Page:Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology (1870) - Volume 2.djvu/499

Rh internal evidence to guide us in our task of ex- amining these writings, in order to decide which really belong to Hippocrates, we should come to but few positive results ; and therefore it is neces- sary to collect all the ancient testimonies that can still be found ; in doing which, it will appear that the Collection, as a whole, can be traced no higher than the period of the Alexandrian school, in the third century b. c. ; but that particular treatises are referred to by the contemporaries of Hippocrates and his immediate successors. {^Brit. and For. Med. Rev. p. 460.)

We find that Hippocrates is mentioned or re- ferred to by no less than ten persons anterior to the foundation of the Alexandrian school, and among them by Aristotle and Plato. At the time of the formation of the great Alexandrian library, the different treatises which bear the name of Hip- pocrates were diligently sought for, and formed into a single collection ; and about this time commences the series of Commentators, which has continued through a period of more than two thousand years to the present day. The first person who is known to have commented on any of the works of the Hippocratic Collection is Herophilus. [Herophi- Lus.] The most ancient commentary still in ex- istence is that on the treatise " De Articulis," by ApoUonius Citiensis. [Apollonius Citiensis.] By far the most voluminous, and at the same time by far the most valuable commentaries that remain, are those of Galen, who wrote several works in illustration of the writings of Hippocrates, besides those which we now possess. His Commentaries, which are still extant, are those on the " De Na- tura Hominis," " De Salubri Victus Ratione," " De Ratione Victus in Morbis Acutis," " Praenotiones," " Praedictiones I.," " Aphorismi," " De Morbis Vulgaribus I. II. III. VI," " De Fracturis," "De Articulis," " De OfRcina Medici," and " De Hu- moribus," with a glossary of difficult and obsolete words, and fragments on the " De Aere, Aquis, et Locis," and " De Alimento." The other ancient commentaries that remain are those of Palladius, Joannes Alexandrinus, Stephanus Atheniensis, Meletius, Theophilus Protospatharius, and Damas- cius ; besides a spurious work attributed to Ori- basius, a glossary of obsolete and difficult words by I'lrotianus, and some Arabic Commentaries that have never been published. {^Brit. and For. Med. Rev. p. 461.)

His writings were held in the highest esteem by the ancient Greek and Latin physicians, and most of them were translated into Arabic. (See Wen- rich, De Auct. Grace. Vers, et Comment. Syr. Arab., &c.) In the middle ages, however, they were not so much studied as those of some other authors, whose works are of a more practical cha- racter, and better fitted for being made a class-book and manual of instruction. In more modern times, on the contrary, the works of the Hippocratic Col- lection have been valued more according to their real worth, while many of the most popular medical writers of the middle ages have fallen into complete neglect. The number of works written in illustra- tion or explanation of the Collection is very great, as is also that of the editions of the whole or any part ol the treatises composing it. Of these only a very few can be here mentioned : a fuller account may be found in Fabric. Bibl. Grace. ; Haller, Bibl. Medic. Pract.; the first vol. of Kiihn's edi- tion of Hippocrates; Choulanfs Ilandb. der Bu- clierTcunde fur die Aellere Medicin ; Littre's Hip- pocrates ; and other professed bibliographical works. 'J'he works of Hippocrates first appeared in a Latin translation by Fabius Calvus, Rom. 1525, fol. The first Greek edition is the Aldine, Venet. 1526, fol., which was printed from MSS. with hardly any correction of the transcriber's errors. The first edition that had any pretensions to be called a critical edition was that by Hieron. Mercurialis, Venet. 1588, fol., Gr. and Lat. ; but this was much surpassed by that of Anut. Foesius, Francof. 1595, fol., Gr. and Lat., which continues to the present day to be the best complete edition. Van- der Linden's edition (Lugd. Bat. 1 665, 8vo. 2 vols. Gr. and Lat.) is neat and commodious for refer- ence from his having divided the text into short paragraphs. Chartier's edition of the works of Galen and Hippocrates has been noticed under Galen; as has also Kiihn's, of which it may be said that its only advantages are its convenient size, the reprint of Ackermann's Histor. Liter. Hippocr. (from Harless's ed. of Fabr. Bibl. Gr.) in the first vol., and the noticing on each page the cor- responding pagination of the editions of Foes, Chartier, and Vander Linden. By far the best edition in every respect is one which is now in the course of publication at Paris, under the super- intendence of E. Littre, of which the first vol. ap- peared in 1839, and the fourth in 1844. It contains a new text, founded upon a collation of the MSS. in the Royal Library at Paris ; a French translation ; an interesting and learned general In- troduction, and a copious argument prefixed to each treatise ; and numerous scientific and philological notes. It is a work quite indispensable to every physician, critic, and philologist, who wishes to study in detail the works of the Hippocratic Col- lection, and it has already done much more to- wards settling the text than any edition that has preceded it ; but at the same time it must not be concealed that the editor does not seem to have always made the best use of the materials that he has had at his command, and that the classical reader cannot help now and then noticing a mani- fest want of critical (and even at times of gram- matical) scholarship.

The Hippocratic Collection consists of more than sixty works ; and the classification of these, and assigning each (as far as possible) to its proper author, constitutes by far the most diffi- cult question connected with the ancient medical writers. Various have been the classifications proposed both in ancient and modern times, and various the rules by which their authors were guided ; some contenting themselves with following implicitly the opinions of Galen and Erotianus, others arguing chiefly from peculiarities of style, while a tliird class distinguished the books according to the medical and philosophical doctrines contained in them. An account of each of these classifications cannot be given here, much less can the objections that may be brought against each be pointed out : upon the whole, the writer is inclined to think M. Littre's superior to any that has preceded it ; but by no means so imexceptionable as to do away with the necessity of a new one. The following classification, though far enough from supplying the desideratum, difi'ers in several in- stances from any former one : it is impossible here for the writer to give more than the results of his investigation, referring for the data on which hia