Hippocrates, need hardly be pointed out. The belief in the influence which different climates exercise on the human frame follows naturally from the theory just mentioned; for in fact, a climate may be considered as nothing more than a permanent season, whose effects may be expected to be more powerful inasmuch as the cause is ever at work upon mankind. (ibid.) Accordingly, Hippocrates attributes to climate both the conformation of the body, and the disposition of the mind-indeed, almost everything; and if the Greeks are found to be hardy freemen, and the Asiatics effeminate slaves, he accounts for the difference of their character by that of the climates in which they live. (p. 443.) The analogy between the seasons of the natural year, and the different periods of the human life, is in some respects no less medically, than poetically, correct; and it was more easy for Hippocrates to dwell on this parallel, as it would agree with his theory respecting innate heat, which he supposed to be at its maximum in the human body during infancy, and, while gradually diminishing during life, to undergo certain changes corresponding in a manner to those of the earth during its annual revolution round the sun. (p. 443.)

With respect to the second class of causes producing disease, he attributed all sorts of disorders to a vicious system of diet, which, whether excessive or defective, he considered to be equally injurious; and in the same way he supposed that, when bodily exercise was either too much indulged in, or entirely neglected, the health was equally likely to suffer, though by a different form of disease. (ibid.) Into all the minutiae of the humoral pathology, which kept its ground in Europe as the prevailing doctrine of all sects for more than twenty centuries, we need not now enter. It will be sufficient to remind our readers that the four fluids or humours of the body (blood, phlegm, yellow bile, and black bile,) were supposed to be the primary seat of disease; that health was the result of the due combination (or crasis) of these, and that, when this crasis was disturbed, disease was the consequence, (p. 446;) that, in the course of a disorder that was proceeding favorably, these humours underwent a certain change in quality (or coction), which was the sign of returning health, (p. 447, &c.,) as preparing the way for the expulsion of the morbid matter, or crisis, (p. 450;) and that these crises had a tendency to occur at certain stated periods, which were hence called critical days. (p. 451.) From the general consideration of the causes of disease, and from the several parts of the humoral theory, resulted (what was called in the time of Hippocrates,) prognosis, (ibid.;) a word which related not only (as it is now used by us,) to the future, but also to the past and present condition of the patient, (p. 452,) and which, in fact, comprehended no less than the whole of the science of medicine, (properly so called,) without which there remained nothing but a blind empiricism. (p. 454.) The account given by M. Littré of the medical practice of Hippocrates, is extremely meagre, nor do we quite understand why he reckons the treatise De Ratione Victus in Morbis Acutis as a work on therapeutics, (indeed, as the

For a further explanation and development of this subject, our readers must be referred either to the Prognosticon' of Hippocrates himself, or to M. Littré's able introduction to that treatise in his second volume.

XXXIV-XVII.

12

only work by Hippocrates that we possess on this subject, p. 461,) when he begins the argument prefixed to it (vol. ii, p. 192,) by saying that its object is not to explain the treatment of acute diseases in general, but only to touch on one particular point of practice, viz., the diet of the patients. We cannot, however, attempt to supply the deficiency here, farther than by saying that the medical practice of Hippocrates appears to have been very much what might have been expected by any person acquainted with his system of pathology; in short, it consisted chiefly in watching the operations of Nature, and promoting the critical evacuations mentioned above-a plan of proceeding sufficiently cautious and inert, but which, (as Dr. Bostock remarks,) considering the state of medical knowledge at that time, must be admitted to be much more salutary than the opposite extreme.

With regard to the medical character and style of Hippocrates, (which forms the subject of the last chapter, pp. 465-78,) although he says little or nothing expressly about himself, and exhibits in this respect, a striking contrast to the interesting loquacity and egotism of Galen, yet it is impossible to avoid drawing certain conclusions from the characteristic passages scattered through the pages of his writings. He was evidently a person who had not only had great experience, but who also knew how to turn it to the best account; and the great number of moral reflections and apophthegms that we meet with in his writings (several of which have acquired a sort of proverbial notoriety,) show him to have been a profound thinker. He loved his profession, and was jealous for its honour, (pp. 467-8,) while for every species of quackery and charlatanism, he had the utmost aversion and contempt. (pp. 46970.) He appears also to have felt the moral obligations and responsibility of his profession, and often tries to impress upon his readers the duties of care, attention, and kindness towards the sick, saying that a physician's first and chief consideration ought to be the restoring his patient to health. (p. 467.) His style is (as every one knows,) so concise as to be sometimes extremely obscure; though this charge, which is as old as the time of Galen, is often brought too indiscriminately against all the works of the Hippocratic Collection, whereas it applies, in fact, especially only to certain treatises which seem to be merely a collection of notes. (p. 473.) In those writings, which are universally allowed to be genuine, we do not find this excessive brevity, though even these are in general by no means easy.

M. Littré concludes his Introduction with some excellent observations on the study of the ancient medical writers, (p. 475, &c.,) which we cannot well abridge, and which we have not room to translate, but which seem to us to suit exactly two classes of persons, viz., those who imagine on the one hand, that an ancient treatise on medicine can by means of certain explanatory and corrective notes be made to supersede the use of a modern work on the same subject; and, on the other hand, that much more numerous class (including some celebrated names, both of the last and the present generation,) who find it easy and convenient to

Such as 'De Humoribns, De Alimento, De Officina Medici,' &c.
An instance of this is mentioned in our last April Number, p. 439.

sneer at learning, which they do not themselves possess, and therefore, from sheer ignorance, believe their forefathers to have been only egregious blockheads.

The Introduction is followed by an Appendix, treating of the Ionic dialect as it appears in the works of Hippocrates, (pp. 479-502,) of the editions published by the ancients, (pp. 502-11,) of the MSS. in the libraries at Paris, (pp. 511-40,) and of the modern editions and translations of the whole Collection. (pp. 540-54.) This, however, as being probably uninteresting to the greater part of our readers, we must omit, though we should be glad to see the question of the dialect examined at length by some scholar competent to the task. The remainder of the volume (pp. 557-637) is taken up with one single treatise, (De Antiqua Medicina,) to which is prefixed an argument, containing all the information necessary for the due understanding of the work. M. Littré's second volume begins with an Advertisement, (pp. v-xlviii,) in which he examines some works connected with the Hippocratic Collection, which were not published, or which he had not seen, at the time of the appearance of his first volume: one of these is M. Petersen's Dissertation, of which we have already given some account. The treatises contained in the second volume are, De Aëre, Aquis et Locis, Pranotiones, De Ratione Victus in Morbis Acutis, and the first book De Morbis Popularibus, all edited and translated on the same plan, and with the same care. The third volume also contains an Advertisement devoted to the examination of some works which the editor had not before seen, (pp. v-xlii,) and four of the works of Hippocrates, viz., the third book De Morbis Popularibus, De Capitis Vulneribus, De Officina Medici, and De Fracturis. The fourth volume we have seen advertised, but, though we have inquired for it more than once, we have not yet been able to obtain it; we therefore thought it due both to M. Littré and to ourselves, to delay the notice of his work no longer. Our general opinion of it has been already expressed that it will supersede the necessity of a new edition for the next fifty or even twenty years, we are far from venturing to affirm; but that it is (as far as it goes,) the standard critical edition, that it does more towards settling the text than any that has preceded it, and that its use is indispensable to every physician, critic, and philologist, who wishes. to study in detail the works of the Hippocratic Collection, we can assert without much fear of contradiction.

ART. XII.

Principles of Medicine; comprising General Pathology and Therapeutics, and a brief general view of Etiology, Nosology, Semeiology, Diagnosis, and Prognosis. By CHARLES J. B. WILLIAMS, M.D. F.R.S., Professor of the Principles and Practice of Medicine, and of Clinical Medicine, and First Physician to the Hospital, University College, London, &c. &c.-London, 1843. 8vo, pp. 390.

To the philosophic inquirer into the progress of the human intellect, the revolutions of science afford a no less interesting subject of contemplation, than that presented by the revolutions of empires to the observer of the social improvement of the human race. The change of a dominant opinion produces as great an influence upon the actions of the mass, as the change of a government,-often a much greater. We do not know how much we are influenced by the principles we have espoused until we meet with others who are acting on principles exactly opposite, or find it necessary to exchange our own for some others of a very different tendency.

In no science, perhaps, have so many specious systems at different times obtained the mastery-to be in their turn overthrown by some specious or dogmatical assumption, or have these systems exerted so great an influence over the actions and belief of those who adopted them, as in Medicine. The cause of this it is not difficult to trace. The apparent simplicity of the phenomena of disease presents great attractions to the superficial generalizer; whilst their real complexity often baffles the utmost skill of the truly philosophical inquirer. In every system, there has probably been a modicum of truth, however large the proportion of error with which it was mingled; and the practitioner has been naturally desirous of availing himself of any guide, by which he might simplify his treatment of the ever-varying forms of disease, without troubling himself with a minute diagnosis, or even with a careful application of his remedies to symptoms. Hence the favour which panaceas have met with, in all ages, among empirical practitioners in the profession as well as out of it. And hence the disinclination to the steady pursuit of pathology as a science, which those who have arrogated to themselves the distinction of practical men, have both manifested in their own persons, and endeavoured to impress upon others.

"It seems quite extraordinary," says Dr. Williams, "that notwithstanding the recent rapid improvements, and comparative perfection of the contributory sciences, practical medicine should still halt in the domain of empiricism. A chief cause for the anomaly seems to be, that science and practice have been rarely pursued by the same parties. Scientific men are not and cannot be practical, because they have had no experience; and practitioners know little of science, and therefore derive little good from it. Instead of working together, these parties are at issue with each other. But it is high time to put an end to this feud. Philosophers must descend from their transcendental positions, to consider details of practice and purposes of utility. Those who would be practitioners must gain from science that knowledge and that method which renders experience instructive and useful." (Preface, p. 6.)

A better era, however, is dawning upon Medicine. The study of pathology as a science is no longer regarded by those whose opinion is most influential, as producing an incapacity for the practice of medicine; and it is now universally acknowledged that no real progress can be

made except by the accumulation of appropriate materials, which shall be built up, course upon course, by the regular process of inductive generalization. This process has been going on among many of the most profound and sagacious minds of our own country during the last few years, to a degree of which few, save those who have carefully watched the indications of it, are in the least aware; and the work before us may be regarded as its first complete manifestation. We hail its appearance, therefore, not only on account of the value we are ready to attach to any production from the pen of its accomplished author, but also as the indication of a vast improvement in medical teaching, which must operate most favorably, at no distant date, on medical practice, besides giving a stimulus to many active and intelligent minds, to follow out the line of inquiry, which it has so successfully opened. The detailed examination on which we shall presently enter, will show that our anticipations are not too high; and that the work before us possesses the strongest claims on the attention of our readers.

Before proceeding to it, however, we must stop to notice the remarkable phase which pathological science is now assuming. We can scarcely suppose our readers ignorant of the fact, that everything now tends towards a revival of the humoral doctrines of a past age, to the overthrow or modification of many of the opinions regarding disease, which have in these later times more generally prevailed. But there is this difference between the humoral pathology of the present day and that of our ancestors: The latter was adopted as a hypothetical system, based on a very limited induction; and when once adopted, all phenomena were explained in accordance with it. The humoral doctrines of the present day, on the other hand, are adopted by philosophic minds, only so far as they are required by an induction from the combined results of chemical and microscopical inquiries into the constitution of the blood, and observation of the phenomena of disease; and are not entertained by any means to the exclusion of the idea that morbid actions originate, in a great variety of instances, in the solid parts of the fabric, and communicate their influence to the blood. This will be shown to be generally the case in one of the most important of all diseases-inflammation; which, on account of the peculiar interest that attaches to it at the present time, will be discussed in a separate article in our next Number.

After an excellent introduction on the need of principles in medicine, (which, however, we should have preferred seeing recast from the form in which it was delivered as a lecture, into one more consonant with the rest of the work,) Dr. Williams proceeds with the subject of Etiology, which occupies the first chapter of the treatise. As this part of the work is necessarily, from the fulness with which the topic has been discussed by other authors, not so original either in its plan or in its treatment as most of that which follows, we shall dismiss it with the remark that it is most admirably executed, and shows its author to be fully acquainted with all that has been ascertained on the subject,and to have carefully weighed the various theories in which the present epochs are so rife.

The introduction to the second chapter explains the plan and objects of the treatise so fully, yet concisely, that we cannot do better than transfer the whole of it to our pages.

"Disease is a change from the natural condition of the function or structure of