The genuine works of Hippocrates, Vol. 1 · Hippocrates
FOOTNOTES:
Herophilus, the famous anatomist of Alexandria; flourished about from 310–280 A.C. Xenocrates of Cos, quoted by Erotian as an authority on the Prognostics; nearly contemporary with Herophilus. Philinus of Cos, contemporary with Herophilus, and probably a disciple. Bacchius, contemporary with Philinus. Glaucias immediately after Bacchius; flourished probably between 290–260 A.C. Zeuxis the Empiric, immediately after Glaucias and before Zeno; probably from 270–240 A.C. See Daremberg. Heraclides Tarentinus, somewhat later than Bacchius, probably between 260–240 A.C. Zeno the Herophilean, the contemporary and rival of Heraclides; probably the same as Zeno of Laodicea. Apollonius Biblas, the contemporary and rival of Zeno. Callimachus, according to Daremberg, an immediate disciple of Herophilus. Epiceleustus of Crete, of uncertain date. Apollonius Ophis, of uncertain date. Lysimachus of Cos, uncertain. Euphorion, uncertain. Heraclides the Erythrean, rather uncertain; but, according to Daremberg, a contemporary with Heraclides Tarentinus. The same as Heraclides the Herophilean. (Strabo, Geogr., xiv.) Epicles, uncertain. Eurycles, uncertain. Philonides of Sicily, uncertain. Ischomachus, uncertain. Cydias, uncertain. Cinesias, uncertain. Demetrius, the Epicurean. Diagoras, uncertain. Nicander the Poet of Colophon, from 150–120 A.C. Apollonius Citiensis; Daremberg places him between 80–52 A.C. See also Dietz and Littré. Asclepiades of Bithynia, contemporary with Pompey the Great; about 60–40 A.C. Thessalus, the famous Methodist; about 50–70 P.C. Erotian flourished in the reign of Nero, from 50–70 P.C. His Glossary still preserved.
Sabinus, of uncertain date, but probably not long anterior to Galen, by whom he is frequently quoted. (Op., tom. v., p. 433.) Metrodorus, disciple of Sabinus. Rufus _or_ Ruffus Ephesius, contemporary with Sabinus. Several of his works remain, but no portion of his Commentaries on Hippocrates. Marinus, the celebrated anatomist, about the beginning of the second century P.C. Quintus, the Empiric, probably about from 110–130 P.C. Lycus, the Macedonian, the disciple of Quintus; from 120–140 P.C. See Daremberg. Lycus, of Naples, date rather uncertain. Artemidorus, a favorite of the Emperor Hadrian; often blamed by Galen for his alterations of the text; about 120–140 P.C. Dioscorides (_not_ the author of the Materia Medica), an associate of Artemidorus. Numesianus, somewhat later than Dioscorides. Dionysius, about the time of the last. Pelops, the disciple of Numesianus. Satyrus, the disciple of Quintus. Phecianus, the disciple of Quintus. Julian the Alexandrian, the immediate predecessor of Galen, who frequently animadverts on his writings. GALEN, flourished between 150–190 P.C.; wrote Commentaries, still in existence, on the following works:--On the Nature of Man; on Regimen in Health; on Regimen in Acute Diseases; on the Prognostics; on the First Book of the Prorrhetics; on the Aphorisms; on the First, the Third, and the Sixth Books of the Epidemics; on the Treatise on Fractures; on the Articulations; on the Physicians’ Establishment or Surgery; on the Humours; fragments of the Commentaries on Airs, Waters, Places, and on the Aliment. Besides these, he wrote several other Commentaries, which are lost.
1. De Aëre, Aquis, et Locis. 2. De Natura Hominis. 3. De Locis in Homine. 4. De Humoribus. 5. De Alimento. 6. De Morbis popularibus. 7. Prognosticon. 8. Prædictionum, ii. 9. De Victu Acutorum. 10. De Fracturis. 11. De Articulis. 12. Mochlicus. 13. De Vulneribus Capitis. 14. Officina Medici. 15. Aphorismi. [76] Censura Librorum Hippocrateorum, Vratislaviæ, 1772. [77] De Elementis, i., 9. [78] Tom. v., p. 442; ed. Basil. [79] Galen, who is a most unexceptionable judge in such a case, says that the language of Hippocrates inclines to the Attic, and that some had held it to be Old Attic. (Tom. v., p. 525; ed. Basil.) Dionysius of Halicarnassus, another admirable critic, says that Herodotus is the most excellent standard of the Ionic (and so, by the way, Photius also says, under the head of _Ctesias_) and Thucydides of the Attic. (De Platon. Judicium.) Now, since we have already made it appear that there is a most striking similarity between the language of Hippocrates and Thucydides, the judgment of Dionysius is evidently in accordance with that of Galen on this point. Indeed, as briefly stated in the text, the Attic was nothing more than a new development of the Ionic, and scarcely more different from it than the English language in the age of Pope is from the same in the age of Milton. It is to be borne in mind that the name Ionian was originally applied to the Thracians and the inhabitants of Attica, who were evidently closely allied to one another in consanguinity. It was in Thrace that learning and civilization first sprang up under the auspices of Thamyris, Orpheus, and Musæus, by whom the elegant arts were transplanted to Athens. (See Hesychius, in voce Iones; Eustathius, ad Iliad., ii.; Diogenes Laertius, _Prœfat_.; also Hermes Philologus, p. 23, by the author of this disquisition, whose mind now reverts with great delight, _ad studia quæ adolescentiam alebant_.) The inhabitants of Asiatic Ionia and the adjoining islands were colonists from Attica. (Thucyd., i., 12; Herodotus, viii., 44; Heraclides, de Polit.) From what has been stated it will readily be understood that the only standard of polite Greek was the Ionic, with its offspring the Attic. The Æolic and Doric dialects, although used in certain scientific and popular compositions, such as Bucolics and certain philosophical treatises, were never looked upon as being fashionable and learned dialects.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.