236 Professor Miiller on the Life and Writings of 



part is awanting ; it was to have treated of the excretions, and 

 of generation. Among his papers there was found only a frag- 

 ment on the secretion of urine. The work seemed latterly to 

 have lost interest for him, especially as this department of phy- 

 siology had in other quarters made great progress, and Rudol- 

 phi preferred treating of those subjects in which he could 

 make use of his own investigations. Good criticism of observa- 

 tions, a wonderful learning, and the employment of a rich trea- 

 sure of valuable anatomical observations, characterize this ex- 

 cellent work. Compared with other treatises, in regard to the 

 doctrinal department, much is certainly wanting to which we 

 are generally accustomed, and some things even which belonged 

 to the actual state of the science ; on many points he was short, 

 when he had no critical remarks to make, and no personal ob- 

 servations to quote ; and he had not bestowed the necessary 

 degree of attention on the progress of the department of the 

 nerves. Finally, the unusual abundance of facts in compara- 

 tive anatomy, and the criticism of many details, in which Ru- 

 dolphi, on account of his investigations, was more copious, in 

 some measure concealed the actual deficiencies and imperfec- 

 tions of our science. This excellent work will always possess 

 great value, when many writings, which contain more physio- 

 logical facts, but more error, shall have been long forgotten. 



Rudolphi's predominating inclination in physiology was ana- 

 tomical and sceptical ; his physiological writings were chiefly 

 important in refuting prevailing opinions. He did not regard 

 physiological experiments at all in the same light with the cer- 

 tainty of anatomy. There is no wonder that this excellent man, 

 who on all occasions expressed his aversion to vivisection, assura- 

 ed'a hostile attitude against all hypotheses and ill-grounded phy- 

 siological experiments. We must participate entirely in his just 

 indignation in perceiving how many physiologists who shewed 

 their eagerness to render physiology a science of experiment, by 

 an ill-directed system of opening and tormenting multitudes of 

 animals, from which results were obtained, often of a very in- 

 significant and unsatisfactory nature. But Rudolphi went too 

 far when he believed that experiments on animals teach us no- 

 thing. Experiments instituted on important questions. Have 

 here, as well as in physics, led to the greatest discoveries. The 



