drawn together to form a large and comprehensive system of medicine. Discarding all assumptions of abstract elements, or of various phenomena being deduced from one substance, Hippocrates seems to have insisted upon taking man as he appears in experience, and from an accurate induction of particular cases to establish the laws of health and disease. The gymnasts had taught him to lay stress on hygiene, and he insists that an accurate analysis of health is vital for teaching us the true symptoms of disease. But while thus starting from particulars, and building his inferences on them, he learned from the philosophers that large view which, as it were, neglects local symptoms, and seeks to classify each case under general conditions of disease, bringing out the common features in each, and comparing them with the general conditions of normal health. Hence he paid special attention to climate and situation, and his most interesting tract is that on the effects of air, water, and situation, in which he compares Asiatic and European races, and suggests to Plato and Aristotle the celebrated political division of mankind so often quoted from the The minute noting of cases in his Epidemics shows περί γε ἑωυτῶν ἕκαστοι. Ἐμοὶ δὲ καὶ αὐτῷ δοκεῖ ταῦτα τὰ πάθεα θεῖα εἶναι καὶ τἆλλα πάντα, καὶ οὐδὲν ἕτερον ἑτέρου θειότερον, οὐδὲ ἀνθρωπινώτερον, ἀλλὰ πάντα ὁμοῖα καὶ πάντα θεῖα· ἕκαστον δὲ ἔχει φύσιν τῶν τοιούτων καὶ οὐδὲν ἄνευ φύσιος γίγνεται. Καὶ τοῦτο τὸ πάθος ὥς μοι δοκέει γίγνεσθαι φράσω. Ὑπὸ τῆς ἱππασίης αὐτοὺς κέδματα λαμβάνει, ἅτε ἀεὶ κρεμαμένων ἀπὸ τῶν ἵππων τοῖς ποσί· ἔπειτα ἀποχωλοῦνται καὶ ἑλκοῦνται τὰ ἰσχία οἳ ἂν σφόδρα νοσήσωσι. Τοῦτο δὲ πάσχουσι Σκυθέων οἱ πλούσιοι, οὐχ οἱ κάκιστοι, ἀλλ ̓ οἱ εὐγενέστατοι καὶ ἰσχὺν πλείστην κεκτημένοι, διὰ τὴν ἱππασίην· οἱ δὲ πένητες ἧσσον, οὐ γὰρ ἱππάζονται. Καίτοι ἔχρην, ἐπεὶ θειότερον τοῦτο τὸ νόσευμα τῶν λοιπῶν ἐστι, οὐ τοῖς γενναιοτάτοις τῶν Σκυθέων καὶ τοῖς πλουσιωτάτοις προσπίπτειν μούνοις, ἀλλὰ τοῖς ἅπασι ὁμοίως καὶ μᾶλλον τοῖσι ὀλίγα κεκτημένοισι· εἰ δὴ τιμώμενοι χαίρουσι οἱ θεοὶ καὶ θαυμαζόμενοι ὑπ' ἀνθρώπων καὶ ἀντὶ τούτων χάριτας ἀποδιδοῦσι. Εἰκὸς γὰρ τοὺς μὲν πλουσίους θύειν πολλὰ τοῖς θεοῖς, καὶ ἀνατιθέναι ἀναθήματα, ὄντων χρημάτων, καὶ τιμᾶν· τοὺς δὲ πένητας ἧσσον, διὰ τὸ μὴ ἔχειν, ἔπειτα καὶ ἐπιμεμφομένους, ὅτι οὐ διδόασι χρήματα αὐτοῖσι· ὥστε τῶν τοιούτων ἁμαρτιῶν τὰς ζημίας τοὺς ὀλίγα κεκτημένους φέρειν μᾶλλον ἢ τοὺς πλουσίους. ̓Αλλὰ γάρ, ὥσπερ καὶ πρότερον ἔλεξα, θεῖα μὲν καὶ ταῦτά ἐστι ὁμοίως τοῖς ἄλλοις· γίγνεται δὲ κατὰ φύσιν ἕκαστα· καὶ ἡ τοιαύτη νοῦσος ἀπὸ τοιαύτης προφάσιος τοῖς Σκύθαις γίγνεται στην εἴρηκα. Έχει δὲ καὶ κατὰ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀνθρώπους ὁμοίως. the other side of his mind; and there are points of diagnosis ('prognosis,' as he called it) on which modern physicians have nothing to add to his observation. Turning from details to the general features of the man, so far as we can discern them in the acknowledged treatises, we are struck with the honest, earnest, scientific spirit of all his researches. He is in direct antagonism with the spirit of charlatanism, and of seeking after sudden effects and surprises, which must have been a very general feature among medical men when they had but lately separated themselves from priests and soothsayers-in fact, from the 'medicine men' who impose upon early and superstitious societies. The celebrated opening sentence of the Aphorisms is a memorable manifesto against this spirit,' and in a hundred places he warns against ostentation, recommends simplicity and patience, and confesses with true and deep modesty his errors and his failures. Here, again, we are reminded of Thucydides' description of his own work, no ἀγώνισμα ἐς τὸ παραχρῆμα, but a κτῆμα ἐς ἀεί. In fact, as Littré has observed, the polemic of Hippocrates against the charlatans is as serious and sustained as that of Socrates against the sophists. $327. The style of Hippocrates is nervous, exceedingly compressed, and, at times, obscure from its brevity; but, on the other hand, profoundly suggestive, picturesque, and full of power and pathos. He uses poetical words and images freely, but always to increase the fulness of his meaning, never for mere ornament. He is far terser in thought than Thucydides, though he resembles him in shortness of expression; indeed, as I have before said, he more resembles Heracleitus than any other Greek prose writer. The questions about his dialect are quite similar to those which beset the text of Herodotus. Though dwelling in the Doric settlement of Kos, he used the Ionic dialect. It appears, however, not only from our texts, but from the remarks of ancient critics, that his language was closer to old Attic than that of Herodotus, and we do not know whether it · ὁ βίος βραχύς, ἡ δὲ τέχνη μακρή, ὁ δὲ καιρὸς ὀξύς, ἡ δὲ πεῖρα σφαλερή, ἡ δὲ κρίσις χαλεπή. was merely another of the four dialects distinguished by him, or whether it was an artificial language with Atticisms introduced. Our MSS. are hopelessly vacillating in their various transcriptions of the same words; and here, as with Herodotus, the ignorance of scribes, who substituted a familiar for a provincial form, has destroyed the evidence which we might have had concerning the literary dialects of Asia Minor. The whole history of the text of this author is, indeed, full of doubt and difficulty. The researches of Littré have. disentangled the following facts. Ktesias of Knidos, though said to be a relation of Hippocrates, belonged to a rival school, and is reported by Galen to have criticised some points of practice recommended by Hippocrates. As these physicians were contemporary, Ktesias cannot have referred to any later or spurious writings. But such soon came into existence. The sons and the son-in-law of Hippocrates, as well as other members of the school, edited, enlarged, and circulated his writings. Some of the tracts are evidently mere rough notes thrown into shape; and thus a body of Hippocratic writings, not unlike the collection of Aristotelian writings, began to be formed, in which the genuine and spurious were almost inextricably combined. Aristotle, who shows many traces of intimacy with Hippocrates, quotes one of the existing tracts (On the Nature of Man) under the name of Polybus, his son-in-law. We hear in the succeeding generations of Diokles of Karystus, Apollonius and Dexippus of Kos, as commentators upon his doctrine. With Herophilus, who founded a celebrated school at Alexandria, the real criticism of the text seems to have begun; for the lists of Hippocratic writings varied, and the learned men, called 'sifters' (xwpišovτes), drew up a short list of what they held genuine. No author was more commented on, both as to style and as to matter, than Hippocrates. While the school of Herophilus carried on fierce polemics on his principles, and on the genuineness of certain tracts, the verbal critics, like Aristarchus, discussed his dialect and style. I must refer the reader to Littré's fifth chapter for a full list of all these critics down to Galen, who is our best authority upon Hippocrates, but whose medical criticisms only have survived; a trea tise on the genuineness of the several tracts, and another on the historical allusions in them, are unfortunately lost. We may pass in silence the few later names which follow upon Galen, the last of the great ancient physicians. Three Lives are to be found in Suidas (very full), in Tzetzes, and one ascribed to Soranus (not Soranus of Kos). : § 328. Bibliographical. A great number of MSS. of Hippocratic writings remain, but we are still in want of any complete catalogue of them. Those in Paris have been collated with exemplary care and diligence by M. Littré, who discovered that one of them (No. 2253), of the tenth century, contains a text far superior to all the others, and is derived from a purer archetype. He also shows that none of our MSS. represents the texts of Artemidorus, Rufus, and Sabinus, prepared in Hadrian's time, and criticised for their innovations by Galen, who comments, even in his day, on the variations in the MSS. Concerning the Viennese, Marcian, or Vatican copies I can find out nothing certain. The text first appeared in a Latin translation of Fabius Calvus, the friend of Raphael, in 1525 (Aldus); the Greek text in 1526 (ibid.). Then come the great Basle and Dutch editions of Cornarius and Foës. The only modern editions of note are Littré's (4 vols. Paris, 1839), based on the Paris MSS., and Ermerins' Dutch edition (1859-64), which only adds a collation of two trivial Leiden. MSS., and many notes of Cobet on a Marcian codex. The Histories of Medicine, such as Sprengel's and Daremberg's, must be consulted for closer information. At last we have, in the Revue des études grecques for 1889 (vol. ii. pp. 342, sq.), a learned enquiry into the extant MSS. on medical subjects by M. Costomiris, himself both a Greek and a physician. He gives a catalogue of the treasures of the Paris libraries, and adds that there are many tracts of Galen and others still unprinted! CHAPTER III. THE DEVELOPMENT OF PHILOSOPHY AND THE RISE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION IN THE FIFTH CENTURY-THE SOPHISTS AND SOCRATES. 329. WE now proceed to consider the speculations and the teaching of Greek philosophy-a large and special studyso far as they had a direct influence upon letters. There was a time when Greek philosophy assumed the garb of epic poetry, and though very novel in subject, did not modify the form which it adopted, or create a new kind or species in literature. I have mentioned Xenophanes, Parmenides, and Empedocles as the most remarkable representatives of this epoch in Greek thought. There came also a time when prose had long been the received organ for earnest thinking, when philosophy, with equal indifference about the form, used that received organ without adding any other feature to literature than seriousness of tone and the introduction of some technical terms. Such, for example, was the prose of Chrysippus and of Aristotle. But at the crisis in the Greek mind which we have reached with the middle of the fifth century-a period of seething restlessness in politics and in speculation, of scepticism in religion, of vagueness in the yet unformed theory of morals-philosophy must necessarily become an important thread in the variegated tissue which the historian seeks to unravel. The rise of a new character in Greek literature produced by these causes must of course have been gradual, and marked off by no gap of time from what preceded, and we might expect to find even contemporaries variously affected by it— some adhering to the old, and some to the new ideas. But by |