It has been a question much debated, whether, and how far the writings of the ancient physicians are of service to direct our practice in the cure of diseases; but without repeating what has been already said on this point, I imagine their usefulness may be inferred from this single consideration, that the mechanism of the human body being always and every where the same, a faithful history of diseases must necessarily be one of the surest guides to the application of proper remedies. Moreover, if the diagnostics and prognostics be of the greatest moment in physic, and are only to be collected from long and accurate observation, then the records left us by the ancients, who were so assiduous in their observations, so clear and exact in their descriptions, must be allowed to contain a valuable treasure of medical knowledge.

We have seen, in the present age, many learned physicians, who, though they readily admit the improvements of the moderns, nevertheless apply themselves with great industry to the study of the ancients; and indeed, to say nothing of the superiority of some of the ancients in stile and composition, as a matter of taste, I think it can hardly be denied, that a man, capable of making proper allowances for the variations in respect of climate and manner of living, may receive great benefit from the materials left us by these ingenious writers of antiquity, and find many hints, which, pursued with diligence, and applied with caution, may both correct and enlarge his practice.

Celsus is justly esteemed one of the most valuable amongst the ancients. He is so often quoted, with approbation, by our best writers in physic, and so much admired by the learned world for propriety, ease, and elegance, that it is a needless attempt in these days to draw his character. However, he is so little mentioned by the ancients, that our curiosity cannot be gratified with any particulars of his life; nor can we even determine what was his profession, if it does not appear from his writings.

Quintilian often mentions a treatise of his upon rhetoric, which though he hardly ever quotes, but where he differs from him, he allows to be composed with accuracy. But whatever he thought of his oratory, he gives an honourable testimony to the extent of his learning. For to persuade his student of eloquence to make himself master of all the sciences, after mentioning the greatest geniuses that ever appeared in Greece or Rome, as Homer, Plato, Aristotle, Cato the censor, Varro, and Cicero, he adds, “Why should I name any more instances? when even Cornelius Celsus, a man of a moderate share of genius, has not only composed treatises on all these arts, but has also left precepts of the military art, agriculture, and medicine. The bare attempt requires us to believe he understood all these subjects: but to give perfection to so great a work is a difficult task, to which no man was ever found equal[ A ].”

Some have complained of the partiality, or jealousy of the rhetorician, who allows Celsus only a moderate share of genius. Others esteem it no diminution to be placed in a rank below the writers above named. Without doubt, this would do him very great honour: but if we even take the character literally, still we are to consider Quintilian as having every where in view the perfection of oratory. Now this, it should appear, Celsus hardly affected, by his confining the orator to questions in dispute[ B ]; which in great measure excludes the descriptive and moving parts of the art: therefore Quintilian’s man of middling genius may be a perfect writer in the instructive manner, though he want the qualifications for the bar or the forum. But to do Celsus some farther honour, may it not be supposed, that had Quintilian been as competent a judge of his medical, as of his rhetorical writings, he would not have stiled him, Vir mediocri ingenio. I have made bold to hazard this observation from an opinion, that none but a physician can form a just idea of the excellence of this work; much less could any but a physician be the author of it. Celsus the physician might very well write on agriculture, &c. but it by no means follows, that Celsus, not versed in the practice of physic, could have written accurately on diseases. If then this notion be just, it may reasonably be concluded, that his medical writings were the most perfect, as being the fruit of his principal and particular studies.

Columella (De re rustica) often quotes him with great deference to his authority; he equals him to the most learned writers on husbandry; and when he is correcting a vulgar error, expresses his surprise that Cornelius Celsus could be misled, “who was not only skilled in agriculture, but took in the whole compass of natural knowledge[C].” I shall not recite all the passages, where he mentions Celsus, but cannot help transcribing one, it is so expressive of our author’s manner. It is on the article of bees, “concerning which (says he) it is impossible to surpass the diligence of Hyginus, the profusion of ornaments in Virgil, and the elegance of Celsus. Hyginus has with great industry collected the precepts, which lay scattered in the ancients; Virgil has adorned the subject with poetic flowers; and in Celsus we find a judicious mixture of both these manners[ D ].”

From Columella’s mentioning Celsus as a contemporary, but not as a living writer[ E ], and our author’s speaking of Themison in the same manner[ F ], Le Clerc infers, with great probability, that Celsus wrote towards the latter end of the reign of Augustus, or at latest, in the beginning of Tiberius; in which last period he is placed by Fabricius[ G ]. And that he cannot have been later, appears not only from these authorities, but almost undeniably from the purity and elegance of his style, more nearly allied to the Augustan, than any of the succeeding ages.

Both Columella and Quintilian seem to speak of him as a Roman, and indeed our author himself, when he is giving the Greek name for any distemper, and is to add the Roman, frequently uses this phrase, nostri vocant, our countrymen call it, or some other expression of the same nature[ H ].

We have seen by the above quotations, how many treatises were composed by Celsus, which have all perished in the barbarous ages, except this work on medicine; which from the manner of its beginning, Ut alimenta sanis corporibus agricultura, sic medicina Ægris sanitatem promittit, seems to have immediately followed his book on husbandry: for this easy transition is very common with our author in connecting different subjects. What confirms this is, that H. Stephens, upon the authority of an ancient manuscript, has prefixed as the title, Aurelii Cornelii Celsi de re medica libri octo; operis ab eo scripti de artibus pars sexta. It would be still more evident, if we could depend upon the manuscript in the library of Alex. Paduan: in which, at the end of the fourth book is written, Artium Cornelii Celsi liber nonus, idem medicinÆ liber quartus explicit feliciter[ I ]. For his agriculture contained five books[ J ], with which the first four of this work make up the nine.

Every trifling circumstance relating to our author has employed the industry of his learned commentators. The English reader will therefore forgive me for observing, that in most of the manuscripts, his name is written A. Cornelius Celsus. And Rubeus informs us, the ancient manuscript in the Vatican library has this title, Auli Cornelii Celsi liber sextus, idemque medicinÆ primus. As Aurelius was the name of a Roman family, it is not probable that this would be his praenomen; on the contrary, Aulus is found to be a common praenomen in the Cornelian family[ K ]. For these reasons, I read his name A. that is Aulus, &c. instead of Aurelius, as most of the printed copies have it.

From our author’s admirable abstract of the history of physic, it is easy to see he had studied and thoroughly digested the writings of the preceding physicians, and been attentive to the practice, as well as to the arguments of the several sects. We have no reason to doubt he made the best use of them; for we see that he confined himself to no one party, but selected from each what he judged to be most salutary. Though he has quoted many authors, sometimes with a view to recommend their practice in particular cases, at other times to shew the impropriety of it; yet through the whole, Hippocrates and Asclepiades seem to have been highest in his esteem; but he does not give up his judgment implicitly to these for he often leaves both, and advances very good reasons for differing from them. He ingenuously owns[ L ], that he has borrowed the prognostics from Hippocrates, “because,” says he, “though the moderns have made alterations in the method of curing, nevertheless they allow, that he has left the best prognostics.” With regard to the critical days, he entirely condemns his doctrine, and follows Asclepiades in rejecting the notion as idle and chimerical[ M ]. But from both these authors he dissents in his rules about bleeding.

It would be superfluous for me to prefix to this translation a general view of Celsus’s practice in the various diseases; for besides that this is already done by the learned Le Clerc[ N ], our author’s method is so clear and concise, that the reader will acquire, with ease, the most perfect idea from the book itself.

Whenever he differs in opinion from writers, whose authority he otherwise reveres, we find his reasoning modest, concise, close, and admirably well adapted to the subject in dispute; but the delicacy of his expression, when he condemns others, and the caution with which he avoids speaking of himself, have led some to believe he was not a practitioner: though the strongest argument against his having practised physic is drawn from the silence of Pliny, who names Celsus, in several books, among the authors from whom he took his materials, and never ranks him in the list of physicians, whom he separates from the others. But I am surprised it has escaped the observation of the critics, that these catalogues of physicians consist only of foreigners, whom Pliny distinguishes from other foreigners, who were not physicians; whereas Celsus stands always amongst the Romans. Now Pliny, in his list of Roman writers, has not noted their several professions: for in most of the places, where we read the name of Celsus, we also find that of Antonius Castor, without any mention of his profession, though Pliny himself in another place tells us[ O ], he was a physician of great reputation, whom he saw living in retirement, and cultivating a kind of physic-garden, when he was above an hundred years old. Thus, the name of Antonius Castor would have been lost with his writings, notwithstanding the figure he made among his contemporaries, had he not happened to be mentioned by Pliny. And hence it appears, that nothing can be inferred from the silence of Pliny and the other ancients, in regard to the profession of Celsus; though he should not be Cornelius the physician, mentioned by Galen, as Le Clerc thinks it probable he is.

I might have urged many passages in this book to prove that he was a physician, if I had not reason to think the present age is already satisfied in that point. There are two, however, so remarkable, that they ought not to be omitted. When our author is considering the proper time for allowing nourishment, after saying that some gave their patients food in the evening, he gives reasons against that method, and then adds, “Ob haec ad mediam noctem decurro, i. e. For these reasons I defer it till midnight.” Thus most of the older copies read, and also Morgagni’s manuscript; so that Linden is not easily to be forgiven for making alterations in so material a place[ P ]. In the other passages there is no variation in the reading. In that species of the ancyloblepharon, where the eye-lid unites with the white of the eye, our author, after describing the method of cure, immediately adds, “Ego sic restitutum neminem memini. Meges se quoque multa, &c. i. e. I do not remember an instance of any person cured in this way. Meges also has told us that he has tried many methods, and never was successful, because the eye-lid always united again to the eye[ Q ].” The form of expression here used by our author, in a manner peculiar to a practitioner, would come very improperly from a mere compiler. The connection of these two sentences by quoque seems to put our author’s own observation upon the same footing with that of Meges, whom he quotes on several occasions as a most accomplished surgeon[ R ].

It may not be amiss, however, to take notice of a distinction Celsus makes between two kinds of professors of physic. When he is shewing the necessity of circumspection in the physician, he adds, “From[ S ] these things it may be inferred, that many people cannot be attended by one physician; and that the man to be trusted is he, who knows his profession, and is not much absent from the patient. But they, who practice from views of gain, because their profits rise in proportion to the number of patients, readily fall in with such rules, as do not require a close attendance, as in this very case. For it is easy for such as seldom see the patient, to count the days and the paroxysms: but it is necessary for him to sit by his patient, who would form a true judgment of what is alone fit to be done, when he will be too weak, unless he get food.” As his censure is so severe upon a practice, which he thought too extensive, it is natural to suppose, that his was confined to his acquaintance, and that his fortune and generosity rendered him superior to the view of living by the profession.

To all the later copies of Celsus is prefixed an index of the several editions, which makes it needless for me to give an account of them. All the older ones, printed in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, abound with numberless gross errors, that in many places utterly destroy the construction. These, Vander Linden undertook to correct, and the authorities he used for that purpose are contained in a catalogue annexed to his preface, in which he tells us he has made very few changes from his own conjecture, and none of these, but where the subject evidently required them. In the dedication he says, “Who would imagine, that after the diligent labours of so many illustrious men, as Egnatius, CÆsarius, Constantine, Stephens, Pantinus, Ronsseus, and Rubeus, I should have corrections to make in more than two thousand places?”

As it was proper I should translate from one particular edition, I chose for that purpose Linden’s; or Almeloveen’s, who has followed him almost in every letter; as these are generally esteemed by far the most correct: though it must be owned, that Linden has made many alterations without necessity, and sometimes for the worse. Where the sense was either obscure or inconsistent with the context, I have often been assisted by the more ancient editions. On such occasions I have given my authority and reasons in the notes. In passages where I found a reading in the old copies much preferable to Linden’s, but not altogether necessary upon account of the sense, I have marked it in a note, without adopting it into the next.

There are very few places, where I have ventured to alter the reading on my own conjecture, and these are all noted in the margin, where I have assigned my reasons, which, I hope, will convince the learned reader. My notes will shew in how many instances I have been obliged to the excellent epistles of Morgagni. This learned and ingenious author has, in my opinion, entered more into the spirit and true meaning of Celsus, than any of the preceding commentators[ T ].

Had there been so correct an edition of Celsus, as I think may be made, with proper judgment, from the editions and manuscripts extant, it would have shortened my labour.

That Celsus divided his books into chapters, appears from several passages: whereas no person, as far as I can find, pretends, that the marginal contents came from the author himself. The editions differ in these; but as it is of small importance, I have not troubled the reader with any remarks on that article. Where I found those of Linden evidently wrong, I have endeavoured to supply the defect.

With regard to the materia medica, the notes are drawn chiefly from Pliny and Dioscorides, whom I esteemed the best authors on that article. When I have given English names to any of the simples, I follow the most judicious moderns; though it must be remembered, that many of them cannot be determined with absolute certainty.

Through most of the compositions the text is miserably corrupted; and what is worse, I do not find, that by comparing the various editions this part can be restored. I had once some thoughts of labouring this point particularly, but as it would have been expected I should support every alteration with proper reasons, and as I despaired of executing it so, as to meet with universal approbation, and after all it would have been more a matter of curiosity than of real use, I omitted that part of my design; besides, this must have considerably increased the number of my notes, which I have endeavoured should be as few as the nature of the undertaking would admit of. For these reasons I have closely adhered to the text of Linden, without even departing from it, where the nature of the whole composition will evidently demonstrate the proportions of several ingredients to be highly incongruous.

It has been my principal care to convey the precise meaning of my author, and also to preserve the genius of his style, where the English idiom would allow. I have likewise been careful not to wrest any expression of Celsus, in order to deceive the reader into a greater opinion of his knowledge, than he really deserves. His merit is sufficiently great without pretending to find in him any discoveries, the honour of which is due to the moderns. Every man of learning, who is acquainted with the state of physic among the ancients, and knows how far it differs from the modern, must be sensible of the difficulty of translating an author so elegant and concise, with the strictness necessary in a work of this nature. Such judges, I hope, will censure the faults, which cannot escape their observation, with the candour inseparable from true criticism.

It only remains, that I return thanks to my ingenious and learned friends of the faculty, who have favoured me with their opinions on several passages, particularly to Dr. Maghie of Guy’s hospital.