haps, one of them that can be used without an index, or is so constructed as to direct the student at once to the proper place of a genus, or species of disease, by the mere arrangement of the classification; insomuch that few or none of them are attended to in the schools of instruction of the present day; and the lecturer finds it difficult to do better than follow the simple, but unscientific mode of Dr. Heberden, and treat of every disease alphabetically: a mode which, it must be obvious, destroys all family connexion, and throws together affections the most discrepant and unlike, but not more so than many of the systematic nosologies, of which various striking examples are offered in the volume before us, as that of psora and fractura, or itch and broken bones, which follow in immediate succession in the synopsis of Dr. Cullen.

With all these systems the author shows himself to be well acquainted: he examines them with acuteness and learning, strikingly points out their defects, and candidly allows them their respective merits. The following remarks are particularly worthy of notice, because they apply not only to the writer against whom they are more directly levelled, but to nosologists in general; and we may add, to physiologists, and zoologists, and botanists, and mineralogists, of various ages, pretensions, and cha

racters.

"It is impossible to take a survey, however brief, of Dr. Cullen's system, and not to notice his very extraordinary confusion of genera and species. And the author is the more induced to advert to it, because, extraordinary as such a confusion must appear to all who are acquainted with the difference, Dr. Cullen is by no means the only nosologist of our own day who has run into the same mistake, as will easily be perceived before the close of this dissertation.

"A genus is not a disease, any more than it is an animal, a vegetable, or a mineral; but a group or assemblage of any of these, possessing certain like characters, and associated in consequence of such resemblance. The consenting characters being abstracted and put together constitute the generic definition, and apply to the whole; while the subordinate characters or coincidents, by which one differs from another, constitute the specific definition, and distinguish 1 from 2, and 2 from 3, of the same group or genus. A genus, therefore, is a mere abstract term, a non-entity in nature; highly useful, indeed, in the chain of orders, but which can no more exist without species than a regiment or a regimental company can exist without soldiers. On this account it is that no man can ever discover a genus, though he may combine generic signs, and invent a generic name. The usual order is the following; he first discovers an individual, whether a plant, animal, or disease, possessing very peculiar marks, so as to separate it distinctly from any known individual, or groups of individuals. He may now, therefore, be said to have found a new species; and he proceeds next to arrange it. He first separates from it the most striking marks by

which it is distinguished: and if this should be strictly singular it constitutes alone a sufficient character for a new genus, and will form what is called, from this very circumstance, its essential generic character. If it be not strictly singular, he must look for another striking character, -a coincident or co-appearance,- or if necessary, in order to render the distinction complete, a third; and the generic character will consist in the union of these coincidents, in the combination of the marks that are thus first detached from the individual, and then brought into a state of combination. To this combination of detached or abstract signs he gives what name he pleases; and he thus obtains a generic name as well as a generic definition. He then proceeds to select one, two, or more other marks, by which the individual is peculiarly distinguished; and these united form his specific definition, to which in like manner he adds a specific name. He has now discovered and identified a species, and formed and denominated a genus. His genus, indeed, consists at present but of a single species; and many genera never consist of more; but the genus is, nevertheless, formed upon a collective principle; it presupposes that other individuals may hereafter be detected possessing the same generic character, and consequently belonging to the same banner; at the same time differing in severat of its subordinate marks from the individuals already arranged under such banner; and which in consequence will produce new species as long as other individuals possessing such discrepancies shall be traced out; unless, indeed, the discrepancies should be found to be casual, to depend upon soil or food, upon climate, atmosphere, posi tion, or some other incidental circumstance; and in such case the individual is regarded as a mere variety of some species described already.

"The writer, therefore, who describes a genus that has no species belonging or subjoined to it; or who gives a generic, without a specific, name, describes a mere abstract form, a thing that has no existence without the addition of other signs or qualities which do not enter into his definition; and which, in relation to the individual, constitute the most important part.

"Now the present charge against Dr. Cullen is, that while in some cases he has given genera with the proper species belonging to them, in others he has given genera without any species whatever; and in others again that he has described species under the name of genera." (P. xix.-xxi.)

But the nomenclature of medicine requires as much attention as its systematic arrangement; and while chemistry, botany, and mineralogy, have submitted to extensive and important improvements, the vocabulary of the nosologist still continues to be a jumble of terms, derived from almost every language, and every system, whether dead or living, founded upon no common principle, and equally destitute of precision and simplicity. It consists of Hebrew and Arabic terms; Greek and Latin; French, Italian, Spanish, German, English, and even Indian, African, and Mexican; often barbarously and illegitimately compounded,

doubtful in derivation, cacophonous to the ear; and, for want of a determinate signification, formed, as one would think, rather for the purpose of strangling ideas than of communicating them. All which has manifestly arisen, in a very considerable degree, from those political and geographical changes which have marked the history of medicine, in its different epochs, in conjunction with that succession of theories, which, very nearly from the time of Hippocrates, has been perpetually unfolding to the world; almost every one of which, if characterised by nothing else, has at least taken care to mark its existence by a new coinage of words.

To simplify and correct this chaos of language, the author before us has endeavoured to guide himself by the following general rules. First, a strict adherence to Greek and Latin terms alone. Secondly, the use of as few technical terms as possible, and consequently a forbearance from all synonyms. Thirdly, a simplification of terms, as far as it can be done without violence or affectation, both in their radical structure and composition. Fourthly, an individuality and precision of sence in their respective use.

"Much of the character of words," says Mr. Good," in respect to dimensions and euphony, as well as to precision, depends upon the common prefixes and suffixes which it is occasionally found necessary to employ; and which in some branches of science, and especially in that of chemistry, create and regulate considerably more than half their nomenclature.

"This subject opens a wide field, though the consideration of it, for the present, must be confined to a very narrow compass. It is altogether new, not only to medicine, but, as far as the author is acquainted, to Greek philology; at least, after an extensive inquiry, he has not been able to obtain any assistance from books professedly devoted to it. There seems much reason to believe that the auxiliary parts of every compound term, not only in medical technology, but through the whole range of the Greek tongue, had, when first employed, distinct and definite meanings, and limited the radicals, with which they were associated, to peculiar modifications of a common idea. To these meanings we can still trace many of them, though the greater number, like most of the elements in the Chinese characters, have passed through so many changes, that it is difficult, and in some instances perhaps impossible, to follow up the analysis to their original sources.”. (P. lvii.)

This is a new and curious subject, even in Greek philology; and, as the author observes, "is worthy of being carried much further than he has time or limits to pursue it." He first draws out a table of the suffixes and affixes in general use, amounting to about forty, and then observes as follows.

"These auxiliaries are far too numerous, and, in the course of the

vocabulary, recur far too frequently. Some of them however may be suppressed, as synonyms or duplicates of others; while it should be a rule never to employ any one of the remainder but when absolutely necessary to distinguish the compound into which it enters from the root itself, or from another compound derived from the same root, by the addition of an idea to which it is uniformly restricted.

"Algia, copus, and odyne, are direct synonyms; to which also may be added agra, for though of a somewhat different radical meaning, it is commonly superadded, like all the three former, to express the general idea of pain or ache. And hence, very much to the perplexity of the learner and the incumbrance of the technical vocabulary, we have cephal-algia for head-ache, gastr-odyne for belly-ache, chir-agra, and pod-agra for gout-ache in the hand or foot. And, worse than this, we have ostoalgia, ost-dynia, ost-oagra, and osto-copus, to signify one and the same affection of the bones. Now it may be necessary to retain algia, which is perhaps the most popular of the whole, but we should as far as possible banish all the rest; and with the exception of agra in the single instance of pod-agra, which cannot readily be dismissed, none of the others will be met with in the course of the ensuing arrangement. Parodynia will indeed be found, but in this case odynia is the root itself.

"Esis, osis, itis, oma, and iasis, have been employed perhaps for ages, and several of them very generally throughout the Greek tongue, as mere terminations, without any direct reference to their origins: and probably without a recollection or belief that they have any significant origins, or that those origins can be traced: in which case they would become simple terminating synonyms, and, in the ab breviating aim of a technical nomenclature, ought to follow the fate of the generality of the preceding list. Some of them, indeed, can well be spared; but accident, or a cause not easy to be explained, has given a peculiar and useful meaning to others, though very different from their radical sense, and these may be advantageously retained. The first three are probably derived from or its different compounds, and together with the Latin term igo, which is perhaps a corruption of ago, imply the common idea of ago, mitto,' motion, action, or putting forth,' and consequently, in medical combination, of morbid motion or action. Esis () is a direct derivative from as is obvious in paresis, literally submissio,' remissio,'laxatio," restraint or inability or moving or putting forth; whence by Aretæus, and various other Greek writers, it is used synonymously with paralysis. We meet with the same word and the same radical idea, in proesis synesis, and other compounds of the same root. (as or ) descends in like manner from sum,' itself a derivative of; whence osia or ousia (a or ovr) is literally sentia, substantia,' the thing put forth in being, action, Itis (m) is as clearly an immediate derivation from ; itself, like the preceding, a ramification from, and imports, not merely action, but when strictly true to itself, impetuous or violent action. The literal rendering of as is feror impetu, and that of us is, temerarius, audax, præceps periculorum. While the direct origin of

ens, esor motion.'

igo betrays itself in all its compounds, for vertigo (deriving igo from ago) is literally rotatory motion or dizziness; serpigo, serpentine motion or course,' peculiarly describing a particular modification of herpetic eruption to which the term serpigo is applied.

"Iasis, and oma, convey different ideas as issuing from different radicals. Iasis (s) is literally sanatio, from ideua, sano, medeor,' and hence necessarily imports, in composition, medendus,' or 'ad sanationem spectans. Oma (a) is as obviously an inflection of s 'crudus, ferus, imperfectus,' as is its real meaning in sarc-oma, distinctly crude, wild, imperfect flesh: ather-oma, crude, incocted pulp or pap.' But if oma be preceded by the letters pt, as in ptoma (a) it is then derived from tw, procido,' and constantly imports procidence or prolapse; as in pro-ptoma, a prolapse of any part; archo-ptoma, a prolapse of the anus.' This is sometimes written ptosis, as in colpo-ptosis, a prolapse of the vagina;' hysteroptosis, a prolapse of the uterus:' but for the sake of perspicuity, and especially to the learner, one mode only ought to be adhered to, and perhaps the first is the best.

“Asma (ra) is strictly'incantamentum,' enchantment, incanta tion; and, in a looser sense, possession, seizure. Osma, asmus, esmus, and ismus, are mere varieties of asma; and that they were at first intended to denote this idea we may judge from the terms phantasma, enthusiasmus, phricasmus, marasmus, phrenismus, priapismus. It be came long afterwards a terminal member of tenesmus, rheumatismus, ptyalismus, when the original sense was nearly or altogether lost sight of. And since this period the entire group have been employed not only so generally, but in such a multiplicity of senses, that we can neither banish them nor define them; whence, like esis and osis, they must remain to be had recourse to as mere final adjuncts whenever necessary, though the less frequently employed the better.

It is clear, then, as well from actual analysis, as from the genius of the Greek tongue itself, that each of these terminations had a distinct signification when first introduced; although it is equally clear that most of them have for some centuries been employed loosely and indiscriminately as mere final syllables. In many instances none of them are wanted; and in all such cases they ought, unquestionably, to be dropped as redundant; and, occasionally, they have been so. Thus the myopiasis of Vogel is advantageously shortened by Plenck to myopia, as at first written by Linnéus; and, for the same reason, mydriasis ought to have been written mydria. So chlorosis, if it were to be formed in the present day, would be chloria, and exoneirosis, exoneiria." (P. lix.-lxi.)

To the auxiliary terms that are retained, whether affixes or suffixes, the author next proposes to attach a single and definite meaning, and uniformly to employ them in this sense. The following passage will afford a sufficient example of what he

intends.

In various instances, again, we find, as already hinted at, several of the terminations, apparently from some accidental cause, taking a