Volume 1 — PRELIMINARY DISCOURSE. (continued 2)

VIII. Περὶ ἀγμῶν—On Fractures.

Tried by the tests laid down by us above, this treatise must undoubtedly be received as genuine. It is decidedly acknowledged as such by Palladius, Erotian, Galen, and, in short, by all the ancient authorities, and the only modern critics who venture to question its claim are Grimm, the German translator of Hippocrates, and Kühn; and, in fact, the latter does so merely in deference to Grimm, for his arguments on the question of its authenticity all tell the other way. That the treatises “On Fractures” and “On Articulations” constituted originally one work, is shown in a very convincing manner by Galen, in his introductory comment on the latter.[143] This is an additional reason for admitting the work “On Articulations” as genuine. Indeed, I do not hesitate to declare that whoever refuses to admit these two treatises as genuine, may consistently dispute the claims of any other work of the same date.

IX. Μοχλικός—On the Instruments of Reduction.

This work is quoted by Galen as one of the acknowledged books of Hippocrates,[144] and is admitted by Erotian into his list of genuine works; nay, it appears from the latter that it had been commented upon by Bacchius. Of the modern authorities, Foës and Littré concur with the ancient in admitting its claims, but it is rejected by Lemos, Mercuriali, Haller, Gruner, Grimm, and Kühn. No one who reads it carefully can fail to remark that, as stated by Galen,[145] it is a compendium of the work “On the Articulations,” so that whoever admits the latter to be genuine must acknowledge the treatise now under consideration to be one which embodies the opinions of Hippocrates, whether it were actually composed by him or not. Taking all this into account, it appears to me superfluous diligence in modern critics to search out grounds for questioning its authenticity.

X. Περὶ τῶν ἐν κεφαλῇ τρωμάτων—On Injuries of the Head.

This work is acknowledged as genuine by all the authorities, ancient and modern. The only objection to its genuineness is the appearance of certain interpolations towards the end of it.[146] This, however, as we have remarked above (No. III.), is a mode of vitiation from which few ancient works are altogether exempt.

XI. Ὂρκος—The Oath.

This interesting little piece is quoted as genuine by Erotian,[147] Theodore Priscian,[148] Soranus Ephesius,[149] St. Jerome,[150] Gregory Nazianzen,[151] Suidas,[152] and Scribonius Largus.[153] It is also received as such by Foës, Gruner, and Littré, but is rejected by Mercuriali, Schulze, Haller, Kühn, Ackerman, and other modern authorities, as quoted by Ackerman. The only reasonable grounds which I can see for questioning its authenticity is the silence of Galen with regard to it; but when we take into account that Galen has nowhere given an entire list of what he considers to be the genuine works of Hippocrates, this omission on his part may be merely incidental, and is not of much weight. On the other hand, the argument which M. Littré seeks to establish in favor of its authenticity on fancied allusions to it by Aristophanes[154] and Plato,[155] appears to me to have no weight; indeed, he himself gives up the former in another place.[156]

I have met with the following English translations of this piece, and no doubt there may be others:

“The Protestation which Hippocrates caused his Scholars to make, by Peter Low; Lond. 1597.”

“——, by Francis Clifton, M.D.; Lond. 1734.”

The translation by Low is in a quaint and antiquated style; that by Clifton is carefully done.

XII. Νόμος—The Law.

This little piece is noticed by Erotian, and admitted as genuine by M. Littré, but Mercuriali, Gruner, Ackerman, Kühn, and Greenhill incline to reject it. It is well written, but the style is rather too scholastic for the age and taste of the great Father of Medicine. At the same time, it has so many points of accordance with “The Oath,” that it seems inconsistent to admit the one as authentic and reject the other as spurious.

XIII. Κατ' ἰητρεῖον—On the Surgery.

All the ancient commentators which have come down to us, such as Erotian, Galen, and Palladius, admit it to be genuine; but it would appear from Galen that some of the older commentators were not satisfied upon this point, some doubting whether it was the production of the great Hippocrates or of Thessalus, and some referring it to Hippocrates, the son of Gnosidicus.[157] It is received also by Foës, Gruner, and, after a good deal of hesitation, by M. Littré. Schulze expresses himself on this point doubtfully,[158] and the work is rejected by Grimm, Ackerman, and Kühn. Beyond all doubt, it is a compendium of the treatises “On Fractures” and “On the Articulations,” so that, whether the composition of Hippocrates himself or not, there can be no question that the subject-matter of it is derived from him. Galen appears to have been remarkably fond of this treatise, and makes frequent reference to it in his great work “On the Dogmata of Hippocrates and Plato.” It would appear that Diocles, Philotimus, and Mantias had written treatises bearing the same title.

There is some difficulty in determining accurately what was the nature of the ancient Iatrium ιητρεῖον. See an interesting disquisition on this subject in Littré’s edition of Hippocrates, t. v., p. 25. It most probably was an establishment kept by the physician, in which were contained not only all sorts of medicines, but also all kinds of surgical apparatus. Mention of the Iatrium is made by Plato (Legg. iv., p. 720, and i., p. 646; ed. Tauch.) Aristotle is said to have possessed an Iatrium, which, if the story be true, he had no doubt acquired from his father, who was a medical practitioner.[159] From what is stated by Plato, it would appear that the assistants were qualified to administer professional assistance in the absence of their superior, and were also called doctors. (Legg. iv.) So it appears that the modern abuse of this title was sanctioned by classical usage! It must be recollected that, in the time of Hippocrates, eminent physicians were periodeutæ, that is to say, wanderers from place to place, and consequently they would stand in need of such an establishment as we have described the Iatrium to be. See further the Argument to this work.

XIV. Περὶ φύσεως ἀνθρώπου—On the Nature of Man.

Erotian, Galen, Palladius, and Macrobius[160] do not hesitate to quote the doctrines contained in this treatise as being those of the great Hippocrates, but its authenticity has long been considered very questionable, owing to the circumstance that a passage in it of considerable length, relative to the anatomy of the venous system, is quoted by Aristotle[161] as being the production of Polybus, and it is accordingly received as such by Haller,[162] Gruner, Littré, and most of our recent authorities on ancient medicine. Galen, however, contends that the passage quoted by Aristotle is not the work either of Hippocrates or of Polybus, but an interpolation, and that the rest of the treatise is genuine.[163] But Galen, at the same time, admits that Dioscorides, the Commentator (he must not be confounded with the celebrated author of the Materia Medica), had marked the first part of this treatise with the sign of the obelisk, as indicating his suspicion of its being spurious, and that he held it to be the work of Hippocrates, the son of Thessalus, that is to say, of a grandson of the great Hippocrates. But, whatever may be decided regarding its authorship, a careful perusal of the treatise will satisfy any one that it is a piece of patchwork; made up of several fragments, which do not cohere properly together. It certainly also appears to me that many of the philosophical dogmata which are delivered in it do not accord well with the doctrines contained in those treatises which are universally admitted to be genuine.

After alluding briefly to the opinions of those philosophers who held that the human body is formed from the four elements, that is to say, fire, air, water, and earth, the writer proceeds to state his own doctrines regarding the four humors, namely, blood, phlegm, yellow and black bile, and the diseases which are occasioned by the prevalence of one or other of them, according to the seasons of the year, and other circumstances. The doctrines, as herein stated, are very hypothetical, and certainly, as already hinted, not in accordance with those delivered in the genuine works. It is proper to mention, however, that Galen, in several parts of his works, makes Hippocrates to be the author of the theories of the elements and of the humors.[164] The treatise contains certain general truths and rules of practice not unworthy of some consideration, such as this, that diseases are cured by their contraries, that is to say, that diseases arising from repletion are removed by evacuation, and vice versa; and that diseases in general are occasioned either by the food we eat, or the air we breathe, those which prevail epidemically being produced by the latter cause. All sudden changes of diet are held to be attended with danger, and to be avoided. It is also an important rule of practice that, in venesection, blood should be abstracted from a part as distant as possible from the seat of the pain and of the collection of blood. There can be no doubt, in a word, as we have stated in the preceding section, on the authority of Galen, that Hippocrates was well acquainted with the principle of revulsion in the practice of medicine. The natural heat, or, as it is now called, the animal heat, is stated to be greater the younger the body is—a physiological doctrine strenuously advocated by Galen in several parts of his works, but more especially in the treatise “Against Lycus.”[165] The theory of the formation of urinary calculi is also discussed. The same occurs in the treatise “De Aëre,” etc., and in the work “De Morbis” (iv., 28). Allusion is likewise made to the occurrence of substances in the urine resembling hairs.[166] The last fragment of which this treatise is composed relates to fevers, the greater part of which are held to be occasioned by bile. It is said that there are four varieties of them, namely, synochus, quotidian, tertian and quartan; that the synochus is formed from the most intense bile, and comes soonest to a crisis, and the others in the order we have stated them. This is very unlike the doctrines of fever laid down in the genuine works, and accordingly this portion of the treatise was a great stumbling-block to those among the ancient commentators who contended for the genuineness of the treatise.[167] Altogether, then, I must say, that a careful perusal of the work leads me to the conclusion that, notwithstanding the high authorities in its favor, it does not deserve to be received as a genuine production of Hippocrates.[168]

XV. Περὶ διαίτης ὑγιεινῆς—On Diet in Health.

This work is passed over unnoticed by Palladius and Erotian; and Galen, although he wrote a commentary on it which still remains, informs us that some of the elder commentators had assigned it to Polybus, the son-in-law to Hippocrates.[169] He further mentions that it had been variously referred to Euryphon, Phaon, Philistion, and others; ancient authority in its favor is, therefore, very equivocal. The modern critics are pretty unanimous in rejecting it; indeed, Littré, improving on the hint cast out by Galen, does not scruple to refer it and the preceding treatise to Polybus. Though the subject-matters of it are not, in the main, of much importance, it contains some directions for the regulation of the diet, which are by no means injudicious. One of his directions, with regard to clothing, is very different, however, from what we might have expected, considering the fondness of the ancients for the use of oil to counteract the effects of cold.[170] The author of this work directs oily garments to be used in summer, but clean ones in winter. Emetics are recommended to be taken by persons of a gross habit of body, but to be avoided by those who are slender. This rule is expressed by Celsus in the following terms: “Vomitus inutilis gracilibus et imbecillum stomachum habentibus, utilis plenis et biliosis omnibus, si vel nimium se repleverint vel parum concoxerint.”[171] The author of this treatise recommends hyssop as an emetic, and we find its use in this way not infrequently noticed in the Hippocratic treatises, but not in the works of subsequent authorities, as far as I am aware. The work concludes with a passage on diseases of the brain, which also occurs, “De Morbis” (ii.), and seems much out of place here. It is said that they are first manifested by stupor of the head, frequent passing of urine, and other symptoms of strangury; and it is added, that a discharge of water or of mucus by the nose or ears relieves these complaints.

Altogether, considering how slender the evidence is, both external and internal, in favor of the authenticity of this treatise, I can have no hesitation in rejecting it as spurious.

XVI. Προρῥητικον, α’—First Book of Prorrhetics.

XVII. Κωακὰι προγνώσεις—Coan Prognostics.

These two works are so evidently allied to one another, that I have judged it expedient to treat of them together. The greatest difference of opinion has prevailed among the critics, both ancient and modern, with regard to them. Erotian declares expressly that the “Prorrhetics,” both first and second, are not genuine; and Galen, although he writes a commentary on the first book, complains of the difficulty he experienced in explaining certain vocables of dubious meaning contained in it,[172] and elsewhere states that the treatise is composed of extracts from the “Prognostics,” “Epidemics,” and “Aphorisms.” Foës is almost the only modern scholar of any note who stands up for the genuineness of the first book of the “Prorrhetics;” and it is decidedly rejected by Grimm, Ackerman, Haller, Littré and nearly all the other modern authorities. The “Coacæ Prænotiones” have very little ancient authority in their favor, and even Foës rejects the work with greater disdain than it would seem to merit. Of late years, the opinion has gained pretty general assent that these two treatises are more ancient than the days of Hippocrates;[173] that, in fact, they constitute the materials out of which he composed the “Prognostics,” and are the results of the observations made by the priest-physicians in the Asclepion, or Temple of Health, at Cos. This idea is followed out with great ability by Dr. Ermerius, in his “Specimen Historico-Medicum Inaugurale de Hippocratis doctrina a Prognostice oriunda,” where, by a most ingenious and convincing process of comparison, he appears clearly to make out that the “Coacæ Prænotiones” are formed from the first book of the “Prorrhetica,” and the “Prognostics” from the “Coacæ Prænotiones.” These positions, I repeat, he seems to me to have established most satisfactorily, and I cannot hesitate to declare it as my opinion that Dr. Ermerius has thereby thrown great light on this department of the Hippocratic literature. M. Littré has justly appreciated the labors of Dr. Ermerius, and adopted his views without reserve. (v. i., p. 351.) As I shall have occasion to compare the contents of these two treatises now under consideration with the subject-matters of the “Prognostics” in my Argument to the latter, I shall confine myself at present to a few observations, selected in a good measure from M. Littré’s argument to the “Coacæ Prænotiones.”

In the first place, M. Littré makes some interesting remarks on vomicæ of the chest after pneumonia and pleurisy; but this subject will come to be treated of in the notes on the “Prognostics.” He next gives some important observations on the following passage in the “Coacæ Prænotiones,” § 418: “All sprains are troublesome, and cause intense pains at the commencement, and in certain cases occasion after-consequences; the most troublesome are those about the breast, and the most dangerous are those in which there is vomiting of blood, much fever, and pain about the mammæ, chest, and back; when all these occur, the patients quickly die; but in those cases in which they do not all occur, nor are severe, they are longer protracted; the inflammation at farthest is protracted to forty days.” He relates, in illustration of this passage, a case very much in point, from the “Journal de Médecine,” Juillet, 1843, of a healthy person who, in lifting a log of wood, strained the parts about the chest so as to experience a cracking sensation about the breast; it was followed by intense inflammation, which, in spite of plentiful depletion, ended in an empyema which opened by the fifth intervertebral space. The patient recovered. This case is a good illustration of a species of accident frequently described in the Hippocratic Collection. He then briefly considers the question whether or not Hippocrates was acquainted with the croup, on which he does not give any decided opinion. In my opinion, the term croup is now used in a vague sense, being applied to cases of angina, in which the inflammation spreads down to the glottis and trachea, and also to cases of bronchitis attended with a croupy cough. I am confident that pure cynanche trachealis, that is to say, acute disease originating in the trachea, is of very rare occurrence, at least, it certainly is so in the north of Scotland. That the ancients were well acquainted with that species of cynanche in which the disease spreads down to the windpipe there can be no doubt. See the Commentary on §§ 26, 27, Book III., of Paulus Ægineta. It may reasonably be doubted whether they were not fully as well acquainted with diseases of the fauces and windpipe as the moderns are.

M. Littré’s observations on sphacelus of the brain do not at all accord with the opinions of Dr. Coray,[174] nor with those advanced in the Commentary on Paulus Ægineta, B. III., § 7. He thinks that Hippocrates meant by it necrosis of the cranium. Although I still so far adhere to my former opinion that by sphacelus was generally meant ramollissement of the brain, I must admit that some of the passages in the Hippocratic Collection, where it is described, would bear out M. Littré’s ideas regarding it. On the subject of sphacelus, see “De Morbis,” near the beginning.

M. Littré draws, from a variety of sources, much interesting matter in illustration of § 500 of the “Coacæ Prænotiones:” “Amaurosis is produced by wounds in the eyelash, and a little above it; the more recent the wound, they see the better; but when the cicatrix becomes older the amaurosis increases.” Plattner[175] held that in this case the amaurosis is connected with lesion of the frontal nerve. Beer[176] shows that the affection of the sight is not connected with injury of the nerve, but is rather the result of concussion of the ball of the eye. Walker, and Littré himself, are rather disposed to question altogether the truth of the statement made by Hippocrates.

M. Littré concludes his argument with some observations on the lethargus of the ancients, which he holds, and correctly, as I think, to be a pseudo-continual fever. My own opinion, as delivered in the Commentary on Book III., § 9, of Paulus Ægineta, will be found to be very similar. Lethargus is there stated to have been a species of remittent fever, resembling the causus. M. Littré, further in illustration of this subject, gives from the works of Mr. R. Clark, an English physician at Sierra Leone, an interesting account of a sleepy-dropsy, to which the Negroes there are subject.

The greater part of the contents of these treatises are mixed up by Clifton with his translation of the “Prognostics;” and Moffat gives a complete translation of this book of the “Prorrhetics.” The latter, like all the other translations by the same hand, is utterly worthless. Clifton is only culpable for having introduced confusion into the contents of works which had been so admirably arranged by Hippocrates.

XVIII. Προῤῥητικόν, β’—The Second Book of Prorrhetics.

The reception which this work has met with from the critics, ancient and modern, appears rather singular. Erotian and Galen, who, in general, are too facile in admitting the claims of suspected works, in the present instance reject a work which many modern authorities acknowledge as genuine; as, for example, Haller, Gruner, Grimm, and, with certain qualifications, Ackerman and Kühn. I must say, however, with Foës, Littré, and Greenhill, that I cannot see how we can consistently recognize as genuine a work which has so large an amount of ancient authority against it, and none in its favor. At the same time, all must admit that the treatise in question contains nothing unworthy of the name of Hippocrates, and that, if estimated by the value of its contents, it is one of the most important works in the whole Collection. I will, therefore, give an abstract of its contents, along with my translation of the “Prognostics.” It is deserving of much attention, as being the only work we possess which gives us an insight into the method taken by the ancient physicians to gain the confidence of their patients by their mode of conducting the preliminary examination of every case. In my younger days I knew an old physician, who was an adept in this art of conciliating the confidence of his patients by anticipating their histories of their own complaints.

XIX. Περὶ ἑλκῶν—On Ulcers.

This treatise is decidedly admitted as genuine by Galen,[177] Erotian, Celsus, and by Foës, Lemos, Mercuriali, Schulze,[178] and Vidus Vidius,[179] but is rejected by Haller, Gruner, Ackerman, and Kühn, on internal evidence, the nature of which we shall presently examine. M. Littré in so far concurs in the judgment of the authorities who reject it, although he does not admit the grounds of their decision. Gruner’s principal, indeed I may say his sole, argument against the authenticity of this work is founded on the nature of the substances recommended by the author for the treatment of ulcers; namely, such acrid and (as Gruner chooses to call them) absurd medicines as arsenic, black hellebore, and cantharides. But how does it appear that these are “absurd” applications to ulcers, when even at the present day the two strongest of them, namely, arsenic and cantharides, are the means often resorted to for the cure of indolent and malignant ulcers? The same articles are recommended by Celsus (v.), and by Paulus Ægineta.[180] It is true that the titles given to certain of the prescriptions contained in this treatise are not appropriate, such as emollient (μαλθακώδεα), applied to applications which contain many acrid ingredients. But in this case, as is remarked by Foës, we should consider the text to be in so far corrupt, for certainly this does not constitute a legitimate reason for rejecting the treatise in toto.

Vidus Vidius, in his interesting commentary on this work, mentions, as a proof of its authenticity, that most of the principles laid down by Galen for the treatment of ulcers, are taken from this part of the works of Hippocrates. In a word, agreeably to the rules laid down by me for testing the authenticity of these treatises, I do not see that I am warranted in refusing to admit the claims of this work to be considered genuine. I hold myself bound, therefore, to give a translation of it.

It may be proper in this place to mention that the term ulcer (ἕλκος) is used in this treatise to signify both a wound inflicted by an external body, and a solution of continuity from any internal cause. This usage of the word is sanctioned by the older poets, as, for example, Homer (Iliad, ii., 723; Ib., xiv., 130); Pindar (Nem., viii., 50; Pyth., iii., 84); and Bion (Adonis).

XX. Περὶ συρίγγων—On Fistulæ.

Though this work be acknowledged as genuine by Erotian, Dioscorides, Celsus, Paulus Ægineta, and by Foës and Vidus Vidius, it is set down for spurious by Haller, Gruner, and Ackerman; and even by Littré and Greenhill its claims are not fully recognized. I can see no good reason, however, for rejecting it, since, as I have stated, the ancient authority in favor of it is very strong, and I can detect nothing in the doctrines and rules of practice delivered in it which are at variance with those laid down in the treatises which all admit to be genuine. Ackerman, indeed, pretends that the theory of bile and phlegm, as being the cause of disease, does not belong to Hippocrates or his school. But this is evidently begging the question; and, moreover, Galen, who must be admitted to be a high authority in such a case, decidedly holds Hippocrates to be the author of the Theory of the Humors.[181] Galen seems to say that this treatise, and the following one on hemorrhoids, constituted one work in his time; and he does not throw out the slightest suspicion against the genuineness of either, as the words of Ackerman would lead one to suppose.[182]

Vidus Vidius, although he acknowledges Hippocrates as the author of this work, holds that it had not been published by him, but had been left in an unfinished state. The argument, however, which he uses in proof of this opinion, is by no means convincing; he contends that the part which relates to inflammation of the anus is quite out of place in a work devoted to the consideration of fistulæ. But few who have much practical acquaintance with the subject will agree with him on this point, for it is well known that fistulæ, for the most part, originate in inflammation and abscess about the verge of the anus.

XXI. Περὶ αἱμοῤῥοιδων—On Piles.

This little tract has experienced the same reception from the critics as the preceding one, that is to say, it is acknowledged as genuine by ErotianΠερὶ αἱμοῤῥοιδων and Galen, and by Foës and Vidus Vidius, but is decidedly rejected as such by Mercuriali, Gruner, Grimm, and Ackerman. I can remark nothing in it, however, which appears to me at all inconsistent with the doctrines contained in the genuine works, unless it be that in this tract the author appears to direct that in operating upon hemorrhoids they should be all extirpated, whereas in one of his Aphorisms, which is quoted by Paulus Ægineta, in his chapter on this subject, he recommends that one should be left, as an outlet to the superfluous blood. (vi., 79.) I do not know how this divergence of opinion is to be explained, but, at all events, such an apparent contradiction would not warrant us in rejecting the treatise altogether.

XXII. Περὶ ίερῆς νούσου—On the Sacred Disease.

This work is acknowledged as genuine by Erotian, Galen,[183] and Cælius Aurelianus,[184] but is rejected by Lemos, Mercuriali, Haller, Gruner, Ackerman, Kühn, and even by M. Littré, although the last of these admits that the grounds upon which it had been refused a place among the genuine works are very equivocal. I feel very much at a loss what to decide with regard to it. It is unquestionably the work of a man possessed of a highly cultivated mind, free from the popular superstition of his age, and familiarly acquainted with comparative anatomy, and having no contemptible knowledge of human physiology. There is, in fact, no name, whether in ancient or modern times, to which it might not do honor. That it is not unworthy, then, of the great Hippocrates, all must allow, but whether or not he be the actual author of it, there is much difficulty in determining satisfactorily. That, in certain respects, it is very unlike his other works, must be admitted; the talent which it displays is more of a reflective than of a perceptive nature, which is the reverse of the common character of Hippocrates, who, in his genuine works, evidently evinces a disposition to trust to accurate observation rather than to acute ratiocination. The style, too, I must admit, is more diffuse than the true Hippocratic style generally is. All this might, no doubt, be accounted for, upon the supposition that the work was addressed to the general reader, and not to the professional. Other reasons might be imagined, to account for the diversity of style and matter, but these I shall not occupy time in discussing, as I have decided upon giving a translation of it, so that the English reader may be enabled to judge for himself as to its genuineness. Whether the tract in question be the work of Hippocrates, or, as some have supposed, of his philosophical friend Democritus,[185] there can be little or no doubt that it is a production of that age, for it appears to me that their contemporary, Plato, has evidently made reference to it. Thus, in that portion of his “Timæus” which treats of the causes of diseases, he clearly seems, in accounting for epilepsy, to have had in view the doctrines contained in this treatise. For although he uses the term “sacred disease,” and applies “most divine,” as an epithet to the cavities (ventricles?) of the head, he still, in imitation of the author of this work, accounts for the disease upon natural causes, that is to say, from derangements of the pneuma and phlegm.[186]

XXIII. Περὶ φυσὠν—On Airs.

This treatise deserves, in many respects, to be put in the same category as the last; that is to say, it is generally admitted by the ancient authorities, but rejected by the modern. Thus it is noticed as genuine by Erotian and Galen, and by Gregory Nazianzen and Stobæus.[187] On the other hand Mercuriali, Le Clerc,[188] Haller, Gruner, Ackerman, and Kühn reject it. M. Littré, also, in deference to the opinion of later critics, refuses it a place in his list of genuine works, but, at the same time, expresses himself doubtfully on this point. Le Clerc, although, as we have stated, he inclines to the opinion of those who reject it, does not hesitate to declare, “that this book, upon reading it, seems to be one of the most rational and coherent of all Hippocrates’s works.” And I in so far agree with Le Clerc, that the contents of it are of great importance for the right understanding of the ancient theory of medicine, whether we refer the tract in question to Hippocrates or not. I shall now give a summary of the doctrines contained in it, which I must say appear to me to smack rather of the school of philosophy, than of the practical good sense for which the author of the First and Third Epidemics, and of the Prognostics, is so remarkable.

The author sets out with stating “that there are certain arts which are of laborious acquisition, but are profitable to those who practise them; of general utility to the common people, but painful to those who exercise them. Of such a nature is the art of medicine. The physician contemplates dreadful things (δεινὰ), comes in contact with what are unpleasant, and reaps sorrow to himself from the afflictions of others; but the sick are freed from the greatest evils by the art, namely, from diseases, pains, sorrow, and death; for medicine has been found decidedly to be a cure for all these. In the manual parts of medicine (surgery) practice is necessary. For in all that relates to manipulation, usage is the best teacher. But with regard to the most obscure and difficult diseases, a judgment is to be formed rather from opinion than art; and it is in such cases that experience differs much from inexperience. And it is a most important consideration to determine what is the cause of diseases, and what the beginning and fountain-head, as it were, of the evils in the body; for if one be acquainted with the cause of the disease, he may be able to apply the suitable remedies to the affections of the body, judging of diseases from their contraries: for this mode of cure is that which is most in accordance with nature. Thus, for example, hunger is a disease; for whatever afflicts man is called a disease. What, then, is the cure of hunger? Whatever will allay hunger, that is to say, food, and by it the other is to be cured. Again, drink cures thirst; and, moreover, evacuation cures repletion, and repletion evacuation, and rest labor, and labor rest; and, in a word, the contraries are the cure of contraries. For medicine consists of addition and subtraction—the subtraction of what is redundant, and the addition of what is deficient. And he that does these things best, is the best physician; and he that is most removed from this system, is the most removed from a knowledge of the art. The manner of all diseases is the same, but they differ in place; and hence diseases appear to have no resemblance to one another, owing to the diversity and dissimilarity of situations. For there is but one form (ἰδίη) of all disease, and the cause is the same. What that is I will attempt to explain in the following discourse. The bodies of men and of other animals are nourished by three kinds of aliment, namely, food, drink, and airs; and those winds in the body are called spirits, which are named airs out of it. This it is which exercises the greatest power over the symptoms, and it is worth while to attend to the power of it; for the wind is a current and stream of air. When, then, much air makes a strong current, trees are torn from their roots by the force of the blast, and the sea is raised in billows, and ships of immense size are tossed aloft. Such power it possesses, and yet it is invisible to the sight, and is manifest only to the understanding. And what would there be without it, and from what thing is it absent? and with what is it not present? For the whole space between the earth and heaven is full of air, and it is the cause of winter and of summer; in winter becoming condensed and cold, and in summer mild and tranquil. The path also of the sun, moon, and stars is through air—for air is the pabulum of fire, and fire deprived of air could not live.... And with regard to the sea, that it contains a portion of air is obvious to everybody. For water-animals could not exist if they did not participate in the air; and how could they participate in it otherwise, except by means of the water, and by drawing in the air along with it. And the moon’s foundation is upon it, and this it is which supports the earth,[189] and nothing is void of it. And why the air is possessed of such power in other things has been now stated; but in men this is the cause of life, and of disease to those who are in ill health. And all bodies stand so much in need of air, that whereas if deprived of everything else, such as food and drink, a man may subsist for two, three, or more days; if the passage of air into the body be stopped, he will perish in a short part of a day, so necessary is air to the body. And, besides, there is some intermission of every other operation which men perform, for life is full of change; but this operation alone living animals perform incessantly, sometimes inspiring, and sometimes expiring. That all living animals, then, are closely connected with air has now been shown. After this we must forthwith declare what infirmities probably arise in an especial manner from this source—when it is redundant or deficient in quantity, or when polluted with morbific miasmata it enters the body. That diseases are the offspring of air I will show from the most common of all diseases, I mean, fever; for this disease accompanies all others, and most especially inflammations. This is well illustrated by the accidents which befall the feet; for along with the inflammation a bubo and fever speedily supervene. There are two kinds of fever (that I may touch upon that subject); the one common to all, which is called the plague, and the other being connected with vitiated food in those who use it. The air, then, is the cause of both these. A common fever (epidemic?) therefore is such, because all draw in the same breath (pneuma).” The author afterwards attempts an explanation of the phenomena of rigors, which, however, is not very intelligible, and then of the febrile heat and sweats which succeed them. The latter he compares to the condensed steam of boiling-water. He afterwards proceeds to explain that when the blood is mixed up with vitiated air (gases?), it occasions diseases in various parts of the body; for example, pain in the eyes, when it fixes there; when in the ears, the disease is seated there; when in the nose, coryza is the consequence; and when in the chest, branchus (bronchitis?), and so forth. To the same cause he ascribes the origin of dropsy, namely, to the prevalence of airs, and the melting down of the flesh. He also accounts for the formation of apoplexy, by supposing that it arises from the flesh of the parts being filled up with gases; and in the same way he explains the origin of epilepsy very elaborately, and most ingeniously, but at too great length to suit my limits in this place. Altogether the treatise is one of the most interesting pieces of medical philosophy which has come down to us from antiquity. It shows very decidedly what a talent for dealing with abstract ideas the ancient Greeks were endued with.

XXIV. Περὶ τόπων τῶν κατ’ ἄνθρωπον—On the Places in Man.

The ancient authority in favor of this treatise is pretty strong. It is included in Erotian’s list, is quoted by Cælius Aurelianus,[190] and by Ruffus Ephesius,[191] and is incidentally noticed by Galen in two places of his Glossary.[192] That it is further quoted by Athenæus, as stated by Gruner and Ackerman, would appear to me to be a mistake.[193] It is admitted to be genuine by Le Clerc, Schulze, Haller, Triller, Sprengel, Zuinger, Petersen, and others. It is rejected, however, by Lemos, Mercuriali, Duret, Reinsius, Gruner, and Ackerman. M. Littré does not venture to assign it a place among the genuine treatises, and yet he evidently inclines to the opinion that later critics had rejected it on very doubtful grounds, and leaves the question undecided. The following summary of its contents will show that it is not destitute of valuable matter.

The author of it commences with announcing this important physiological principle, which microscopical observations on the development of the chick have amply confirmed: “It appears to me that in the body there is no beginning, but that all parts are alike beginning and end; for in a described circle no beginning is to be found.” He goes on to remark that, in consequence of this, diseases affect the whole body; that when seated in the dry parts of it they are more permanent, but when in the fluid, more changeable: that one part of the body imparts disease to the other parts, namely, the stomach to the head, and the head to the stomach; and that if the very smallest part of the body suffer, it will impart its suffering to the whole frame. He afterwards enters into a lengthened anatomical description of the parts of the body which, although quoted by Galen,[194] and not unfavorably noticed by Gruner,[195] cannot now command much interest. He then describes seven defluxions from the head, namely, to the nose; to the ears; to the eyes; to the chest—producing empyema and phthisis; to the spine—producing another species of phthisis (tabes dorsalis?); to the fleshy parts—inducing dropsy; and to the joints—occasioning ischias and kedmata (morbus coxarius?) All this seems very hypothetical, and does not appear to savor of the strict process of induction which we remark in the genuine treatises of Hippocrates. When the disease is seated in the head, he directs numerous and deep incisions to be made in the scalp, down to the bone. He notices pleurisy, and its termination in empyema; the latter, he further remarks, may originate in ruptures (sprains?), and in this case, on succussion, an undulatory sound may be heard. He also states decidedly that empyema forms in phthisical persons, and that, in their case, too, a sound like that of water in a bladder may be heard on succussion. The symptoms accompanying empyema are given very graphically. He also describes the tabes dorsalis. He afterwards gives the treatment of pleurisy and pneumonia, in which it is remarkable that no mention is made of venesection, notwithstanding that, in the work “On Regimen in Acute Diseases,” Hippocrates recommends bleeding ad deliquium in these diseases; and Galen accounts for his silence respecting venesection in his treatment of fevers on the supposition that he did not notice it, because he took it for granted, as a general rule, that the operation was performed.[196] This consideration, as much as any other, inclines me to doubt the authenticity of this treatise. Ischiatic disease he directs to be treated by cupping-instruments and heating medicines, administered internally. Anasarca, in a young person, he treats by scarifications. In the brief notice of injuries of the head here introduced, much the same views are advocated as in the work on that subject, of which a translation is given in this volume. The treatment of callous ulcers, as here laid down, is deserving of great attention; “remove the indurated parts by a septic medicine, and then produce reunion of the parts.” Every practical surgeon must recognize this as a very sound and important rule of practice.

The treatment of suicidal mania appears singular:—“Give the patient a draught made from the root of mandrake, in a smaller dose than will induce mania.” He also, in like manner, recommends mandragora in convulsions, applied by means of fires lighted around the patient’s bed. Pains of the head he directs to be treated by opening the veins of the temples, or by applying the cautery to them. He then insists, in strong terms, that, under certain circumstances, purgatives will bind the bowels, and astringents loosen them. And he further makes the important remark that, although the general rule of treatment be “contraria contrariis curantur,” the opposite rule also holds good in some cases, namely, “similia similibus curantur.” It thus appears that the principles of Allopathy and Homœopathy are recognized by the author of this treatise. In confirmation of the latter principle, he remarks that the same substance which occasions strangury will also sometimes cure it, and so also with cough. And further, he acutely remarks, that warm water, which, when drunk, generally excites vomiting, will also sometimes put a stop to it by removing its cause. He estimates successful and unsuccessful practice according to the rule whether the treatment was rightly planned or not; for he argues what is done in ignorance cannot be said to be correctly done, even if the results are favorable. The work concludes with a short passage on the diseases of women, all of which are said to be connected with the uterus. We find here the first mention that is anywhere made of the globus hystericus; indeed, I do not remember to have met with the term in any of the ancient medical works, with the exception of the Hippocratic treatises. He recommends fetid things to be applied to the nose, and aromatic and soothing things to the genital organs. The process of fumigating the uterus is fully described; and likewise suppositories and pessaries are mentioned. In the treatment of uterine hemorrhage the rules here laid down are most important. All heating things, diuretics, and purgatives are to be avoided; the foot of the patient’s bed is to be raised, and astringent pessaries are to be introduced. My own opinion of the work may now be given in a few words. It undoubtedly contains much valuable matter which would be no discredit to Hippocrates, nor to any of the greatest medical authorities, whether of ancient or modern times. I desiderate in it, however, a proper unity of design, and think I see too much of a speculative disposition to suit with the character of the Coan sage. That it is to be referred to the Cnidian school, as suggested by Gruner, seems doubtful; for, as we are informed by Hippocrates himself, the Cnidian physicians only gave the most obvious symptoms, while their practice was very inert, consisting entirely of drastic purgatives, whey, and milk, whereas in this work the diagnostic symptoms are more profoundly stated then they are in most of the Hippocratic treatises, and the practice, in many instances, is very bold and decided. The knife, the actual cautery, the use of strong purgatives and narcotics, are freely recommended in various diseases. Altogether, then, although I would hesitate to ascribe the present work to Hippocrates himself, I must admit myself inclined rather to refer it to the Coan than the Cnidian school. I see no proper data, however, for forming a decided opinion on this head, more especially as we are but very imperfectly acquainted with the tenets of the Cnidian school.[197]

XXV. Περὶ τέχνης—On Art.

This treatise is sustained as genuine by Erotian, and even by one of the older commentators, Heraclides of Tarentum, but it is nowhere noticed by Galen, and Suidas would appear to refer it to Hippocrates, the son of Gnosidicus.[198] Mercuriali, Gruner, Haller, Ackerman, Kühn, and most of the modern authorities hold it decidedly to be spurious. Foës and Zuinger, however, do not object to its authenticity; and Littré, although he excludes it from his list of the genuine works of Hippocrates admits that it is very ancient, and formed a portion of the Collection from the commencement. To me it appears that it is written in too subtle and abstract a style to admit the supposition of its being the work of a practical physician like Hippocrates. Although it contains a good deal of original thought, there is not much in it which would prove interesting to the medical reader of the present day. It is an elaborate defense of the art of medicine against the attacks of those who maintain that it is no art at all, or one of an uncertain nature. According to the author’s definition, the aim of the physician should be to remove the pains of the sick, to blunt the intensity of diseases, and not to interfere with those that are mastered by disease, as knowing that medicine can be of no avail in such a case. In conclusion, I shall merely remark that the evidence, both internal and external, is against the supposition of its being genuine, but still there appears no good reason for doubting that it emanated from the school of Cos.

XXVI. Περὶ διαιτης—On Regimen.

The evidence in favor of this large and interesting work, unfortunately, is by no means strong. It is passed by unnoticed by Erotian, and Galen expresses himself, in general, regarding the work in very equivocal terms, mentioning that some had referred it to Euryphon, some to Phaon, others to Philistion, and others, again, to Aristo.[199] In other places, however, he expresses himself less unfavorably as to the authenticity of the last two books. Haller, Gruner, Ackerman, Kühn, and, in fact, nearly all the modern authorities, reject it.[200] M. Littré, although he agrees with them, remarks justly that the work is one of great value, and exhibits many evident traces of conformity with the writings which are truly Hippocratic.

The nature of the work is as follows: The first book is altogether made up of abstract principles, which savor very much of the dogmata of Heraclitus. Thus, the author of it holds that there are in men, and in all other animals, two principles, different in power but consentaneous in use, namely, fire and water; that these together are sufficient for all others, and for themselves; that the one contains the principle of motion, and the other of nutrition; that these give rise to the separate existence of seeds and animals, of all varieties, shapes, and characters; that, in reality, none of those things which exist either perish or are created, but they are altered by being mixed together and separated from one another, but that men suppose that the one passes from Hades to light, and the other again from light to Hades. In a word, the contents of the first book savor more of philosophy than of practical medicine. For example, it is said, “The trainers of the athletæ instruct their pupils in this manner—to break the law according to law, to commit injustice according to justice; to deceive, to steal, to rob, to commit violence, in the most elegant and disgraceful manner: he who cannot do these things is bad, he who can do them is good; which is a proof of the folly of the many who, when they behold these things decide that the one of these is good and the others bad. Many wonder, but few are judges. Men going to the market proceed thus: they deceive one another in buying and selling, he who deceives most is admired. They execute these things—they drink and become mad, they run, they wrestle, they fight, they steal, they cheat; the one is preferred to all the others. Hypocrites and deceivers! Before the spectators they say one thing. and think another.[201] The same persons creep out, and they creep in not the same persons; to one man they say one thing, and do another; the same person not always the same—sometimes he has one mind, and sometimes another. In this manner all the arts have communion with human nature.” All this is too fanciful and recondite for the physician of whom Celsus says “primus ex omnibus memoria dignis ab studio sapientiæ disciplinam hanc separavit.” It is clearly the production of a philosopher and not of a practical physician, such as we know Hippocrates to have been. The latter part of this book, however, is of a more practical nature, and treats of many things relating to regimen and dietetics, such as the arrangement of meals, of exercises, etc.

The second book is a regular work on Dietetics, and exhibits this branch of medicine in a more advanced state than might have been expected, considering the time it was written. After some preliminary observations on climate, which bear a great resemblance to those contained in the treatise “On Airs,” etc., the author treats, in a very scientific and methodical manner, of the various animal and vegetable substances which are used as articles of food. It concludes with a discussion on certain matters connected with regimen, such as exercises, baths, sleep, and so forth. Foës remarks that a great portion of the opinions advanced by Celsus on the head of Dietetics is borrowed from this book.

The third book treats again of various subjects connected with Dietetics, such as exercises, the arrangement of meals, the administration of emetics, the use of venery, and the like. It is full of important matter, but looks like a distinct treatise from the two preceding books, for one cannot conceive that the author of one work would have twice resumed the consideration of the same subject. Le Clerc, with considerable appearance of reason, ascribes the book to Herodicus, the master of Hippocrates in the gymnastic art.[202]

Altogether, the work is one of the highest importance in medical literature, whether we ascribe it to Hippocrates or not. On this point the evidence, both external and internal, we have seen to be very inconclusive. The most probable conclusion that can be drawn regarding it is, that the work is a compilation of important documents from a variety of sources, but who the compiler was, whether Hippocrates or one of his successors cannot be determined.[203]

XXVII. Περὶ ἐνυπνίον—On Dreams.

This little work is generally admitted to be a continuation of the preceding one, and consequently stands upon much the same grounds as regards its authorship.[204] As Le Clerc and Gruner have well remarked, it is written with much acumen, and evinces great freedom of spirit, and exemption from popular errors and superstitions. It commences in the following strain:

“He who forms a correct judgment of those signs which occur in sleep, will find that they have a great efficacy in all respects; for the mind is awake when it ministers to the body, being distributed over many parts; it is not then master of itself, but imparts a certain portion of its influence to every part of the body, namely, to the senses, to the hearing, seeing, touch, walking, acting, and to the whole management of the body, and therefore its cogitations are not then in its own power. But when the body is at rest, the soul, being in a state of movement, steals over the organs of the body, manages its own abode, and itself performs all the actions of the body; for the body, being asleep, does not perceive, but the soul, being awake, beholds what is visible, hears what is audible, walks, touches, is grieved, reflects, and, in a word, whatever the offices of the soul or body are, all these the soul performs in sleep.[205] Whoever, then, knows how to judge of these correctly, will find it a great part of wisdom. But with regard to such dreams as are divine, and prognosticate something, either good or evil, to cities, or to a particular people, there are persons who have the art of judging of them accurately, without falling into mistakes. But such affections of the body as the soul prognosticates, namely, such as are connected with repletion and evacuation, from the excess of customary things or the change of unusual things, on these also persons pronounce judgment, and sometimes they succeed, and sometimes they err, and understand neither how this happens, that is to say, how it comes that sometimes they are right, and sometimes they fall into mistakes; but warning people to be upon their guard lest some mischief befall them, they do not instruct them how to guard themselves, but direct them to pray to the gods; and to offer up prayers is no doubt becoming and good, but while praying to the gods a man ought also to use his own exertions. With regard to these, then, the matter stands thus: Such dreams as represent at night a man’s actions through the day, and exhibit them in the manner in which they occur, namely, as performed and justly deliberated, these are good to a man, and prognosticate health, inasmuch as the soul perseveres in its diurnal cogitations, and is not weighed down by any repletion, evacuation, or any other external accident. But when the dreams are the very opposite to the actions of the day, and when there is a conflict between them—when this happens, I say, it indicates a disorder in the body; when the contrast is great, the evil is great, and when the one is small the other is small also.” For the cure of this state, as being connected with repletion, he recommends evacuation by vomiting, active exercise, and a restricted diet. The author of the treatise proceeds to state the signification of dreams which relate to the sun, moon, and stars, of which the last are said to be connected with the external parts of the body, the sun with the middle, and the moon with the cavities. This is the nearest approach to alchemy which I have met with in the works of any of the ancient physicians. But I must not proceed much further with my extracts from this work, which there is no reason to suppose a genuine production of Hippocrates, and the substance of which would not much interest the general reader nowadays, when the interpretation of dreams has been entirely abandoned by the profession. The work concludes as follows:

“He who observes these rules as laid down by us will be healthy through life.... The regimen, also, as far as it was possible for a man to find it out with the assistance of the gods, has been expounded by me.” This looks like the conclusion of a large work, and gives probability to the supposition that this treatise originally formed a part of the work “On Diet,” as stated above.[206]

It would appear that this work, although little regarded now, was highly esteemed two hundred years ago, for we find that the celebrated Julius Cæsar Scaliger wrote an elaborate commentary on it.[207] On the “Oneirocritica,” see further Vander Linden, “Manuductio ad Mediciam,” who refers to this treatise of Hippocrates, and also to the works of Scaliger, Ferrer, and Cardanus on the same subject. The only other ancient writers on this subject which have come down to us are Artemidorus, Achmet, Astrampsychus, and Nicephorus.[208] The work of Artemidorus is an elaborate production on the interpretation of all sorts of dreams; and to the sober judgment of the present generation it cannot but be regarded as a memorable instance of the misapplication of human intellect and industry. The whole subject of the “Oneirocritica,” however, may well deserve the serious consideration of the most learned philosopher as affording a most striking and lamentable proof how prone men, even of cultivated minds, are to view things exactly in the light in which they fancy them to exist. This truth is most strikingly illustrated by the work of Artemidorus, who first gives the theory, as it were, of dreams, and in the last book relates particular instances in confirmation of the principles previously laid down by him. No one, assuredly, can rise from the perusal of such a work without being strongly impressed with the great truth embodied in our author’s first aphorism, “Experience is fallacious, and decision is difficult.” The “Oneirocritica” of Achmet is the work of an Arabian, and is interesting as containing all the superstitious notions of the Orientals, that is to say, of the Persians, Egyptians, and Indians, on this subject. Allusion is also made to the dreams recorded in the Jewish Scripture. The author sets out with declaring that, from the interpretation of dreams one may acquire a certain foreknowledge of all the casualties of life, namely, of life or death, of poverty or riches, of disease or health, of joy or sorrow, of victory over one’s enemies or defeat, and this with far greater accuracy than from astronomy (astrology?), for that astronomers differed much in opinion among themselves, whereas about the interpretation of dreams there could be no doubt!!

The following list of writers on the “Oneirocritica” previous to Artemidorus will show the attention which has been paid to this subject in very early times: Artemon Milesius, Antiphon, Apollodorus Tellmissensis, Apollonius Atalensis, Aristander Telmissensis, Aristarchus, Alexander Myndius, Cratippus, Demetrius Phalereus, Dionysius Rhodius, Epicharmus, Geminus Tyrius, Hermippus, Nicostratus Ephesius, Phœbus Antiochenus, Philochorus, Panyasis Halicarnessensis, Serapion, Strabo. Mighty names once on a day! Now they are but “the dream of a shadow!”[209]

XXVIII. Περὶ παθῶν—On Affections.

This treatise being passed over in silence by Erotian, and rejected as unworthy of Hippocrates by Galen, although he acknowledges that it contains many fine things,[210] has been generally regarded as spurious by modern critics, as for example, Foës, Haller, Gruner, Ackerman, Littré, Greenhill, and others. The work is carefully written, but seemingly without a plan, or any well-defined object. It touches, in general terms, on most of the diseases to which the human body is subject, and concludes with some general observations on regimen. All diseases are said to be derived from phlegm or bile. This seems very unlike the etiology of diseases, as laid down in the true Hippocratic treatises. Pleurisy is to be treated by purgatives and soothing applications, but without any mention of bleeding. The termination of the disease in empyema is described. The symptoms of pneumonia are also given in brief but striking terms. The sputa, at first, are said to consist of phlegm, and are thick and pure, but on the sixth and seventh day they become somewhat bilious and sublivid. This disease is also said to terminate in empyema. Some of the general observations contained in this work are deserving of attention. Of all the diseases the acute are the most painful and the most fatal, and they require the greatest care and the most accurate treatment. No additional mischief should, at all events, be inflicted by the physician, but he must do the patient as much good as lies in his power; and if the physician treats the case properly, and the patient sinks under the weight of the disease, it will not be the physician’s fault; but if, while the physician does not treat nor understand the disease properly, the patient fall a victim to the disease, the physician will then be to blame. In treating ileus, when a clyster fails to relieve the bowels, they are to be inflated by means of a bladder attached to a pipe, and then the pipe is to be removed, and a clyster immediately injected, in which case, if the bowels admit the clyster, they will be opened, and the patient will recover, but if otherwise, he will die, especially on the seventh day. The treatise further contains some very interesting remarks on the causes and varieties of dropsy. When the water is not otherwise removed, an incision is to be made either at the navel, or behind at the loins. It deserves to be mentioned that, in this treatise, there are frequent references to a work of the author’s “On Medicines.” Whether it was the same as the treatise bearing that title which we possess cannot be determined. In the course of the work, the use of the cautery is freely recommended for the cure of diseases.

From the account which we have given of this treatise, and the paucity of evidence in favor of its genuineness, it will readily be understood that we have no hesitation in deciding that it is not one of the genuine productions of Hippocrates.

XXIX. Περὶ τῶν ἐντὸς παθῶν—On Internal Affections.

This treatise has but little ancient authority in support of it. Erotian has omitted it in his list of the works of Hippocrates; Palladius does not mention it; and Galen notices it in a confused manner under a variety of titles.[211] Foës, Schulze, and others, have referred it to the Cnidian school; and if this point could be made out satisfactorily, it would give the treatise a remarkable degree of interest, as furnishing us with a key to the opinions of one of the oldest sects in medicine. That the reader may be enabled to form his own opinion in this matter, we will now give a brief outline of its contents.

The work commences with a short description of hæmoptysis, which is said to originate either in ulceration or rupture of an artery of the lungs, the ordinary causes of which are held to be severe exercise, falls, blows, violent vomiting, or fevers. The symptoms are pretty well described, and a mild system of treatment recommended. Inflammation of the lungs is said to be produced principally by drinking wine, and an immoderate indulgence in eating mullets and eels. The treatment at first is like what we have described the Cnidian system to have been, consisting of milk, emetics, and purges; but if these do not answer, the actual cautery is to be applied to the breast. Erysipelas of the lungs is described in much the same terms as at “De Morbis,” i., 13; ii., 53.[212] A correct description is given of empyema as connected with tubercle of the side, for which draughts are recommended, with broth made from poppies, etc. When matter forms, it is to be let out either by the knife or the cautery.[213] Three species of phthisis are described, the first being derived from phlegm, the second from violent labor, and the third being the tabes dorsalis. The treatment in all these affections appears to be very empirical, and unlike the usual therapeutics of Hippocrates. Four diseases of the kidneys are described, of which the first is calculus, and the second abscess, in which case the writer recommends an incision to be made, in order to furnish an outlet to the pus. Now, it is deserving of remark, that, of all the ancient authorities which have come down to us, Ruffus Ephesius would appear to be the only other author who makes mention of this practice.[214] The author of the treatise states, that if the matter of the abscess find vent by the intestinum rectum the patient may recover. The disease altogether, he adds, is troublesome, and in many cases ends in renal tabes. He most probably here alludes to what is now called Bright’s disease. From disease of the kidneys is said to arise an affection of the venæ cavæ, which runs from the head near the jugulars, along the spine to the malleolus externus. He says it originates in bile and phlegm which collect in the veins. Varices, I suppose, are here meant to be described. If not cured by purging with hellebore and scammony, the actual cautery is to be applied at the shoulders, below the scapulæ, at the hip-joint, at the middle of the thigh, above the knee, and at the ankle. Now it is deserving of notice, that this disease is not mentioned by subsequent authors on medicine, so that we are warranted in concluding that the treatise was not looked upon by them as being a production of the Great Hippocrates: for if it had been so regarded, we are sure that Galen, Aretæus, Celsus, and all the worthies of the Arabian school, would not have overlooked this description. And, moreover, the description of the disease from first to last is vague and prolix, being the very reverse of that graphic style of delineation which we find in the genuine works of Hippocrates: and yet the work contains other matters of a different stamp. For example, treating of dropsy, the author says it is sometimes connected with tubercles of the lungs, which get filled with water and burst into the chest. In proof of this, he appeals to observations on cattle, sheep, and swine, which are said to be very subject to these tubercles (phymata); and he argues that men are still more liable to them. And in many cases, he adds, empyema originates in tubercles. In that case, when the collection protrudes externally, he directs that an opening should be made in it; but if not, he directs the patient to be shaken by the shoulders, when the sound of the fluid within will be heard. When the side in which the greater collection is situated has been ascertained, he recommends us to cut down to the third rib from the last, and then make a perforation with a trocar[215] (τρυπάνῳ τρυγλητηρίῳ), so as to give vent to a small portion of the fluid; the opening is then to be filled with a tent, and the remainder evacuated after twelve days. Four species of icterus are described: these would appear to be febrile affections. Five varieties of typhus are next noticed in rather vague terms; there can be little doubt that they were all cases of remittent fever. Several varieties of a disease which is called morbus crassus are described with much prolixity, and so vaguely as not convey to us a distinct idea of the disease. He says of two of the varieties, that they last for six years. Unless these were varieties of elephantiasis (and we have no evidence of its existence so early), I am at a loss to comprehend what disease is alluded to. The treatise concludes with an account of three species of tetanus.

From the analysis now given of its contents, it will be readily seen that this work abounds in interesting matter, but that, at the same time, it is clearly of a different stamp from what we find in the genuine works of Hippocrates, nay, that in all probability it does not belong to the Coan school. In conclusion, I have, then, to state that I think the presumption of its being a production of the Cnidian school is very strong.

XXX. Περὶ νοὐσων—On Diseases.

A work with this title is cited by Erotian, Cælius Aurelianus,[216] and by Galen,[217] but so confusedly that we must come to the conclusion regarding these Books, that the ancient authority in support of their genuineness is by no means satisfactory. Galen evidently inclines to the opinion of Dioscorides the Commentator, that the Second Book is the work of the younger Hippocrates, this is to say, of a grandson of our author. Almost all the modern authorities, as, for example, Foës, Haller, Ackerman, Gruner, and Littré, concur in rejecting the whole four as spurious. The Fourth Book in particular is separated by M. Littré from the other three, as being a portion of the work “On the Diseases of Women,” rather than of the work “On Diseases.” We shall be better enabled to speak decidedly on this and the other questions regarding the authenticity of these books, when we have examined the nature of their contents.

After a very striking exordium, in which it is stated that the first object of him who turns his attention to the healing art should be to consider the causes of disease, and the natural tendencies of every one of them, that is to say, of their dispositions to death, or to loss of parts, the author proceeds to deliver his doctrine as to the causes of them, which he assumes to be either internal, namely, bile and phlegm; or external, such as labor, wounds and excess in heat, cold, dryness, and humidity. The following accidents are said to be mortal: a wound of the brain, of the spinal marrow, of the liver, of the diaphragm, of the bladder, of a large blood-vessel, or of the heart. He ranks the following as fatal diseases: phthisis, dropsy, and, when they attack a pregnant woman, pneumonia, causus, pleurisy, phrenitis, and erysipelas of the womb. The issue of the following is set down as doubtful in ordinary circumstances: pneumonia, causus, phrenitis, pleuritis, quinsy, enlargement of the uvula, hepatitis, splenitis, nephritis, dysentery, menorrhagia. The following are not deadly: chronic defluxions on the joints (κέδματα), melancholy, gout, ischiatic disease, tenesmus, quartan and tertian fevers, strangury, ophthalmy, leprosy, lichen, arthritis; yet even from these patients often become maimed in particular members, such as in the limbs from arthritis, or in the eyes from ophthalmy. Diseases also have a tendency to pass into one another, as, for example, pleurisy into causus, phrenitis into pneumonia, tenesmus into dysentery, and lientery; and pleurisy and pneumonia into empyema. He makes the following curious observations on the awkward mistakes which a physician may commit in the practice of his profession: not to know when there is matter in an abscess or tubercle; not to ascertain the existence of fractures or dislocations; having probed the head in case of injury thereof, not to ascertain that there is a fracture of the skull; not to be able to introduce an instrument into the bladder, nor to be able to ascertain whether there is a stone in it or not; in the case of empyema, not to ascertain the existence of matter by succussion; and in using the knife or cautery, to apply either of them to too great or too small an extent. The treatise also contains many other general observations, which are very ingeniously stated, as, for example, the following enumeration of the untoward accidents which may occur to a medical practitioner: Having administered an emetic for the purpose of evacuating bile or phlegm upwards, to induce rupture of a vessel by the act of vomiting, although the patient had previously been sensible of no pain in the region; having given an emetic to a woman with child, to induce abortion in consequence; in curing empyema, when looseness of the bowels is superinduced, and cuts off the patient; in applying an ointment for a disease of the eyes, when acute pains supervene, which end either in rupture of the eye or amaurosis, the physician in such a case gets the blame for having applied the ointment; and when a physician gives anything to a woman in labor on account of pains in the bowels, and the woman gets worse or dies, the physician incurs censure. And in diseases and injuries, when there is a necessary succession of bad symptoms, the physician gets the blame, as men do not perceive that the aggravation of the symptoms is a necessary consequence of the nature of the disease. And if a physician visits a patient in fever, or who has met with an injury, and if the patient gets worse after the first medicine that is administered, the physician is blamed; whereas he does not get the same amount of credit if the patient improves, as the amendment is attributed to the nature of the case. This book contains what I believe is the most circumstantial detail of the phenomena of empyema that is to be met with in any ancient work on medicine. The author ascribes the disease principally to three causes: to the termination of pneumonia, to a defluxion from the head, and to the consequences of a ruptured vessel. Whoever is acquainted with the modern literature of the subject, or possesses a practical knowledge of the disease, will not fail, from the accompanying description of the last of these, to recognize a case of cavity of the lungs produced by the ulceration of tubercles. True empyema, however, as the result of chronic inflammation, is also described in distinct terms. The never-failing test by succussion is constantly adverted to in these cases. Distinct mention is also made of the râle, by which the existence of matter in the lungs is ascertained. Allusion is probably made here to the well-known gurgling sound produced by matter in a cavity. There is a good deal of other important matters in this book, but these my necessary limits oblige me to pass over unnoticed. I shall merely allude to the distinct mention which is made of ruptures, by which was meant a severe sprain or other injury ending in suppuration, or protracted pains in the part. Fever is said to be formed in this manner: when bile or phlegm is heated, the whole of the body is heated, and they are heated either by internal things, such as food or drink, or by external, such as labor, wounds, excess of heat or cold; also from the sight or hearing, but rarely from these. In the treatment of pneumonia, venesection in the arm is recommended. Altogether this book contains much valuable matter, but mixed up with hypothesis in a way not usually met with in the genuine works of Hippocrates.

The second book, at the very commencement, betrays a strong disposition to diagnosis. Eight diseases at the head are described, but in such terms that we fail to recognize the distinguishing features of each. Besides these, a little way further on the author describes several other diseases of the head, including hydrocephalus, the symptoms of which are given with great precision, namely, acute pain about the bregma and temples, alternate rigor and fever, impairment of the sight, double vision, vertigo, etc. He recommends errhines, purgatives, and even trepanning of the skull. Even of this disease several varieties are described in very striking terms; so that for once at least we are tempted to question the correctness of the judgment which Hippocrates pronounced against the rival school of Cnidos, for cultivating diagnosis to an undue extent.

Several varieties of quinsy are likewise described, including various diseases of the parts about the fauces, and among them the disease named hypoglottis, by which appears to be meant an abscess below the tongue, attended with swelling of that organ. Five varieties of polypus nasi are next described, and suitable plans of treatment recommended, namely, with the ligature, the knife, and the cautery. Pleurisy and pneumonia are described, and their termination in empyema, the symptoms of which are circumstantially described again; and, moreover, three varieties of it are noticed. Here, again, we find mention made of the diagnostic method, by succussion, and a recommendation of the operation of paracentesis thoracis, to evacuate the fluid. Next are described several varieties of phthisis, including the tabes dorsalis, of which a curious description is given. An interesting account is also given of spermatorrhœa. The treatment consists in abstinence from immoderate drinking, venery, and excessive exercises, except walking, for a year, avoiding cold and the sun, and taking the tepid bath. The description of the varieties of pulmonic disease is most interesting, although some of them are not sufficiently well defined. Hydrothorax is also described, and paracentesis recommended in the treatment of it. After describing lethargy, which was clearly a species of remittent fever, he gives descriptions of certain diseases, under the names of morbus resiccatorius (ἀυαντή), Febris mortifera, Lividus morbus, morbus ructus ciens, and morbus pituitosus. No one can fail to recognize in these descriptions the spirit of the Cnidian school of medicine, and one very different from that of Hippocrates. Indeed we have positive authority for referring this work to the Cnidian school, for Galen assigns the description of the morbus lividus to the Cnidian physician Euryphon.[218] The author describes a singular species of melancholy, which, he says, is sometimes epidemic in spring; he calls it cura, morbus gravis. It appears to have been a variety of the lycanthropia. See Paulus Ægineta, III., 16. The book concludes with a description of two species of melæna, and of sphacelotes, the latter being a variety of the other. Now what strikes one in going over this book is, that it cannot be a portion of the same work as the First Book, for we cannot conceive it probable that an author would have treated twice of the very same subjects in one work. Moreover, as we have stated, there are evidently many things in it which are not at all in accordance with the principles of the Coan school.

In the third book very much the same ground is again gone over as in the two preceding books. In the first place, diseases of the head are described under the names of tumor cerebri, plenitudo cerebri dolorem inferens, sydere icti, sphacelismus, lethargus (then intervenes a brief account of Febris ardens, quite out of place), of dolor capitis, and phrenitis. Afterwards comes a description of cynanche, and paracynanche, next of icterus, and afterwards of tetanus, for the cure of which the author recommends the cold affusion. (On the merits and demerits of this practice, see the English edition of Paulus Ægineta, III., 20.) For ileus, as in a preceding book, among other modes of treatment, it is directed to inflate the bowels by means of a pipe and bladder, and then to evacuate their contents with a clyster. Afterward, pneumonia and pleurisy are most circumstantially described, and the treatment of them laid down with a degree of prolixity very unlike the usual manner of Hippocrates. Thus, to promote the expectoration in pleurisy, he recommends the flos æris, asafœtida, trefoil, pepper, etc.[219] I am not aware that any other ancient authority recommends these medicines for the cure of this disease. The symptoms and diagnosis of empyema as the consequence of pleurisy, are given in much the same terms as in the preceding book. Succussion is particularly alluded to. For empyema, burning and incision are recommended. In performing paracentesis, he forbids all the matter to be evacuated at once. Altogether, a perusal of this book leads me to the positive inference that it is not the production of the same author as the two preceding books; for what could induce the author to go over the same ground three different times in one work?

The fourth book is manifestly the production of a different author from the others, indeed, as appears evident from the conclusion of the work, it is continuous with the treatise “On the Nature of Women.” It commences with an elaborate discussion on the four humors, blood, phlegm, water, and bile, from which all diseases are said to derive their origin. The whole book is tinged with the exposition of this doctrine; indeed all the contents of it are for the most part hypothetical, and very unlike the matter contained in the genuine compositions of Hippocrates. From first to last there is no well-defined description of disease in it. The observations on lumbrici and calculus are the portions of it which command the greatest interest.

I shall now briefly recapitulate the conclusions which I am prepared to draw from a careful examination of the contents of this work. 1. As the same diseases, for example, pleurisy, pneumonia, and empyema, are all circumstantially treated of in each of the first three books, it is impossible to suppose them all portions of the same work, or even the productions of the same author. 2. In the fourth a different hypothesis is advanced from that which is laid down in the first, and from this circumstance, joined to many other considerations already enumerated, there can be no doubt that it is the production of an entirely different author. 3. Although all parts of these books contain abundance of valuable materials, many of the principles and rules of practice which are developed in them are not akin to those of Hippocrates, but rather savor of the Cnidian school, which trusted too much to a fanciful diagnosis, instead of cultivating prognosis as the basis of its system, like the school of Hippocrates and his followers. 4. The internal evidence in the present instance against their genuineness, more than counterbalances the small amount of ancient authority which there is in support of these books.

XXXI. Περὶ ἑπταμήνου—On the Seven Months’ Birth.

XXXII. Περὶ ὀκταμήνου—On the Eight Months’ Birth.

Although the genuineness of these two works is admitted by Galen[220] and by Foës,[221] they are not looked upon as the productions of Hippocrates by almost any other of the authorities, whether ancient or modern, and in particular, Palladius, Ackerman, Gruner, Littré, and Greenhill reject them. Yet all admit them to be of very high antiquity, so that, in this respect, they are not destitute of considerable interest. The contents of them are altogether of a philosophical nature, and such as we might expect the school of Democritus to produce. The author of them holds that fœtuses born at the seventh month survive, but not those of the eighth. It is clear that he was imbued with the Pythagorean notions regarding the mystical power of the number seven.[222] Altogether, the style and matter of these treatises do not appear to me to accord well with the spirit which prevails in the true Hippocratic works, but at the same time it must be admitted that the preponderance of authority for or against their authenticity is not decided.[223]

XXXIII. Ἐπιδημών, β’, δ’, ε’, ς’, ζ’—The 2d, 4th, 5th, 6th, and 7th Books of the Epidemics.

With the exception of Erotian, who admits the whole of the seven books of Epidemics into his list of the works of Hippocrates, I am not aware that any of the authorities, ancient or modern, recognize them as genuine. Galen says that the seventh is allowed by all to be spurious; that the fifth is the work of Hippocrates, the son of Draco, that is to say, of a grandson of the great Hippocrates; and that the second, fourth, and sixth were held by some to be the productions of a son of Hippocrates, and by some they were looked upon as having been written, indeed, by Hippocrates himself, but merely as notes or commentaries. Galen himself inclines to the opinion that these four books are the production of Thessalus, the son of Hippocrates.[224]

From what has been stated respecting these books, it will be clearly seen that, although there is no reason whatever to suppose they were published by Hippocrates, it is, at the same time, highly probable that he had something to do with the composition of them, and that, at all events, they emanated from the school upon which his name has cast so much splendor. I think myself, therefore, called upon to give a condensed view of their contents; and in doing so, I shall not scruple to avail myself of the very important annotations made on them by M. Littré, in his recent edition of this portion of the Hippocratic treatises.

With regard to these books, in general, he observes that they are naturally divided into two groups, the one containing the second, fourth, and sixth books, the other the fifth and seventh. The correctness of this division is quite evident from a comparison of the contents of the different books, and, to a certain extent, it is recognized by Galen.[225]

As to the locality of these observations, M. Littré shows that the spot of their greatest activity is Thessaly and Thrace, although mention of Athens, and of certain cities of the Peloponnesus occasionally occurs. He traces with much minuteness the connection of these books with the other works in the Hippocratic Collection. For example, he shows the connection between those in the first group, with the “Aphorisms,” in particular, but also with the treatises, “On Airs,” etc., “The Mochlicus,” “The Surgery,” etc., and of those in the other group, with the work “On Wounds of the Head” in particular. I will now offer a few remarks on the contents of each of these books.

M. Littré, in his argument prefixed to the second book, treats of various matters contained in it, the most interesting of which is his elaborate disquisition on the nature of the carbuncles (ἄνθρακες) described in his book, during the course of which he brings into review various collateral passages from the works of subsequent authors, and discusses the question at considerable length whether or not they apply to smallpox. I am free to admit that it would have been to my advantage if I had seen this part of the writings of M. Littré before piling my commentary on Paulus Ægineta, B. IV., 25. I must be permitted to say, however, that I see no reason for changing my opinions with regard to the anthrax of the Greek writers on medicine. I certainly cannot agree with M. Theod. Kauser, in setting down the ancient descriptions of the anthrax and plague (λοιμὸς) as applying to the smallpox. Having diligently studied the minute descriptions which the ancient medical authors give of the different varieties of cutaneous disease, I am confident that if the smallpox had actually existed in their days, they would not have passed over the disease with a vague and casual notice, but would have given us such a sketch of its appearances that no one could have failed to recognize its features. The carbuncles, then, which are incidentally mentioned by Hippocrates at the beginning of this book, I am disposed to look upon as one of those anomalous phases of disease which are every now and then making their appearance, and I cannot persuade myself that they had anything to do with smallpox.

Among the important matters contained in this book may be noticed the remarks on deposits, an interesting subject often alluded to in the Hippocratic treatises, § 7. At § 22 a case is obscurely noticed, which M. Littré concludes, but upon very slight grounds, to have been a case of purulent infection. At § 24 spontaneous luxation of the cervical vertebræ is described, as M. Littré, in his argument, remarks, with admirable judgment. It is also alluded to at “Aphoris,” iii., 26, and “De Articulis,” tom. iv., p. 179, ed. Littré. This affection, which came afterwards to be overlooked, has been redescribed of late years. In the third section there is given an interesting account of causus, the remittent fever of hot climates, so admirably described afterward by Aretæus. The fourth section is occupied with a description of the veins of the body, which is certainly confused, and yet we find in it the distinction between the nature of the arteries and veins clearly pointed out. It is curious, moreover, that Galen, in one place, stands up for this part as being genuine and accurate.[226] See also b.v. § 46. The last two sections treat professedly of physiognomy, but contain other detached and unconnected observations on medical subjects. Altogether, the impression which a careful perusal of this book conveys to one is, that it is a compilation of the most incongruous matters, strung together without any plan; but, at the same time, one cannot fail to detect in it traces of no contemptible talent for observation and description.

The fourth book, of the whole number, is the one which is written with the least unity of design. Yet, as M. Littré remarks, it is interesting as containing the history of an epidemical causus, complicated with jaundice and ophthalmia, which would appear to have been very similar to the febrile epidemic which prevailed in Scotland a few years ago. With this opinion I entirely acquiesce, after having had a good deal of experience in the treatment of that epidemic. It was decidedly of the remittent type, was frequently accompanied with jaundice, and the patients were very subject to relapses and affections of the eyes.[227] For Hippocrates’s description of it see tom. v., p. 169, ed. Littré. M. Littré also makes the important remark that, of late years, proper attention has not been paid to the state of the urine at the epoch of a crisis in fevers. He mentions that M. Martin Solon holds that, at the resolution of diseases, the urine is apt to become albuminous; but that, in a true crisis, the precipitate is generally composed of urate of ammonia. M. Zimmerman found the urinary deposit composed of the urate of ammonia, with the triple phosphates and the crystals of uric acid. Certain observations on this critical deposit occur in this book of the Epidemics, but they are met with more frequently and more distinctly expressed in the genuine books, I mean the first and third. It appears to me most remarkable that the important observations made by Hippocrates on the state of the urine in febrile diseases should have been lost sight of in an age when the chemical characters of the urine have been so much studied; for I am fully satisfied, from my own practical acquaintance with fevers, that in most cases the febrile crisis is marked by a copious sediment in the urine. An interesting case of empyema, which was treated by the cautery, is related at § 4. A case is related at § 19 of a singular affection of the mouth in two children, attended with necrosis and exfoliation of the bones. At § 39 there is a case of metastasis of purulent matter from the hand to the lungs. At § 11 a case is related of a child who sustained an injury in the head from another child, was trepanned, and died on the twenty-fourth day. We shall see in the work “On Injuries of the Head” that the ancients were very free in the application of the trepan to the skull. Cases of nyctalopia are alluded to at § 52, and at § 58 a case is related of mania supervening on the cure of hemorrhoids. But, upon the whole, the most interesting part of this book is that which contains the narratives of febrile cases, and the remarks on relapses, § 28.

Though the fifth and seventh books of the Epidemics are pronounced by Galen to be unworthy of the Great Hippocrates, they contain detached observations of much interest, insomuch that Haller was almost disposed to admit the genuineness of the fifth. Lemos and Mercuriali, on the other hand, hold them to be wholly removed from all connection with the genuine remains of Hippocrates. It is remarkable, however, that the fifth is referred to by Celsus,[228] Quintilian,[229] and Plutarch.[230] This, in fact, is the book which contains the memorable passage in which the author admits, that in a case of injury of the head he mistook a fracture for a suture of the skull,[231] and for this candid admission Hippocrates is highly lauded by the authors we have just quoted. The Hippocratic treatises also contain many other instances in which the author admits having committed mistakes. How much might the medical art not have advanced before this time, if the example thus set of recording for the benefit of posterity, the mistakes which one commits had been more generally followed?[232] The first paragraph contains the case of a woman who had fever and took medicine which did her no good; a hard swelling, accompanied with severe pains, seized her below the navel, which were removed by strongly rubbing in oil with the hands, after which she had a copious discharge of blood downwards, and recovered. M. Littré, from a comparison of this passage with Epidem. ii., 6, 26; iv., 45, 56, draws the conclusion, that reference is here made to the practice of compressing the bowels with the hands in cases of ileus, for which Praxagoras, the master or Herophilus, is censured by Cælius Aurelianus.[233] At § 9 there is the case of a man affected with prurigo, and a condition of the skin resembling leprosy, which nobody could remove. He then went to the hot baths in the island of Melos, and was cured of his cutaneous affection, but soon after became dropsical and died. In § 10 there is related a case of cholera, treated with hellebore, which produced great evacuations upwards and downwards, and the patient recovered. This mode of practice is animadverted upon by Cælius Aurelianus. (Morb. Acut. iii., 20.) § 12th contains an instructive history of headache in a woman, which nothing relieved but free menstruation, and afterwards conception. At § 15, there is a very interesting case of necrosis or caries at the hip-joint, for the relief of which a large incision was made down to the bone and the cautery applied; on the eleventh day tetanus supervened, and proved fatal on the eighth day afterwards, although treated by embrocations, fomentations, and strong purgatives. The author remarks in conclusion, that the patient would have lived longer, if the purgative medicine had not been administered. At § 16 there is a case of injury of the head, where the surgeon at first sawed the bone down to the diploe, a practice alluded to in the treatise “On Injuries of the Head,” § 21. In this case erysipelas came on, and yet the patient recovered. It is to be regretted that the text here is in a corrupt state. At § 18 there is a case of pregnancy in which the administration of a strong purgative was followed by fatal results. At § 20 there is related a case of hemorrhoids, seemingly mali moris, which proved fatal in consequence of an operation having been performed upon them. § 24th contains the history of a case of hæmoptysis, which ended in phthisis. The author makes the shrewd remark that the patient was indisposed before the vomiting of blood commenced. I may here remark, how well this accords with the doctrine of Louis, that hæmoptysis is rather the consequence than the cause of tubercular disease. At § 38 there is another case of hæmoptysis in which the patient was choked by a large quantity of blood which he was bringing up; the spleen also, in this case, was affected, and there were bloody discharges downwards. This book contains a great variety of serious cases connected with accidents. At § 50 is a fatal case of concussion of the brain. At § 74 there is a fatal case of tetanus supervening upon a slight injury of one of the fingers and in the following section there is a case of tetanus arising from a strain of the thumb and proving fatal. In the next section there is a case of fatal tetanus from the injudicious healing of a sore on the leg.