or causes thereof, presuppose a knowledge of physiology, or the functions of the organs of the human body; and likewise of pathology, or proximate effects of disease upon such organs and bodily tissues.

The doctrine of the humors being the seat of infection, as laid down by Hippocrates, has had various fortunes. No dissent to it was raised until Borelli proved in the 17th century that disease may arise in the solids; thence the doctrine of Solidism, as opposed to that of Humoralism. Medical opinion has been divided on the subject ever since, and the controversy has been waged with much acrimony. Not until the microscope began to be used in diagnosis was the subject laid to rest with the vindication of the humoral hypothesis, without, however, disproving the fact that disease may also originate in the organs and nervous system of the human body. The celebrated Paine, Professor of the Institutes of Medicine in the University of New York, supported the doctrine of solidism in his great work on "The Institutes of Medicine" as late as 1850.

A favorite hypothesis of Hippocrates was that of crises-we say hypothesis, for the want of a more appropriate term, for we do not regard it an hypothesis at all, but a well-known phenomenon in the course and termination of disease, which any observer may verify at the bedside if he will take the trouble to do so. Then he avowed the existence of critical days. These occurred on the third,

seventh, ninth, fourteenth, seventeenth, and twentieth days in continued fevers, and the third day in surgical operations. If the condition and symptoms of the patient are favorable on the third day after an operation, the probability is that he will recover; if they are unfavorable, the probability is that the patient will die or have a protracted recovery. In the course of fevers and inflammations, critical sweats are likely to occur on critical days; sometimes alvine evacuations. Alvine evacuations, however, are not a constant phenomenon; but changes in the pulserate and temperature may confidently be expected. All physicians know how marked these crises are in continued and intermittent fevers. These and a thousand other diagnostic and prognostic signs and symptoms, in the course and progress of malady, this august father of the medical art was in the habit of observing and annotating with infinite detail and precision. They formed the basis of his medical judgment, which was almost unerring, and gave him an advantage pre-eminent over his contemporaries.

But far more important than signs and symptoms was Hippocrates' perception of an underlying animate principle in nature, which he termed Physis (Dúats), or Dynamis (Aúvaμes). These are terms to express the forces which he conceived to be the primary cause of all the phenomena of health or disease, and of all life and mind upon the earth. In health it is an activity normal

that is, a balance between normal and abnormal causation; in disease, an activity just as friendly and conservative, but modified by being directed against morbific causes that have gained entrance to the system. By the term dynamis, he appears to have meant what the moderns know as vitality; by physis we understand him to have meant the life or soul of nature, which constitutes the difference between a live man and a dead man, organic matter and inorganic or crude matter. In the conduct of malady it was the guiding force-the Dúas of the organism to which it was due. It constituted the vis medicatrix nature to which his remedies appealed in disease, to which he always appealed, and on which he always relied. This principle or force he regarded as intelligent and beneficent, since it was the guarding, conserving principle in all vital phenomena, normal and abnormal. This conception of the master has held its own through all the perturbations of centuries of philosophic opinion; now and then disputed by the medical system-builders, who, above all, wished to magnify their powers in curing malady without the aid of nature and in spite of nature. The idea of Hippocrates gave force and significance to it. More recently the physis of Hippocrates has become associated with the Psyché (Tux) of Aristotle. The former constitutes the unconscious mind of the modern psychologist, who recognizes its universality throughout the inorganic, as well as the organic

departments of nature. It is synonymous, in other words, with what Von Hartmann and others have termed the great Unconscient.1

On these fundamental conceptions of nature and natural forces Hippocrates was right, and those who differed from him-often ridiculed himfor recognizing occult and beneficent forces immanent in the world of things, were wrong. The use of such terms as "Physis" and "Dynamis" as substantives, shows that Hippocrates' conceptions of final causes were thoroughly emancipated from the Greek idea of gods and goddesses in the government of the world. We can but marvel at the insight which this ancient sage displayed without the light of scientific knowledge, or the aids to scientific research and demonstration which we possess to-day.

Hippocrates' conception of the healing and conservative powers of nature is fully justified by the studies of the modern physicists and naturalists. There is an intelligence, which the physiologists term Instinct, and which they define as "Purposive action without knowledge of its purpose," but which Hippocrates termed Physis, in all nature. Even the jelly-fish knows enough to select its food and to reject what is not food. The mollusk builds its shell unconscious of its goal. Certain insects renew lost parts-as the spider. Even plants possess sensibility-some of

'See Von Hartmann, Philosophy of the Unconscious, vol. ii.; see also the Prologue of this work.

them sagacity, as the Drosera rotundifolia in catching insects for food. Certain trees, the willow especially, will send rootlets many rods away in search of water in dry seasons. The common potato vine, confined in dark places, will do likewise in search of light. The vine of the grape will exhibit great ingenuity to get into sunshine, etc.'

Such facts as these could be adduced indefinitely in support of Hippocrates' conceptions of the intelligent powers of nature. They would be out of place here. Enough has been advanced in support of the views of this medical sage, to show that he was right in regarding this world animated by an Intelligence, not gods, except in human form, not disembodied spirits, ghosts and spectres, but beyond and above all these fanciful things, of an Intelligence which is unconscious, working through all to wise and definite ends. In the treatment of disease the physician is an adjuvant; it is his function to aid Nature, to work with, not against her. Such, at least, was the Hippocratian doctrine.

Of the writings of Hippocrates many editions have been made from time to time, but that of Foësius, or Foës, as the French have it, translated into Latin in 1595, is said by Bostock to be the most complete and reliable. An excellent English translation of his complete works by Dr. Francis

See on this subject Von Hartmann's Philosophy of the Unconscious, vol. ii.