The genuine works of Hippocrates, Vol. 1 · Hippocrates
SECTION II.
DISQUISITION ON THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE DIFFERENT TREATISES WHICH HAVE BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO HIPPOCRATES. There can scarcely be a doubt that Hippocrates followed the practice which we know to have been adopted by almost all the great writers of antiquity with regard to the publication of their works, namely, that of publishing them separately, at the time they were composed. We know, for example (to begin with a distinguished author, regarding whom our information is particularly ample), that Horace published his books of satires, epistles, odes, and epodes separately, and at different times; and that the collection of them in its present form was not compiled until after his death.[65] We have every reason for concluding that the same rule was followed by Martial,[66] Cicero,[67] and other Roman authors. It is further well ascertained (to come to a period not far removed from the age of Hippocrates) that Plato[68] and Aristotle[69] likewise gave their works to the literary world upon the same plan. We have every reason, therefore, to suppose that Hippocrates published several of his works separately, in his life time; and indeed Galen often expresses himself so as to leave little or no ground for doubt on this point.[70] It would be most interesting and important then to know, were this possible, in what order the different works of our author were published.
But unfortunately this is a question which we have no proper data for solving satisfactorily, only as the “Aphorisms” are evidently made up in a great measure of conclusions drawn from the results of discussions and observations recorded in other of his works, we have every reason to infer that this important work was among that latest of his literary labors.[71] But although we may not be able to determine the order in which the different pieces were composed and published, we need have no hesitation in deciding with all the best authorities, ancient and modern, that all the following treatises were composed by him, and, from the first, obtained the sanction of his name, viz.: the “Prognostics;” the “First and Third Epidemics;” “On Regimen in Acute Diseases;” “On Airs, Waters, and Places;” “On Wounds of the Head;” the “Aphorisms.” It is in so far satisfactory, then, to know, that respecting the authorship of these works there has never been any reasonable question, and that whoever entertains doubts on this point of literary history, ought, on the same principles of criticism, to dispute the authenticity of the “Protagoras” and “Phædo” of Plato; of the “History of Animals” and “Politics” of Aristotle; and of the “Olynthiacs” and “Philippics” of Demosthenes.
In a word, nothing but the most lawless spirit of scepticism can lead any one to challenge the genuineness of the works which I have just now enumerated. These, however, it will be seen, constitute but a very small portion of the treatises contained in the Hippocratic Collection; and with regard to a very great number of the others, it is unfortunately not only impossible to bring any competent evidence of their genuineness, but it is also quite apparent that they betray marks of an entirely different authorship; and this is abundantly obvious, whether we look to the matters which they contain, or the manner in which these are given. Thus in some of the treatises we discover hypothetical doctrine and rules of practice utterly at variance with those which are contained in the works of acknowledged authenticity; and in some of them, instead of that nervous conciseness which, as we have already stated, has always been held to be characteristic of the style of Hippocrates, we find an insipid verbosity and vagueness of expression, which clearly stamp them as being productions of a very different hand.
But, besides this internal evidence which we have to assist us in forming a correct judgment on these works, we fortunately still possess a considerable number of ancient Commentaries, written expressly in illustration of them, from which, in many instances, modern critics have been enabled to draw very satisfactory data for forming a correct judgment on the points at issue. Before proceeding further, it is but fair to acknowledge that I have freely availed myself of the labors of Vander Linden, Ackerman, Gruner, Littré, and other learned men, who have preceded me in this field of investigation, but at the same time I may venture to assure the reader that there is scarcely a passage in any of the ancient authorities, bearing on the points in discussion, which I have not examined carefully for myself.
The oldest commentator of whom we have any mention, is the celebrated Herophilus, who flourished about the year 300 A.C.[72] But of his Commentaries we have no remains, nor of those of the other commentators down to Apollonius Citiensis, a writer of the first century A.C. His Scholia on the Hippocratic treatise, “De Articulis,” along with those of Palladius, Stephanus, Theophilus, Meletius, and Joannes Alexandrinus, all writers of an uncertain date, but certainly much later than the Christian era, were published by the late Dr. Dietz, at Konigsburg, in 1834. To these we have to add two others, of much higher celebrity, namely, Erotian, who lived during the reign of Nero, and the famous Galen, who, it is well known, flourished in the latter part of the second century, P.C. It is from the works of these two writers that the most important facts are to be elicited, for forming a correct judgment respecting the authenticity of the Hippocratic treatises. As we shall have occasion to quote their opinions on the different heads of our inquiry, it would be useless to occupy room by giving their entire list in this place. Suffice it to say, that Erotian rarely assigns any reason for admitting the treatises into his list of genuine works, and that Galen generally rests his judgment, when he assigns any grounds for it, upon the evidence of preceding authorities, and upon what he holds to be the characteristics of the doctrines and style of Hippocrates. These, assuredly, are most sound and legitimate principles of criticism; but it has been often supposed, that in applying them the great commentator is at times very dogmatic, and not always consistent with himself. But, upon the whole, all must allow that Galen is our best guide on the subject of our present inquiry. And, moreover, it is from his works especially that we are enabled to glean whatever information we possess with regard to the opinions of the earlier commentators, from Herophilus down to his own times.
I will now proceed to give a brief sketch of the labors of modern critics in this department. The earliest modern authority is Lemos, whose work was published in the end of the sixteenth century. It appears that he follows almost entirely the opinions of Galen, and seldom or never ventures to exercise an independent judgment of his own. The work of Mercuriali is a much more elaborate and important performance, and his principles of judgment appear to me most unexceptionable, being founded entirely upon ancient authority and peculiarity of style; only it may, perhaps, be objected, that he rather exaggerates the importance of the latter at the expense of the former; for it must be admitted that very contradictory conclusions have sometimes been founded on imaginary peculiarities of style. I cannot agree with M. Littré, however, that the whole system of Mercuriali is founded on a _petitio principii_; as if, before describing the style of his author, he ought to have decided which were his genuine writings.[73] For, as already stated, any one is perfectly warranted in assuming that certain of the works which bear the name of Hippocrates are genuine, and from them, and the general voice of antiquity, Mercuriali was further justified in deciding what are the peculiarities of the style of Hippocrates, and in applying them as a test of the genuineness of other works which had been attributed to the same author. Mercuriali divides the Hippocratic treatises into four classes, as follows: The first comprehends those which bear the characters of his doctrine and style. The second comprises those which are composed of notes taken from memory, and published by Thessalus, Polybus, or other of his disciples, and contain foreign matter interpolated with them. The third class consists of those which have not been composed by Hippocrates, but are the work of his sons or disciples, and represent his doctrines with greater or less exactness. The fourth includes those tracts which have nothing to do with the school of Hippocrates. As the views and principles of Mercuriali accord, in the main, very well with my own, I think it proper to set down his classification of the treatises.
1. De Natura Humana. 2. De Aëribus, Aquis, et Locis. 3. Aphorismi. 4. Prognostica. 5. De Morbis popularibus. 6. De Morbis acutis. 4. De Vulneribus Capitis. 8. De Fracturis. 9. De Articulis. 10. De Officina Medici. 11. Mochlicus. 12. De Alimento. 13. De Humoribus. 14. De Ulceribus. 1. De Locis in Homine. 2. De Flatibus. 3. De Septimestri Partu. 4. De Octimestri Partu. 5. De Ossibus. 1. De Carnibus seu Principiis. 2. De Genitura. 3. De Natura Pueri. 4. De Affectionibus. 5. De Affectionibus internis. 6. De Morbis. 7. De Natura Muliebri. 8. De Morbis Muliebribus. 9. De Sterilibus. 10. De Fœtatione et Superfœtatione. 11. De Virginium Morbis. 12. De Sacro Morbo. 13. De Hemorrhoidibus. 14. De Fistulis. 15. De Salubri Diæta. 16. De Diæta, tres Libri. 17. De Usu Liquidorum. 18. De Judicationibus. 19. De Diebus Judicatoriis. 20. Prædictionum Libri. 21. Coacæ Prænotiones. 22. De Insomniis.
Text from Project Gutenberg, public domain in the United States.