physicians of this school were of the clinic sect; it being impossible they should compose such a work as Hippocrates here criticizes, without a constant attendance on the sick-bed: and therefore Hippocrates was not the founder of this sect, as Pliny, and our author after him, supposed. -But, for the established state of physic, its study as an art, and its practice as a profession, when Hippocrates made so superior a figure, we have the full evidence of Herodotus, his contemporary; who tells us, that in the time of Darius Hystaspis the physic school at Crotona was esteemed by the Greeks first in reputation; and that, at Cyrene, second; which both implies, that these were of considerable standing, and that there were many others: and if GALEN may be believed, who, though a late writer, was yet a very competent judge, there were many others:† so that Hippocrates was so far from being the first that visited sick-beds, and prescribed with success in distempers, that he was not even the first amongst the Greeks. The truth of the matter is this, the divine old man (as his disciples have been wont to call him) so greatly eclipsed all that went before him, that, as posterity esteemed his works the canon, so they esteemed him the father of medicine: and this was the humour of antiquity. The same eminence in poetry made them regard Homer as the founder of his art, though they who penetrate into the perfection of his compositions, understand that nothing is more unlikely. But what is strange in this matter is, that the writer should think it evidence enough to bring in Pliny speaking of Hippocrates as the first amongst the Greeks who prescribed to sick-beds with success, for the confutation of Herodotus (contemporary with Hippocrates) in what he says of the pharmaceutic part of medicine, as an ancient practice in Egypt.

But all the writer's errors in this discourse seem to proceed from a wrong assumption, that the diætetic medicine was, in order of time, before the pharmaceutic: and the greater simplicity of the first method seems to have led him into this mistake:-In the days of Pythagoras, says he, the learned began to form rules of diet for the preservation of health; and in this consisted the practice of the ancient Indian physicians; they endeavoured to cure distempers by a diet regimen, but they gave no physic. Hippocrates began the practice of visiting sick-bed patients, and prescribed medicines with success for their distempers. This, I think, was the progress of physic.—I hold the matter to be just otherwise; and that, of the three parts of medicine, the CHIRURGIC, the PHARMACEUTIC, and the DIETETIC; the diætetic was the last in use; as the chirurgic was, in all likelihood, the first. In the early ages of long life and temperance, men were still subject to the common accidents of wounds, bruises, and dislocations; this would soon raise surgery into an art: agreeably to this supposition, we may observe, that Sextus Empiri

- ἐγένετο γὰρ ὧν τοῦτο ὅτι πρῶτοι μὲν Κροτωνιήται ἰητροὶ ἐλέγοντο ἀνὰ τὴν ̔Ελλάδα εἶναι, δεύτεροι δὲ, Κυρηναῖοι. —Lib. iii. cap. 131.

Meth. Medendi, lib. i.

cus derives largos, a physician, from iòs, a dart or arrow; the first attack upon the human species being of this more violent sort. Nor was pharmacy so far behind as some may imagine; nature itself often eases a too great repletion by an extraordinary evacuation; this natural remedy (whose good effects as they are immediately felt, are easily understood) would teach men to seek an artificial one, when nature was not at hand to relieve. But the very early invention of pharmacy is further seen from that superstition of antiquity, which made medicine the gift of the gods. For, what medicine do they mean? It could not be setting a fracture, or closing the lips of a wound; much less a regular diet. It could be nothing then but pharmacy; and this, both in the invention and operation, had all the advantages for making its fortune. First, it was not the issue of study, but of chance; the cause of which is out of sight: but what men understand not, they generally ascribe to superior agency. It was believed, even so late as the time of Alexander, that the gods continued to enrich the physical dispensatory. Secondly, there was something as extraordinary in the operation as in the invention. Pharmacy is divided into the two general classes of evacuants and alteratives: the most efficacious of these latter, commonly called specifics, not working by any visible effects of evacuation, do their business like a charm. Thus, as the general notion of the divine original of medicine made the patient very superstitious, † so the secret operation of alteratives inclined the practiser to the same imbecility. Hence it is that so much of this folly hath overrun the art of medicine in all ages. Now the bestowing the origin of pharmacy in this manner, is abundantly sufficient to prove its high antiquity; for the ancients gave nothing to the gods of whose original they had any records: but where the memory of the invention was lost, as of seed-corn, wine, writing, civil society, &c., there, the gods seized the property, by that kind of right, which gives strays to the lord of the manor. ‡

*

But now the diætetic medicine had a very low original, and a wellknown man for its author; a man worth a whole dozen of heathen gods, even the great HIPPOCRATES himself: and this we learn from the surest evidence, his own writings. In his tract de Veteri Medicina, he expressly says, that MEDICINE was established from the most early times; § meaning, as the context shows, pharmacy: but where he speaks soon after in the same tract of the diætetic medicine (which he calls téxun ʼn inte, as the pharmaceutic above, intern substantively) he says, the ART OF MEDICINE was neither found out in the most early times, nor sought

Cicero de Divin. lib. ii. cap. 66.

Diis primum inventores suos assignavit, et cœlo dicavit; necnon et hodie multifariam ab oraculis medicina petitur.-Plin. Nat. Hist. lib. xxix. Procem.

The Rabbins, amongst their other pagan conceits, adopted this; and taught that God himself instructed Adam in the art of medicine:-"Et ductus Adam per omnes paradisi semitas vidit omne lignum, arbores, plantas, et lapides, et docuit eum Dominus omnem naturam eorum, ad sanandum omnem dolorem et infirmitatem."-R. Ebenezra. Which, however, shows their opinion of the high antiquity of the art.

§ — ιητρικῇ δὲ πάντα πάλαι ὑπάρχει. cap. iii.

after. * And in his De diata in acutis, he tells us, that the ancients (meaning all who had preceded him) wrote nothing of diet worthy notice; and that, notwithstanding it was a matter of vast moment, they had entirely omitted it, although they were not ignorant of the numerous subdivisions into the species of distempers, nor of the various shapes and appearances of each. † Hence it appears, that before the time of Hippocrates, the visiting of sick-beds and prescribing medicines were in practice; but that the diætetic medicine, as an art, was entirely unknown: so that had Pliny called Hippocrates the author of this, instead of the founder of the clinic sect, he had come much nearer to the truth.

But without this evidence we might reasonably conclude, even from the nature of the thing, that the dietetic was the latest effort of the art of medicine. For, 1. The cure it performs is slow and tedious, and consequently it would not be thought of, at least not employed, till the quick and powerful operation of the pharmaceutic (which is therefore most obvious to use) had been found to be ineffectual. 2. To apply the diætetic medicine, with any degree of safety or success, there is need of a thorough knowledge of the animal economy, and of its many various complexions; with long experience in the nature and qualities of aliments, and their different effects on different habits and constitutions. But the art of medicine must have made some considerable progress before these acquirements were to be expected in its professors.

If I have been longer than ordinary on this subject, it should be considered, that the clearing up the state of the Egyptian medicine is a matter of importance; for if the practice, in the time of Joseph, was what the Greek writers represent it, as I think I have shown it was, then this topic seems absolutely decisive for the high antiquity of Egypt; and the learned person's hypothesis lying in my way, it was incumbent on me to remove it.

IV. We come, in the last place, to the FUNERAL RITES of Egypt; which Herodotus describes in this manner: "their mournings and rites of sepulture are of this kind: when any considerable person in the family dies, all the females of that family besmear their heads or faces with loam and mire; and so, leaving the dead body in the hands of the domestics, march in procession through the city, with their garments close girt about them, their breasts laid open, beating themselves; and all their relations attending. In an opposite procession appear the males,

—τὴν γὰρ ἀρχὴν οὔτ ̓ ἂν εὑρέθη τέχνη ἡ ἱητρική, οὔτ ̓ ἂν ἐζητήθη. - Cap. v.

† Ατὰρ οὐδὲ περὶ διαίτης οἱ ἀρχαῖοι ξυνέγραψαν οὐδὲν ἄξιον λόγου, καίτοι μέγα τοῦτο παρἥκαν. Τὰς μέν τοι πολυτροπίας τὰς ἐν ἑκάστησι τῶν νούσων, καὶ τὴν πολυσχιδίην αὐτέων οὐκ ἠγνόουν. — Cap. ii.

† Φημὶ δὲ δεῖν τὸν μέλλοντα ὀρθῶς ξυγγράφειν περὶ διαίτης ἀνθρωπίνης, πρῶτον μὲν παντὸς φύσιν ἀνθρώπου γνῶναι καὶ διαγνώναι. Γνῶναι μὲν, ἀπὸ τίνων ξυνίστηκεν ἐξ ἀρχῆ; διαγνῶναι δὲ, ὑπὸ τίνων μερῶν κεκράτηται. Εἰ μὴ γὰρ τὴν ἐξ ἀρχῆς ξύστασιν ἐπιγνώσεται, καὶ τὸ ἐπίκρα τέον ἐν τῷ σώματι, οὐχ οἷός τ' ἂν εἴη τὰ ξυμφέροντα τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ προσενεγκεῖν. Ταῦτα μὲν οὖν χρὴ γινώσκειν τὸν ξυγγράφοντα· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα, σίτων καὶ ποτῶν ἁπάντων, οἶσι διαιτώμεθα, δύναμιν ἤν τινα ἕκαστα ἔχει· καὶ τὴν κατὰ φύσιν, καὶ τὴν δι' ἀνάγκην καὶ τέχνην ἀνθρωπηΐην δεῖ γὰρ ἐπίστασθαι τῶν τε ἰσχυρῶν φύσει ὡς χρὴ τὴν δύναμιν ἀφαιρέεσθαι· τοῖσι δὲ ἀσθενέσιν, ὅπως χρὴ ἰσχὺν προστιθέναι διὰ τέχνης, ὅπου ἂν ὁ καιρὸς ἑκάστων παραγίνηται, Hippocr. de Diæreta, lib. i. cap. 1.

close girt likewise, and undergoing the same discipline. When this is over, they carry the body to be salted; there are men appointed for this business, who make it their trade and employment:-They first of all draw out the brain, with a hooked iron, through the nostrils, &c.— after this they hide it in nitre for the space of SEVENTY DAYS, and longer it is not lawful to keep it salted."* Diodorus agrees with Herodotus in all the essential circumstances of mourning and embalming. In this last he seems to vary in one particular: They then anoint the whole body with the gum or resin of cedar, and of other plants, with great cost and care, for ABOVE THIRTY DAYS; and afterwards seasoning it with myrrh, cinnamon, and other spices, not only proper to preserve the body for a long time, but to give it a grateful odour, they deliver it to the relations," &c.† All this operose circumstance of embalming, scripture history confirms and explains: and not only so, but reconciles the seemingly different accounts of the two Greek writers, concerning the number of days, during which the body remained with the embalmers: "And the physicians," says Moses, "embalmed Israel; and FORTY DAYS were fulfilled for him (for so are fulfilled the days of those which are embalmed) and the Egyptians mourned for him THREESCORE AND TEN DAYS." Now we learn from the two Greek historians, that the time of mourning was while the body remained with the embalmers, which Herodotus tells us was seventy days: this explains why the Egyptians mourned for Israel threescore and ten days. During this time the body lay in nitre; the use of which was to dry up all its superAuous and noxious moisture;§ and when, in the compass of thirty days, this was reasonably well effected, the remaining forty, the iq'uigas thelous Tay Tgiáxorta of Diodorus, were employed in anointing it with gums and spices to preserve it, which was the proper embalming. And this explains the meaning of the forty days which were fulfilled for Israel, being the days of those that are embalmed. Thus the two Greek writers are reconciled; and they and scripture mutually explained and supported by one another.

But if it should be said, that though MOSES here mentions embalming, yet the practice was not so common as the Greek historians represent it, till many ages after; I reply that the company of Ishmaelitish merchants with their camels bearing spicery, balm, and myrrh, to carry down into Egypt,|| clearly shows, that embalming was at this time become a general practice.

Θρήνοι δὲ καὶ ταφαὶ σφέων, εἰσὶ αἴδε· τοῖσι ἂν ἀπογένηται ἐκ τῶν οἰκηΐων ἄνθρωπος, τοῦ τις καὶ λόγος ἦν τὸ θόλο γένος πᾶν τὸ ἐκ τῶν οἰκηΐων τούτων κατ ̓ ὧν ἐπλάσατο τὴν κεφαλὴν πηλῷ ἢ καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον κάπειτα ἐν τοῖσι οἰκηίοισι λιπούσαι τὸν νεκρὸν, αὗται ἀνὰ τὴν πόλιν στροφώμεναι, τύπτονται ἐπιζωσμέναι, καὶ φαίνουσαι τοὺς μαζούς· σὺν δέ σφι αἱ προσήκουσαι πᾶσαι. ἑτέρωθεν δὲ οἱ ἄνδρες τύπτονται, ἐπιζωσμένοι καὶ εἶναι· ἐστὶν δὲ ταῦτα ποιήσωσι, οὕτω ἐς τὴν ταξίχευσιν κομίζουσι. Εἰσὶ δὲ οἱ ἐπ ̓ αὐτῷ τούτῳ κατέαται, καὶ τέχνην έχουσι ταύτην.-πρῶτα μὲν σκολιῷ σιδηρῷ διὰ τῶν μυξωτήρων ἐξάγουσι τὸν ἐγκέφαλον, δ ταῦτα δὲ ποιήσαντες, ταριχεύουσι λίτρα, πρύψαντες ἡμέρας ἑβδομήκοντα· πλεῦνας δὲ τουτέων οὐκ ἔξεστι —Lib. ii. cap. 85, 86.

† Καθόλου δὲ τῶν τὸ σῶμα τὸ μὲν πρῶτον κεδρίᾳ καί τισιν ἄλλοις ἐπιμελείας ἀξιοῦσιν ἐφ' ἡμέρας πλείους τῶν τριάκοντα, ἔπειτα σμύρνη καὶ κιναμώμῳ, καὶ τοῖς δυναμένοις μὴ μόνον πολὺν χρόνον τηρεῖν, ἀλλὰ καὶ τὴν εὐωδίας παρέχεσθαι θεραπευοντες, παραδιδόασι τοῖς συγγενέσι. Lib. i. Bibl. p. 58.

Gen. 1 2, 3. § Tàs dì cágnus rò vírgov xatarýnu.—Herodot. p. 119. Il Gen. xxxvii. 25

On the whole, what stronger evidence can any one require of a rich and powerful monarchy, than what hath been here given?-scripture describes Egypt under that condition, in the times of the patriarchs, and the egression of their posterity; the Greek writers not only subscribe to this high antiquity, but support their testimony by a minute detail of customs and manners then in use, which could belong only to a large and well policied kingdom; and these again are distinctly confirmed by the circumstantial history of MOSES.

But it is not only in what they agree, but likewise in what they differ, that sacred and profane accounts are mutually supported, and the high antiquity of Egypt established. To give one instance: Diodorus expressly tells us that the lands were divided between the king, the priests, and the soldiery ;* and MOSES (speaking of the Egyptian famine and its effects) as expressly says, that they were divided between the king, the priests, and the people. Now as contrary as these two accounts look, it will be found, upon comparing them, that Diodorus fully supports all that MOSES hath delivered concerning this matter. MOSES tells us, that before the famine, all the lands of Egypt were in the hands of the king, the priests, and the people; but that this national calamity made a great revolution in property, and brought the whole possessions of the people into the king's hands; which must needs make a prodigious accession of power to the crown. But Joseph, in whom the offices of minister and patriot supported each other, and jointly concurred to the public service, prevented for some time the ill effects of this accession, by his farming out the new domain to the old proprietors, on very easy conditions. We may well suppose this wise disposition to continue till that new king arose, who knew not Joseph ;§ that is, would obliterate his memory, as averse to his system of policy. He, as appears from scripture, greatly affected a despotic government; to support which, he first established, as I collect, a standing militia; and endowed it with the lands formerly the people's; who now became a kind of villains to this order, which resembled the Zaims and Timariots of the Turkish empire ; and were obliged to personal service: this, and the priesthood, being the orders of nobility in this powerful empire; and so considerable they were, that out of either of them, indifferently, as we observed before, their kings were taken and elected. Thus the property of Egypt became at length divided in the manner, the Sicilian relates: and it is remarkable, that from this time, and not till now, we hear in scripture of a standing militia,¶ and of the king's six hundred chosen chariots, &c.

* Lib. i. Bibl. † Gen. xlvii. See note N, at the end of this book. Exod. i. 8. In this sense is the phrase frequently used in scripture, as Judges ii. 10.—“And there arose another generation after them, which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel."-Here, knew not, can only signify despised, set at nought.

Exod. xiv. 8, 9.