8 
PATHOLOGY. 
phic age. It is evident, then, that both the dogmatic and 
empiric phyficians appealed to experience, and that nei¬ 
ther excluded altogether the dictates of reafon and re¬ 
flexion. The principal difference in their tenets appears 
to have confided in this: that the empirics real'oned only 
from the facts afcertained by obfervation, without at¬ 
tempting to explain their effential and infcrutable nature 
by hypothefesj and that the latter fpeculated upon the 
mode and nature of every phenomenon in the animal 
body, and took thefe fpeculations as the bafis of their 
reafoning: an error in the inveftigation of nature, which, 
as we have before faid, was fo well expofed by lord 
Bacon in modern times; and which was practically illuf- 
trated in the triumph of Newton’s empirical doXrines, 
over the dogmatical hypothefes of Des Cartes. 
The empirical feX had not enjoyed great influence or 
diffemination till Serapion of Alexandria, in the year be¬ 
fore Chrift 280, took up and defended their doXrines 
with great fpirit: hence fome have called him the foun¬ 
der of the feX. His works are loft; hut what has been 
tranfmitted of his opinion by other authors, tends to 
prove that he followed the praXice of Hippocrates with 
great fidelity, though he feverely criticifed his reafon- 
ings. 
It is chiefly to the induftry of the ancient empirics 
that we are indebted for the introduction, or rather for 
the full knowledge, of fedative and n'arcotic remedies; 
on the liberal ufe of which probably depended the l'upe- 
rior reputation acquired by fome of them over their more 
cautious antagonifts. Of this fuperiority, a lingular in- 
ftance occurs in the many exifting teftimonies to the fame 
of Heraclides of Tarentum. Celfus Aurelianus calls him 
“Empiricorum Princeps;” and Galen fpeaks of him in 
very high terms. He fo far deviated from the praCiice of 
the flriCt empirics, that he fearched after the caufes of 
difeafe with almoft as much pertinacity as the dogmatifts; 
by no means however negleCting the practical obferva- 
tions which were taught in the empirical fchool. This 
union of theory and praCtice led him to many ufeful refults, 
more particularly in refpeCt to acute and dangerous difeafes, 
his treatment of which appears to have been extremely 
judicious. He feems to have made a more liberal ufe of 
aCtive medicaments, efpecially of the narcotic clafs, than 
his predeceflbrs, having been the firft to introduce opium 
into ufe as a medicine-; and was very induftrious in his 
inveftigation of animal, vegetable, and mineral, fubftances, 
with a view to enrich the catalogue of the materia medica. 
To the books Which he wrote upon this fubjeX, he gave 
the name of the individuals to whom he dedicated them, 
according to Galen; entitling one “Aftydamas,” and 
another “ Antiochis.” He likewife wrote on the fubjeX 
of diet, and the regimen to he obferved in difeafes, in 
which abftinence feems to have been pufhed to a great 
extent. 
It is eafy to fee, however, that the direXion of medical 
inquiry, given by the empirical phyficians, to the difeo- 
Very of the qualities of medicinal fubftances, or drugs, 
would in all probability lead to many abufes and evils. 
Experiment of this fort being much eafier, at lealt when 
careiefsly made, than that unremitting and accurate ob¬ 
fervation of the phenomena of difeafes which alone can 
conftitute the fcientific phyfician, the ignorant and idle 
would content themfelves with pharmaceutic experi¬ 
ments, and negleCf the talk of pathological inveftigation ; 
and fejfilh craft and dilhonefty would loon learn toimpofe 
on the credulity of the people, in the adminiftration of 
fe£ret remedies, when the ufe of a particular drug, and 
not the general treatment of a difeafe, was fuppofed to be 
the efler.ee of medicine. Hence it actually happened, 
even in the early ages of phyfic, that thefe ignorant and 
illiberal pretenders to panaceas, and infallible remedies, 
who did not know one difeafe from another by its l'ymp- 
tonis, appeared in Egypt, Greece, and Arabia, and were 
much complained of by their more rational contempora¬ 
ries. In all fucceeding ages, the race of thefe illiterate 
pretenders has been multiplied, under the abufed name 
of empirics, by which we now underftand thofe perfons 
who fell or adminifter a particular drug, or compound, 
as a remedy for a given diforder, without any confidera- 
tion as to the variations of that diforder, in its different 
ftages, or degrees of violence, or as it occurs in different 
conllitutions, climates, or feafons, or in perfons of dif¬ 
ferent age, fex, ftrength, &c. Such a practice implies 
a total ignorance of the nature of the human conftitu- 
tion, both in health and difeafe ; and therefore is ge¬ 
nerally found to be the refort of the illiterate and felfifli, 
not to fay difhoneff, part of mankind. 
After the death of Heraclides, the ftudy of the materia 
medica took a new direXion, in confequence of the at¬ 
tention that was paid to the fubjeX of poifons and their 
antidotes, by the kings of Pergamus and Pontus. The 
antidote which was invented by the latter is well known, 
though its efficacy has never been proved. Even Sere- 
nus, who is in general fufnciently credulous, feems to 
have had no very high opinion of its virtues : 
Antidofus vero multis Mithridatica fertur 
Confociata modis, fed Magnus ferinia regis 
Cum caperet viXor, viiem deprehendit in illis 
Synthefin, et vulgata fatis medicamina rifit. 
Nicander of Colophon, who was the contemporary of 
Attalus king of Pergamus, acquired great fame as a 
grammarian, a poet, and a phyfician. He endeavoured 
with the vvorft fuccefs to clothe medicine in flowing num¬ 
bers? Kis only pieces extant are the Alexipharmica and 
Theriaca, which contain obfervations concerning poifon 
and their antidotes, which (as we have faid) became a 
very favourite purfuit about his time. See Nicander, 
vol. xvii. p. 45. 
■ At the time that the fons of Hippocrates founded the 
dogmatic feX ; Eudoxus of Cnidos framed a lylleni of 
medicine founded on the philofophy of Pythagoras, and 
the praXice of the Egyptians. It was therefore princi¬ 
pally direXed to the dietetic part of medicine. He was 
followed by his pupil Chryfippus, of wliofe praifice we 
have nothing memorable to relate, but that he regarded 
cabbage as a very important remedy, and was very averfe 
to the operation of bleeding or the exhibition of purga¬ 
tives. He was the preceptor of the renowned Erafiftratus. 
Diocles of Caryflus was about this period a praXitioner 
of repute ; though placed by the Biographia Literaria as 
low as A. D. 500. an error of 800 years ! Pie applied 
himfelf to comparative anatomy with fome fuccefs, and 
invented an inftrument, which was called after him Dlo- 
cleus graphifeus, for the extraXion of arrow-heads. His 
contemporary Praxagoras rendered important fervices to 
medicine ; he firft difeovered the difference between arte¬ 
ries and veins, deferibed the cotyledons of the human 
uterus, and explained the phenomenon of the pulfe, a 
fubjeX which had been very imperfedfiy underftood by 
Elippocrates himfelf. It is remarked, however, by Galen, 
that his information was not fo correX, but that he in¬ 
volved himfelf in many difputes and contradiXionS. 
This phyfician was very fond of emetics: he adminiftered 
them in the iliac paflion, and in dofes fo large and fo fre¬ 
quently repeated, that the ftoois were ejeXed by the 
mouth. His furgical treatment of the fame difeafe ihows 
him to have been a bold and fkilful operator: Aurelian 
fays, that he direXs an incifion to be made through the 
belly and inteftines, the indurated feces to be removed, 
and the bowels then fowed up. 
The progrefs of this art now became advanced by the 
labours of men not exaXly interefted in its praXice. 
Ariftotle, who, from the unbounded liberality of his pa¬ 
tron Alexander, poffefled opportunities of difleXing ani¬ 
mals on a moft extended fcale, acquired a.mafs of infor¬ 
mation which we read with inftruXion and admiration 
even in the prefent age. Nor were his metaphyfical doc¬ 
trines without their influence on the philofophy of me¬ 
dicine ; they continued to influence it (fometimes un¬ 
favourably) 
4 ■ 
