Notwithstanding the additions which have been made of late years to the
history of medical literature, it must still be admitted that there is
not, in the English language, any work which contains a full and accurate
account of the theoretical and practical knowledge possessed by the
Greeks, Romans, and Arabians, on matters connected with medicine and
surgery. Nor, as far as I can learn, is the case very different with the
continental languages. For, although the German and French have lately
acquired several histories of medicine distinguished for their ability
and research, the object of these works would appear to be confined to a
general exposition of the leading discoveries and revolutions in doctrine
which marked each particular age or epoch in the profession; and I will
venture to affirm that no person will be able to acquire from a perusal
of them anything like a competent acquaintance with the minute details of
ancient practice. The design of the present publication is to supply the
deficiency, now adverted to, by giving a complete Manual of the Surgery
and Medicine of the Ancients, with a brief but comprehensive outline of
the sciences intimately connected with them, especially Physiology, the
Materia Medica, and Pharmacy. At first it was my intention to accomplish
this purpose in the form of an original work, but, being perplexed what
plan to choose in arranging the multifarious matters which I had to
treat of, I at last resolved upon taking for my text-book the celebrated
synopsis of PAULUS ÆGINETA, whereby I was at once supplied with a
convenient arrangement of my subject, and at the same time, by giving
a close translation of it into English, I saw that I would be enabled
to enrich our medical literature with one of the most valuable relics
of ancient science. By following this correct and faithful guide, by
supplying his omissions and enlarging his plan, when necessary, from the
more copious works of his predecessors, and by adding, in all cases,
the improvements of subsequent ages, down to the latest date of ancient
literature, I am in hopes that I have been able to present the reader
with a work from which he may, at one view, become acquainted with
the prevailing opinions upon all the most important matters connected
with medical practice during a period of more than fifteen centuries.
Impressed with a sense of the arduous nature of the task which I had
undertaken, and sensible that its value consists entirely in its
completeness on all points, I have endeavoured to discharge this duty
faithfully and to the best of my ability. I trust then it will be found
that not only have I overlooked no treatise connected with the medical
art which has come down to us from antiquity, but that I have turned
to good account my acquaintance with the learned labours of modern
commentators, especially in the department of the Materia Medica, in
order to adopt the nomenclature of the ancients on these subjects to the
terminology of Botany, Chemistry, and Mineralogy, in the present time.
And here may I be permitted to express my conviction that it is not
altogether the blindness of partiality contracted towards intellectual
pursuits upon which my mind has been so long engaged, that leads me
to think that the original authors from whose stores I have drawn so
liberally, will yet be found and acknowledged to have been well entitled
to the confidence and reputation which they once enjoyed, and to which
it is my wish that the present publication should, in some degree,
restore them? It appears to me that, at certain periods of ancient
times, the standard of professional excellence was such as would not
easily be attained at the present day, with all our vaunted improvements
in knowledge; and that many of those early masters of our art were
distinguished for varied stores of erudition, an ardent love of truth,
and an aptitude to detect the fallacies of error, such as few of us
even now can lay claim to. The Father of Medicine held that, to become
an eminent physician, it was necessary not only to be well acquainted
with the structure of the human frame, but also to be skilled in logic,
astronomy, and other sciences (De Aer. Aq., &c.); and of him it may be
truly asserted, that he cultivated the art of medicine upon the strict
principles of the inductive philosophy more than two thousand years
before the world gave Lord Bacon the credit of introducing this method of
philosophising. His devoted admirer and follower, Galen, was evidently
the very _beau ideal_ of an accomplished physician; skilled in all the
sciences of the day, in logic, mathematics, rhetoric, and the first
philosophy; to all these ornamental branches of knowledge he added a
minute acquaintance with anatomy and physiology; a practical experience
with the phenomena of diseases as diversified by climate, situation, and
the varied modes of life; a singular perseverance in collecting facts;
and an extraordinary ability for generalizing them. The contemporaries of
Celsus regarded him not only as well acquainted with medical literature,
but also as being minutely skilled in every elegant and useful science
which was known and cultivated at that remarkable period. And Rhases,
the Arabian, requires of him who aspires to eminence in the medical
profession, that, instead of wasting his earlier years in frequenting
musical and drinking parties, he should have spent them in conning over
the valuable records of ancient wisdom. “But the Sciolist,” says he, “who
gives himself out for a proficient in the art, while he has scarcely even
a smattering of learning, will never be deserving of much confidence,
nor ever attain any great eminence in his profession. For it can never
be that any individual, to whatever age he may reach, should be able to
comprehend in his mind a subject so vast and diffuse, except by treading
upon the footsteps of the ancients; since the boundaries of the science
far exceed the narrow limits of the life of man, as is the case with most
of the liberal arts as well as with medicine. The number of authors is
not small by whose labours the art has attained its present growth; and
yet one may hope to master the monuments of their industry within the
space of a few years. Let us suppose that, in the course of a thousand
years, a thousand authors had made improvements in the profession; and
then a person who has diligently studied their works may improve his mind
as much in knowledge as if he had devoted a thousand years to the study
of medicine. But, when an acquaintance with former authors is despised,
what need be expected from the efforts of a single person? For, however
much he may surpass others in abilities, how is it to be supposed that
his private stock of knowledge should be at all worthy to compare with
the accumulated treasures of antiquity? In a word, he who has never
turned over the pages of the ancient physicians, nor has formed to his
mind a distinct conception of the nature of diseases before he enters the
chambers of the sick, will find that, from ignorance and misapprehension,
he will confound one complaint with another, for this obvious reason,
that he has come to his task unprepared and uninstructed.”
And here I would beg to call the attention of my readers to the fact
that there is no legitimate mode of cultivating medical knowledge which
was not followed by some one or other of the three great sects into
which the profession was divided in ancient times. The Empirics held
that observation, experiment, and the application of known remedies in
one case to others presumed to be of a similar nature, constitute the
whole art of cultivating medicine. Though their views were narrow, and
their information scanty, when compared with some of the chiefs of the
other sects; and although they rejected, as useless and unattainable,
all knowledge of the causes and recondite nature of diseases, it is
undeniable that, besides personal experience, they freely availed
themselves of historical detail, and of a strict analogy founded upon
observation and the resemblance of phenomena. To this class we may refer
Scribonius Largus, Marcellus, Plinius Valerianus, and a few others,
frequently quoted by us. The sect called the Rational, Logical, or
Dogmatical, holding that there is a certain alliance and connexion among
all the useful and ornamental arts, maintained that it is the duty of
the physician not to neglect any collateral science or subject. They
therefore inquired sedulously into the remote and proximate causes of
diseases, and into the effects of airs, waters, places, pursuits, food,
diet, and seasons, in altering the state of the human body, and in
rendering it more or less susceptible of morbid changes. Looking upon
general rules as not being of universal application, they held that
the treatment ought to be modified according to the many incidental
circumstances under which their patients might be placed. They freely
and fully availed themselves of whatever aid they could derive from
experience, analogy, and reasoning. Hippocrates, Galen, Aëtius,
Oribasius, Paulus Ægineta, Actuarius, and all the Arabian authorities,
may be looked upon as belonging to this sect. The Pneumatic sect, to
which Aretæus probably belonged, was nearly allied to the Dogmatical.
The sect of the Methodists, rejecting altogether the consideration of
remote causes, which they held to be of no importance to the cure, and
giving themselves up to too bold a classification of diseases, according
to certain hypothetical states of the body in which they were supposed
to originate, fettered themselves too much with a few general rules,
which they held to be so universally applicable, that they would scarcely
allow of their being modified by incidental circumstances in any possible
contingency. Notwithstanding this defect, it is undeniable that their
speculations as to the nature of diseases are generally very acute, and
their modes of treatment frequently very rational. Upon the whole, the
general outline of their system would appear to have borne a striking
resemblance to that of the sect which started up in Edinburgh towards
the end of the last century, called the Brunonian, from the name of
its ingenious but fanciful founder, Dr. Brown. The only perfect model
of ancient Methodism that has come down to us is Cælius Aurelianus, an
author so truly eminent that some of his admirers in modern times have
not scrupled to maintain that his works are even better worth being
attentively studied than those of Hippocrates and Galen. Moschion and
Theodore Priscian (otherwise known by the name of Octavius Horatianus)
belonged to this sect; Alexander of Tralles also had a considerable
leaning to its principles; and some would even refer the illustrious
Celsus to the same class, but probably without good reason, for he would
rather seem to have imbibed the genuine spirit of Eclecticism, and like
his distinguished correspondent Horace, to have been
“Nullius addictus jurare in verba magistri.”
Before concluding these prefatory remarks, it will be naturally expected
that I should say something of the author whose work I have bestowed
so much pains in translating and commenting upon. Here, however, I
must regret that the information which I have to supply is exceedingly
scanty and unsatisfactory. So little is known of him that it is not
even ascertained in what century he flourished. Vossius is wholly
undecided; Moreau and Le Clerc place him in the fourth century; Vander
Linden and Conringius, in the fifth; but Freind, Albertus Fabricius,
Hutcheson, Sprengel, and most of the late writers of the Ancient History
of Medicine, bring him down as low as the seventh century, upon the
authority of Abulfaragius; but every person who is at all acquainted with
his works will agree with me that any opinion of his on chronological
matters is entitled to very little consideration indeed.
What confidence does a writer deserve who states, for example, that
Andromachus, the physician who added the flesh of vipers to the
celebrated electuary of Mithridates, lived in the time of Alexander
the Great!—that Dioscorides, of Ain Zarba, flourished in the reign of
Ptolemy Physcon, namely, about one hundred and twenty years before
Christ, whereas it can scarcely admit of a doubt that the celebrated
author of the Greek Materia Medica did not live earlier than the end of
the first century of the Christian era!—and that Ruffus was contemporary
with Plato, when we have the authority of Suidas that he lived in
the reign of Trajan! Dr. Milward, in his epistle to Sir Hans Sloane,
endeavours to settle the age of our author from the following train of
inferences: In the first place, then, since Paulus quotes Alexander
Trallian and Alexander Aëtius, it is quite certain that our author was
posterior to both these writers. Now the age of Aëtius may be made out
from the following circumstances: Aëtius mentions St. Cyril, Archbishop
of Alexandria, whose death is ascertained from ecclesiastical history
to have happened as late as the middle of the fifth century. Nay, he
also takes notice of a medicine much recommended by Petrus Archiater,
chief physician to Theodoric, who was posterior to St. Cyril. We cannot
possibly suppose it likely, then, that Aëtius flourished earlier than the
end of the fifth century. But what brings him still further down, is the
circumstance that his predecessor, Alexander, is mentioned by Agathias,
the historian, about the middle of the sixth century. (Hist. v, 6.)
It would seem almost certain, therefore, taking all these things into
consideration, that our Author cannot have lived at an earlier period
than in the end of the sixth or the beginning of the seventh century.
But, whatever may have been the period at which he lived, there can be no
doubt that he attained great eminence in his profession, and continued
to be looked up to as one of the highest authorities in Medicine and
Surgery during a long succession of ages. His countryman Nonnus,
although he does not mention him by name, gives a brief compendium of a
considerable portion of his work; and Psellus does the same in politic
verses of some elegance. All the medical authors, in a word, of the
distinguished Arabian period, quote his opinions in almost every page of
their works, and never fail to recognize him as one of the most eminent
of their Grecian masters. At the revival of literature in modern times,
the Latin translations of the Arabians continued for a time to be the
ordinary guides to practice; but when the superior merit of their Greek
originals came to be properly appreciated, our Author rose again into
high consideration. As a proof of this, I may mention that the surgery
of Fabricius ab Aquapendente is made up almost entirely from his works.
Portal, therefore, had no good occasion for representing him as “one of
those unfortunate writers to whom posterity had not done justice.” I
admit, indeed, that for some time past, since professional research and
the study of ancient models have been superseded by a restless desire of
novelty in theory and in practice, he has not enjoyed that consideration
to which he is justly entitled; but, in this respect, he has only shared
the fate of other names, equally eminent for their contributions to
medical science, who have now been suffered to fall into neglect.
Of the Latin translations, which are very numerous, the most celebrated
is that of Cornarius, published by Henry Stephens in his ‘Medicæ Artis
Principes;’ which, however, after a careful examination, I have not
found to be so trustworthy as I expected to find it. There once existed
an Arabic edition by Honain, or Joannitius, (see Choulant, Handb. der
Bücherkunde für die Aeltere Medicin,) but of it I know nothing. The only
part which has been translated into any modern language is the Sixth
Book, a French translation of which was published at Lyons, A. D. 1539.
Of the original there are two editions, namely, the Aldine of 1528 and
the Basle of 1538, in neither of which is the text so accurate as could
be wished.