"If I could have given the synonymes of the ancients, it would have been of use to you in your after studies; but the ancients are not precise, nor are they always uniform and constant, so such references would have been a little perplexing. And if I had taken it upon me to determine them here, I would have done it with doubt, and besides it would have cost me more labour than I could well bestow upon it. So I have abstained from giving any reference to the ancients, except through some modern.

But

if any one would more particularly consult the ancients upon this subject, he may do it in the works of Sennertus, who was a man of great erudition, and of a systematic turn; and every student ought, at one period or other, to study the writings of Galen."

Dr Cullen's opinions with respect to the amount of advantage to be derived, particularly by students, from the perusal and study of the ancient writers on medicine, were very explicitly stated by him in the following passage of a lecture introductory to his course on the Practice of Physic.

"I acknowledge that the ancients may be read with advantage, but, at the same time, I maintain they are not to be read by a beginner in the study of physic, and at no time with so much advantage as has been commonly supposed. To take one example for all. The works imputed to Hippocrates are many of them the works of different men in different ages, and we have much difficulty in distinguishing the genuine from the spurious. We have reason to believe that even the genuine are mutilated, corrupted, and interpolated in many places. In the most entire the meaning is frequently obscure, and we are often at a loss to determine what are general and universal propositions, and what are particular and local facts. The reading of such writings must certainly be ill suited to a beginner in study. No one

is in a condition to attempt it till he has acquired a modern system of physic, and a large acquaintance with diseases; and it appears to me extremely ridiculous for any student to be very early engaged in the study of the ancients. For what I have said chiefly with respect to Hippocrates, if time allowed me, I could equally well apply to every one of the ancient writers now remaining. They cannot properly give any rudimentary or fundamental knowledge, nor can they ever give any complete knowledge of physic.

"Sir Richard Blackmore, who has been so much the butt of the critics in poetry, was a physician. It is said that when he was beginning the study, he consulted Dr Sydenham about what books he should read to acquire knowledge; and that Dr Sydenham advised him to read Don Quixote. The meaning of this advice is not well understood or agreed on; but I judge it to imply that, in Sydenham's opinion, the knowledge of physic was not then to be acquired by reading; and I do believe that Dr Sydenham thought there was not much to be learned by a young beginner from the perusal of the incomplete and obscure works of the ancients, or, indeed, of most of the writers before his time; and it is certain that he made little use of any of them himself."

The general impressions which Dr Cullen's lectures and writings relative to nosology produced on the minds of his more intelligent pupils, may be judged of from the following estimates of their value given by two of these, the late Dr Currie of Liverpool-a physician not more distinguished for his knowledge of practical medicine, than for the soundness of his philosophical opinions and the elegance of his literary compositions, -and the late Sir Gilbert Blane, whose constant aim during the long and active services in which he had been engaged, was justly said by himself to have been to extend the utility and uphold the dignity of the

medical profession, by founding it on the deep and solid basis of genuine science and sound philosophy.

"With more comprehensive views than Sauvages," observes Dr Currie,* "a more lucid order, and a happier simplicity, Dr Cullen divided the whole body of diseases into four classes and twenty orders. In his definitions, he excels in accuracy all who have gone before him; and it is, indeed, his distinguished and peculiar praise, that, not only in his Nosology, but in his First Lines, his descriptions of diseases receive no colouring from his theories, but are everywhere faithful to nature. Original and inventive, Dr Cullen, in his reasonings and explanations, dwelt much on the causes of diseases. Aware, however, of the imperfection of the art, he did not attempt to arrange them according to their proximate causes,- -as it was his wish to have done,-but according to an humbler method, founded partly on their symptoms, partly on their causes, and partly on their seats. The Nosology of Dr Cullen has not had the attention or the praise it merits. The elder class of physicians were not likely to receive a new system from their contemporary, and the attention of the rising generation has been too soon withdrawn from this as well as the other works of this accurate observer by the bold and specious, but presumptuous and sometimes dangerous, speculations of his pupil Dr Brown. The Systema Nosologicum of Dr Cullen is, in the judgment of the writer of this article, his most masterly production, and, indeed, the finest synopsis of the history of disease that has hitherto issued from the press."

"Dr Cullen's Nosology," says Sir Gilbert Blane, in a let

* Dr Currie entered on the study of medicine at Edinburgh in the winter of 1777-78. "His indefatigable industry as a medical student," says his biographer, "attracted the notice of the different Professors; and amongst these he was distinguished by the flattering kindness of the illustrious Dr Cullen. To this great man he some years afterwards paid the following [vide supra] testimony of respect and admiration, in his Review of Darwin's Zoonomia." (English Review, Lond. 1796, p. 537.) See Life, p. 43, 45.

ter with which he favoured me on his last visit to Scotland in 1828, "is a proof of his clear and comprehensive mind; for with all the faults and imperfections which seem inseparable, by its peculiar nature, from the subject, it is superior to any of the systems which preceded, and equal to any which have followed it.”

That opinions relative to the value of Dr Cullen's nosological labours, of a very opposite nature to those which have just been quoted, have, as we have seen, been expressed by various authors of considerable reputation, must be attributed, I conceive, partly to the very mistaken notions which they have entertained as to the purposes which Nosology is intended to serve, or the objects which fall under the limits of its investigations, and more particularly as to the relative importance of its several departments; and partly also to a gross inattention to the exposition which Dr Cullen has given of his own views in this department of medical science, and of the principles by which he had been guided in endeavouring to carry these views into effect. For a large share of the objections that have, since his time, been advanced against nosology in general, and against his own system in particular, had previously been candidly pointed out and most ably discussed, if not refuted, by himself, in the Preface or in the Notes to his Synopsis.

Respecting those objections, in particular, that have been urged to that department of nosology which relates to the distinction and definition of diseases, it may be observed, that they seem to be founded either, 1st, on the difficulties which attend the advancement and application of medical science in general, rather than

of this branch of it in particular; 2d, on its imperfect state, rather than on its incapability of improvement; or, 3d, on the abuse which has been made of it, rather than on its being destitute of use. They seem to have been propounded, also, in forgetfulness of the truth so well expressed by Dr Cullen in his remark, that "perfect division and definition is the summit of human knowledge in every department of science, and requires not only the clearest but the most comprehensive views, such as, with respect to diseases, we can arrive at only by often repeated exercises and much study."

I cannot conclude the consideration of Dr Cullen's labours in Nosology in more appropriate terms than those employed by that distinguished pathologist, M. Bayle, in speaking of the difficulties necessarily attendant on nosological definitions and classifications. "In waiting for a perfect guide," says he, " which perhaps we shall never have, let us follow the plan which presents fewest imperfections; but let us not forget that the determination of the species is what is most essential, and that the arrangement is what is least important in a Nosology; that each arrangement has its defects, presents its deficiencies, and exhibits some forced approximations. Let us appreciate the plan of arrangement at its just value, let us consider it as a repertory more or less exact, and let us prefer the one which shall bring together the greatest number of analogous diseases."

In the year 1770, an alarm arose in Scotland that an infectious distemper which was prevailing among the Horned Cattle in Holland, and which, between