This electronic edition is funded by the National Library of Medicine History of Medicine Division. This text has been proofread to a high degree of accuracy. It was converted to electronic form using Data Entry. (Medical Information Disclaimer:
It is not the intention of NLM to provide specific medical advice but rather to provide users with information to better understand their health and their diagnosed disorders. Specific medical advice will not be provided, and NLM urges you to consult with a qualified physician for diagnosis and for answers to your personal questions.)
GENERAL INTRODUCTION
1. Greek Medicine and Hippocrates
[p. xii]
theory in his philosophical system.
For the medical theories of Philolaus see the extracts
from the recently discovered Iatrica of Menon, discussed by
Diels in Hermes XXVIII., p. 417 foll.
Empedocles,
who flourished somewhat earlier than Philolaus, was
a " medicine-man " rather than a physician, though
he is called by Galen the founder of the Italian
school of medicine.
Galen X. 5.
The medical side of his teaching
was partly magic and quackery.
This combination of medicine and philosophy is
clearly marked in the Hippocratic collection. There
are some treatises which seek to explain medical
phenomena by a priori assumptions, after the manner
of the philosophers with their method of ὑποθέσεισ2
or postulates ; there are others which strongly
oppose this method. The Roman Celsus in his
preface
Hippocrates . . . ab studio sapientiae disciplinam hanc
separavit, vir et arte et facundia insignis.
asserts that Hippocrates separated medicine
from philosophy, and it is a fact that the best works
of the Hippocratic school are as free from philosophic
assumptions as they are from religious dogma. But
before attempting to estimate the work of Hippocrates
it is necessary to consider, not only the doctrine of
the philosophers, but also the possibly pre-Hippocratic
books in the Corpus. These are the Prenotions of Cos
and the First Prorrhetic,
Grimm, Ermerins and Adams are convinced of the early
date of these. Littré seems to have changed his mind. Contrast
I. 351 with VIII. xxxix. The writer in Pauly-Wissowa
is also uncertain. I hope to treat the question fully when I
come to Prognostic in Vol. II.
and perhaps the treatise--in
Latin and Arabic, the Greek original having mostly
perished--on the number seven (περὶἑβδομάδων).