1G 
PATHOLOGY. 
not the only bed phyfician, but the bed fcholar and cri¬ 
tic, of his time. So great an honour have thefe authors 
done to their profefiion, by being verfed in other arts 
and fciences as well as their own. And the great St. Bafil, 
whom his own continual illnefs made a phyfician, and 
who has a great many allufions and fimiles taken from 
that art, was (to ufe the words of Photius) for the neat- 
nefs, the propriety, the perfpicuity, and fluency, of his 
ityle, one of the bed writers among the fathers ; as St. 
Luke’s Greek comes nearer to the ancient Aandard than 
that of the other evangelifls. 
We cannot omit faying,fomething of one author more, 
whom we may reckon one of the ancients, though not 
properly a writer in phyfic ; Nemefius, bilhop of Emilia, 
w'ho wrote a treatife concerning the nature of man, near 
the end of the fourth century: becaufe his Oxford edi¬ 
tor afcribes two difcoveries to him, one of which was the 
mod conliderable that ever was made in phyfic. The firfl 
is concerning the bile, “ which is condituted (as Neme- 
iius fays) not only for itfelf, but for other purpofes; for 
it helps digeflion, and contributes to the expulfion of the 
excrements ; and therefore it is in a manner one of the 
nourifliing powers: befides, as a vital faculty, it imparts 
a fort of heat to the body. And for thefe reafons it feems 
to be made for itfelf; but, becaufe it purges the blood, it 
feems to be formed for the fake of the blood.” Here, 
fays the editor, the fyflem of the bile is plainly and ac¬ 
curately delivered ; that very fydem which Sylvius de le 
Boe with fo much vanity boaded he had invented himfelf in 
3658. And indeed fo far is true, that here is the intire 
foundation of Sylvius’s reafoning: and, if this theory be 
of any ufe in phyfic, Nemefius has a very' good title to 
the difcovery. But there follows a much more material 
point; and the fame editor contends, that the circulation 
of the blood, an invention which tpe 17th century fo 
much boafts of, was known to Nemefius, and defcribed 
in very plain and iignificant terms, which are thefe : 
“ The motion of the pulfe takes its rife from the heart, 
and chiefly from the left ventricle of it: the artery is 
with great vehemence dilated and contrafled, by a fortiof 
condant harmony and order. While it is dilated, it 
draws the thinner part of the blood from the next veins, 
the exhalation or vapour of which blood is made the ali¬ 
ment for the vital fpirit. But, while it is contradled, it 
exhales whatever fumes it has through the whole body, 
and by fecret paflages. So that the heart throws out 
whatever is fuliginous through the mouth and the nofe 
by expiration.” Upon this Angle (lender proof does he 
attribute this great difcovery of the circulation to Neme¬ 
fius ; and thefe who have infided that it was known both to 
Hippocrates and Galen, have full as good arguments 
on their fide. But it is evident enough, from this very 
defeription, and from what the fame author fays of the 
liver in the fame chapter,- that it miniders nouriflnnent 
to the body by the veins, that Nemefius had no idea of 
the manner in which the circulation of the blood is 
really performed. 
To refume the thread of our hiflory, we mud come now 
to home other Greek writers of a lower rank and a later 
date: but, as the greated part of thefe contain little that 
is new, we lhall give a very (hort account of their works, 
and only be as particular as we can in adjuding their fe- 
veral ages ; concerning which all our authors have left us 
in great confufion ; though indeed this is the lefs to be 
wondered at, confidering that from the time of Agathias, 
that is, from the year 560, to the reign of Ifaac Comnenus 
in 1060, there is a chafm of five hundred years-in the 
Grecian hidory; fo that we know very little of all that 
interval, except what fome (lender account of the reigns 
of a few emperors, chiefly Mauritius and Heraciius, fur- 
nifhes us with. 
Palladius, called Sophifi or Iatrafophid, was bred, as 
he himfelf feems to hint, at Alexandria. We place him 
firfl among the more modern Greeks, but cannot agree 
with the Bibliotheca literaria, which computes that heflou- 
rifned about theyear 126. Albinus better places him after 
Galen, i. e. after the year 200. In fa ft, he quotes Galen 
very often, and it may be proved, that he lived not only 
after Galen, but after Afctius and Alexander too, whofe 
words he frequently makes ufe of. His Commentaries 
upon Fradlures are imperfect; however, what of them 
remains is enough to let us fee that we have no great lofs 
by it. In thofe upon the Epidemics, he with great per¬ 
spicuity and exadfnefs, illuflrates not only Hippocrates, 
but feveral paflages of Galen ; and obferves particularly, 
that the done increafed much in his time, and was lefs 
curable; and he imputes this to the luxury of the age, 
to much eating, and want of exercife. He is the firfl au¬ 
thor now extant who has treated profefledly of urine : 
and he has very well explained the caufes of its colour 
and confidence ; what didempers thefe refpedtively indi¬ 
cate, and what prognodics may be drawn from them. 
There are feveral paflages exprefled in the fame words, as 
we may read in a book upon the like fubjedl, falfely af- 
cribed to Galen. He has written in much the fame man¬ 
ner concerning the faeces. 
Stephen, the Athenian or Alexandrian, called fome- 
times the one and fometimes the other, from the place ei¬ 
ther of his birth or his refidence, wrote a commentary 
upon Galen’s Fird Book to Glauco; a book that does 
not feem to want any comment to make it more intelli¬ 
gible. But there is reafon to think, that the chief physi¬ 
cal learning of his time confided in reading upon Galen ; 
and Abi Olbeia, the Arabian biographer, tells us of feven 
Alexandrian phyficians, among which Stephanus is one, 
who digeded the works of Galen into lixteen books; 
which again, according to the different matter, they di¬ 
vided into feven clafles : that thefe were the only books 
they dudied, and that in their turn they made it their 
whole buiinefs to comment upon them and explain them 
to their auditors. And therefore it is not at all probable 
that he lived in the third century, as Mr. le Clerc, 
without any authority, fuppofes; and, indeed, it is 
plain, from this very comment of Stephen, that he was 
much more modern, for he himfelf mentions very ancient 
expofitors of this particular book of Galen ; and, in flec¬ 
tion 140, concerning a quartan, he feems to allude to a 
wrong interpretation which Alexander had made of 
Galen’s fenfle in this place. If this writer be the fame 
with Stephen the chyrnid (as he is called), his age is ea- 
fily known, for that author dedicates his work, de Chry- 
fopceia, to Heraciius, and this will make his age confident 
with what has already been obferved. We read of a Ste¬ 
phen too, and an Alexandrian likewife, in this very em¬ 
peror’s reign, who was a famous aflrologer, and foretold 
the great power to which the Saracens fliould arrive, as 
they did in fome years after. Vanderlinden calls Stephen 
the lad of the old Greek authors, though, if this account 
of his age be true, it will appear that feveral others wrote 
in Greek after that time. 
Of thefe Nonus feems to be in order next, who com- 
pofed a fort of phyfic-manual, in which is contained fome 
(hort account of mod didempers and their cure. He in- 
feribes it to Condantine Porphyrogenitus ; who, accord- 
ingto Lambecius, was the feventh emperor of that name, 
the fon of Leo, and died in theyear 959, and who, as he 
had fome tindlure of learning himfelf, was a great patron 
of it. But Jer. Martius, who publiflied an edition of 
this author in Greek and Latin, thinks the Condantine 
here meant (a Porphyrogenitus as well as the other) was 
the fon of Condantine Ducas, who died in 1067 ; for 
this reafon, that Ducas, though unlearned enough him¬ 
felf, was an admirer and encourager of letters, and had 
this faying often in his mouth, “ That he had rather be en¬ 
nobled by learning than by fovereignty;” To which of 
thefe Conflantines Nonus inferibed his work, is not very 
material; I (hall only take notice, that we may collect 
from Anna Comnena’s hidory, that in the interval be¬ 
tween thefe two emperors, learning was extremely de¬ 
clining, if not quite extindf. 
4 This 
