376 INTRODUCTORY LECTURES. 



can only be the produce of the industry of many ages, and upon 

 sciences that are only the fruits of much cultivation. Hippo- 

 crates might have a great deal of the first, but with regard to 

 the last his period was that of the infancy of philosophy ; and 

 though his genius might be of the highest kind, his real merit 

 could not be so great as to deserve the superstitious veneration 

 which has been bestowed upon him in latter ages. His writ- 

 ings, or those imputed to him, are extremely dissimilar and un- 

 equal ; they present us sometimes with reflections which dis- 

 cover much sagacity, but they are hardly any where well con- 

 nected or digested, and very often discover a childish frivolity. 

 They certainly contain many useful facts, and some just con- 

 clusions drawn from them ; but both these are probably dis- 

 figured by such chasms and interpolations as have happened 

 to every ancient writing, and at best they are chiefly local, re- 

 lative to Greece only. Though it does not very properly enter 

 into my plan, I could not omit this stricture with regard to the 

 celebrated father of physic, as he is commonly called. 



But to return to our present purpose. It was either by Hip- 

 pocrates himself, or by some person about his time, that a dog- 

 matic system was introduced into the proper schools of physic, 

 which has continued in most of the schools ever since. What 

 was the condition of it in the hands of Hippocrates or of his 

 family, as I have said, we do not exactly know ; nor do we know 

 any better what additions or alterations were made to it by 

 Diocles, Chrysippus, Praxagoras, or the other celebrated phy- 

 sicians of Greece who came after ; and it is the general state 

 only that we are at present to take notice of. In respect of this 

 we can say, that from the want of anatomy, and from the small 

 progress that had been made in natural knowledge, we must 

 think that the theory of those days could do little service to the 

 art, and might do harm. But the dogmatists of those days had 

 the apology to make, which is the only good apology for the 

 dogmatism of any age, that, while they cultivated theory, they 

 neglected nothing which experience had taught or could teach 

 them ; and that, in the mean time, it was very proper, nay, it 

 was very necessary to cultivate the theory of the art. With 

 this view they had long thought that anatomy was necessary ; 

 they had long practised the dissection of animals, and at length 



