ever, it is probable that at least the crême of the whole has been handed down to us by Hippocrates. It seems certain that in the first "Prorrhetics" and the "Prænotiones Coacae," which are transmitted to us in the Hippocratic Collection, we have fragments and excerpts from the histories of diseases and cures which were formerly found on the votive tablets of the Coan Temple. From these records Hippocrates drew largely in composing his highly valuable "Book of Prognostics." In reference to the matter Adams says: is as clear as the light of day that Hippocrates composed this work from them."1 "It It is more than probable that, except for a short time at first, the system of treatment pursued by the asclepiades varied within wide limits; and it is equally certain that the superstitious element lessened as time passed. Between the principles of practice of Esculapius and those of Hippocrates2 there is a very wide difference. Those of the former will be given later; but of those of the latter I may say here that they were essentially scientific.3 To Hippocrates every disease had a natural cause, and was to be cured by natural ber. As soon as she had gone forth from it and from the sanctuary, she gave birth to a male child. When the baby was born, he washed himself in the fountain and set to creeping around his mother."-See 'Eonμepis 'Αρχαιολογική, Νο. 4, 1883. 1 Genuine Works of Hippocrates (Adams), p. 229. 2 "The Father of Medicine" was, of course, one of the asclepiades. He was born, it is believed, in the year 460 B.C., and lived to be very old. His genealogy is preserved in his works. As given in Adams' edition, he is of the fifteenth generation, in a direct line, from Esculapius. He was of the Podalirius branch. In this connection I may remark that, if Hippocrates took the oath of the asclepiades, he must have given it a decidedly liberal interpretation, for it looks as if he divulged to the whole world all the mysteries of the healing art of great consequence then known. It is improbable that Hippocrates was but a fair example of the asclepiades of his day. He has said himself: "Physicians are many in title, but very few in reality." (The Law.) means. He was wont "to consult Nature herself about Nature," as Bacon has somewhere wisely advised. He did not attribute any morbid condition to any spiritual power, good or bad, and hence in his practice did not resort to conjuration or any related means of cure. Even of epilepsy, the so-called "sacred disease," he said: "It is thus with regard to the disease called sacred: It appears to me to be nowise more divine nor more sacred than other diseases, but has a natural cause from which it originates like other affections." And again : Men regard its nature and cause as divine, from ignorance and wonder.”1 As regards holding disease to be divinely inflicted, he very properly remarks: "I do not count it a worthy opinion to hold that the body of man is polluted by God."2 66 Not only in the principles of medicine, but in its practice, Hippocrates was wonderfully sound, even when judged from the stand-point of the art in our day. In truth, for extent and profundity of medical knowledge and philosophy, between him and what modern would one think of instituting a comparison? Sydenham has been likened to him; but, although I am an admirer of the English physician, I do not hesitate to say that he was neither in breadth nor depth any such man as the Coan. As a writer on the prevention and cure of disease, Hippocrates remains facile princeps. Let it not be hastily supposed that my admiration for Hippocrates is unreasonably great. His works are truly a surprise to even the well-read modern. Very many of the so-called discoveries of recent times may be learned by turning to them. I speak advisedly. I will cite instances: On the Sacred Disease. Ibid. Thus, of the treatment of open sores, he says: "In these cases no part is to be exposed to the air." Dressings of "wine and oil" and "pitched cerate 1" are directed to be used. Again, in treating fractures, in connection with certain splints, he advises that "a soft, consistent, and clean cerate should be rubbed into the folds of the bandage;"2 and he says, "If you see that the bones are properly adjusted by the first dressing, and that there is no troublesome pruritus in the part, nor any reason to suspect ulceration, you may allow the arm to remain bandaged in the splints until after the lapse of more than twenty days." 3 Still again, in regard to the reduction of a dislocation at the hip-joint, he says, "In some the thigh is reduced with no preparation, with slight extension, directed by the hands, and with slight movement; and in some the reduction is effected by bending the limb at the joint and making rotation. In the three preceding paragraphs we have the prac tical side of the germ theory of disease, the permanent dressing of fractures, and the reduction of dislocations by manipulation. I might go on and recount numerous other matters alleged to be new, and of which we hear much; but it is not necessary. I may add, however, a few items of interest: "Bleed," says the old Greek," in the acute affections, if the disease appears strong, and if the patients be in the vigor of life, and if they have strength." Has any modern spoken more wisely on the subject? 5 Here is a statement worthy of the attention of un On Fractures. On Articulations. On Fractures. 2 Iatrum. balanced theorists of our day: In fevers and pneumonia, heat "is not the sole cause of mischief."1 He gives directions for the use of effusions with "water of various temperatures" in " cases of pneumonia," of " ardent fevers," and of other diseases. This treatment, he thinks, "suits better with cases of pneumonia than in ardent fevers." 2 In that inimitable book, his "Aphorisms," it is said: "In general, diseases are cured by their contraries." There is no exclusive allopathy or homœopathy, or dogma of any kind, in that statement; it is the sentiment of a scientific physician. Medicine was evidently far advanced in the days of Hippocrates; and he was certainly a learned and sensible practitioner of it, even the "Prince of Physicians," as Galen, I think, somewhere characterizes him, as well as one who did much to make it what he pronounced it himself to be, namely, " of all arts the most noble."4 'On Ancient Medicine. 2 On Regimen in Acute Diseases. CHAPTER VI. THE GRECIAN GOD OF MEDICINE. DURING most of the earlier part of their history it is safe to say the Greeks regarded Apollo as their main god of medicine. Being possessed of the eminent qualities of a sun-god, replacing Helios as such, and both mighty and popular, this was to be expected. Nothing could be more natural than to accord to a deification of the orb of day a direct concern with matters pertaining to life and death.1 Who so blind and stupid as not to see and know that all vital activity is intimately connected with the presence and movements (apparent) of this great light- and heat- producing heavenly body! In an old Chaldean hymn the power of the sun over health and disease is recognized. He is petitioned to relieve a patient. The petitioner, after saying that "the great lord, Hea, had sent him," continues: "Thou at thy coming, cure the race of man; Cause a ray of health to shine upon him; However, the reader of Homer is well aware that medical affairs were regarded by the Greeks as subject to the will of Phoebus. The epidemic which affected the Grecian forces, spoken of in the beginning of his great work, was held to be caused by the god. Being moved to anger by the words of his daughter-robbed priest 'It is a beautiful Biblical passage (date about 400 B.C.) which reads "The sun of righteousness shall arise with healing in his wings." Malachi, iv, 2. 'See Chaldean Magic, p. 180. François Lenormant. London, 1877. |