The genuine works of Hippocrates, Vol. 1 · Hippocrates
CLASSIS IV.
But, before concluding this part of my task, I must not neglect to notice the learned labors of a much esteemed friend and countryman--the first, the last, the only, scholar (I lament to say) which England has produced in this department of ancient criticism--Dr. Greenhill, of Oxford, who, in his excellent article on _Hippocrates_ in Smith’s “Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology,” enters into a very elaborate disquisition on the authenticity of the various works which compose the Collection. His general distribution appears to me to be very ingenious, and his judgment in particular cases most correct, but it is proper I should state that I, perhaps, am scarcely qualified to pronounce an impartial judgment on this point, having had the honor of being consulted by the author, as he himself candidly acknowledges, while he was employed on this task. On the following page is his tabular view of the different divisions and subdivisions of the Collection. * * * * * Having now finished this survey of the labors of preceding inquirers, I proceed to state the results of my own investigations in the same department; and in doing so, I shall give _seriatim_ the evidence for and against the authenticity of the different treatises, along with my own decision in every instance. And, in order to add to the value of this disquisition, I mean to give an abstract of the contents of those works which I look upon as spurious, that the reader may be enabled to compare the doctrines contained in them with those which are delivered in the treatises which are recognized as genuine. Moreover, it is my object that the present volume should contain a summary of all the valuable matters to be found in the Hippocratic Treatises, whether genuine or not.
Before proceeding further, I must state the _rules by which I test the genuineness of the works in the Hippocratic Collection_: 1. All the works which are acknowledged as genuine by the ancient commentators and lexicographers which have come down to us, and especially by Erotian and Galen, are to be admitted as such, unless it can be shown that still older authorities held a different opinion regarding them, or that they contain doctrines and views decidedly at variance with those contained in the treatises which all allow to be genuine, or that the style and mode of handling the subject matter be altogether different from the well-known method of Hippocrates. 2. The peculiar style and method of Hippocrates are held to be--conciseness of expression, great condensation of matter, and disposition to regard all professional subjects in a practical point of view, to eschew subtle hypotheses, and modes of treatment based on vague abstractions. The Hippocratic Collection consists of | +-----------------------+------------------------+ | | | Works certainly written Works certainly not Works _perhaps_ written by Hippocrates, written by by Hippocrates, Class I.[101] Hippocrates. Class II.[102] | +-----------------------+-----------------------+ | | | Works earlier than Works later than Works about Hippocrates, Hippocrates. contemporary with Class III.[103] | Hippocrates. | | | +---------+-----+ | | | | Works whose Works whose | author is author is | conjectured, unknown, | Class IV.[104] Class V.[105] | +-------------------------+ | | Works authentic, but Works neither genuine not genuine, i. e. nor authentic, i. e. not willful willful forgeries, forgeries. Class VIII.[106] | +--+--------------+ | | Works by the Works by various same author, authors, Class VI.[107] Class VII.[108]
3. No treatise is to be received as genuine which is not recognized as such by any one of the ancient authorities, however strong a case may be made out in favor of its claims by modern critics from internal evidence. I. Περὶ ἀρχαίης ἰητρικῆς--_On Ancient Medicine_. Of all the treatises which are recognized as the genuine productions of “The Great Hippocrates,” by M. Littré, this is decidedly the one which possesses the most questionable title to that honor. The only ancient authority that admits it as such is Erotian; it is passed over unnoticed by Galen and Palladius; and Athenæus does not scruple to affirm, respecting it, that some considered the one half of it spurious, and others the whole. (Deipn., ii., 16.) Foës, Schulze, and Zuinger,[109] are almost the only modern names in its favor; and it is rejected by Mercuriali, Gruner, Conringius, Ackerman, and Kühn.[110] The grounds, however, upon which Ackerman decides against its authenticity are of little weight, namely, that as it is stated in it (§ 1, 2) that medical works were numerous at the time it was composed, this circumstance implies a date considerably posterior to Hippocrates. But it is to be borne in mind, that Xenophon, who was almost contemporary with Hippocrates, puts into the mouth of Socrates, who was certainly nearly of the same age, the saying, that there were many medical works then in existence (Memorab., iv.), so that at all events the argument of Ackerman falls to the ground.
M. Littré, moreover, espouses its claims with remarkable zeal, and persuades himself that he has settled this point by showing that a passage in the Phædrus of Plato,[111] which is quoted by Galen, as referring to a sentiment contained in the Hippocratic treatise “De Natura Pueri,”[112] does, in fact, have reference to the work now under consideration. This position he labors hard to establish, and succeeds at last so much to his own satisfaction, that he does not hesitate to declare, as the result of his elaborate disquisition, “that he had demonstrated the treatise “On Ancient Medicine” to be the work of Hippocrates.”[113] Now, I must be permitted to say, with great deference to M. Littré, that his prolix process of argumentation, spun out as it is over twenty-six pages, does not carry the same conviction to my mind as it does to his own.[114] But still, as this treatise has, at all events, one ancient authority in its favor, and as the matter contained in it appears to me to be highly valuable, I have not scrupled to follow the example of M. Littré in placing it at the head of the Works of Hippocrates. I shall have occasion to say more on the contents of it in the Argument prefixed to my translation. II. Προγνωστικόν--_Prognostics_.
Of the genuineness of this work there has never been any question, so far as I am aware, from the time of the earliest of the ancient commentators, Herophilus, down to the present day.[115] That it is an admirable specimen of the plan upon which the Hippocratic practice was founded, there can be no doubt. The most important critical question to be decided with regard to it is the relation it bears to two other treatises on the same subject, namely, the “Prorrhetica,” and “Coacæ Prænotiones,” whether the “Prognostics” be founded on them, or whether they be made up from the “Prognostics.” This question will come more properly to be discussed in the Argument to the “Prognostics.” Of this treatise there have been the following translations into English: “The Booke of the Presages of the Divine Hippocrates, divided into three parts, etc. By Peter Low, Arrelian Doctor in the Faculty of Chirurgery in Paris. Lond., 1597.” “The Prognostics and Prorrhetics of Hippocrates, translated from the original Greek, with large annotations, critical and explanatory; to which is prefixed a short account of the Life of Hippocrates. By John Moffat. Lond., 1788.” “Hippocrates on Air, Water, and Situation: or, Prognostics, etc. By Francis Clifton, M.D. Lond., 1734.”
Of these the last is the only one which possesses the slightest claim to consideration. It is the work of a scholar, who had evidently paid the most studious attention to his author with the intention of publishing a new edition of his works, a design, by the way, which it is much to be regretted, that he did not live to execute. What became of his literary labors in this department I have never been able to ascertain. The greatest fault I find with his translation is the quaintness of his style; for it cannot be alleged of him, as of Moffat, that he often mistakes the meaning of his author. The translations of the latter are utterly worthless, in fact, they are disgraceful to the translator, who ought to have been ashamed to engage in a task for which he was so utterly unqualified. The translations by Low are done in a strangely antiquated style, and otherwise have nothing to recommend them on the score of fidelity. Moreover, all these translators introduce confusion into the subject by mixing up together the contents of the “Prognostica,” “Prorrhetica,” and “Coacæ Prænotiones.” Even Clifton is guilty of this indiscretion, although better might have been expected from him; for, considering how well acquainted he appears to have been with the spirit of his author, he ought to have been able to appreciate properly the obligations which Hippocrates had conferred on his profession by methodising subject-matters which had previously been destitute of scientific arrangement.
III. Ἀφορισμοί--_Aphorisms_. That the greater part of the Book of Aphorisms is the work of Hippocrates himself there can be little or no doubt, but that it contains interpolations, some of which are of high antiquity, is equally indisputable. This is distinctly stated by Galen.[116] On this subject I would beg leave to quote the remarks of Dr. Greenhill: “Some doubts have arisen in the minds of several eminent critics as to the origin of the Aphorisms, and, indeed, the discussion of the genuineness of this work may be said to be an epitome of the questions relating to the whole Hippocratic Collection. We find here a very celebrated work, which has, from early times, borne the name of Hippocrates, but of which some parts have always been condemned as spurious. Upon examining these portions, which are considered to be genuine, we observe that the greater part of the first three sections agrees almost word for word with passages to be found in his acknowledged works; while in the remaining sections we find sentences taken apparently from spurious or doubtful treatises, thus adding greatly to our difficulties, inasmuch as they sometimes contain doctrines and theories opposed to those which we find in the works acknowledged to be genuine.
And these facts are (in the opinion of the critics alluded to) to be accounted for in one of two ways; either Hippocrates himself, in his old age (for the Aphorisms have always been attributed to this period of his life), put together certain extracts from his own works, to which were afterwards added other sentences taken from later authors; or else, the collection was not formed by Hippocrates himself, but by some person or persons after his death, who made aphoristical extracts from his works, and from those of other writers, of a later date, and the whole was attributed to Hippocrates, because he was the author of the sentences that were most valuable and came first in order. This account of the formation of the Aphorisms appears extremely plausible, nor does it seem to be any decisive objection to say, that we find among them sentences which are not to be met with elsewhere; for when we recollect how many works of the old medical writers, and perhaps of Hippocrates himself, are lost, it is easy to conceive that these sentences may have been extracted from some treatise that is no longer in existence.
It must, however, be confessed, that this conjecture, however plausible and probable, requires further proof and examination before it can be received as true.”[117] The fact of the matter is, that interpolation is a mode of corruption from which few works of antiquity have escaped altogether free, and it was, no doubt, often practised upon them in a very innocent manner, and without any fraudulent intention. Thus, when the subject treated of by any author came afterwards to receive any notable improvements or alterations, the possessors of such a work would naturally mark them down on the margins of their MS., and these annotations in the course of transcription would often come to be incorporated with the genuine text. Such a work as the Aphorisms, consisting of detached sentences, was particularly liable to suffer in the manner now adverted to. Another mode of vitiation, which has been frequently practised upon ancient works, is the addition of appendices to them. Every classical reader must be aware that the Odyssey of Homer is generally admitted by the critics to have come down to us in this state; nay, many learned divines do not scruple to admit that certain portions of the Sacred Volume have not been exempt from this casualty.
I may mention that the last chapter of the Pentateuch, the last Psalm in the Septuagint, and even the last chapter of the Gospel of St. John, have been suspected, by very able critics, of being appendices. I have stated in another place (PAULUS ÆGINETA, Vol. III., p. 437), that an addition in this way has probably been made to the medical works of Aëtius. On the addition of appendices to works, see further, Galen (de Placit. Hippocrat. et Plat., vi., 3). Taking all this into account, it need excite no wonder that an appendix should have been added, by some unknown hand, to the seven sections of Aphorisms, and, accordingly, it is generally admitted that the eighth section is spurious. I shall reserve my analysis of the contents of the genuine sections to the Argument prefixed to the translation. We have the following translations of the Aphorisms into English: “The Aphorisms of Hippocrates”, translated into English: “By S. H. Load. 1610.” “By Conrad Sprengel. Lond. 1708.” “By T. Coar. Lond. 1822.” “By J. W. Underwood. Lond. 1828.” Of these I have only carefully examined the translations by Sprengel and Coar. That of Sprengel displays considerable pretensions to erudition, but, upon a careful examination, it will be quite apparent that the translator was not possessed of a competent acquaintance either with the Greek or English language. In short, nothing can be conceived more quaint, inelegant, and inaccurate, than the language of this translation. Lest I should be suspected of prejudices against my predecessor, and of exaggerating his faults, I shall subjoin a short list of passages which I hold to be mistranslated, so that the reader may judge for himself, whether my opinion of the work be well founded or not. (See Aph. i., 11,[118] 15,[119] 20,[120] 23;[121] ii., 6,[122] 15,[123] 27, 31, 34, 40; iii., 16, 21.)
The production of Coar is not destitute of some merit, although it is but too apparent that he was not fully competent for the task which he had undertaken. He gives, separately, every Aphorism in Greek, to which he subjoins first a Latin and then an English translation. In the Preface, he admits that “in executing the English translation considerable assistance had been derived from the elegant French translation of M. de Mercy.” From this admission it will readily be gathered, that the translator felt conscious that he did not possess a proper acquaintance with the language of the original. I subjoin references to a few of the passages which, upon examination, appeared to me to be incorrectly rendered. (See Aph. i., 2,[124] 10,[125] 20;[126] ii., 49;[127] iii., 11,[128] 26, 31; iv., 1; v., 26, 44, 68.) IV. Ἐπιδημιῶν α’ και γ’--_The First and Third Books of the Epidemics_. These are among the most undoubtedly genuine remains of Hippocrates, and well sustain the high reputation of their great author. In fact, of all the earlier records of medicine, these are about the most precious which have come down to us. Although, as I have stated, no one has questioned their genuineness, Galen complains that, by some mishap or other, they had not wholly escaped from some derangement of the subject-matters which they contain, and from additions being made to them.[129]
The following, I believe, are the only English translations of them which have ever been published. “A Comment on forty-two histories described by Hippocrates in the First, and Third Books of his Epidemics. By J. Floyer.” “The History of Epidemics, by Hippocrates, in Seven Books. Translated into English from the Greek, with Notes and Observations. By Samuel Farr, M.D. Lond. 1780.” The former of these I have not been able to see. The other, although it appears to have been got up with considerable care, is manifestly the work of a man not properly acquainted with the language and doctrines of his author. In proof of this, I subjoin below a few examples collected from the first book, near the beginning.[130] V. Περὶ διαίτης ὸξέων--_On the Regimen in Acute Diseases_. This work is acknowledged as genuine by Erotian,[131] Palladius,[132] and Galen,[133] and other ancient authorities, as well as by all the modern critics, from Mercuriali and Lemos down to Littré and Greenhill. The authenticity of the latter part, indeed, is questioned by Galen, who pronounces the style, theories, and language to be different from those of Hippocrates. Yet even he admits that it is of great antiquity, being more ancient than the time of Erasistratus, who lived within less than a century from the death of Hippocrates.[134] Even if not genuine, then, this part (which is published by M. Littré as an appendix) possesses great value, not only as containing important matter, but as furnishing us with the opinions of the Coan school at a very early period after the time of our author. We shall have occasion to give a fuller analysis of its contents, in the Argument prefixed to the translation of it.
VI. Περὶ ἀέρων, ὑδάτων, καὶ τόπων--_On Airs, Waters, and Places_. Fortunately there are no reasonable grounds for questioning the authenticity of this highly important work. It is admitted as genuine by Erotian, Palladius,[135] Athenæus,[136] and Galen,[137] and by every one of the modern critics, with the exception of Haller, who pronounces against it upon very insufficient grounds. He argues that it is obvious, from its contents, that the author of this treatise was a European, which cannot be said of Hippocrates, seeing that his native place, Cos, was one of the Asiatic islands.[138] But, if Haller had possessed any competent acquaintance with classical literature, he must have been aware that all the inhabitants of the islands adjoining to Asia Minor were colonists from Greece, and consequently looked upon themselves as Europeans, and not as Asiatics.[139] Nor is this more remarkable than that the present inhabitants of America should rank themselves ethnologically with the Europeans, and not with the native inhabitants of the country they now occupy. An edition of this treatise, with a French translation, was published at Paris by a learned modern Greek, Dr. Coray, in the beginning of this century; the annotations to which are highly valuable. The only English translation of it which we possess, as far as I know, is the following: “Hippocrates upon Air, Water, and Situation. By Francis Clifton, M.D. Lond. 1734.”
This, I am inclined to think, is the best English translation which we have of any of the Hippocratic treatises. It is generally accurate, and the only drawback to it which I am aware of, is the style, which is often exceedingly quaint and obsolete. The translator, as we stated above, was well acquainted with all the works of Hippocrates, and of his painstaking industry the notes in this treatise bear undoubted evidence. Of these I have availed myself, whenever I could derive any assistance from them, but from the translation itself I have never copied literally. VII. Περὶ ἄρθρων--_On the Articulations_. This work was received as genuine by all the ancient commentators, from Bacchius and Philinus, the disciples of Herophilus, down to Erotian, Galen,[140] and Palladius.[141] It was also admitted by all the earlier modern critics, down to Gruner, who rejected it on these grounds: 1. Because it contains a reference to the treatise “On Glands,” which all acknowledge to be spurious. 2. That in the course of the work a degree of anatomical knowledge is evinced, far beyond what its actual state in the time of Hippocrates would warrant. 3. That the legend of the Amazons, which is received as true history in the treatise “On Airs, etc.” is rejected as fabulous in this work. Grimm also agrees with Gruner in condemning it as spurious; but Littré shows good reasons for admitting it into the list of genuine productions. He replies in a very satisfactory manner to Gruner’s objections. Thus he shows, in particular, what we have adverted to previously, that the knowledge of anatomy which was possessed in the Hippocratic age, had been much underrated by Gruner and others, and that the two passages in which the Amazons are supposed to be referred to, are not parallel, and do not admit of a comparison. He also very properly insists upon it, as a strong argument in favor of the genuineness of this treatise, that it had been commented upon by Ctesias.[142] The work, indeed, contains so much valuable matter, of which subsequent authors (as Celsus and Paulus Ægineta) have freely availed themselves, in handling the subjects which are treated of in it, that I have every disposition to receive it as genuine. We shall see, afterwards, that, taken in connection with the next work, it is a perfect masterpiece on the subject of Fractures and Dislocations.
VIII. Περὶ ἀγμῶν--_On Fractures_. Tried by the tests laid down by us above, this treatise must undoubtedly be received as genuine. It is decidedly acknowledged as such by Palladius, Erotian, Galen, and, in short, by all the ancient authorities, and the only modern critics who venture to question its claim are Grimm, the German translator of Hippocrates, and Kühn; and, in fact, the latter does so merely in deference to Grimm, for his arguments on the question of its authenticity all tell the other way. That the treatises “On Fractures” and “On Articulations” constituted originally one work, is shown in a very convincing manner by Galen, in his introductory comment on the latter.[143] This is an additional reason for admitting the work “On Articulations” as genuine. Indeed, I do not hesitate to declare that whoever refuses to admit these two treatises as genuine, may consistently dispute the claims of any other work of the same date. IX. Μοχλικός--_On the Instruments of Reduction_. This work is quoted by Galen as one of the acknowledged books of Hippocrates,[144] and is admitted by Erotian into his list of genuine works; nay, it appears from the latter that it had been commented upon by Bacchius. Of the modern authorities, Foës and Littré concur with the ancient in admitting its claims, but it is rejected by Lemos, Mercuriali, Haller, Gruner, Grimm, and Kühn. No one who reads it carefully can fail to remark that, as stated by Galen,[145] it is a compendium of the work “On the Articulations,” so that whoever admits the latter to be genuine must acknowledge the treatise now under consideration to be one which embodies the opinions of Hippocrates, whether it were actually composed by him or not. Taking all this into account, it appears to me superfluous diligence in modern critics to search out grounds for questioning its authenticity.
“The Protestation which Hippocrates caused his Scholars to make, by Peter Low; Lond. 1597.” “----, by Francis Clifton, M.D.; Lond. 1734.” The translation by Low is in a quaint and antiquated style; that by Clifton is carefully done. XII. Νόμος--_The Law_. This little piece is noticed by Erotian, and admitted as genuine by M. Littré, but Mercuriali, Gruner, Ackerman, Kühn, and Greenhill incline to reject it. It is well written, but the style is rather too scholastic for the age and taste of the great Father of Medicine. At the same time, it has so many points of accordance with “The Oath,” that it seems inconsistent to admit the one as authentic and reject the other as spurious. XIII. Κατ' ἰητρεῖον--_On the Surgery_. All the ancient commentators which have come down to us, such as Erotian, Galen, and Palladius, admit it to be genuine; but it would appear from Galen that some of the older commentators were not satisfied upon this point, some doubting whether it was the production of the great Hippocrates or of Thessalus, and some referring it to Hippocrates, the son of Gnosidicus.[157] It is received also by Foës, Gruner, and, after a good deal of hesitation, by M. Littré. Schulze expresses himself on this point doubtfully,[158] and the work is rejected by Grimm, Ackerman, and Kühn. Beyond all doubt, it is a compendium of the treatises “On Fractures” and “On the Articulations,” so that, whether the composition of Hippocrates himself or not, there can be no question that the subject-matter of it is derived from him. Galen appears to have been remarkably fond of this treatise, and makes frequent reference to it in his great work “On the Dogmata of Hippocrates and Plato.” It would appear that Diocles, Philotimus, and Mantias had written treatises bearing the same title.
Ideas discussed in this chapter
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.