somewhat scanty: thus, in looking for "cold feet with constipation," we found no mention of that symptom, whereas we think several medicines might have been inserted, as veratrum album, lycopodium and lachesis. It will be easy to remedy this defect by adding in writing what we may discover to be useful. We cannot overlook the invaluable addition of the new remedies to this part; and we perceive that in many phases of these disorders they promise help. This alone would commend the production to our patient study, while the whole work places us under the greatest obligations to its indefatigable author. (To be continued).

[NOTE.-The compiler of Chap. XV. of the Cypher Repertory most thoroughly welcomes any criticism on his work, and trusts that the continuation of Dr. Simpson's paper will deal closely with all the faults, and he knows they must be numerous, which exist therein. He, however, believes it will be conducive to the present discussion to give at once to the readers of this Review his remarks on the four points which Dr. Simpson has brought forward in the preceding paper.

1. The alleged deficiencies in the collected lists. It is perfectly true that these lists do not contain all the names mentioned in the sub-lists, when these names would amount to over 40 or 60 in number; and in this the "Law of Selects" is followed, for which refer to Part I. p. xi. The justification of this procedure is there complete, and the plan laid down has been followed in all the preceding chapters of the work. But in all cases where the collective list would not become an unwieldy paragraph of names, it has been given complete: see, for instance, "Varices' on p. 565, Hæmorrhage," p. 568, and "Itching," p. 575.

2. The "two strokes before words where only one is understood." Dr. Simpson refers to p. 513: the paragraphs run thus:

The fact is that "Straining" is the real name of the heading under treatment; "Tenesmus" is merely an intensified straining. It seemed preferable to throw them together rather than make two separate headings, and yet to keep the mind open to the fact that the one was a more intense symptom than the other. The same plan has been followed straight through with "stools and diarrhoea," and it is believed with considerable advantage. Certainly these "two strokes" need not cause Dr. Simpson

perplexity, if he will remember that the first refers to the true heading of the rubric, and the second to the special quality under consideration.

3. The scantiness of the concomitants. This complaint should be referred to the Committee on Materia Medica. Veratrum alb. does not produce "cold feet with constipation;" neither does lycopodium: neither does lachesis. In the pathogenesy of the last named is found "Coldness of the feet, also as from ice, particularly when accompanying other complaints-or succeeded by heat. Icy coldness of the malleoli, or of the soles (with constipation)." It will be perceived that this is a clinical, not a pathogenetic symptom.

4. The want of alphabetical order in some of the lists. Wherever possible this was followed, but the author endeavoured to use as few new symbols as possible, and to work in all that he could from Chaps. XII. and XIII.; he therefore was not quite a free agent in this matter.-H. N.]

OUTLINES OF THE HISTORY OF MEDICINE. By W. B. A. SCOTT, M.D. (Continued from page 146.)

Hippocrates. His Philosophy.-Anatomy and Physiology.-Etiology.-Nosology.-Symptomatology. Hippocrates claims for himself the double honour of having introduced philosophy into medicine, and having brought medicine into the region of philosophy. On the other hand, Celsus deems the great and characteristic praise of Hippocrates to be that of having separated or distinguished between philosophy and medicine. These two seemingly contradictory claims are by no means irreconcilable, since he who, like Hahnemann, most distinctly recognises experiment as the sole true basis alike of the art and science of medicine, is precisely the man whose general conclusions will bear the strictest philosophical scrutiny. A more questionable distinction is conferred upon Hippocrates by those who regard him as the founder of the "dogmatic" or "rational" school. It appears to me that the claim Hippocrates puts forward in his own behalf and that allowed him by Celsus, equally with the leadership assigned to him by his own soi disant successors, are not only in the highest degree doubtful, but, even if true, would constitute the smallest part of his title to distinction. When Hippocrates tried to introduce

philosophy into the theory or practice of medicine he signally failed, and his philosophy is singularly devoid of originality, as we shall see in the sequel; while the "dogmatists" of a later day pushed their a priori speculations on matters which ought to have been recognised as the subjects of pure experiment, to lengths from which the great master whom they arrogate to themselves would have been the first to recoil. A more appropriate honour is conferred upon him by Pliny, who calls him the author of clinical medicine-a title given by Hyginus to Esculapius. Whether this honour can justly be awarded to either of these competitors, or indeed to any one individual, may well be questioned; but there can be no doubt that Hippocrates deserves the high praise of having been the earliest of those whose writings have come down to us, who minutely recorded the phenomena presented by each individual case of disease he witnessed. The minuteness of his observation is perfectly amazing; while its extent, as has been well remarked,* is shewn even by. some of the conclusions at which he arrived, which are perhaps often erroneous, but which must have been founded on an immense number of investigations-as, for example, his doctrines concerning "critical" days.

Hippocrates was born in Cos, an island of the Ægean sea, B.C. 460-according to tradition, the seventeenth in descent from Esculapius on his father's side, and, on his mother's, the nineteenth from Hercules. He studied medicine under the "kinesipath" Herodicus and his colleague Gorgias-of the former of whom, however, he was no servile copyist-and further improved himself by carefully reading the tablets in the temples to which reference was made in the preceding chapter. He was rewarded with a golden crown, the privileges of Athenian citizenship, and initiation at the chief festivals, in recognition of his services during the great plague at Athens, of which Thucydides has left us so graphic an account. He showed his patriotism by declining the flattering and even menacing importunities of Artaxerxes to settle at the Persian court, alleging that he was born to serve his countrymen and not a foreigner. Though a Dorian by birth, he wrote in the Ionic dialect, at the urgency, it is alleged, of his friend Democritus, since he had a strong

"Lectures on the History of Medicine," by Dr. G. M. Scott; No. 2, published in the British Journal of Homeopathy, Vol. IX. No. 38.

regard and admiration for the laughing philosopher. He died of mere old age, B.C. 361, and was distinguished after his death by the cognomen of "the Great," and honours. the same as those paid to Hercules. Up to a comparatively recent period (if not at the present day) the inhabitants of Cos delighted to show a house in which their great countryman is said to have lived. It is believed that he was the author of the famous "oath of Hippocrates," which strongly resembles that administered at the present day to medical graduates, with the somewhat whimsical addition of a clause renouncing the practice of lithotomy.

As a philosopher, Hippocrates recognised the existence of a great principle which he called nature (Qúσis), and which he appears to have considered the parent of instinct. Subordinate to this he ranked the faculties (duváμes) which preside over physiological processes, such as the circulation of the blood and the regulation of animal heat. Among these faculties he somewhat arbitrarily distinguishes as supreme that to which he ascribes the phenomena of growth and nutrition. But here, as elsewhere, his language is extremely confused, and his real meaning very difficult to discover, because the term "nature" is used both in a general and in a more limited sense, while "dynamis" is sometimes applied to the "faculties" just mentioned, and sometimes used to designate the highest aggravation of which the "acrid humours" are capable. In other places, again, he seems to identify this "nature" with the "fire" or "heat" of Heraclitus. But whether or not Hippocrates may claim originality as regards these particular doctrines, in the rest of his philosophy he was most unscrupulous in borrowing from his predecessors, and, indeed, the doctrines he adopted did not always benefit by the process. Thus he took from Alcmaeon the doctrine of four primary qualities,-heat, cold, dryness, and moisture; from Empedocles, that of four elements,fire, air, earth, and water; his doctrine of the mutual attraction of homogeneous particles savours strongly of Anaxagoras, whose memory ought to be so dear to schoolboys; his doctrine of the mutual interaction and interdependence of all parts of the animal frame seems to

It is said that when his fellow-citizens of Lampsacus asked Anaxagoras on his deathbed what posthumous honours would be most acceptable to him, the philosopher requested that all the boys might have a holiday on the anniversary of his decease. He died

B.C. 428.

approximate very closely to that of Zamolxis; while his cosmogony is in many respects similar to that of Democritus. It is to be observed that Hippocrates is not always very consistent with himself; thus, while in one place he recognises the four elements of Empedocles, he elsewhere reduces these to two, viz., fire and water. But as many

of the works attributed to Hippocrates are more than apocryphal, this circumstance may account for the above and sundry other inconsistencies. The influence of the philosophy of Pythagoras is discernible in the Hippocratian doctrines of "critical days."

While Hippocrates was so largely indebted to his predecessors for many of his leading doctrines, it is curious and interesting to find that one of which he appears to have been the author was revived in much later days by Paracelsus-that, namely, which teaches that nature has arranged everything in the body in imitation of, and conformably to, the order of the universe; in fact, that the microcosm, man, presents a complete analogue of the great macrocosm of which he forms a part, and that every internal action and organ of the animal economy finds its counterpart and correlative influence in the laws and elements of the outer world.

The consideration of the anatomy of Hippocrates is beset with difficulties, both on account of the extreme doubtfulness of many of the writings ascribed to that author-as, for instance, the de carnibus, de ossium natura, and de corde-and of the inexactitude and confusion of his language-as, for example, his including all bloodvessels under the general name of veins, and classing together as nerves not only the structures properly so called, but also tendons and ligaments. With regard to the question whether Hippocrates dissected, if he was really the author of the treatise de corde, he would certainly appear to have dissected the heart, at any rate, from the minuteness and general accuracy with which he describes it; and from his remark that a dislocated vertebra can only be reduced from within, and consequently in a dead subject, he seems to have possessed a knowledge of the anatomy of the dorsal region scarcely attainable without dissection. He must also have been familiar with osteology, if we are to believe the statement of Pausanius that he dedicated a bronze skeleton in the temple of Apollo at Delphi. But this section of anatomical know