page 256, line 1 of his notes, we corrected it in the proof, (see Journal, p. 306,) without leaving the error and adding [EXE]. But, had we passed over so palpable an error as ulcus with a masculine adjective, we could scarcely expect to be treated with the tenderness we showed Mr. Good. In him we could only impute it, as we expressed ourselves, to some unaccountable oversight (p. 393). Mr. G. refers us to p. 218 for an explanation:-In our copy of his work, we can find no mention of a cancel. We presume, therefore, it was printed off before the error was detected: if so, it was unpardonable in the publisher to furnish a Reviewer with such a copy. Not that we could have satisfied ourselves with such an apology in our Journal, for, full as we are of literal blunders, we should have cancelled a page, or a sheet, a second or third time before we exposed such an eye-sore as Ulcus vitiosus, callosus, cancrosus, sinuosus, fistulosus, and cariosus. When we spoke of Odontia senilium as an inelegance, we were in hopes Mr. Good would have understood us, and not obliged us to ask, what would he have thought of salacitas puerilium or s. juvenilium? and whether s. senilium is not as absurd, though we used a more gentle expression? We shall also be thankful for further information concerning syphilódes. But this relates to our request that Mr. Good will set us to rights in some other passages. And, first, in the specimen he gives us of simplicity (p. 219):-Marisca is preferred to the Gaza (yaga), as a word better known. A great many learned remarks follow on hæmorrhoides and on Sauvages's mistake concerning the yo aoposoa. We are told our English word marsh is derived from marisca; and that gaza, the term used by Aristotle, is by Hesychius and Scaliger called a Persian word, meaning thesaurus_tributus reditus, a treasury,-that the term is rather Arabic than Persian, &c.-that the Arabic root is khasi, a blush, or ruddy flush, from whatever cause; hence the verb (khasa) to make one blush; and hence khazan, in Persian, signifies autumn, or the season of fulness or erubescence,-while khasan, in Arabic, is a garner, treasury, or conservatory, literally cella, cellula, gaza, or gazophylacia, as explained by Hesychius. In all this we submit to Mr. Good, only requesting to know what it all means, and taking the freedom to remark, that, after reading it, we were no longer surprised at the etymology by which some have proved that the Emperor Charlemagne was the son of a linen-draper, inasmuch as the name of his father, King Pepin, is only a corruption of the word napkin-napekin, nepekin, pepekin, pepin. Another instance, still more to the purpose, and not so entirely unconnected with medicine as blushing, autumn, treasury, and No. 226. 3 N King King Pepin, is the manner in which the family of Milorbett proved their relationship with our Thomas à Becket, in consequence of which they were allowed the privilege of having the relics of that saint brought into a sick chamber. A bishop, they urged, in England, is called My Lord; but the apposition of two such consonants as d and b is intolerable to an Italian ear. The gutteral sound of k is still worse; and the termination of this peculiarly grateful in proper names. Hence My Lord Becket becomes Milorbetti. After this long digression, we shall no more object to Mr. Good's etymologies, especially as we acknowledge our ignorance of Persian, Arabic, and Hindu; but still we remain no better satisfied with his improved simplicity in considering fici, mariscæ, and hæmorrhoides as the same disease. We have since discovered, too, that, depending on Mr. Good's reference to Sauvages, we have done that author great injustice. In his first edition, he makes a proper distinction between fici and hæmorrhoides. The former, under genus xxiv., he calls condyloma ficus, podicis vel vulvæ. Mariscæ, on the contrary, in genus xxiv., he describes as in ani margine enati. He even adds, as if fearful of some future nosologist, "Cave ne confundas condylomata cum mariscis.' Perhaps we shall be accused of having stolen the caution we gave at p. 325 from this passage, and we are so well satisfied with the support of such authority as to submit to the imputation. Sauvages very properly, too, corrects the errors of those who ascribe fici to syphilis, urging that they were well known to Martial. It should be remarked, however, that, notwithstanding the similarity of sound, and probably the same radical, yet the nouns for a fruit and for the disease were differently declined, and, some grammarians assert, of a different gender. There are, we admit, those who dispute the latter, and even doubt the authority of Martial. "In tertia notione (morbi) volunt grammaticorum filii esse masculini generis adducti ut videtur Epigrammate Martialis, Cum dixi ficus, rides quasi barbara verba, Neque enum alibi apud bonæ notæ auctorem cum adjectivo vel masc. vel femineo junctum reperiri puto sed," &c. We must stop here, lest Juvenis, fresh from school, should recollect all that we have said in his "Propria quæ maribus," and in old Ainsworth or Morell. It will be safer to begin ourselves Incerti Incerti generis sunt talpa et dama, canalis, Propria quæ maribus, Nomina generis uncerti. Should our readers think proper to consult old Ainsworth, they will find our learned quotations and remarks under the word Ficus. They will, however, perceive how much longer we could have made them, had we thought proper. But to let them into the secret, we had not a spare copy to be at the mercy of scissors and paste, and we found transcribing extremely dull. In making this confession to our young friend, we have inadvertently let all our readers into the mystery of book-making. This was ill judged; but, in this article, we have so perpetually expunged, that we are now determined to leave the passage as it is. It may, at least, serve to show Mr. Good, that how scanty soever he may think our original matter, (see page 363,) we could have measured out more even from our dictionary, without copying from his book, especially if we add the quantity of original matter we crossed through. The part we are now about to restore was expunged, not only on account of the length of the article, but for a reason which may surprize Mr. Good and many of our readers. It was, because the name of Adams occurred so often. Thus, when we regretted that Mr. G. had, in his Syphilodes, attended so little to Mr. Hunter's nicer distinctions, and even passed over the term "morbid poisons," though adopted by Jenner and Abernethy, those were not the only names produced in our first manuscript; yet, when we came to the end of this article, (Syphilodes,) and found "Sibbens, Sivvens, (query,) the varieties," &c. (p.313,) we confess the great inclination we felt to remind Mr. Good of Dr. Adams's journey into Scotland, and his residence during the harvest in a part of the country in which Sivvens, by the account of all indigenous writers, prevails most, and at that particular season. As yaws too was unnoticed in Syphilodes, though at one time considered a species of syphilis, we could not restrain our curiosity from examining under what head it was arranged in Mr. Good's Physiological System. And, when we found the names of Sauvages, Sagar, Cullen, Parr, and Young, none of whom pretend to have seen yaws; of Winterbottom, Dancer, and Ludlam, to the last of "whom we are indebted, perhaps, for the best history which has been given of the discase," when we reflected that this history is contained in an inaugural dissertation, consequently written at an early period of life, and not easily procured, and that Morbid Poisons contained the substance of these three last writers, and also of Drs. Hillary, Wright, and others; that, disregarding all ap prehensions of contagion, which Dr. Ludlam remarks had heretofore prevented the surgeons of the West Indies from examining yaws with sufficient minuteness, the author had watched all the symptoms of a case which came under his own care before the commencement of the eruption, and had dissected the pustules in their several stages. When we reflected too, that his account of this case was so well received by the Medical Society of London as to procure the writer a silver medal for the best paper, though he was not at that time an officer in the Society, but at a distance from home; most of all, when we recollected our promise to Juvenis, we confess we found great difficulty in not referring to the book, the title of which Mr. Good has been kind enough to introduce in his "Remarks." The only recompense we could make was to refer with greater freedom to some others. Thus, the name of Celsus we cannot conceive occurs less than a dozen times, of Sydenham and Cullen at least half as often, of Aretaus nearly the same; Crichton somewhere properly spelt, as well as in the error Mr. G. has corrected; Hey, we believe, as often as the name of which we are reminded, and in some of the pages cited. Yet, excepting Aretæus, none of these wrote expressly on the genera we selected from Mr. Good's work. Even this difficulty was trifling compared to our embarrassment under the article Elephantiasis. Here, to use the expression of a well-known author, "Phrygia and Pamphylia, Asia, Cappadocia, and Pontus," would have given us as much information as we met with in Mr. Good; and, unfortunately, every writer on whom we could depend, or whom we could understand, from Aretæus to the present, inclusive, was left unnoticed. What distressed us the more was, that, should we even attain the "oriental" languages, we must trust to dictionaries for a time, and that these, like the writings of Alsahavius, would afford us nothing but "perplexity" and "jumble." Could we, therefore, do otherwise than produce the records of those who had seen the disease? especially as all (with one exception) agree in the account of what they saw, and are not contradicted by Dr. Bateman, but only by the early authorities he produces. After an, we pretend not to say, that the Elephantiasis, which occurred at St. Bartholomew's, and lately at Edin burgh, was the same disease as the juzam of the land of Uz. But then, Dr. Bateman and his learned friend differ as to the contagious property of juzam. And here, we cannot help thinking that Dr. B., however inferior his oriental attainments may be, must be right: first, because neither Job's Job's vixen of a wife, nor his good-natured comforters, ever reproach him with the contagious nature of his distemper, though they are not backward in telling him how disagreeable a figure he made; next, though they remained with him in silence seven days and seven nights, and had afterwards long conversations with him, yet neither Elephaz the Temanite, Bildad the Shuhite, nor Zophar the Naamanite, appear to have introduced the disease among their countrymen; lastly, we cannot help thinking, that so considerate a man as Job would have refused all intercourse with his friends, whilst afflicted with a contagious disease of so loathsome a description. We conceive, therefore, eitherthat juzam was not Job's disease, or that the contagion of juzam, like that of Elephantiasis, is still undecided. If we did not suppose our readers, by this time, satisfied," how easy it is to furnish matter without transcribing from the works we analyse; we could treat them with a long quo tation from Mead, who, with Mr. Good, conceives Job's disease to be Elephantiasis. It is true, that, ignorant of Arabic, Mead could know nothing of juzam, and, in his time, Elephantiasis had not been detected in St. Bartholomew's Hospital. Still, as we have an old copy which we might have cut and pasted, our readers must give us credit for some moderation. It may be said that we have lost sight of Nosology. Let it be recollected, that we have been led to this extraneous matter in defending ourselves, and that our objection has been principally to the mistaken attempts at reducing medicine to a greater simplicity. In a practical art of such importance, true simplicity is the establishment of aphorisms to direct us in the treatment of acute, and in the diagnosis of chronic, complaints. No one has a higher respect for Sauvages, the first of the methodic nosologists, for the care with which he has described diseases, given their history and remedies, and for the number of authorities he has collected with so much labour and judgment. In him, all these are so conspicuous, that his METHOD appears little more than the means of leading us from one object to another, and, as in the instance we have shown, of marking certain discriminations with greater accuracy. Such too was Cullen's wish, as appears by the quotation produced by Mr. Good; and, when Nosology is confined to these objects, we shall know how to estimate its worth. But, if diseases are ever to be classed like the more uniform productions of nature, it must be in a more advanced state of knowledge than we now possess; and we are still of opinion, that, in acute cases, the difficulty is the greatest, and the attempt has proved dangerous. For |