The genuine works of Hippocrates, Vol. 1 · Hippocrates
CLASSIS IV.
1. Jusjurandum. 2. Præceptiones. 3. De Lege. 4. De Arte. 5. De Arte Veteri. 6. De Medico. 7. De Decenti Ornatu. 8. De Exsectione Fœtus. 9. De Resectione Corporum. 10. De Corde. 11. De Glandulis. 12. De Dentitione. 13. De Visu. 14. Epistolæ. 15. De Medicamentis purgantibus } Latinè tantum.[74] 16. De Hominis Structura } Perhaps we may venture to affirm, without much risk of challenge, that the works of no ancient author owe more to the exertions of a single individual than those of Hippocrates due to the labors of Foës. Of his excellencies as an editor, and expositor of the meaning of his author, I will have occasion to speak afterwards; and here I shall merely state regarding him, that as a critic called upon to decide with regard to the authenticity and spuriousness of the different works, his merits are by no means proportionally high. He rarely or never ventures to differ from Galen, and everywhere evinces so easy a disposition to recognize the works in question as being the productions of his beloved author, that his opinion on any point connected with their authenticity is not deserving of much weight.
Haller arranges the Hippocratic treatises in the following classes: The first contains those which in all ages have been admitted as being genuine.[75] The second embraces those which contain doctrines at variance with those “of the divine old man,” or inventions of a later date, or vices which Hippocrates disclaims. The third embraces those which are manifestly spurious, as is obvious from their being mere compendia of the works of Hippocrates, or which betray a manner totally at variance with his. The fourth embraces a certain number of pieces not contained in the preceding classes. Such is Haller’s arrangement, which, however, is not entitled to much consideration; for the illustrious author himself seems to admit, candidly, that his critical knowledge of the language was too slender to warrant him in trusting his own judgment when it came into collision with any high authority, such as Foës; and, moreover, it would appear, that his edition of the works of Hippocrates had been got up in a very slovenly manner, by some incompetent person, after his death. Gruner is one the most learned and original of our authorities on the literature of the Hippocratic works.[76] His decision, with regard to the authenticity of the different pieces, is made to rest mainly on internal evidence, that is to say, upon their possessing the proper characteristics of the language and style of Hippocrates. These he is at great pains in showing to be, in the first place, brevity, approaching to the laconic, which he justly holds with Galen[77] to be one of the most striking peculiarities of the ancient style of writing. To conciseness and simplicity, he adds gravity of manner, and an absence of all subtlety of reasoning. This last trait in the literary character of Hippocrates I hold to be particularly apparent in the works which are generally admitted to be genuine.
Some stress is also laid by him on the use of the Ionic dialect, but this is a most fallacious criterion, and had better have been left out of the question altogether; as there is good reason to believe that great liberties were used with the language of Hippocrates by the ancient editors and commentators, more especially by Artemidorus Capito, who lived a short time before Galen.[78] And besides, as every person who is generally acquainted with Greek literature knows, although the Ionic dialect in the age of Hippocrates had been fused into the Attic,[79] for several centuries afterwards it continued to be arbitrarily used by many writers, both of prose and verse, owing to the high character which it possessed, as being the dialect of the Homeric poems. Hence it is used in later times, not only by the poets such as Quintus Smyrnæus, Nonnus, and Oppian, but also by at least one great medical author, I mean Aretæus.
It would appear, however, that Gruner himself was sensible that much stress ought not to be laid on peculiarity of dialect; for, in resuming his conclusions as to the proper tests of genuineness in judging of the Hippocratic writings, he determines them to be conciseness and gravity of language, paucity of reasoning, and accuracy of observation, along with the authority of the ancient critics, that is to say, of the commentators. Now, it certainly must be admitted that, taken together, these principles are most just and reasonable; only it is apparent, that, like Mercuriali, he has ranked last what he ought to have laid most stress upon, namely, ancient authority. For, as remarked above, unless ancient authority had previously determined certain works in the Collection to be genuine, the modern critic would have had no premises from which he could have drawn conclusions as to the characteristics of our author’s style. Starting, then, from the principles now stated, Gruner arranges the works of Hippocrates in two divisions, namely, the genuine and the supposititous. We shall only give the former list, which embraces the following ten treatises: 1. Jusjurandum. 2. Aphorismi. 3. De Aëre, Aquis, et Locis. 4. Prænotiones. 5. Prædictionum, ii. 6. De Officina Medici. 7. Popularium Morborum, i., iii. 8. De Victu Acutorum. 9. De Vulneribus Capitis. 10. De Fracturis.
It will be shown below that in this list he has admitted one work (Prædict. ii.), which certainly has not sufficient claims to the place which he has assigned it; and, on the other hand, he has acted most inconsistently in rejecting the work “De Articulis,” while he admitted “De Fracturis,” for, as we shall see, there is the strongest reason for believing that the two originally constituted one work. But the truth of the matter is, that Gruner having hastily adopted the notion that Hippocrates was altogether ignorant of human anatomy, the celebrated passage in this treatise which so strikingly alludes to the dissection of the human body[80] would decide him to reject it from his list of genuine works. Though Le Clerc, in his “History of Medicine” (b. iii.), shows himself to be well acquainted with the fact that many of the treatises ascribed to Hippocrates are supposititious, he nowhere lays down any rules for distinguishing the genuine from the spurious, only he insists strongly on conciseness as being one of the most striking characteristics of the style of Hippocrates, and shrewdly remarks that the treatises which abound most in reasoning are those which are most suspected of being spurious. Schulze also, in his “History of Medicine,” with much learning and excellent judgment, enters cursorily upon the examination of the question regarding the genuineness of the works ascribed to Hippocrates, but he scarcely ever deviates from the rules laid down by Mercuriali and Le Clerc. Indeed, he almost always agrees with the latter. We shall have occasion to refer pretty frequently to his opinions when we come to give our own judgment on the authenticity of the particular treatises contained in the Hippocratic Collection.
1. Popularium Morborum, i., iii. 2. Prognostica. 3. Aphorismi. 4. De Victu Acutorum, p. i. 5. De Aëre, Aquis, Locis. The reader will not fail to remark, in this result of Grimm’s inquiry, indications of that bold spirit of scepticism for which the learned criticism of Germany has been distinguished of late--the spirit of her Wolfs and Lachmans, of her Asts and Schliermachers, which has deprived the Iliad and Odyssey of their ancient authorship, and reduced the bulky tomes of Plato to a very small volume. It is impossible not to admire the learning, the ingenuity, and the love of truth which these critics display, but surely the sober judgment of other scholars, not infected with the same spirit of innovation, will pause before acquiescing in the justness of a verdict which would deprive so many immortal performances of the _prestige_ with which they have so long been regarded. For my own part, I would venture to say, _pace tantorum virorum_, that these learned critics are deficient in a practical acquaintance with the laws of evidence, and do not properly take into account that, in matters of common life, negative evidence is never allowed to bear down positive, unless the former be remarkably strong, and the latter particularly weak. When, then, the voice of antiquity pronounces strongly and consistently in favor of any work, no negative evidence, unless of a very remarkable character, ought to be allowed to counterbalance the positive. In short, what I object to in Grimm is, that he gives an undue preponderance to the internal evidence over the external, that is to say, over the traditionary evidence of antiquity, and that in this respect he goes to greater lengths than even Gruner and Ackerman.
Kurt Sprengel is the author of a separate work on the Hippocratic writings[83] which I have not seen, but I have reason to believe that the substance of it is contained in his “History of Medicine,” where (t. i., p. 295) he enters into a very elaborate disquisition on the authenticity of the works ascribed to Hippocrates. He insists much, as a test of authenticity, upon the style, which, in imitation of Galen, he describes as being concise and laconic to a degree which sometimes renders it obscure. Hippocrates, he adds, avoids all superfluous discussion and unseasonable repetitions, and expresses himself as briefly as possible, without adding conditions or restrictions. He justly remarks, that what Celsus says of Hippocrates, namely, that he separated philosophy from medicine, must be received with considerable limitations, and not in too strict a sense, as if there were no philosophical tenets in his works. On the other hand, Sprengel uses these philosophical doctrines as a guide for determining the date of the different treatises. This is a new, and no doubt a very important, element in the criticism of these works; but it is one very liable to be abused, as our information on many occasions, with regard to the introduction of new doctrines in philosophy, is by no means such as can be safely trusted to. Sprengel’s opinion on the various works in question we shall have occasion to state when we come to revise them separately.
We now proceed to the examination of the labors of two very learned and ingenious critics, Link and Petersen, who, treading in the footsteps of Sprengel, have expended much research in endeavoring to solve the question regarding the date of the Hippocratic treatises, by considering the philosophical and pathological theories which prevail in them. I think it right to state that I have not had an opportunity of consulting the work of Link, and therefore have been obliged to judge of his opinions, in a great measure, from Petersen’s essay, which is professedly based on the principles of Link. Of Peterson’s little tract, I have no hesitation in declaring that I have seldom seen a work of the kind which displays more critical acumen and deep research; and although I cannot bring myself to subscribe to many of his general conclusions, I feel bound in gratitude to acknowledge the benefits which I have derived from many of his special investigations.[84] On one important point, which he is at great pains to make out, I have already stated that I am disposed to agree with him, namely, respecting the date of our author’s birth, which I certainly think he has proved by the most unexceptionable authorities to have been considerably earlier than as generally stated.
Petersen divides the Hippocratic works into nine classes, in the following chronological order:--The first contains those treatises in which the flow of bile and phlegm is considered to be the cause of disease;[85] the second recognizes fire,[86] and the third, air, as the principle of things;[87] in the fourth, bile and phlegm are spoken of as the primary humors of the human body;[88] in the fifth, spirit (πνεῦμα) and humidity are held to be the first principles of generation;[89] in the sixth, the elements of the body are held to be contrary to one another;[90] in the seventh, yellow and black bile, phlegm, and blood are set down as being the primary humors of the human body:[91] in the eighth bile, water, phlegm, and blood are held to be the primary humors;[92] and in the ninth, fire and water are held to be the principles of things.[93]
Now, assuredly, no reasonable person will deny to the author of this distribution the praise of great boldness and originality of thought. We may well apply to him the words of the poet, that if he has failed in attaining his object, “magnis tamen excidit ausis.” For my own part, I cannot but regret to see so much talent and research expended upon conjectural points of criticism, which, from their nature, can never be determined with any degree of certainty; for, after all his labors, few scholars, I venture to predict, will prefer being guided by his hypothetical reasoning, however ingenious, rather than by the authority of the ancient commentators. I must also use the liberty to remark, that M. Petersen appears to me to have no well defined ideas regarding the doctrines which the ancient philosophers held respecting the elements of things. For example, when he states, as the basis of the theory which prevails in the tract “On Ancient Medicine,” that the elements are the contraries to one another, he evidently confounds the elements, namely, fire, air, earth, and water, with the powers, or, as we should now call them, the qualities, hot, cold, moist, and dry. (See the next Section.) And although, in the treatises “On the Seventh Month Fœtus,” and “On the Eighth Month Fœtus,” much and deserved importance is attached to heat as the prime mover of conception, and although, in the treatise “On Airs,” the importance of air as a cause of disease be strongly insisted upon, one is not warranted, as he contends, in concluding that the authors of these treatises recognize respectively fire and air as the first principle of all things. M. Littré, also, in his candid reviews of M. Petersen’s work, points out some very striking oversights which M. Petersen has committed in his arrangement of the different treatises.[94]
I now come to M. Littré, who, in the Introduction to his edition of Hippocrates, has certainly surpassed all who went before him, in the extent of his labors on the general literature of the Hippocratic Treatises. How highly I estimate his work I need not here stop to declare; indeed the reputation it has already gained is so established, that it would be vain to blame and useless to praise it. I have to express my regret, however, in entering upon my exposition of his opinions, that they are given in a very expanded form, and with a degree of diffuseness, _plus quam Galenica_, so that I find it difficult, within my necessary limits, to convey to the reader a distinct view of the very important matters which M. Littré has brought together to bear upon his subject.
He is at great pains to establish the following positions with regard to the various treatises contained in the Collection which bears the name of Hippocrates: 1st. That the Collection did not exist in an authentic form, earlier than the date of Herophilus and his disciples, that is to say, until nearly 100 years after the death of Hippocrates. 2d. That it contains portions which certainly do not belong to Hippocrates; and, 3d, also Collections of Notes, etc., which would never have been published by the author in their present form; and, 4th, Compilations, which are either abridged, or copied word for word from other works which still form part of the Collection. 5th. As the different treatises do not belong to the same author, so neither were they all composed at the same time, some being much more modern than the others. 6th. We find in the Collection mention made of numerous treatises written by the followers of Hippocrates, which are now lost, and which were no longer in existence when the Collection was first published. 7th. The most ancient writers do not know, for certain, to whom the several works forming the Collection belonged; 8th, with the exception of a small number, which all of them, for one reason or another, agreed in attributing to Hippocrates himself.[95]
I have now a few observations to make upon each of these positions. The first, which is a most important one in connection with our present subject, I regret to say, is, I think, by no means satisfactorily made out by M. Littré. He shows, it is true, that Herophilus is the first commentator on any of the Hippocratic Treatises of whom there is any mention, but all we know of his labors in this line merely amounts to this, that he had commented on certain passages in the “Prognostics,” and probably also in the “Aphorisms,”[96] but I do not see that this amounts to any proof either that the Collection was or was not formed in his time. The proof of the second position is made to rest upon a fact, which has attracted the attention of all the critics on the Hippocratic Treatises, namely, that a memorable description of the veins, which appears in the Hippocratic treatise “On the Nature of Man,” is published by Aristotle, in the third book of his “History of Animals,” as the production of his son-in-law, Polybus.
Now, M. Littré argues here, that as the publication of the Aristotelian Collection did not take place until long after that of the Hippocratic, the persons who made the latter could not have taken the passage in question from the other, and the only way in which we can account for the change of title, is by supposing that the works of Polybus had retained the name of their true author in the days of Aristotle, but had lost it at the time the Hippocratic Collection was made. Hence he infers that the Hippocratic Collection must have been made subsequently to the time of Aristotle.[97] But I must say that I do not recognize the force of this argument; for, although the whole of Aristotle’s works were not published in a collected form, until the time of Apellicon, we have every reason to believe that many of his works were published separately, in his own lifetime. The fact, then, would rather tell the other way, and it might be argued, that the Hippocratic Collection must have been made before the time of Aristotle, otherwise the persons who made it would never have fallen into the mistake of attributing to Hippocrates a passage which so high an authority as Aristotle had referred to Polybus. But the truth is, that we are not entitled to draw any positive inference from all this, with regard to the epoch in question. It is well known that, in all ages, literary publications have sometimes come abroad into the world in an anonymous shape; and it need excite no surprise that with regard to the fragment in question, as in many other cases, there should have been a diversity of opinion as to its authorship.
The third we shall see fully made out in our analysis of the different treatises given below. The fourth will also be clearly proved, when we come to the examination of certain treatises, as, for example, the “Officina Medici.” The fifth is not made out to my satisfaction. M. Littré, however, thinks it is satisfactorily proved that the latest epoch of these productions does not come lower down than Aristotle and Praxagoras, and none so low as Erasistratus and Herophilus. Hence he draws the conclusion that the Collection must have been made between the time of Aristotle and Herophilus.[98] The sixth we shall see clearly made out, in our critique on the separate treatises. The seventh is abundantly evident from what has been already stated, and will be made more apparent in the subsequent parts of this Section. But there is nothing peculiar to the Hippocratic Collection in all this, for there is as great uncertainty respecting many of the works ascribed to Plato, and other collections of pieces which have come down to us from high antiquity. Nay, every person who is conversant with biblical criticism must be aware how difficult it has proved to determine the authorship of many of the Psalms which bear the sainted name of King David.[99] In support of the eighth position, little need be said in addition to what has been already stated. I need only repeat briefly that we have as much certainty that some of the treatises in the Hippocratic Collection are genuine, as we have that any other ancient works which have come down to us are the productions of the authors whose names they bear. But I hasten to give M. Littré’s distribution of the different works in the Collection. He divides them into the following classes.
CLASS I.--The Works which truly belong to Hippocrates. 1. On Ancient Medicine. 2. The Prognostics. 3. The Aphorisms. 4. The Epidemics, i., iii. 5. The Regimen in Acute Diseases. 6. On Airs, Waters, and Places. 7. On the Articulations. 8. On Fractures. 9. The Instruments of Reduction (Mochlicus). 10. The Physician’s Establishment, _or_ Surgery. 11. On Injuries of the Head. 12. The Oath. 13. The Law. CLASS II.--The Writings of Polybus. 1. On the Nature of Man. 2. Regimen of Persons in Health. CLASS III.--Writings anterior to Hippocrates. 1. The Coan Prænotions. 2. The First Book of Prorrhetics. CLASS IV.--Writings of the School of Cos,--of the Contemporaries or Disciples of Hippocrates. 1. Of Ulcers. 2. Of Fistulæ. 3. Of Hemorrhoids. 4. Of the Pneuma. 5. Of the Sacred Disease. 6. Of the Places in Man. 7. Of Art. 8. Of Regimen, and of Dreams. 9. Of Affections. 10. Of Internal Affections. 11. Of Diseases, i., ii., iii. 12. Of the Seventh Month Fœtus. 13. Of the Eighth Month Fœtus. CLASS V.--Books which are but Extracts and Notes. 1. Epidemics, ii., iv., v., vi., vii. 2. On the Surgery.[100] CLASS VI.--Treatises which belong to some unknown author, and form a particular series in the Collection. 1. On Generation. 2. On the Nature of the Infant. 3. On Diseases, iv. 4. On the Diseases of Women. 5. On the Diseases of Young Women. 6. On Unfruitful Women.
CLASS VII.--Writing belonging to Leophanes. On Superfœtation. CLASS VIII.--Treatises posterior to Hippocrates, and composed about the age of Aristotle and Praxagoras. 1. On the Heart. 2. On Aliment. 3. On Fleshes. 4. On the Weeks. 5. Prorrhetic, ii. 6. On the Glands. 7. A fragment of the piece “On the Nature of Bones.” CLASS IX.--Series of Treatises, of Fragments and of Compilations, which have not been quoted by any ancient critic. 1. On the Physician. 2. On Honorable Conduct. 3. Precepts. 4. On Anatomy. 5. On the Sight. 6. On Dentition. 7. On the Nature of the Woman. 8. On the Excision of the Fœtus. 9. The eighth Section of the Aphorisms. 10. On the Nature of the Bones. 11. On Crisis. 12. On Critical Days. 13. On Purgative Medicines. CLASS X.--Writings now lost, which once formed a part of the Collection: 1. On dangerous Wounds. 2. On Missiles and Wounds. 3. The first Book of Doses--the Small. CLASS XI.--Apocryphal pieces--Letters and Discourses.
Such is the classification of M. Littré, which he professes to have founded on the four following rules, or principles: firstly, on the authority of direct witnesses, that is to say, of authors who preceded the formation of the Alexandrian Library; secondly, on the consent of the ancient critics; thirdly, on the application of certain points in the history of medicine, which appear to him to offer a date, and consequently a positive determination; fourthly, on the concordance of the doctrines, the similitude of the writings, and the characters of the style. Of these rules, the one which he professes to have been most guided by is the first, all the others being of subordinate importance. From what has now been stated, the reader will not fail to remark that the principles upon which the classification of Littré is founded scarcely differ at all from those of Ackerman. The reasonableness of these rules, moreover, no one, I presume, will venture to call in question, whatever may be thought of the judgment with which they are applied in particular instances. My own opinions on this point I need not state here, as they will come out more properly in my own disquisition on the characters of the particular treatises.
Ideas discussed in this chapter
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.