This classification and arrangement affords a convenient opportunity of affixing the proper physiology to each of the genera of solids, and to each of the genera and varieties of Auids. Myeleuthytona Hæmeuthytodes. Esthesis. Sense. Myeleuthytona Enyphantodes. Esthephoresis. Carriers of sense. Helasmata Siphonodes. Siphapokinesis. Tubular re-action. Enyphanta Platynodes. Parenthesis. Interposition. Enyphanta Siphonodes. Siphoparenthesis. Tubular interposition. action. Interposition and re Enyphanta Hæmeuthytodes. Parenthisystolesis. Interposition and con striction. Enyphanta Collodes. Diastolesis. Dilatation-preserving distances. Enyphanta Siphocollodes. Siphodiastolesis. Keeping tubes perpetually open. Enyphanta Coniodes. Acamptosis. Inflexibility. Enyphanta Siphoconiodes. Acamptosis. Inflexibility. Enyphanta Steatodes. Morphosis. Giving form or shape. FLUIDS. Hæma. Stereotrophisis. Nourishing solids. Hæmatodes. Hæmathemeleosis. The foundation or Basis of Hema Galatodes. Hæmatrophisis. Nourishing the blood. Urodes. Akrestophoresis. Carrying away useless materials. Chalodes. Pepsis. Digestion. Spermatodes. Paraphusis. Procreation. Ophthalmodes. Diastolesis. Preserving proper distances. Blennodes. Blennosis. Lubrication. TELEOSES. Phreneteleosis. Phrene poesis. Fabrication of the mind. It is pretty clear, from the above Prospectus AnatomicoPhysiologicus, that the functions of the various parts of the body arise, as inevitable consequences of organization and composition, of which two of those functions are the essential attributes of animal life-Sensation and Motion, (Esthesis and Kinesis. And, in considering the nature of the human mind, it is essentially necessary to keep these two faculties distinct, otherwise we shall get bewildered; indeed, it appears to me evident, that, without an improved and appropriate Nomenclature, we shall remain without a solid sys tem of medical science; and so long as nerve, muscle, tendon, artery, &c. are suffered to remain as anatomical denominators, whilst physiology is unprovided with such techni cal terms as denote identical faculties; whilst diseases are denominated by their symptoms instead of their identities; and, whilst medical phraseology is so loose and whimsical, it cannot be expected that any splendid attainments will be. acknowledged, or that the veil will be pierced which conceals the composition and fabric of the human mind. The analysis of the human mind will be the first subject of my next paper. Leicester; October 14, 1817. For the London Medical and Physical Journal. Reply to Mr. John Mason Good's Remarks on our Review of his Physiological System of Nosology. OUR UR readers will not suppose that we consider our reviews as oracular. They are intended to remind the author of what we conceive he may have overlooked, as well as to direct our readers in their choice of books, and the grana salis with which they should peruse some of them. At the same time, we wish never to be backward in acknowledging the information we derive, the new sentiments excited in our minds, and, where we have doubt, to request information from writers who, we conceive, before they venture to publish, have most maturely considered their subject. In all these respects, we have been particularly careful to acknowledge our obligations to Mr. Good; and, when he honoured us with his "Remarks," we waived the liberty he permitted us of "subjoining any explanation," not only because we thought it unfair, but because the author and his subject appeared to us worthy of a maturity of composition beyond an extemporaneous reply. We even afforded him an indulgence we dare not claim ourselves, that of transcribing a long passage from a former Journal. There are many reasons why we should gladly assume the same privilege; but we should think it injustice to our subscribers thus to fill our pages. We are the more anxious to explain this, in order that Mr. Good, should he honour us with a rejoinder, (which we promise to insert,) may not repeat such a request; and also that our readers may be careful to keep the whole controversy before them whenever they peruse a part of it. For this reason, we have, in what follows, directed to the pages in our Journal instead of transcribing them. We now proceed, 1st, to our defence; 2dly, to request further information from Mr. Good on some passages which he has Jeft unnoticed; and, lastly, to restore a few sentences which we expunged in our manuscript or proofs before we were aware that the author would be so ready at explanation. Mr. G. has used the words Nosology and Pathology" as nearly parallel terms, though not exactly synonymous." Parallel, when applied to words, can only mean such as may be interchangeably used, which is very much like synonymous. "They are directly synonymous in their etymology"-Negatur: because what Sauvages (teste Mr. Good) says of nosology, "Morborum SCIENTIA seu habitus demonstrandi QUIDQUID de morbis affirmamus aut negamus," is not a true definition of pathology, which relates only to the symptoms. The science of medicine, exclusive of surgery, has been usually divided into physiology, pathology, and therapeutics. Nosology, it is true, is part of the first, and might comprehend the other two. All this we admit, and that the inventors of this new science, as we consider it, by adding methodica, imply that only their odos, or way, is different, as Celsus long since remarked of another set of philosophers (quasi viam quendam quam peladov Græci nominant). Now, it is to this odos, or march, as the French would call it, that we object, consi dering that the student is rather bewildered than assisted by its intricacies, and still more by the discordant opinions of his various directors. Mr. Good seems to us perfectly aware of this, when, in his title (PHYSIOLOGICAL SYSTEM) he not only drops the odos, but seems to admit that the various methods were not formed on the principles of physiology, yet this is the science on which the regular physician founds his distinction from the empiric. But, though the title-page promises a "Physiological System," the "preliminary dissertation" teaches us to expect nothing more than an arrangement similar to those formed by naturalists, who are always careful to produce the most perfect specimens. Even in botany, too, we are told (p. 216) that a "natural system" is rather a theoretical than a practical idea; that therefore there seems very little probability it can ever be realized in medicine." Despairing, therefore, we presume, of accomplishing this part of his design, Mr. Good illustrates his plan by "technology," showing that, as the practical machinist learns to produce the same effect with fewer powers, so the nosologist is by practice enabled to explain himself in fewer words, Of this, which he calls simplicity, he gives us a specimen (p. 218) in his long article concerning Marisca, of which we shall take notice hereafter. This part of the "Remarks" is concluded thus:-"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 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 terin, or Dr. Adams (a still more favourite name with the Reviewer-see p. p. 229, 298, 312, 316, 319,) wrote a book upon the subject. Äll that is contained in the first of these sentences having been already noticed, is only transcribed on account of its connexion with the second, which is still so illogically constructed that the thing to be supposed is first the science of diseases, and immediately after the diseases themselves. No inference, therefore, can be legitimate, and we can only allow Mr. Good the advantage of a happy juxta-position, and his argumentum ad hominem. We maintain it, then, that, though the science of medicine was not new when the word Nosology was introduced, and therefore that, if it means no more, such a word was unnecessary; yet that the science of morbid poisons was new when Mr. Hunter first undertook to point out the odos of studying it, and felt the necessity of a new term to distinguish morbid from other animal poisons. Before Mr. Good reminded us of it, we were aware how often the names of Hunter and Adams had occurred; and in some of the passages the reader will find their works mentioned without any name. The difference is, however, so trifling, that we allow Mr. Good the full force of his remark, and feel greatly obliged to him for this opportunity of repeating the circumstance by which we were led to select certain genera which led to the introduction of these names. Odontia was the first that presented itself according to the physiological system. The other genera were obtruded upon us by the blunder of the index-maker. Odontia we found, for the most part, a transcript of Mr. Hunter; and as, in our opinion, every deviation from the text was an error, and some of them very dangerous, could we do better than restore the text? In the order PHLOGOTICA-Inflammations, by Mr. G.'s suggestion, we referred the reader to Mr. Hunter's writings, in order to elucidate the nature of arrangement introduced into the present method." P. 317. In syphilis, we were anxious to relieve our readers from Frenk zchemti, nar farsi, or atesi farsi, meaning ignis Persicus, a term "much older than any records we possess of syphilis,"-from sanc huya in the Hindu, shuce in Arabic, merghi-mush (mousebane in Persian,) in common language preparations of arsenic; from Hindu physicians or Cabirajas-from these to the the disease by its English name-to the well-known remedy and John Hunter. In the notes on syphilódes, we were told that the "keen and comprehensive mind" of Mr. John Hunter "first called the attention of practitioners to the idea of different poisons and different maladies." Afterwards Mr. Abernethy is said to have "put the question at rest ;" and, at the end of the same paragraph, that to several appearances approaching to, but differing from, genuine syphilis, Mr. Abernethy gives the names of pseudo-syphilitic diseases." In referring to Mr. Abernethy's early writings on this subject, we found him associating the names of Celsus, Hunter, and and Adams; and, in examining the latter, we found at least an attempt, not indeed at classification nor artificial arrangement, which Dr. Bateman and Mr. Good despair of, but at arrangement according to Celsus and Hunter (see p. 317). And does Mr. Good think much of a dozen lines thus occupied? Our remarks on Elephantiasis will occur hereafter. We believe we were as much entertained as our readers by Mr. Good's witty remarks on our opinions concerning artificial arrangement in the productions of nature. When we read of "brilliant specimens" of "concordia discors," of" flaming bounds of time and space," cum multis aliis, it brought to our mind a set of people who talk incessantly in order to distract their hearers' attention from the object before him. The commonest reader must understand, that, in making an arrangement of natural productions beyond what may serve for a catalogue raisonnée, an uniformity in the appearance of the various specimens is expected much be yond any thing which we have detected in acute diseases. The attempt, in any branch of medicine, to say the least, appears premature; and that it is dangerous in acute diseases we have had so many concurrent proofs, as to render it unnecessary to say more on the subject. So far from accusing our printer of inaccuracy (p. 363), we often find him correcting us, which no doubt he would have done in the proper names of Crichton and Sauvages, had they been as familiar to him as Sydenham, Mr. Hunter, and some others. We are, therefore, obliged to Mr. Good for this attention, and shall be still more obliged to him if he will have the goodness to mark any other errors, all which shall be noticed at the completion of our volume. Mr. Good is, however, much mistaken if he conceives us sharp in pointing out literal errors. We are too conscious of our frequent mistakes in a work which must appear by the end of the month, not to make every allowance for his nine years' labour. When, therefore, we met with ɛɛapas, page |