Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/974

HISTORY] is found in Man; and this is followed by an account of the development or embryology and comparative anatomy or morphology, as far as vertebrate animals are concerned; but only those parts of the lower animals which are of interest in explaining Man’s structure are here dealt with. The articles have a twofold purpose; first, to give enough details of man’s structure to make the articles on physiology, surgery, medicine and pathology intelligible; and, secondly, to give the non-expert inquirer, or the worker in some other branch of science, the chief theories on which the modern scientific groundwork of anatomy is built.

The following separate anatomical articles will be found under their own headings:—

In tracing the history of the origin of anatomy, it may be justly said that more learning than judgment has been displayed. Some writers claim for it the highest antiquity, and pretend to find its first rudiments alternately in the animal sacrifices of the shepherd kings, the Jews and other ancient nations, and in the art of embalming as practised by the Egyptian priests. Even the descriptions of wounds in the Iliad have been supposed adequate to prove that in the time of Homer mankind had distinct notions of the structure of the human body. Of the first it may be said that the rude information obtained by the slaughter of animals for sacrifice does not imply profound anatomical knowledge; and those who adduce the second as evidence are deceived by the language of the poet of the Trojan War, which, distinguishing certain parts by their ordinary Greek epithets, as afterwards used by Hippocrates, Galen and all anatomists, has been rather too easily supposed to prove that the poet had studied systematically the structure of the human frame.

With not much greater justice has the cultivation of anatomical knowledge been ascribed to Hippocrates, who, because he is universally allowed to be the father of medicine, has also been thought to be the creator of the science of anatomy. Of the seven individuals of the family of the Heracleidae who bore this celebrated name, the second, who was the son of Heraclides and Phenarita, and grandson of the first Hippocrates, was indeed distinguished as a physician of great observation and experience, and the first who appreciated the value of studying accurately the phenomena, effects and terminations of disease. It does not appear, however, notwithstanding the vague and general panegyrics of J. Riolan, Bartholin, D. le Clerc, and A. Portal, that the anatomical knowledge of this illustrious person was either accurate or profound. Of the works ascribed to Hippocrates, five only are genuine. Most of them were written either by subsequent authors of the same name, or by one or other of the numerous impostors who took advantage of the zealous munificence of the Ptolemies, by fabricating works under that illustrious name. Of the few which are genuine, there is none expressly devoted to anatomy; and of his knowledge on this subject the only proofs are to be found in the exposition of his physiological opinions, and his medical or surgical instructions. From these it appears that Hippocrates had some accurate notions on osteology, but that of the structure of the human body in general his ideas were at once superficial and erroneous. In his book on injuries of the head, and in that on fractures, he shows that he knew the sutures of the cranium and the relative situation of the bones, and that he had some notion of the shape of the bones in general and of their mutual connexions. Of the muscles, of the soft parts in general, and of the internal organs, his ideas are confused, indistinct and erroneous. The term  he seems, in imitation of the colloquial Greek, to have used generally to signify a blood-vessel, without being aware of the distinction of vein and artery; and the term , or air-holder, is restricted to the windpipe. He appears to have been unaware of the existence of the nervous chords; and the term nerve is used by him, as by Grecian authors in general, to signify a sinew or tendon. On other points his views are so much combined with peculiar physiological doctrines, that it is impossible to assign them the character of anatomical facts; and even the works in which these doctrines are contained are with little probability to be ascribed to the second Hippocrates. If, however, we overlook this difficulty, and admit what is contained in the genuine Hippocratic writings to represent at least the sum of knowledge possessed by Hippocrates and his immediate descendants, we find that he represents the brain as a gland, from which exudes a viscid fluid; that the heart is muscular and of pyramidal shape, and has two ventricles separated by a partition, the fountains of life—and two auricles, receptacles of air; that the lungs consist of five ash-coloured lobes, the substance of which is cellular and spongy, naturally dry, but refreshed by the air; and that the kidneys are glands, but possess an attractive faculty, by virtue of which the moisture of the drink is separated and descends into the bladder. He distinguishes the bowels into colon and rectum ( ).

The knowledge possessed by the second Hippocrates was transmitted in various degrees of purity to the descendants and pupils, chiefly of the family of the Heracleidae, who succeeded him. Several of these, with feelings of grateful affection, appear to have studied to preserve the written memory of his instructions, and in this manner to have contributed to form part of that collection of treatises which have long been known to the learned world under the general name of the Hippocratic writings. Though composed, like the genuine remains of the physician of Cos, in the Ionian dialect, all of them differ from these in being more diffuse in style, more elaborate in form, and in studying to invest their anatomical and medical matter with the fanciful ornaments of the Platonic philosophy. Hippocrates had the merit of early recognizing the value of facts apart from opinions, and of those facts especially which lead to general results; and in the few genuine writings which are now extant it is easy to perceive that he has recourse to the simplest language, expresses himself in terms which, though short and pithy, are always precise and perspicuous, and is averse to the introduction of philosophical dogmas. Of the greater part of the writings collected under his name, on the contrary the general character