seven parts, which correspond to the parts of the body. The second part of the work,
discussing the causes and treatment of fevers, makes little reference to arithmology and the
number seven. Chronologies proposed swing between the 5th and 1st cc. BCE, but the
presence of postclassical features in the tract can be taken for granted.
J. Mansfeld, The Pseudo-Hippocratic Tract Περ εβδομα ́δων and Greek Philosophy (1971); M.L. West,
“The Cosmology of ‘Hippocrates’, de hebdomadibus,” CQ 21 (1971) 365–388 (text and commentary).
Bruno Centrone
Hippokratic Corpus, Surgery (ca 430 – 370 BCE)
Fractures (Fr), Surgery (S): Littré 3; Joints (J), Mochlikon (M): Littré 4; Fistulas (F), Hemor-
rhoids (H), Ulcers (U): Littré 6
Along with O H W, Fr and J constitute the major Hippokratic surgical
treatises. Both address dislocations and fractures, their descriptions, treatment (including
diet and purges) and the consequences of non-treatment. Their common approach, similar-
ity of language and cross references (cf. Fr 31 and 13 and J 67 and 72) suggest a once unitary
work. M (“Instruments of Reduction,” garbled toward the end) epitomizes Fr and J, and
some passages (7–19, 27–31) were introduced verbatim into J (17–29, 82–87). M, largely
following the traditional tendency to proceed from head to foot (except in the introductory
chapter on bones where, curiously, it reverses the sequence), possibly reflects the original
order of the now hodge-podge arrangement of topics in Fr and J. In antiquity Fr and J were
almost universally attributed to Hippokrate ̄s. If by one author, he was a surgeon experi-
enced with bones, muscles, tendons and major blood vessels, presenting himself as a prac-
titioner, not a theorizer, and describing cases he witnessed or attended (e.g. Fr 1 – 3). He
manifests the adversarial attitude found elsewhere in the Corpus ( J 1 attests to a public
dispute), but, to his credit, considers it fitting for a good surgeon to admit and describe
personal failures ( J 48). A few of his views, if we correctly understand the text, have puzzled
modern readers: e.g. that the fibula is longer than the tibia (Fr 12 and 37).
Reduction devices described in Fr, J and M range from simple (leather balls for shoulder
dislocations) to complex (“Bench of Hippokrate ̄s”: J 72 – 73). A K’
commentary preserves illustrations of some mechanisms and maneuvers detailed in J.
S falls into two parts: the first (1–6) treats necessary equipment and conditions as well as
personal appearance, positioning and movements of surgeons and assistants. Remaining
chapters describe bandaging (types and modes of application with attendant problems):
bandages are both knotted and sutured into position, both with and without splints and
supports (7–25); only linen is mentioned (11, 12, 22). It is debated whether these condensed
and sometimes obscure notes represent an instructional outline (e.g. for opening an “office”)
to be filled in later, or an abbreviated summary like M.
The author of U, positing that moisture promotes lesions, provides a mine of pharma-
ceutical information, as he favors non-surgical cures promoted by purges, plasters, and
styptics, emphasizing desiccating ingredients. Numerous concoctions include vegetable,
mineral and animal products such as clover, lentils, oak gall, myrrh, blister beetles, copper
and lead by-products and, of course, hellebore. The final chapters, treating bleeding and
cupping (25–27), may be later additions.
The brief treatises H and F focus on maladies of the anal tract and associated conditions
like strangury. Their language is similar and, like Fr and J, since antiquity have often been
thought to have originally constituted a unitary work. After identifying heated and/or
HIPPOKRATIC CORPUS, SURGERY