He was especially acute in his bedside observations. He judged of the patient's state of health by the facies, posture, voice and excretions. It was his custom to examine the urine, feces, expectoration, sweat and pulse of his patients. Among his aphorisms for the cure of disease are the following: that contraries, or opposites, are a remedy for each other; that evacuation is a remedy for repletion, and repletion for depletion. He made experiments on the digestibility of food-the first physiological investigations recorded-and held the theory that "all parts of the body which are designed for a definite use are kept in health, and in the enjoyment of fair growth, and of long youth, by the fulfillment of that use, and by the appropriate exercise in the employment to which they are accustomed. But when diseased they grow ill, stunted and become prematurely old."

In his ethical teachings he had an ennobling influence on the medical profession. These are his moral requirements of the Physician:

"Touching his state of mind, he must be heedful of the following: He must not only know how to be silent at the right time, but must lead a well-ordered life, for this adds much to his good repute. Let his disposition be that of a man of honor, and as such let him behave to all honorable men in a friendly and easy spirit. Precipitation and impetuosity are not liked even though they be of use. As to his bearing, let him wear an expression of sympathy, and not show vexation which would indicate presumption and misanthropy. Who on the other hand laughs readily, and is at all times merry, becomes a burden, whence this is particularly to be avoided."

And what can be more noble and inspiring than the Oath of the Coan School which the young practitioner took, and which is now known as the Hippocratic Oath?

"With purity and with holiness will I pass my life and practice my art. Into whatever houses I enter, I will go into them for the benefit of the sick, and will abstain from every voluntary act of mischief and corruption; and further from the seduction of females and males, of freemen and slaves. Whatever in connection with my professional practice, or not in connection with it I see or hear, I will not divulge, as reckoning that all things should be kept secret. While I continue to keep this oath inviolate, may it be granted to me to enjoy life and the practice of my art, respected by all men at all times. But should I trespass and violate this Oath, may the reverse be my lot!"

The next great Greek to influence markedly the progress of science was Aristotle, who lived from 384 to 322 B. C. In his writings we find the fundaments of natural history, and an epitome of Hellenic contribution to natural philosophy. During approximately the twenty centuries that followed him, his written word was law in the domain of science. Together with Galen, he swayed the medical opinions up to

senses.

the seventeenth century. Men refused to believe the evidence of their If an observation did not agree with Aristotle, the observation was wrong, not Aristotle. Instead of taking the Stagyrite as a scientific authority whose observations may be corrected and whose theories may be improved, he became an authority on faith, whom it was heretical to contradict, with the result that ignorance triumphed. "Science and faith," said Hippocrates, "are two things: the first begets knowledge, the second ignorance."

Nevertheless, and in spite of the bad influence that he exerted during the middle ages-not at all due to his own fault, but due to the stagnant spirit of the times-Aristotle of Stagyria was the greatest student of Nature in ancient history. Of recent times, men have been prone to underestimate his knowledge, because of his pernicious influence on his successors. Macfie writes that the Stagyrite owes his scientific reputation to his garrulity and to the ignorance of his audience. Hallam estimates his philosophical writings as a "barren tree that conceals its want of fruit by profusion of leaves." But there is something unfair in this opinion.

He was a pioneer in science. "I found," he writes, "no basis prepared, no models to copy. .. Mine is the first step, and, therefore, a small one, though worked out with much thought and hard labor. It must be looked at as a first step, and judged with indulgence." It was not his blame if Christian theologians placed him on a divine pedestal, and consigned to the flames any one who ventured to deny certain of his theorems. As Roger Bacon (who barely escaped being condemned as a wizard for his experimental work) asserts, "Aristotle hath the same authority in philosophy that the Apostle Paul hath in divinity." To lower science to the level of a creed is to invite stagnation and igno

rance.

...

Aristotle was the founder of systematic zoology. "His observations on structure and development, and his anticipation of the idea of organic evolution, are the ones upon which his great fame rests. . . . He knew that drone bees develop without previous fertilization of the eggs (by parthenogenesis) . . . that some sharks develop within the egg tube of the mother. . . . He had followed day by day the changes in the chick within the hen's egg. . . . In embryology, also, he anticipated Harvey in appreciating the true nature of development as a process of gradual building, and not as a mere expansion of a previously formed germ.' In medicine, however, he reported many erroneous observations. He supposed the brain to be bloodless; that the liver, spleen and kidneys served merely as a support for the veins; that the arteries carried air; that the nerves originated in the heart which was the seat of the soul. These errors were held to be divine truths for many centuries.

After Hippocrates, the great progress made in medicine was in Alexandria. There, under the learning-loving Ptolemies, the doctors found favorable patronage, and could, therefore, pursue their studies of herbs. and anatomy. Herophilus of Chalcedon (300 B. C.), pupil of Praxagoras and Chrisippus, was famous for his great knowledge of medicine

and for his surgical skill. It was he who discovered the torcular Herophili in the cranium, and he made much progress in anatomical terminology. He described the meninges, ventricles, blood sinuses and choroidal plexuses of the brain; he recognized the lacteals, gave the duodenum its name, and carefully described the liver. Herophilus was a commentator on the writings of Hippocrates, and he also wrote on diet, gymnastics, obstetrics and surgery.

Contemporary with him was Erasistratos, who died about 250 B. C. He was a student of Anatomy, having made many dissections of cadavers of human beings and animals, making special contributions to the knowledge of that time of the brain, heart, trachea, liver, intestines, etc. He considered the body, compounded of atoms, to be vivified by heat originating outside, not generated within. He thought the blood to be a conversion product of ingested food, which serves to build up the body.

But the Alexandrian School made more progress in theorizing than they did in practice, and this disgruntled the practically inclined, who, as Celsus says, were more interested in the treatment of disease than in its diagnosis or prognosis. A few of their phrases are very illuminative of their tenets: "The husbandman and the navigator are not. trained by disputations but by practice. Diseases are not cured by talk, but by drugs. The important question is not who causes disease, but who dispels it." These dissatisfied practitioners established the so-called Empiric School, which reached the height of its influence during the life of Heracleides of Taras (about the first century B. C.). He was a pupil of Manteas, a famous surgeon of that time. Learned as he was in pharmacology, he was also noted for his surgical abilities. He made great progress in the treatment of fractures and dislocations, and he was especially famous for his herniotomy operations. He did not consider it below his dignity to cut for the stone, and, indeed, he improved the lithotomy operation.

With the decline of Greece and the development of the Roman power there was a continuous migration of Hellenic physicians to the City on the Tiber. The boorish Romans, untutored in the fine arts, could not appreciate the cultured Greeks. Cato, the philosopher, would not permit a Greek physician in his household, and, indeed, he wrote several epistles against allowing the Greeks to practice in Rome. It is true that on many occasions the foreign physicians, driven to it by poverty, aided certain wealthy patricians in their debauches and in their plots to poison their enemies. It is instructive to note the fate that befell Archagathos, a Greek immigrant in Rome. At first he was greatly honored and his skill and dexterity were so much praised that the Senate of Rome conferred on him the thanks of the city. But once in his large and lucrative practice he lost a patient, who died after an operation. The fickle mob forgot his great abilities, and in their rancor drove him from the city, confiscating his property (219 B. C.).

In Rome there flourished what was known as the Methodist School, founded by Themison, whose pupil, Thessalos of Tralles, was its greatest exponent. Thessalos was a contemporary of Nero. He was the son

of a weaver, and the greatest quack of his day. Ile very much restricted surgical interference in case of disease. He believed in practicing on the minds of his patients, and, truly, his prescriptions contained many harrowing ingredients.

According to the Methodist Doctrine, bodily ailments were arranged under three heads: the first comprising such as proceed from stricture; the second, those which arise from relaxation; and the third, those which assumed a mixed character. The science of medicine consisted wholly in the observance of a small number of rules, founded upon matters which are altogether evident. The treatment of disease should be directed in remedying the strictum or laxum by means of opposing therapeutic measures acting upon the whole body.

The teachings of Themison seem to have been held in no great respect by his contemporaries. Juvenal satirically refers to him in one of his verses:

"How many sick in one short autumn fell,
Let Themison, their ruthless slayer, tell."

Soranus, a native of Ephesus, and Meges of Sidon were two noteworthy followers of Themison.

A. Cornelius Celsus (25 A. D.) was one of the greatest encyclopedists of ancient Rome. He so logically and clearly reviewed the history of medicine up to his time, that we owe to him much of the knowledge that we possess of ancient medicine. In his writings, "De Medicina Libri Octo," we have a complete résumé of the history of the healing art previous to him and during his time. It is written in elegant Latin, and its diction rivals Tacitus' history. Books 5 and 8 are devoted entirely to the art of the surgeon. In Book 4, Chapter 10, we find this oft-quoted statement: "Notæ vero inflammationes sunt quattuor, rubor et tumor, cum calore et dolore.

Contemporary with Celsus, lived the younger Pliny (23-79 A.D.), whose respect for physicians was not very great. He loved to quote the tombstone epitaph, "He died by reason of the confusion of the doctors." In that famous book of his known as the "Natural History, he endeavored to present an encyclopedia of the knowledge of that epoch. It is especially reeking with pharmaceutical prescriptions for all kinds of disease.

During the first century of the Christian Era, there arose in Rome a small body of scientifically minded men, who strove to introduce a new development of medical theory. Their aim was to apply the Pneumatic Doctrine to physiology and pathology. The Pneumatist School, founded by Athenaios of Atteleia, contended that all phenomena depended on the vital air-the "pneuma." They studiously investigated the causation of disease and divided the etiological factors into extrinsic causes, intrinsic causes, and the causes due to evil spirits. Health, according to them, depends upon the normal condition of the pneuma, and is promoted by its tension, which is to be estimated by means of the pulse. Sickness is induced by a disturbance of the pneuma caused by

a faulty constitution of the elementary qualities, as, for instance, coldness or moisture.

We must not forget to speak a few words about that great and historically neglected physician of Greece, Aretæus of Cappadocia. Of him, Neuberger writes, "Whatever the final judgment may be, one thing stands out as certain-after Hippocrates, no single Greek author has equaled Aretæus, and no work in the entire literature so nearly approaches to the true spirit of Hippocratism, both in description of disease and in therapeutic principles, as the work of the Cappadocian."

Aretaus was a pure stylist in his language. He was not superstitious, and he endeavored to be rational and scientific. He described consumption and diabetes vividly. He treated of all the branches of medical knowledge. His contributions to the conceptions of nervous and mental disease are especially noteworthy. He knew that paralysis of central origin was crossed, while those of spinal origin are not. In the presence of a fatal malady, Aretaus writes, "When he can render no further aid, the physician alone can still mourn as a man with his incurable patient: this is the physician's sad lot."

The medical successor to Hippocrates and the scientific successor to Aristotle was Claudius Galen, the Prince of Physicians, who lived from 130 to 201 A. D. He was born at Pergamos, the son of Nikon, a well-to-do architect, who was a calm-mannered, learned man. "I was blest," wrote Galen, "with a calm, just, gallant and sympathetic father, whereas my mother was of so irritable a temper that she would at times bite her maids, and was forever screaming, and quarreling with my father, worse than Xantippe with Socrates.'

His father instructed Galen in mathematics and philosophy, and he learned under famous masters logic, dialectics, anatomy, empirics and medicine. He traveled to Corinth, Smyrna, Asia Minor, Alexandria, and after nine years of wondering he returned to Pergamos, where the reputation he had gained in foreign lands preceded him, so that he was received with open arms by his countrymen and was appointed by the High Priest, physician to the gladiators-a very honorable post for a young man of twenty-eight.

When he was thirty-two years old, the spirit of unrest again assailed him, and he sought to wander away from the cramped, provincial surroundings of his native town. An ambitious and brilliant man like Galen could be satisfied only in Rome, the capital of the world, and in the year 162 A. D., we find him a stranger in the Latin metropolis, struggling to establish himself. He succeeded very quickly, assisted as he was by some compatriots, and he soon became the fashionable physician, counting among his friends very influential men in the political, military and scientific circles.

Medical Rome was a city of specialists in those days, and from Martial we learn that certain men made a special practice of healing certain individual deformities or ailments. "Cascellius extracts and repairs bad teeth; you, Hyginus, cauterize ingrowing eyelashes; Fannius cures a relaxed uvula without cutting; Eros removes brand marks from