crates, inviting him by great offers to come to his assistance during a time of pestilence, and the re- fusal of Hippocrates, on the ground of his being the enemy of his country.
Another story, perhaps equally familiar to the readers of Burton's "Anatomy of Melancholy," contains the history of the supposed madness of Democritus, and his interview with Hippocrates, who had been sunnnoned by his countrymen to come to his relief.
If we turn to the Arabic writers, we find " Bokrdt " represented as living at Hems, and studying in a garden near Damascus, the situation of which was still pointed out in the time of Abu-1- faraj in the thirteenth century. (Abu-1-faraj, Hist. Dynast, p. 56; Anon. Arab. Philosoph. Bibl. apud Casiri, Bihlioth. A rahico-Hisp. Escur. vol. i. p. 235.) They also tell a story of his pupils taking his por- trait to a celebrated physiognomist named Phile- mon., in order to try his skill ; and that upon his saying that it was the portrait of a lascivious old man ( which they strenuously denied), Hippocrates said that he was right, for that he was so by nature, but that he had learned to overcome his amorous propensities. The confusion of names that occurs in this last anecdote the writer has never seen explained, though the difficulty admits of an easy and satisfactory solution. It will no doubt have brought to the reader's recollection the similar story told of Socrates by Cicero (Tusc. Disp. iv. 37, De Fata., c. 5), and accordingly he will be quite prepared to hear that the Arabic writers have confounded the word ]b^ JL«j Sokrut^ with ^^ Jj Boki-at., and have thus applied to Hippocrates an anecdote that in reality belongs to Socrates. The name of the physiognomist in Cicero is Zopyrus, which cannot have been corrupted into Philemon ; but when we remember that the Arabians have no /*, and are therefore often obliged to express this letter by an F^ it will probably appear not unlikely that either the writers, or their European trans- lators, have confounded Philemon with Polemon. This conjecture is confirmed by the fact that Phile- mon is said by Abu-1-faraj to have written a work on Physiognomy, which is true of Polemon, whose treatise on that subject is still extant, whereas no person of the name of Philemon (as far as the writer is aware) is mentioned as a physiognomist by any Greek author.* The only objection to this conjecture is the anachronism of making Pole- mon a contemporary of Hippocrates or Socrates ; but this difficulty will not appear very great to any one who is familiar with the extreme igno- rance and carelessness displayed by the Arabic writers on all points of Greek history and chro- nology.
It is, however, among the European story- tellers of the middle ages that the name of " Ypo- cras " is most celebrated. In one story he is repre- sented as visiting Rome during the reign of Au- gustus, and restoring to life the emperor's nephew, who was just dead ; for which service Augustus
- There is at this present time among the MSS.
at Leyden a little Arabic treatise on Physiognomy which bears the name of Philemon., and which (as the writer has been informed by a gentleman who has compared the two works) bears a very great resemblance to the Greek treatise by Polemon. {JXQ Catal. Biblioth. Lujdun. p. 461. § 1286.)
erected a statue in his honour as to a divinity. A fair lady resolved to prove that this god was a mere mortal ; and, accordingly, having made an assignation with him, she let down for him a basket from her window. When she had raised him half way, she left him suspended in the air all night, till he was found by the emperor in the morning, and thus became the laughing-stock of the court. Anoiher story makes him professor of medicine in Rome, with a nephew of wondrous talents and medical skill, whom he despatched in his own stead to the king of Hungary, who had sent for him to heal his son. The young leech, by his marvellous skill, having discovered that the prince was not the king's own son, directed him to feed on " contrarius drink, contrarius mete, beves flesch, and drink the broth t," and thereby soon restored him to health. Upon his return home laden with presents, " Ypocras" became so jealous of his fame, that he murdered him, and afterwards " he let all his bokes berne." The vengeance of Heaven overtook him, and he died in dreadful torments, confessing his crime, and vainly calling on his murdered nephew for relief. (See Ellis, Spec, of Early Engl. Metr. Roman, vol. iii. p. 39 ; Weber, Metr. Rom. of the Wi, Uh, and bth Cent.., ^c, vol. iii. p. 41 ; Way, Fabliaux or Talcs of the ih and 'Mh Cent.^ ^c. vol. ii. p. 173 ; Le- grand d'Aussy, Fabliaux ou Contes, Fables et Ro- mans du eme et du ?>eme Siecles, tome i. p. 288 ; Loiseleur Deslongchamps, Essai sur les Fables Ind. ^c, p. 154, and Roman des Sept Sages, p. 26.)
If, from the personal history of Hippocrates, we turn to the collection of writings that go under his name, the parallel with Homer will be still more exact and striking. In both cases we find a number of works, the most ancient, and, in some respects, the most excellent of their kind, which, though they have for centuries borne the same name, are discovered, on the most cursory examination, to belong in reality to several different persons. Hence has arisen a question which has for ages exercised the learning and acuteness of scholars and critics, and which is in both cases still far from being satisfactorily settled. With respect to the writings of the Hippocratic Collection " the first glance," says M. Littre (vol. i. p. 44), *' shows that some are complete in themselves, while others are merely collections of notes, which follow each other without connection, and which are sometimes hardly intelligible. Some are incomplete and fragmentary, others form in the whole Collection particular series, which belong to the same ideas and the same writer. In a word, however little we reflect ou the context of these numerous writings, we are led to conclude that they are not the work of one and the same author. This remark has in all ages struck those persons who have given their atten- tion to the works of Hippocrates ; and even at the time when men commented on them in the Alex- andrian school, they already disputed about their authenticity."
But it is not merely from internal evidence (though this of itself would be sufficiently con- vincing) that we find that the Hippocratic Collec- tion is not the work of Hippocrates alone, for it so happens that in two insUinces we find a passage that has appeared from very early times as forming part of this collection, quoted as belonging to a
dilfereut person. Indeed if we had nothing but
