can be farther from the truth than the account of the

Peripatetic doctrines given by Dr. Watson. Instead of maintaining,

as he carelessly represents, that “earth, air, fire, and water are

distinct, uncompounded, immutable principles;” they taught, on the

contrary, as we have shown, that all the elements are modifications

of one common substance called the primary matter, and consequently

they held, like himself, that “the elements are different magnitudes,

figures, and arrangements of particles of matter of the same kind.”

This primary matter they demonstrated to be devoid of all quality and

form, but susceptible of all forms and qualities.[332] In the language

of the Peripatetics, it is everything in capacity, but nothing in

actuality. They held that there are two original principles, both

increate and indestructible; the one matter, the universal passive

principle[333]--the material _from_ which all things are formed;

and the other, the efficient cause _by_ which all things are

made:--that the one is possessed of universal privation, and the other

of universal energy:--that it is the one which _impresses_,

and the other which _receives_ the forms of all things. They

maintained that the original materials out of which all objects in the

universe are composed being the same, bodies owe their characteristic

qualities not to their substance, but to their form. The elements,

then, according to the notions of the ancient philosophers, are

the first matter arranged into certain distinguishing forms by the

efficient cause. That form with which solidity is associated they

call earth, under which they ranged all metals, stones, and the like,

for all these they held to be allied to one another in nature, as

well as in the form under which they are presented to our senses.

The next arrangement of created substances is that which constitutes

fluidity, and is called water, under which term they comprehended not

only the native element, but every other modification of matter which

assumes a similar form, namely, all juices of vegetables and fluids

of animals.[334] Some of their earliest speculators in philosophy

maintained that all the materials which compose the universe existed

at one time in this form; and it is curious to reflect that modern

geology has reproduced nearly the same doctrine. The third form of

matter, as presented to our sense of touch, is air, under which the

ancient philosophers comprehended all matter in an aërial state, such

as water converted into vapor, and what are now called gases. Whether

or not they believed the atmosphere which surrounds this earth to be

a homogeneous substance, in nowise affects the general principles of

their philosophy; for it is the same thing, as far as regards their

classification, whether they held that the atmosphere consists of one

or of several distinct combinations of the primary matter with form.

As they were well aware that several distinct modifications of matter

are comprehended under each of the other elements, it can hardly be

doubted that they inferred the like of air; and, indeed, it is quite

apparent from the works of Galen that he knew very well that some

kinds of air are favorable, and others unfavorable to respiration and

combustion.[335] But those phenomena which we ascribe to oxygen gas,

they, without doubt, would have attributed to the operations of some

modification of the element fire. By fire, they meant matter in its

extreme state of tenuity and refinement. Of this elementary principle,

Plato[336] and Theophrastus[337] have enumerated many varieties,

and have speculated regarding their nature with great precision and

acuteness. The ancient philosophers believed that fire is universally

diffused through the universe, being sometimes in a _sensible_,

and sometimes in a _latent_ state; or, as Aristotle expressed it,

heat exists sometimes in capacity, and sometimes in energy.[338] They

attributed the phenomena of lightning to an unequal distribution of

this elemental fire.[339] This is the element with which they supposed

life to be most intimately connected; and, indeed, some of them would

appear to have considered fire as the very essence of the soul. “I

am of opinion,” says the author of one of the Hippocratic treatises,

“that what we call heat is immortal, and understands, sees, and hears

all things that are or will be.”[340] This doctrine, which, to say the

least of it, is not very judiciously expressed in this passage, is thus

corrected by the great master of logic and philosophy: “Some,” says

Aristotle, “improperly call fire or some such power the soul; but it

would be better to say that the soul subsists in such a body, because

heat is, of all bodies, the one most obedient to the operations of the

soul; for to nourish and move are the operations of the soul, and these

she performs by the instrumentality of this power (_or_ quality?).

To say that the soul is fire, is as if one were to call a saw or a

wimble the artisan or his art, because his work is accomplished in

co-operation with these instruments. From this it appears why animals

stand in need of heat.”[341] And in like manner he says, in another of

his works: “Some are of opinion that the nature of fire is plainly the

cause of nourishment and of growth; for it appears to be the only body

or element which nourishes and increases itself. Wherefore one might

suppose that it is this that operates both in plants and in animals.

Yet it is but the co-cause (συνάιτιον); for _it_ is not, properly

speaking, the cause, but rather the soul. For the increase of fire is

indeterminate in so far as it is supplied with fuel. But of natural

substances there is a certain limit and reason (λόγος) of magnitude and

increase. This belongs to the soul rather than to fire, to the reason

rather than to the matter.”[342]

From these observations, coupled with the information supplied in

the preceding extracts, it will be perceived that, although there be,

at first sight, a great discrepancy among physical doctrines of the

ancient philosophers, they differed, in fact, much less than they

would appear to do, only that some of them expressed themselves more

scientifically than others in handling the subject of the elements.

Thus, although Thales seems to hold _water_, and Anaximander

_air_, and Heraclitus _fire_, to be original principles, we

have every reason to believe that, as Galen says (l. c.), even they had

an idea that these are not simple substances, but merely modifications

of one unformed principle, the first matter, from which they conceived

that all bodies in the universe are constructed. Contrary, then, to

what is very generally supposed, it would appear that there was at

bottom no very great difference of opinion between the philosophers

of the Ionic school and those of the other sects, namely, the

Pythagoreans, Platonists, Peripatetics, Stoics, and Epicureans; and

further, that, from the earliest dawn of philosophy, down to the time

when it fell into neglect and came to be misunderstood, the physical

doctrines of the philosophers underwent but little variation.

From the elements, then, constructed in the manner now explained, out

of the primary matter, the ancient philosophers taught that all the

secondary bodies in the universe are formed, and as they maintained the

transmutability of the elements into one another, so, in like manner,

they did not hesitate to proclaim it as a great general truth “that all

things are convertible into all things.”[343] The possibility, then,

of such permutations will not, I presume, be questioned by any one who

has formed correct ideas of the powers of the Great First Cause, and

the capacities of the first subject, Matter, and that such permutations

do actually take place in the course of Nature may be inferred from

many phenomena of daily occurrence in the vegetable and animal world.

It cannot have escaped the most careless observation what changes the

great pabulum, water, undergoes in the process of vegetation--how it

is converted into various woods, and barks, and leaves, and flowers,

all of which are resolvable, by the process of decay, into air, or

reducible into earth. It is also well known that, although a more

unfrequent occurrence, all the solid parts of a tree may undergo a

mutation into rock, that is to say, may become petrified. But it is in

the higher classes of animals that these changes of simple matter admit

of the greatest variety. Let us contemplate for a moment some of the

most remarkable mutations which any article of food (as, for example,

flour-bread), which has been presented to the stomach, is destined

to undergo in the animal frame. We know that the vital powers of the

stomach will convert the starch, of which it principally consists, into

a fluid state, that is to say, into what is called first chyme, and

afterwards, when it has undergone some further change, is denominated

chyle by the physiologists. Having been thus changed, it passes, by a

process about the nature of which physiologists are still strangely

divided in opinion, into certain vessels; and then, in some manner

still less understood, it is converted into a fluid _sui generis_,

called blood, abounding in globules of a singular construction, all

fabricated, no doubt, from the food, but, by some occult process,

which has hitherto defied the skillful manipulation of the chemist,

and the accurate observation of the microscopist, to explain in any

satisfactory manner.[344] And so complete is the transformation that

scarcely one particle of the original food can be detected in the

new product by all the vaunted tests of modern science. But blood is

soon after converted into many other fluid and solid substances--into

bones, cartilages, muscles, and vessels, and into bile, mucus, and

other recrementitious matters, all differing greatly from one another,

both in their appearances and in their properties.[345] And when all

the component parts of the animal frame are constructed, and each

seems to have acquired a determinate structure, should the vital

actions by which they are formed become deranged, we may see the

fair fabric undergo the most wonderful mutations, so that arteries

are converted into bones, and bones into flesh and jelly.[346] So

many and so extraordinary are the changes which a simple alimentary

substance may undergo in the animal frame! And if we admit, with the

ancient philosophers, that every such substance is resolvable into one

or more of the elements, and that all the elements are but different

modifications of one common matter, how wonderful a thing must Form be,

since it imparts such varied appearances and qualities to one common

substratum?

* * * * *

In detailing these opinions of the ancient philosophers, it is not my

present business to determine whether they be true or not; my task is

fulfilled, if I have given a distinct and faithful exposition of them,

so that their real import and meaning may be readily comprehended by

the medical reader. I may be allowed to remark, however, that, strange

although that Protean being, the primary matter, may appear to be to

such men of science as are not disposed to recognize the existence of

any substance which cannot be subjected to their senses, and who refuse

to admit the legitimacy of every process of analysis, but what is

conducted in the laboratory of the chemist, opinions similar to those

of the ancient philosophers have been held by some of the most profound

thinkers and distinguished experimentalists of modern times. Thus Lord

Bacon, the reputed father of the inductive philosophy, appears to admit

all the tenets of the ancients regarding the first matter, which,

like them, he considers to have been embodied in the Homeric fable of

Proteus.[347] He says, in reference to it, “that under the person of

Proteus is signified _Matter_, the most ancient of all things,

next to the Deity; that the herd of Proteus was nothing else than the

ordinary species of animals, plants, and metals, into which matter

appears to diffuse, and, as it were, to consume itself; so that, after

it has formed and finished those several species, (its task being,

in a manner, complete,) it appears to sleep and be at rest, nor to

labor at, attempt, or prepare any species farther.”[348] That learned

and accomplished scholar, Mr. Harris, in his work on “Philosophical

Arrangements,” writes thus on the subject we are now treating of:

“Here, then, we have an idea (such as it is) of that singular being,

the Primary Matter, a Being which those philosophers who are immerged

in sensible subjects know not well how to admit, though they cannot

well do without it; a Being which flies the perception of every sense,

and which is at best, even to the intellect, but a negative object, no

otherwise comprehensible than either by analogy or abstraction.

“We gain a glimpse of it by abstraction, when we say that the first

matter is not the lineaments and complexion which make the beautiful

face; nor yet the flesh and blood which make these lineaments and that

complexion; nor yet the liquid and solid aliments, which make that

flesh and blood; nor yet the simple bodies of earth and water, which

make those various aliments; but something which, being below all

these, and supporting them all, is yet different from them all, and

essential to their existence.

“We obtain a sight of it by analogy when we say that, as is the brass

to the statue, the marble to the pillar, the timber to the ship, or

any one secondary matter to any secondary form; so is the First and

Original Matter to all forms in general.”[349]

Nay, the illustrious Sir Isaac Newton would seem, in the following

extract, to countenance the profound speculations of the ancient

philosophers with respect to the elements, and the transmutations of

these substances into one another. He says, “Are not gross bodies and

light (_or_ ether) convertible into one another?--and may not

bodies receive much of their activity from the particles of light

which enter into their composition? The changing of bodies into light

and of light into bodies is very agreeable to the course of Nature,

which seems delighted with permutations. Water, which is a very fluid

tasteless salt, she changes by heat into vapor, a sort of air; and

by cold into ice, which is a hard, pellucid, brittle, fusible stone,

and this stone returns into water by heat, and vapor returns into

water by cold. Earth, by heat, becomes fire, and by cold returns into

earth.”[350]

I may further mention that all the late researches of chemical

philosophers have tended to confirm the tenets of the ancients

regarding the Elements. Thus in that very singular performance “The

Elements of Physiophilosophy,” by Dr. Lorenz Oken, the productions of

the mineral kingdom are classified, very much in accordance with the

ancient arrangement, into four classes, namely, into Earth-earths,

Water-earths, Air-earths, and Fire-earths.[351] It is also well

known that chemical experiment has lately established that several

animal and vegetable substances, such as albumen, fibrin, and casein,

which were formerly looked upon as distinct substances, are all but

modifications of one substance, which is now regarded as the original

of all the tissues; and further, that protein, in every respect

identical with that which forms the basis of the three aforesaid animal

principles, may be obtained from similar elements in the vegetable

kingdom.[352] And if every step which we advance in the knowledge

of the intimate structure of things leads us to contract the number

of substances formerly held to be simple, I would not wonder if it

should yet turn out that oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, and nitrogen are,

like what the ancients held the elements to be--all nothing else but

different modifications of one ever-changing matter. But I will not

indulge further in such speculations, especially as I have reason to

apprehend that I may be thought to be wandering from my own proper

sphere in thus prosecuting researches which may be supposed to have

but a distant bearing on the subject now in hand. I must, however,

be allowed again to repeat my declaration that it is impossible to

comprehend the theories contained in the Hippocratic treatises without

a proper acquaintance with the Physical Philosophy of the ancients,

and that these principles have been misapprehended and misrepresented

most unaccountably by modern writers, so as to occasion corresponding

mistakes with regard to ancient medicine. I trust, then, that my

present labors will not be ineffectual in preventing such mistakes

in future; though, at the same time, knowing, as I well do, the

practical bent of British science at the present day, I cannot but be

apprehensive that a certain portion of my readers will lend a deaf ear

to speculative opinions, of which they cannot recognize the importance,

and will be disposed to discard the doctrines of the ancient

philosophers, before they have rightly comprehended their import:

“Nec mea dona tibi studio comporta fideli

Intellecta prius quam sint, contempta relinquas.”[353]

I am sensible, too, that I may have just reason to suspect that I

still retain a too partial fondness for the fascinating studies in

which I indulged at one period, beyond what, perhaps, was prudent in

a physician, and that it would have been better for me if I had taken

a lesson from the mythical hero of the “Odyssey,” and had resisted

the enchanting voice of the ancient Siren when she sought to allure

me from the active duties of a professional life, with the confident

assurance that I should leave her “much delighted, and with an increase

of knowledge.”[354]

* * * * *

Before concluding, I will briefly recapitulate the results to which our

present inquiry has conducted us:--

1st. That many of the medical theories which occur in the Hippocratic

treatises are founded on the physical philosophy of the ancients, and

more particularly on their doctrines, with regard to the elements of

things.

2d. That all the great sects of the ancient philosophers held that the

four elements, namely, fire, air, earth, and water, are transmutable

into one another, being all of a homogeneous nature, and based on one

common substratum, namely, the primary matter.

3d. That, by reasoning from observation and analogy, the ancient

philosophers arrived at the conclusion that this primary matter is a

substance devoid of all qualities and forms, but susceptible of all

forms and qualities.

4th. That although certain of the philosophers, the contemporaries

and predecessors of Hippocrates, appear to hold that some one of the

elements, such as fire and water, was the original of all things, even

these had an idea, although not expressed by them in a definite manner,

of a first matter, which serves as a basis to all the elements.

5th. That these doctrines of the ancient philosophers, whether well

founded or not, are countenanced by many eminent names in modern

literature and philosophy.

6th. That the opinion generally entertained regarding the doctrines

of the ancient philosophers on this subject is altogether erroneous.

THE WORKS OF HIPPOCRATES.

ON ANCIENT MEDICINE.

THE ARGUMENT.

Although, as stated in the second section of the Preliminary

Discourse, the evidence in support of this treatise be unfortunately

not such as clearly to establish its genuineness, all who read it

with attention must admit that it is replete with important matters,

and that if not the production of Hippocrates, it is not unworthy of

his high reputation. Notwithstanding, then, that I am by no means

so well convinced as M. Littré is, that the work is genuine, I have

not hesitated to follow his example in placing it at the head of the

list, as the nature of its contents is such as to form an excellent

introduction to the study of the Hippocratic medicine.

It contains, as M. Littré remarks, a polemic, a method, and a system.

The polemic is directed against those of his predecessors who had

corrupted medicine by introducing hypotheses into it as the causes

of disease, such as heat, cold, moisture, and dryness. These it will

be seen that he combats with great force of argument and clearness

of illustration. The philosophical dogmas to which he is supposed to

refer in this place are those of the section of Pythagoreans, called

the Eleatic, who would appear to have held nearly the same opinions

as Pythagoras himself with regard to the elements.[355] But, in

fact, as I trust I have clearly made out in the third section of the

Preliminary Discourse, all the ancient philosophers held substantially

the same opinion regarding the elements, although they did not all

express themselves in the same terms. It is of little consequence,

then, to attempt to find out what particular class of philosophers our

author directs his attack against, it being sufficient to say that

he decidedly condemns the practice of founding the rules of medical

practice on hypothesis.[356] I may here remark, that the censure thus

bestowed on hypothetical systems applies to modern times as well as to

ancient, to those who proclaim theories by which, like Broussais, they

account for all diseases upon figments which they call inflammations,

and those who, like Cullen, attribute most diseases to spasms. We may

rest assured, from the sensible observations which Hippocrates makes on

this subject in the present work, that the causes of all diseases are

realities, provided we could find them out, and that they are not vague

abstractions, as the authors of these hypotheses suppose.

His method of cultivating medicine is founded on an attentive

examination of all the circumstances connected with real life, and his

system consists in studying the condition of the humors in the body,

their origin, their coction, and their disappearance.

The most prominent feature, however, in the contents of this little

treatise is the practical view which is here given of the origin of

medicine, namely, from the necessities and weaknesses of the human

race. The author clearly makes it out that Medicine is, as it were, a

corollary to Dietetics. Nothing of the kind can well be imagined more

ingenious and original than his observations and reasonings on this

head in the introductory sections to this treatise. See in particular §

5.

The remarks in refutation of the hypothesis of cold, heat, moist, and

dry, are very interesting. (§ 13.)

The reflections on the origin of fevers and inflammations are very just

and original, but would appear not to have been properly appreciated by

his successors; for among all the ancient authors who have treated of

fevers, there is, perhaps, no one but himself who has stated in decided

terms that there is something more in a fever than a mere increase of

the innate (_or_ animal) heat. See the Commentary on PAULUS

ÆGINETA, B. II., 1.

The remarks on the effects of the cold bath at § 16 are much to the

purpose, and deserve attention.

The observations on rheums _or_ defluxions (§ 19) are also very

striking, and even at the present day, after the many vicissitudes of

medical theory which we have gone through, it would be difficult to

deny that the opinions here advanced are well founded. At all events

they must be allowed to be highly interesting, as containing the first

germ of a theory which long flourished in the schools of medicine.

At § 20 the author seems to hold that philosophy is not so necessary

to medicine as medicine is to philosophy. Schulze, with a considerable

show of reason, argues that Celsus had this passage in view when he

pronounced, concerning Hippocrates, that he was the first person

who separated medicine from philosophy. (Hist. Med. I., 3, i., 26.)

Schulze contends that what Celsus meant was, that Hippocrates discarded

_à priori_ arguments in medicine, and drew all his inferences

from actual observation. This would appear to me the most plausible

interpretation which has ever been given to this celebrated passage

in the preface of Celsus. Philosophy, then, it would appear, freed

medicine from the delusions of superstition, by substituting the errors

of hypothesis in their place, and the important office which he who was

called the Father of Medicine conferred upon the art was by discarding

both superstition and hypothesis, and substituting the results of

actual observation in the room of both.

From § 22 to the end of the work the author gives important

observations on the modifications which diseases undergo in connection

with the peculiar organization of the part in which they are situated.

It may well be doubted whether the remarks and reflections herein

contained have ever obtained all the attention which they merit.

The style of this piece is certainly elegant and beautiful; and it is

proper to mention that the text is remarkably improved in M. Littré’s

edition. In all the previous editions it was more corrupt than that of

almost any other of the Hippocratic treatises.

The following remarks of M. Littré on the present work appear to me so

just, and are so elegantly expressed, that I cannot deny myself the

pleasure of introducing them here in the original:

“En résumé, le livre de _l’Ancienne Médecine_ donne une idée

des problèmes agités du temps d’Hippocrate, et de la manière donts

ils étaient débattus. Il s’agissait, dans la plus grande généralité

de la pathologie de déterminer la cause des maladies ou, en d’autres

termes, de poser les bases d’un système de médecine. Certains médecins

disaient que cette cause, étant une, résidait dans une propriété unique

du corps, propriété qu’ils spécifiaient. Hippocrate répétait qu’en

fait, cela était en contradiction avec l’expérience, qu’en principe

une hypothèse était suspecte et stérile, et qu’il n’y avait de sureté

que dans l’études des faits et dans la tradition de la science qui y

ramene. Ainsi, quatre cents ans avant J. C., on essayait de rattacher

toute la médecine à une seule propriété hypothétique, comme on l’a

essayé de nos jours; mais cette propriété était ou le chaud, ou le

froid, ou l’humide, ou le sec. Quatre cents ans avant J. C., un esprit

sévère et éclairé combattait de telles opinions au nom de l’expérience,

montrait que les causes des maladies ne pouvant pas se ramener à

une seule, le champ de la pathologie générale était bien plus vaste

qu’on ne croyait; et formulait ce que l’observation lui avait permis

de conclure; mais sa conclusion n’embrasse guère que la trouble dans

le mélange des humeurs, que leur coction et leurs crises. Depuis

lors, la méthode de ceux qu’Hippocrate avait combattus, et la méthode

d’Hippocrate, l’hypothèse et l’observation se sont perpétuées, ainsi

que le témoigne l’histoire de la médecine, mais ce ne sont plus ni

l’ancienne hypothèse, ni l’ancienne observation.

“Il est certainement instructif d’étudier, dans le cours du temps, les

problèmes tels qu’ils ont été posés, et les discussions qu’ils ont

soulevées. On le voit, la science antique a de grandes ressemblances

avec la science moderne; dès l’époque que nous sommes forcés de

regarder comme l’aurore de la médecine, dès les premiers monuments

que nous possédons, les questions fondamentales sont débattues, et

les limites de l’esprit humain sont touchées. Mais en dedans de

ces limites, la science trouve, dans une immensité inépuisable de

combinaisons, les matériaux qui la font grandir; et il est impossible

de ne pas reconnaître que, sur un sol et avec les aliments que lui

fournissent les choses et l’expérience, elle se développe en vertu d’un

principe interne de vie, qui reside dans l’enchaînement nécessaire de

son développement successif.”[357]

ON ANCIENT MEDICINE.

1. Whoever having undertaken to speak or write on Medicine, have first

laid down for themselves some hypothesis to their argument, such as

hot, or cold, or moist, or dry, or whatever else they choose (thus

reducing their subject within a narrow compass, and supposing only

one or two original causes of diseases or of death among mankind),

are all clearly mistaken in much that they say; and this is the more

reprehensible as relating to an art which all men avail themselves

of on the most important occasions, and the good operators and

practitioners in which they hold in especial honor. For there are

practitioners, some bad and some far otherwise, which, if there had

been no such thing as Medicine, and if nothing had been investigated

or found out in it, would not have been the case, but all would have

been equally unskilled and ignorant of it, and everything concerning

the sick would have been directed by chance. But now it is not so;

for, as in all the other arts, those who practise them differ much

from one another in dexterity and knowledge, so is it in like manner

with Medicine. Wherefore I have not thought that it stood in need of

an empty hypothesis, like those subjects which are occult and dubious,

in attempting to handle which it is necessary to use some hypothesis;

as, for example, with regard to things above us and things below the

earth;[358] if any one should treat of these and undertake to declare

how they are constituted, the reader or hearer could not find out,

whether what is delivered be true or false; for there is nothing which

can be referred to in order to discover the truth.

2. But all these requisites belong of old to Medicine, and an origin

and way have been found out, by which many and elegant discoveries

have been made, during a length of time, and others will yet be found

out, if a person possessed of the proper ability, and knowing those

discoveries which have been made, should proceed from them to prosecute

his investigations. But whoever, rejecting and despising all these,

attempts to pursue another course and form of inquiry, and says he has

discovered anything, is deceived himself and deceives others, for the

thing is impossible. And for what reason it is impossible, I will now

endeavor to explain, by stating and showing what the art really is.

From this it will be manifest that discoveries cannot possibly be made

in any other way. And most especially, it appears to me, that whoever

treats of this art should treat of things which are familiar to the

common people. For of nothing else will such a one have to inquire

or treat, but of the diseases under which the common people have

labored, which diseases and the causes of their origin and departure,

their increase and decline, illiterate persons cannot easily find out

themselves, but still it is easy for them to understand these things

when discovered and expounded by others. For it is nothing more than

that every one is put in mind of what had occurred to himself. But

whoever does not reach the capacity of the illiterate vulgar and fails

to make them listen to him, misses his mark. Wherefore, then, there is

no necessity for any hypothesis.

3. For the art of Medicine would not have been invented at first, nor

would it have been made a subject of investigation (for there would

have been no need of it), if when men are indisposed, the same food and

other articles of regimen which they eat and drink when in good health

were proper for them, and if no others were preferable to these. But

now necessity itself made medicine to be sought out and discovered by

men, since the same things when administered to the sick, which agreed

with them when in good health, neither did nor do agree with them. But

to go still further back, I hold that the diet and food which people in

health now use would not have been discovered, provided it had suited

with man to eat and drink in like manner as the ox, the horse, and all

other animals, except man, do of the productions of the earth, such

as fruits, weeds, and grass; for from such things these animals grow,

live free of disease, and require no other kind of food. And, at first,

I am of opinion that man used the same sort of food, and that the

present articles of diet had been discovered and invented only after a

long lapse of time. For when they suffered much and severely from this

strong and brutish diet, swallowing things which were raw, unmixed,

and possessing great strength, they became exposed to strong pains and

diseases, and to early deaths. It is likely, indeed, that from habit

they would suffer less from these things then than we would now, but

still they would suffer severely even then; and it is likely that the

greater number, and those who had weaker constitutions, would all

perish; whereas the stronger would hold out for a longer time, as even

nowadays some, in consequence of using strong articles of food, get

off with little trouble, but others with much pain and suffering. From

this necessity it appears to me that they would search out the food

befitting their nature, and thus discover that which we now use: and

that from wheat, by macerating it, stripping it of its hull, grinding

it all down, sifting, toasting, and baking it, they formed bread;[359]

and from barley they formed cake (maza),[360] performing many

operations in regard to it; they boiled, they roasted, they mixed, they

diluted those things which are strong and of intense qualities with

weaker things, fashioning them to the nature and powers of man, and

considering that the stronger things Nature would not be able to manage

if administered, and that from such things pains, diseases, and death

would arise, but such as Nature could manage, that from them food,

growth, and health, would arise. To such a discovery and investigation

what more suitable name could one give than that of Medicine? since it

was discovered for the health of man, for his nourishment and safety,

as a substitute for that kind of diet by which pains, diseases, and

deaths were occasioned.

4. And if this is not held to be an art, I do not object. For it is not

suitable to call any one an artist of that which no one is ignorant of,

but which all know from usage and necessity. But still the discovery is

a great one, and requiring much art and investigation. Wherefore those

who devote themselves to gymnastics and training, are always making

some new discovery, by pursuing the same line of inquiry, where, by

eating and drinking certain things, they are improved and grow stronger

than they were.[361]

5. Let us inquire then regarding what is admitted to be Medicine;

namely, that which was invented for the sake of the sick, which

possesses a name and practitioners, whether it also seeks to accomplish

the same objects, and whence it derived its origin. To me, then, it

appears, as I said at the commencement, that nobody would have sought

for medicine at all, provided the same kinds of diet had suited with

men in sickness as in good health. Wherefore, even yet, such races of

men as make no use of medicine, namely, barbarians, and even certain

of the Greeks, live in the same way when sick as when in health; that

it to say, they take what suits their appetite, and neither abstain

from, nor restrict themselves in anything for which they have a desire.

But those who have cultivated and invented medicine, having the same

object in view as those of whom I formerly spoke, in the first place,

I suppose, diminished the quantity of the articles of food which they

used, and this alone would be sufficient for certain of the sick, and

be manifestly beneficial to them, although not to all, for there would

be some so affected as not to be able to manage even small quantities

of their usual food, and as such persons would seem to require

something weaker, they invented soups, by mixing a few strong things

with much water, and thus abstracting that which was strong in them by

dilution and boiling. But such as could not manage even soups, laid

them aside, and had recourse to drinks, and so regulated them as to

mixture and quantity, that they were administered neither stronger nor

weaker than what was required.

6. But this ought to be well known, that soups do not agree with

certain persons in their diseases, but, on the contrary, when

administered both the fevers and the pains are exacerbated, and it

becomes obvious that what was given has proved food and increase to the

disease, but a wasting and weakness to the body. But whatever persons

so affected partook of solid food, or cake, or bread, even in small

quantity, would be ten times and more decidedly injured than those who

had taken soups, for no other reason than from the strength of the food

in reference to the affection: and to whomsoever it is proper to take

soups and not eat solid food, such a one will be much more injured

if he eat much than if he eat little, but even little food will be

injurious to him. But all the causes of the sufferance refer themselves

to this rule, that the strongest things most especially and decidedly

hurt man, whether in health or in disease.

7. What other object, then, had he in view who is called a physician,

and is admitted to be a practitioner of the art, who found out the

regimen and diet befitting the sick, than he who originally found

out and prepared for all mankind that kind of food which we all now

use, in place of the former savage and brutish mode of living? To me

it appears that the mode is the same, and the discovery of a similar

nature. The one sought to abstract those things which the constitution

of man cannot digest, because of their wildness and intemperature, and

the other those things which are beyond the powers of the affection in

which any one may happen to be laid up. Now, how does the one differ

from the other, except that the latter admits of greater variety, and

requires more application, whereas the former was the commencement of

the process?

8. And if one would compare the diet of sick persons with that of

persons in health, he will find it not more injurious than that of

healthy persons in comparison with that of wild beasts and of other

animals. For, suppose a man laboring under one of those diseases which

are neither serious and unsupportable, nor yet altogether mild, but

such as that, upon making any mistake in diet, it will become apparent,

as if he should eat bread and flesh, or any other of those articles

which prove beneficial to healthy persons, and that, too, not in great

quantity, but much less than he could have taken when in good health;

and that another man in good health, having a constitution neither

very feeble, nor yet strong, eats of those things which are wholesome

and strengthening to an ox or a horse, such as vetches, barley, and

the like, and that, too, not in great quantity, but much less than he

could take; the healthy person who did so would be subjected to no

less disturbance and danger than the sick person who took bread or

cake unseasonably. All these things are proofs that Medicine is to be

prosecuted and discovered by the same method as the other.

9. And if it were simply, as is laid down, that such things as are

stronger prove injurious, but such as are weaker prove beneficial and

nourishing, both to sick and healthy persons, it were an easy matter,

for then the safest rule would be to circumscribe the diet to the

lowest point. But then it is no less mistake, nor one that injures

a man less, provided a deficient diet, or one consisting of weaker

things than what are proper, be administered. For, in the constitution

of man, abstinence may enervate, weaken, and kill. And there are many

other ills, different from those of repletion, but no less dreadful,

arising from deficiency of food; wherefore the practice in those cases

is more varied, and requires greater accuracy. For one must aim at

attaining a certain measure, and yet this measure admits neither weight

nor calculation of any kind, by which it may be accurately determined,

unless it be the sensation of the body; wherefore it is a task to

learn this accurately, so as not to commit small blunders either on

the one side or the other, and in fact I would give great praise to

the physician whose mistakes are small, for perfect accuracy is seldom

to be seen, since many physicians seem to me to be in the same plight

as bad pilots, who, if they commit mistakes while conducting the ship

in a calm do not expose themselves, but when a storm and violent

hurricane overtake them, they then, from their ignorance and mistakes,

are discovered to be what they are, by all men, namely, in losing their

ship. And thus bad and commonplace physicians, when they treat men who

have no serious illness, in which case one may commit great mistakes

without producing any formidable mischief, (and such complaints

occur much more frequently to men than dangerous ones); under these

circumstances, when they commit mistakes, they do not expose themselves

to ordinary men; but when they fall in with a great, a strong, and

a dangerous disease, then their mistakes and want of skill are made

apparent to all. Their punishment is not far off, but is swift in

overtaking both the one and the other.[362]

10. And that no less mischief happens to a man from unseasonable

depletion than from repletion, may be clearly seen upon reverting to

the consideration of persons in health. For, to some, with whom it

agrees to take only one meal in the day, and they have arranged it so

accordingly; whilst others, for the same reason, also take dinner, and

this they do because they find it good for them, and not like those

persons who, for pleasure or from any casual circumstance, adopt the

one or the other custom: and to the bulk of mankind it is of little

consequence which of these rules they observe, that is to say, whether

they make it a practice to take one or two meals. But there are certain

persons who cannot readily change their diet with impunity; and if they

make any alteration in it for one day, or even for a part of a day,

are greatly injured thereby. Such persons, provided they take dinner

when it is not their wont, immediately become heavy and inactive,

both in body and mind, and are weighed down with yawning, slumbering,

and thirst; and if they take supper in addition, they are seized with

flatulence, tormina, and diarrhœa, and to many this has been the

commencement of a serious disease, when they have merely taken twice

in a day the same food which they have been in the custom of taking

once. And thus, also, if one who has been accustomed to dine, and

this rule agrees with him, should not dine at the accustomed hour, he

will straightway feel great loss of strength, trembling, and want of

spirits, the eyes of such a person will become more pallid, his urine

thick and hot, his mouth bitter; his bowels will seem, as it were,

to hang loose; he will suffer from vertigo, lowness of spirit, and

inactivity,--such are the effects; and if he should attempt to take

at supper the same food which he was wont to partake of at dinner,

it will appear insipid, and he will not be able to take it off; and

these things, passing downwards with tormina and rumbling, burn up his

bowels; he experiences insomnolency or troubled and disturbed dreams;

and to many of them these symptoms are the commencement of some disease.

11. But let us inquire what are the causes of these things which

happened to them. To him, then, who was accustomed to take only one

meal in the day, they happened because he did not wait the proper time,

until his bowels had completely derived benefit from and had digested

the articles taken at the preceding meal, and until his belly had

become soft, and got into a state of rest, but he gave it a new supply

while in a state of heat and fermentation, for such bellies digest much

more slowly, and require more rest and ease. And as to him who had

been accustomed to dinner, since, as soon as the body required food,

and when the former meal was consumed, and he wanted refreshment, no

new supply was furnished to it, he wastes and is consumed from want of

food. For all the symptoms which I describe as befalling to this man I

refer to want of food. And I also say that all men who, when in a state

of health, remain for two or three days without food, experience the

same unpleasant symptoms as those which I described in the case of him

who had omitted to take dinner.

12. Wherefore, I say, that such constitutions as suffer quickly and

strongly from errors in diet, are weaker than others that do not; and

that a weak person is in a state very nearly approaching to one in

disease; but a person in disease is the weaker, and it is, therefore,

more likely that he should suffer if he encounters anything that is

unseasonable. It is difficult, seeing that there is no such accuracy

in the Art, to hit always upon what is most expedient, and yet many

cases occur in medicine which would require this accuracy, as we shall

explain. But on that account, I say, we ought not to reject the ancient

Art, as if it were not, and had not been properly founded, because it

did not attain accuracy in all things, but rather, since it is capable

of reaching to the greatest exactitude by reasoning, to receive it and

admire its discoveries, made from a state of great ignorance, and as

having been well and properly made, and not from chance.

13. But I wish the discourse to revert to the new method of those

who prosecute their inquiries in the Art by hypothesis. For if hot,

or cold, or moist, or dry, be that which proves injurious to man, and

if the person who would treat him properly must apply cold to the

hot, hot to the cold, moist to the dry, and dry to the moist--let me

be presented with a man, not indeed one of a strong constitution, but

one of the weaker, and let him eat wheat, such as it is supplied from

the thrashing-floor, raw and unprepared, with raw meat, and let him

drink water. By using such a diet I know that he will suffer much and

severely, for he will experience pains, his body will become weak, and

his bowels deranged, and he will not subsist long. What remedy, then,

is to be provided for one so situated? Hot? or cold? or moist? or dry?

For it is clear that it must be one or other of these. For, according

to this principle, if it is one of these which is injuring the patient,

it is to be removed by its contrary. But the surest and most obvious

remedy is to change the diet which the person used, and instead of

wheat to give bread, and instead of raw flesh, boiled, and to drink

wine in addition to these: for by making these changes it is impossible

but that he must get better, unless completely disorganized by time and

diet. What, then, shall we say? whether that, as he suffered from cold,

these hot things being applied were of use to him, or the contrary? I

should think this question must prove a puzzler to whomsoever it is

put. For whether did he who prepared bread out of wheat remove the hot,

the cold, the moist, or the dry principle in it?--for the bread is

consigned both to fire and to water, and is wrought with many things,

each of which has its peculiar property and nature, some of which it

loses, and with others it is diluted and mixed.

14. And this I know, moreover, that to the human body it makes a great

difference whether the bread be fine or coarse;[363] of wheat with or

without the hull, whether mixed with much or little water, strongly

wrought or scarcely at all, baked or raw--and a multitude of similar

differences; and so, in like manner, with the cake (maza); the powers

of each, too, are great, and the one nowise like the other. Whoever

pays no attention to these things, or, paying attention, does not

comprehend them, how can he understand the diseases which befall a

man? For, by every one of these things, a man is affected and changed

this way or that, and the whole of his life is subjected to them,

whether in health, convalescence, or disease. Nothing else, then, can

be more important or more necessary to know than these things. So that

the first inventors, pursuing their investigations properly, and by a

suitable train of reasoning, according to the nature of man, made their

discoveries, and thought the Art worthy of being ascribed to a god, as

is the established belief. For they did not suppose that the dry or

the moist, the hot or the cold, or any of these, are either injurious

to man, or that man stands in need of them; but whatever in each was

strong, and more than a match for a man’s constitution, whatever he

could not manage, that they held to be hurtful, and sought to remove.

Now, of the sweet, the strongest is that which is intensely sweet; of

the bitter, that which is intensely bitter; of the acid, that which

is intensely acid; and of all things that which is extreme, for these

things they saw both existing in man, and proving injurious to him.

For there is in man the bitter and the salt, the sweet and the acid,

the sour and the insipid,[364] and a multitude of other things having

all sorts of powers both as regards quantity and strength. These, when

all mixed and mingled up with one another, are not apparent, neither

do they hurt a man; but when any of them is separate, and stands by

itself, then it becomes perceptible, and hurts a man. And thus, of

articles of food, those which are unsuitable and hurtful to man when

administered, every one is either bitter, or intensely so, or saltish

or acid, or something else intense and strong, and therefore we are

disordered by them in like manner as we are by the secretions in the

body. But all those things of which a man eats and drinks are devoid

of any such intense and well-marked quality, such as bread, cake, and

many other things of a similar nature which man is accustomed to use

for food, with the exception of condiments and confectionaries, which

are made to gratify the palate and for luxury. And from those things,

when received into the body abundantly, there is no disorder nor

dissolution of the powers belonging to the body; but strength, growth,

and nourishment result from them, and this for no other reason than

because they are well mixed, have nothing in them of an immoderate

character, nor anything strong, but the whole forms one simple and not

strong substance.

15. I cannot think in what manner they who advance this doctrine,

and transfer the Art from the cause I have described to hypothesis,

will cure men according to the principle which they have laid down.

For, as far as I know, neither the hot nor the cold, nor the dry, nor

the moist, has ever been found unmixed with any other quality; but I

suppose they use the same articles of meat and drink as all we other

men do. But to this substance they give the attribute of being hot, to

that cold, to that dry, and to that moist. Since it would be absurd to

advise the patient to take something hot, for he would straightway ask

what it is? so that he must either play the fool, or have recourse to

some one of the well-known substances: and if this hot thing happen

to be sour, and that hot thing insipid, and this hot thing has the

power of raising a disturbance in the body (and there are many other

kinds of heat, possessing many opposite powers), he will be obliged

to administer some one of them, either the hot and the sour, or the

hot and the insipid, or that which, at the same time, is cold and sour

(for there is such a substance), or the cold and the insipid. For, as

I think, the very opposite effects will result from either of these,

not only in man, but also in a bladder, a vessel of wood, and in many

other things possessed of far less sensibility than man; for it is not

the heat which is possessed of great efficacy, but the sour and the

insipid, and other qualities as described by me, both in man and out

of man, and that whether eaten or drunk, rubbed in externally, and

otherwise applied.

16. But I think that of all the qualities heat and cold exercise the

least operation in the body, for these reasons: as long time as hot

and cold are mixed up with one another they do not give trouble, for

the cold is attempered and rendered more moderate by the hot, and

the hot by the cold; but when the one is wholly separate from the

other, then it gives pain; and at that season when cold is applied it

creates some pain to a man, but quickly, for that very reason, heat

spontaneously arises in him without requiring any aid or preparation.

And these things operate thus both upon men in health and in disease.

For example, if a person in health wishes to cool his body during

winter, and bathes either in cold water or in any other way, the more

he does this, unless his body be fairly congealed, when he resumes his

clothes and comes into a place of shelter, his body becomes more heated

than before. And thus, too, if a person wish to be warmed thoroughly

either by means of a hot bath or strong fire, and straightway having

the same clothing on, takes up his abode again in the place he was in

when he became congealed, he will appear much colder, and more disposed

to chills than before. And if a person fan himself on account of a

suffocating heat, and having procured refrigeration for himself in this

manner, cease doing so, the heat and suffocation will be ten times

greater in his case than in that of a person who does nothing of the

kind. And, to give a more striking example, persons travelling in the

snow, or otherwise in rigorous weather, and contracting great cold in

their feet, their hands, or their head, what do they not suffer from

inflammation and tingling when they put on warm clothing and get into

a hot place? In some instances, blisters arise as if from burning with

fire, and they do not suffer from any of those unpleasant symptoms

until they become heated. So readily does either of these pass into

the other; and I could mention many other examples. And with regard

to the sick, is it not in those who experience a rigor that the most

acute fever is apt to break out? And yet not so strongly neither,

but that it ceases in a short time, and, for the most part, without

having occasioned much mischief; and while it remains, it is hot,

and passing over the whole body, ends for the most part in the feet,

where the chills and cold were most intense and lasted longest: and,

when sweat supervenes, and the fever passes off, the patient is much

colder than if he had not taken the fever at all. Why then should that

which so quickly passes into the opposite extreme, and loses its own

powers spontaneously, be reckoned a mighty and serious affair? And what

necessity is there for any great remedy for it?

17. One might here say--but persons in ardent fevers, pneumonia, and

other formidable diseases, do not quickly get rid of the heat, nor

experience these rapid alterations of heat and cold. And I reckon this

very circumstance the strongest proof that it is not from heat simply

that men get into the febrile state, neither is it the sole cause of

the mischief, but that this species of heat is bitter, and that acid,

and the other saltish, and many other varieties; and again there is

cold combined with other qualities. These are what proves injurious:

heat, it is true, is present also, possessed of strength as being that

which conducts, is exacerbated and increased along with the other, but

has no power greater than what is peculiar to itself.

18. With regard to these symptoms, in the first place those are most

obvious of which we have all often had experience. Thus, then, in such

of us as have a coryza and defluction from the nostrils, this discharge

is much more acrid than that which formerly was formed in and ran from

them daily; and it occasions swelling of the nose, and it inflames,

being of a hot and extremely ardent nature, as you may know, if you

apply your hand to the place; and, if the disease remains long, the

part becomes ulcerated although destitute of flesh and hard; and the

heat in the nose ceases, not when the defluxion takes place and the

inflammation is present, but when the running becomes thicker and less

acrid, and more mixed with the former secretion, then it is that the

heat ceases. But in all those cases in which this decidedly proceeds

from cold alone, without the concourse of any other quality, there is

a change from cold to hot, and from hot to cold, and these quickly

supervene, and require no coction. But all the others being connected,

as I have said, with acrimony and intemperance of humors, pass off in

this way by being mixed and concocted.

19. But such defluxions as are determined to the eyes being possessed

of strong and varied acrimonies, ulcerate the eyelids, and in some

cases corrode the cheeks and parts below the eyes upon which the flow,

and even occasion rupture and erosion of the tunic which surrounds

the eyeball. But pain, heat, and extreme burning prevail until the

defluxions are concocted and become thicker, and concretions form about

the eyes, and the coction takes place from the fluids being mixed up,

diluted, and digested together. And in defluxions upon the throat,

from which are formed hoarseness, cynanche, erysipelas, and pneumonia,

all these have at first saltish, watery, and acrid discharges, and

with these the diseases gain strength. But when the discharges become

thicker, more concocted, and are freed from all acrimony, then, indeed,

the fevers pass away, and the other symptoms which annoyed the patient;

for we must account those things the cause of each complaint, which,

being present in a certain fashion, the complaint exists, but it ceases

when they change to another combination. But those which originate from

pure heat or cold, and do not participate in any other quality, will

then cease when they undergo a change from cold to hot, and from hot to

cold; and they change in the manner I have described before. Wherefore,

all the other complaints to which man is subject arise from powers

(qualities?). Thus, when there is an overflow of the bitter principle,

which we call yellow bile, what anxiety, burning heat, and loss of

strength prevail! but if relieved from it, either by being purged

spontaneously, or by means of a medicine seasonably administered, the

patient is decidedly relieved of the pains and heat; but while these

things float on the stomach, unconcocted and undigested, no contrivance

could make the pains and fever cease; and when there are acidities of

an acrid and æruginous character, what varieties of frenzy, gnawing

pains in the bowels and chest, and inquietude, prevail! and these

do not cease until the acidities be purged away, or are calmed down

and mixed with other fluids. The coction, change, attenuation, and

thickening into the form of humors, take place through many and

various forms; therefore the crises and calculations of time are of

great importance in such matters; but to all such changes hot and cold

are but little exposed, for these are neither liable to putrefaction

nor thickening. What then shall we say of the change? that it is a

combination (crasis) of these humors having different powers toward one

another. But the hot does not lose its heat when mixed with any other

thing except the cold; nor again, the cold, except when mixed with the

hot. But all other things connected with man become the more mild and

better in proportion as they are mixed with the more things besides.

But a man is in the best possible state when they are concocted and

at rest, exhibiting no one peculiar quality; but I think I have said

enough in explanation of them.