II 



as general pathology. This fact strikes the eye at once, 

 when a glance is thrown at the great number of small 

 and large manuals and text-books dealing with the sub- 

 ject. Some, as Bouchard, insert semeiology even as a 

 predominant element; others, as Birch-Hirschfeld, treat 

 the matter from a one-sided anatomical point of view. 

 Cohnheim eliminates the etiological sections altogether. 

 The explanation of this discrepancy must be looked for 

 in the historical development of this branch of study. 

 From a summary of observations, made at the bed side, 

 it has developed into an independent experimental science, 

 that is, pathological physiology. As to its rightful posi- 

 tion Virchow, when still a young man, spoke the deci- 

 sive word, as early as 1847, in the ,,prospectus" that 

 made the introduction to his ,,Archiv'': ,,Die pathologi- 

 sche Anatomic und die Klinik, obwohl wir ihre Berech- 

 tigung und Selbstiindigkeit vollkommen anerkennen, gel- 

 ten uns doch vorzugsweise als die Quellen fiir neue Fra- 

 gen, deren Beantwortung der pathologischen Physiolo- 

 gie zufallt." But this ,,pathological physiology'' cannot 

 nowadays be so easily detached from general etiology 

 as it was in the days of Cohnheim, when bacteriology 

 was still in its infancy. 



The discrepancy conspicuous in manuals and text- 

 books has appeared likewise in the practical leaching 

 of general pathology at the different universities. This 

 is due, in a great respect, to the enormous ground 

 this science has gradually covered, and to its varied 

 technics. Goethe says: ,,Ein Leibartzt musz zu allem 

 taugen. --Wir tingen bey den Sternen an --Und endigen 

 mil Hiihneraugen." And matters have become worse 

 since then. It has been getting more and more impos- 

 sible for one man to master the whole subject. Conse- 

 quently its division among a greater number of teachers 



