« ForrigeFortsæt »
destroyed by caries, from the neck of the condyle down to the last third part of it, and, in one place, is so much destroyed by the worm-eaten caries, that a probe could be passed through it into the medullary cavity; but the condyle itself and the acromium were still covered with a perfectly healthy cartilage. (See the Plate, Fig. 2.)
For the London Medical and Physical Journal. JOHN Mason Good, F.R.S. on the Review of his Physiolo
gical Nosology in our two last Numbers. AM obliged to you for a notice of my volume on Noso
logy, in your respectable Journal; and, as the article gives me an invitation to offer such remarks upon it as I may
, I trouble you with a few observations, only bargaining that they may be inserted without alteration, or returned immediately for insertion elsewhere. According to the common rules of controversy, the reviewer is at liberty to subjoin whatever explanation he may please; but, if he travel into other matter, I put in my claim to follow him, if I should think it worth while.
The writer, in p. 229, expresses his great concern, that, after his decided approbation of my diligence, and, as far as his inquiries have extended, my accuracy, in terminology, as soon as he enters on my arrangement he meets with the words nosology and pathology used as synonymous.
In the passage he refers to, I have used them as nearly parallel terms, though not exactly synonymous; yet I should have had no objection to the latter, for the following reasons: Firstly, because they are directly synonymous in their etymology; secondly, because the general explanation of the one is equally applicable to the other, as“ morborum SCIENTIA,“ seu habitus demonstrandi quidquid de morbis affirmamus aut negamus,” which may embrace either, though by M. de Sauvages it is given as the direct definition of the first; and, thirdly, because it is not easy to draw a line between the two, even where a distinction is attempted. Sauvages adds to the above character “et est pars pathologiæ," to which I have no objection : but it must be difficult to say what pathology would have to add after nosology was to be treated of under the above explanation in the most comprehensive sense of the terms.
The Reviewer, however, finds no difficulty whatever; and his distinction is as follows:-" Pathology has always been applied to that knowledge by which, from the sufferings of the patient, we may detect the nature, if not the seat, of the disease. Nosology is a modern science, as well as a modern word; and by the moderns it is applied to an artificial arrangement, by which we are to ascertain the order, class, (class, order,) genus, or (und) species of diseases.”
There is, in this double definition, so much “ artificial réant of arrangement,” that, before we can come into contact, it is necessary to distribute the matter afresh; and the meaning will then, I apprehend, run thus:-" PATHOLOGY is a science which teaches us the nature, if not the seat, of a disease from the sufferings of a patient; and has always been thus interpreted.”
Q.? What one etymologist or pathologist has ever thus interpreted or applied the term ?-an interpretation which would exclude a considerable extent of diseases in which no such sufferings can be ascertained; and lead us astray in a still greater number.
" Nosology is a modern science, as well as a modern word; which teaches us an artificial arrangement of diseases into classes, orders, genera, and species.”
Nosology is, literally, as stated above, the MORBORUM SCIENTIA, which is, indeed, its exact translation, and consequently, under whatever name this science may have passed at different times, it is one of the oldest, perhaps the oldest, in the world. Methodic nosology, (nosologia methodica, as Professor de Sauvages has correctly denominated it, and as it has since been denominated by every exact writer to the time of Dr. Cullen inclusively,)--Nosology treated of under a particular method, --is comparatively, so far as refers to such method, of modern invention. The mistake of the Reviewer consists in his confounding the one idea with the other, the thing with the name, the science with the method under which it is now taught. To suppose that there was no such science as nosology, the MORBORUM. SCIENTIA, before this name was applied to it, is to suppose that there was no such thing as morbid poisons before Mr. J. Hunter 'used the term, or Dr. Adams (a still more fa. vourite name with the Reviewer-see p.p. 229, 298, 312, 316, 319,) wrote a book upon the subject.
We meet with what seems to be a still more brilliant spe. cimen of this " concordia discors” in the writer's definition of a nosological system, p. 319. In justice to him, you will, perhaps, quote the passage at the foot of the paye, * from
System in all the productions," &c. to “that degree and
* In compliance with Mr. Good's suggestion, we quote the passage allnded to above, though we have denied ourselves the same indul. gence in our own references to a former Number:-“System, in all the NO. 225.
It is also usually fond convenient that a writer, and especially a heviewer, should be acquainted with the names of the authors from whom he quotes. In the learned article before me, we have Chrichton, p. 215, for Crichton; and Sauvage, p.p. 211, 212, 224, for Sauvages. And, as these mistakes are not corrected in the table of errata with which the article closes, they cannot easily be charged to the commodicus ignorance of the printer.
As the writer has found it necessary to introduce such a table at the bottom of so short a disquisition-a table containing more than double the errors of that he has thought fit to animadvert upon (measuring the number of errors by the extent of original matter in the article), and errors which he tells us have grown partly out of the hurry of printing, and partly out of his own numerous alterations, thus “ washed to fouler stains,”-1 submit to you that it might have been not unbecoming in him to have spared the following passage, which immediately precedes this singular table of confession :--"We are always backward in noticing any grammatical errors or inelegance of expression, which do not materially affect the sense.
The following, among others that have occurred to us, unnoticed in the errata, we submit to Mr. Good's better judgment in (for) a future edition. Ulcus, by some oversight, is made a masculine
The odontia senilium must have been intended for 0. senum. Salucitas a Juvenilis might have led to S. senilis, instead of senilium.”
The grammatical errors (as they are here called plurally) are one; and the alleged inelegancies two; the whole number three.
Upon the two last it is not worth while to touch. For the sample of grammatical errors which this writer is so backward to notice, if he had only taken the trouble to have gone a little more backward, viz. to p. 248 of the criticised work, he would have found the entire list of this single error or errors, corrected to his hands in the following words: “ As the present page is a cancel, and has consequently been worked off after the rest of the volume, the author takes the opportunity of requesting his readers to give to the names of the species and varieties under Ulcus, p. 274, a neuter, instead of a masculine, termination, as vitivsum, callosum, &c. the author having at first employed a masculine noun instead of ulcus, and it having escaped
data, neque unicunque morbo assignata sunt; nec quantum video, nisi per NOSOLOGIAM METHODICAM, rite institutam, assignari queant. 3 A 2
his attention to make the necessary emendation on a change of the generic term.
Caroline-place; Oct. 6, 1817.
*** We feel much obliged to Mr. Good for the above communication, and should have been still more so, had the part which relates to the first division of the article in our Journal been sent a month earlier; or, if, after such delay, he had offered us his opinion on other passages. To do aniple justice to both parties, Mr. G.'s paper is now inserted as we received it, without an immediate reply, that the author may, like the reviewer, liave the advantage which the pause of a month may produce on the mind of the reader. We cannot conclude without expressing a wish that the controversy may be carried on with temper, and excite that attention which the great importance of the question demands.--EDIT.
For the London Medical and Physical Journal. Remarks shewing the expediency of soine Legislative Enact
ment to insure competent Medical and Surgical Aid to Suck and Hurt Poor; by John C. YEATMAN, Esq.
Miseris succurrere disco. THE THE Faculty is indebted to the Worcestershire Medical
and Surgical Society for their intended Bill, as far as it regards the casual poor ; and it is to be hoped that the “ Associated Apothecaries of England and Wales” will consult the interest of the poor and of themselves by petitioning Parliament to make a better provision than the one existing for medical attendance upon paupers generally. And the Bill for the better regulation of the Poor-laws, begun in the last session with so much wisdom, certainly affords the best opportunity for an address of the foregoing kind. Concerning the casual poor, it were a crying evil and a shame if " the present system of removing paupers on account of ap
lication, in cases of illness, to the overseers of the parish in which they happen to reside, to that parish to which they belong," be continued, when “it often deprives the poor family of the means of gaining a living, and frequently induces them not to apply for a suspended order; while, if a medical man is called in, under such circumstances, to attend them, he has no legal means of obtaining any remuneration for his attendance."'*
* See the Report of the Resolutions of the Worcestershire Medical and Surgical Society in the Lond. Med. and Phys. Journal for July, p. 79.