Abstract
Among the medical schools of classical Greece the most famous was that founded in the fifth century B.C. by Hippocrates of Cos. It played an important role in freeing medicine from magic and religious practices and in founding medical ethics. But Hippocratic thinking remained in the realm of techne, or professional medical practice, which it essentially founded; it did not generate autonomous sciences (in our sense). The key novelty of Hellenistic medicine was the creation, in the first half of the third century B.C., of anatomy and physiology based on the dissection of the human body. This was done by Herophilus of Chalcedon, active in Alexandria, and by Erasistratus of Ceos.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Marcellinus, De pulsibus, xi, 463 (ed. Schöne) = [von Staden: H], text 182.
Rufus Ephesius, Synopsis de pulsibus, iv, 223–225 (eds. Daremberg, Ruelle) = [von Staden: H], text 177. The passage is discussed in [von Staden: H], pp. 280–282.
The close connection between optics and ophthalmology is also suggested by the passage in the Arenarius where Archimedes deals with the measurement of the apparent size of the sun: one preliminary step is the measurement of the pupil’s diameter (Archimedes, Arenarius, 139, ed. Mugler, vol. II).
Heron, Mechanica, III §§19–20.
Pliny, Naturalis historia, XVIII §317.
Celsus, De medicina I, proem, §§23–26 = [von Staden: H], text 63a. Von Staden, who discusses at length all the available evidence (pp. 142–153), regards this statement as credible; in any case, as he notes, it’s not possible to determine whether a nerve is sensory or motor, as Herophilus did systematically, without experimenting in vivo. The ethical problems raised by vivisection are certainly very serious; at the same time they have such a modern ring to them as to confirm, in a sense, Herophilus’ proximity to modern “scientific method”.
Aristotle, Historia animalium, I,487a:32 and 490a:14–15.
Galen, De experientia medica, xiii §6, 109–110 (ed.Walzer, from the surviving Arabic translation) = [von Staden: H], text 52.
Galen, De foetuum formatione, v, 678–679 (ed. Kühn, vol. IV) = [von Staden: H], text 57:4–9.
Galen, De praesagitione ex pulsibus, II,iii, 278 (ed. Kühn, vol. IX) = [von Staden: H], text 53.
Polybius, Historiae, XII, xxv–d = [von Staden: H], text 56.
Galen, De causis procatarcticis, xvi §197 = [von Staden: H], text 59:2–4.
Galen, In Hippocratis prognosticum, I, comment. I.4, 204–205 (ed. Heeg) = [von Staden: H], text 264, 1–4.
Rufus Ephesius, De nominatione partium hominum (eds. Daremberg, Ruelle), §49, 139:8–10
Rufus Ephesius, De nominatione partium hominum (eds. Daremberg, Ruelle), §133, 151:1–2.
Caelius Aurelianus, Celeres vel acutae passiones, I, pref. §§4–5 = [von Staden: H], text 211.
Theophrastus, Historia plantarum, II, iii.
Theophrastus, De causis plantarum, IV, iv §11.
58Theophrastus, De causis plantarum, II, xiii §3.
Theophrastus, Metaphysica, 10a:22–11b:26 (ed. Ross and Fobes).
Aristotle, Physica, II,viii, 198b:16–31.
Aristotle, Physica, II,viii, 198b:32 ff. The argument is obscure, in that a sporadic appearance of organs adapted to their functions can become regular precisely through the mechanism of natural selection that Aristotle presents and contradicts. His solution for the difficulty would be very convincing if it had come immediately after the observation about the shapes of the teeth, that is, if he had not included the second paragraph of the excerpt just quoted, containing the idea of natural selection. One may therefore suspect that this paragraph was a later insertion, by a redactor of the Physics, the better to illustrate the “difficulty”.
Strabo, Geography, II, iii §6.
Strabo, Geography, I, iii §4.
Hippolytus, Refutatio contra omnes haereses, I,xiv §5 = [DG], 566:1–6.
Lucretius, De rerum natura, V:916–924.
Lucretius, De rerum natura, IV:823–842.
Lucretius, De rerum natura, V:828–833 + 855–859. In the intervening lines (omitted), Lucretius talks about monstrous beasts of a distant past.
Lucretius, De rerum natura, V:925–928 + 1028–1032.
Zosimus, Authentic memoirs, IV,i, 17:30–34; VII, ii, 23:8–10; X, vii, 41:135–137 (ed. Mertens).
Pliny, Naturalis historia, XXXV §30.
Pliny, Naturalis historia, XXXV §§49–50.
Vitruvius, De architectura, VII, xi–xiv.
Lucretius, De rerum natura, II:294–296.
Lucian, Vita Demonactis, 39:2–6.
Heron, Pneumatica, I, proem, 10:13–24.
Heron, Pneumatica, I, proem, 16:10–14.
Livy, Ab urbe condita libri, XXI, xxxvii §2.
Vitruvius, De architectura, VIII,iii §§18–19.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2004 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Russo, L. (2004). Medicine and Other Empirical Sciences. In: The Forgotten Revolution. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18904-3_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-18904-3_6
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-20396-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-18904-3
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive