10 
PATHOLOGY. 
ner, was one Archagathus, a Greek, B. C. 219. The 
Roman fenate at firft Teemed to give him much encou¬ 
ragement, and even bought a (hop Tor him, and prefented 
him with the freedom of the city. But his frequent ufe 
of the knife, and of the adtual cautery, Toon brought him 
into difrepute. The populace were loud in their clamours 
againlt his cruelty, attached to him the name of Carriifex, 
Butcher, and eventually baniflied him from Rome. 
Afclepiades, of Prufa in Byth.ynia, was the next phy.fi- 
cian of note who appeared at Rome after Archagathus, 
hut feparated from him “ longo intervallo.” He had 
ftudied at Alexandriaand Athens,and came toRome,in the 
654th year A.U.C. or 100 years before the Chriltian era, as 
a teacher of rhetoric: but, not finding that profeflion 
fufficiently lucrative, he fuddenly turned phyfician ; and, 
by his confummate addrefs, in a fhort time brought him- 
Telf into great notice. The prototype of all fucceeding 
quacks, Afclepiades affefted to contemn every thing that 
had been done before him —“ omnia abdicavit; totamque 
medicinam, ad caufam revocando, colijedturam fecit.” 
He ridiculed Hippocrates for his patient obfervation of 
nature, and called his fyftem “a meditation on death.” 
His fame, however, would have been incomplete, if he 
had not introduced a fyftem of his own. Accordingly, 
taking for the bafis of it the philofophy of Epicurus and 
Heraclides of Pontus, he attempted to explain all the 
functions of the human body, and all the operations of 
health and difeafe, by means of eorpvjcles and pores. He 
aflerted, that matter confidered in itfelf was of an un¬ 
changeable nature; and that all perceptible bodies were 
compofed of a number of finaller ones, between which 
there were interfperfed an infinity of final! fpaces totally 
void of all matter. He thought that the foul itfelf was 
compofed of thefe fmall bodies. He laughed at the prin¬ 
ciple called Nature by Hippocrates, and alfo at the ima¬ 
ginary faculties faid by him to be fubfervient to her; and 
Hill more at what he called Attradion. This laft principle 
Afclepiades denied in every inftance, even in that of the 
loadftoneand fteel, imagining that this phenomenon pro¬ 
ceeded from a concourfe of corpufcles, and a particular 
difpofition or modification of their pores. He alfo main¬ 
tained, that nothing happened or was produced without 
fotne caufe ; and that what was called nature was in reality 
no more than matter and motion. From this laft principle 
he inferred that Hippocrates knew not what he faid when 
he fpoke of Nature as an intelligent being, and aferibed 
qualities of different kinds to her. For the fame reafon he 
ridiculed thedodlrine of Hippocrates with regard to crifes; 
and aflerted that the termination of difeafes might be as 
well accounted for from mere matter and motion. He 
maintained, that vve were deceived if we imagined that 
Nature always did good ; fince it was evident that (lie often 
did a great deal of harm. As for the days particularly 
fixed upon by Hippocrates for crifes, or thole on which we 
ufually obferve a change either for the better or the 
worfe, Afclepiades denied that fuch alterations happened 
on thole days rather than on others. Nay, he alferted 
that the crifis did not happen at any time of its own ac¬ 
cord, or by the particular determination of nature for the 
cure of the dilorder, but that it depended rather on the 
addrefs and dexterity of >lve phyfician ; that we ought 
never to wait till a diftemper terminates of its own accord, 
but that the phyfician by his care and medicines mull 
haften on and advance the cure. He accufed Hippocrates 
and other ancient phyficians of “attending their patients 
rather with a view to obferve in what manner they died 
than in order to cure them;” and this under pretence 
that Nature ought to do all herfelf, without any afiiftance. 
The practice of Afclepiades was principally geftation, 
fridtion, and the ufe of wine.' By various exercifes he 
propofed to render the pores more open, and to make the 
juices and fmall bodies, which caufe difeafes by their re¬ 
tention, pafs more freely; and, while the former phyficians 
had not recourfe to geftation till towards the end of long- 
continued diforders, and when the patients, though en¬ 
tirely free from fever, were yet too weak to take fuffleient 
exercife by walking, Afclepiades ufed geftation from the 
very beginning of the moll burning fevers. He laid it 
down as a maxim, that one fever was to be cured by 
another; that the ftrength of the patient was to be ex- 
haufted by making him watch and endure thirft to fuch a 
degree, that, for the two firft days of the diforder, he 
would not allow them to cool their mouths with a drop of 
water. Celfus alfo obferves, that, though Afclepiades 
treated his patients like a butcher during the firft days of 
the diforder, he indulged them fo far afterwards as even 
to give directions for making their beds in the fofteft 
manner. On feveral occafions Afclepiades ufed fridlions 
to open the pores. The dropfy was one of the diftempers 
in which this remedy was ufed; but the moll fingular at¬ 
tempt was, by this means, to lull phrenetic patients 
afleep. Though he enjoined exercife fomiuch to the 
fick, he denied it to thofe in health ; a conduit not a little 
furprifing and extraordinary. He allowed wine freely to 
patients in fevers, provided the vioience of the diftemper 
was fomewhat abated. Nor did he forbid it to thofe who 
were afflicted with a phrenfy: nay, he ordered them to 
drink it till they were intoxicated, pretending by that 
means to make them deep; becaufe, he faid, wine had a 
narcotic quality and procured fleep, which he thought ab- 
folutely neceflary for thofe who laboured under that dif¬ 
order. To lethargic patients he ufed it on purpofe to 
excite them, and roufe their fenfes: he alfo forced them 
to fmell ftrong-feented fubftances, fuch as vinegar, caftor, 
and rue, in order to make them fneeze; and applied to 
their heads cataplafms of muftard made up with vinegar. 
Befides thefe remedies, Afclepiades enjoined his pa¬ 
tients abftinence to an extreme degree. For the firll 
three days, according to Celfus, he allowed them no ali¬ 
ment whatever; but on the fourth began to give them 
victuals. According to Caslius Aurelianus, however, he 
began to nourilh his patients as foon as the acceffion of 
the difeafe was diminilhed, not waiting till an entire re- 
mifflon ; giving to fome aliments on the firft, to fome on 
the fecond, to fome on the third, and fo on to the feventh, 
day. It Teems almoll incredible to us, that people Ihould 
be able to fall till this laft-mentioned term; but Celfus 
allures us, that abftinence till the feventh day was en¬ 
joined even by the predeceflors of Afclepiades. 
The divifion of difeafes into acute and chronic appears 
to have originated with him. The remedies which he 
employed (as we have feen) were chiefly dietetical; but 
he was no enemy to phlebotomy, though he dilcouraged 
vomiting and purgation: inftead of the latter he recom¬ 
mended clyfters. He was a great advocate for the ufe of 
cold water externally as well as internally; though he 
probably ingratiated himfelf with the Romans more by his 
free adminillration of wine in diforders where it had not 
formerly been allowed. Sprengel fuppoles him to have 
been the inventor of the balneapenjilis, or Ihower-bath. 
That: Afclepiades, notwithllanding his arrogance, was 
a man of obfervation and difeernrnent, is evident from his 
defeription of difeafes ; and from the faCl, that he always 
continued to enjoy great reputation among the Roman 
people, and l^iat his leClures, which, according to Pliny, 
embraced the three branches of pathology, midwifery, 
and pharmacy, were very numeroully attended. Galen 
accufes him of humouring the caprices of his patients at 
the expence of his own better reafon and judgment. The 
principles of this author’s pathology gave the firft outline 
of the methodic pradlice of phyfic, which was more fully 
developed by Themifon and Theflalus, and afterwards by 
Soranus. 
The Methodics, or Methodists, endeavoured to 
fleer a courfe unconnedled with the Dogmatifts or the 
Empirics. They objedled to the former fedl, on account 
of their hypothetical principles; and to the latter, on ac¬ 
count of the tedious manner in which they acquired their 
knowledge. In confequence of this, they began to 
claffify and generalize ; and obferved, as they conceived, 
two 
