•35 
PATHOLOGY. 
haave, vol.iii. Anatomy (of which his works.betray great 
deficiency) was the only branch of his education which 
feems to have been negie&ed; which is neverthelefs fur- 
prifing, becaufe he differed forfome time underNuck, an 
anatomift of much repute. Boerhaave conceived that that 
theory of medicine rauft be the belt which reconciled- the 
opinions of allfefts; and, accordingly, he laboured to 
unite the chemical doftrines of the day with the valuable 
obfervations derived from the other fchools and from 
Hippocrates. Of the father of medicine he profefi'ed to 
be a great admirer, and affe&ed to return to the good 
and ancient method of acquiring knowledge by obferva- 
tion and experiment; but unfortunately forgot his own 
rules, yielded to the influence of early ftudies and a 
love of theorifing, and in many inftances obfcured the 
fcience his abilities had otherwife enabled him to adorn in 
a moft eminent degree. However, the plaufibiliiy of 
Boerhaave’s dodtrines, the beauty of his ftyle, and the 
graces of his delivery, gained for him an afcendancy 
which is almoft unparalleled. We may form fonte idea 
of the importance attached to his labours when vve read, 
that, on his beginning a courfe of le&ures, the occur¬ 
rence was deemed of fo much confequence, that the 
whole city was illuminated. Boerhaave adopted a notion, 
of which his philofophical education (hould have taught 
Jiim the abfurdity ; viz. the exiftence of an intermediate 
Jubilance between matter and fpirit, a principle which 
regulated or produced all the vital functions. He had 
taken this idea from an ancient dogma found in one of 
the writings attributed to Hippocrates; and his nephew, 
Kaan Boerhaave, followed up and illuftrated this hypo¬ 
thecs with much fpirit, and, unfortunately, with the ad¬ 
miration of his contemporaries, who adopted it almoft: 
univerfally, until the fplendid dilcourfes of Haller began 
to wean them from opinions fo diflonant to the refults of 
found reafoning. 
Boerhaave died in the year 1738 ; fo that we have now 
fairly got into the eighteenth century, and have arrived 
at a period when phyliology, long obfcured by the mifap- 
plication of the natural fciences, at length began to be 
fludied according to the dictates of found reafoning and 
the refults of experiment. The name of Haller (who 
ftudied under Boerhaave) (lands in lofty pre-eminence 
among the cultivators of medical fcience during this cen¬ 
tury. Panegyric has been feldom more properly applied 
than to this diftinguiflied author. His biographers have 
(hown how afliduoufly, at the earlieit periods of his life, 
his mind was bent on the acquilition of knowledge ; and 
they have reported his varied, his extenfive, accompii(h- 
ments. His poem of the Alps (hows how eminently he 
poflefled fublimity of imagination and the harmony of 
numbers; and his refearches in our own fcience manifeft 
the profundity of his reafoning; while the admirable 
picture is clofed by the relation of his earned regard for 
the intereds of morality and^religion. In a word, Haller 
feems to have almod realized the account given of the 
gods, or inventors of medicine, who individually united 
the four grand fciences of- poetry, legiflature, phyfic, and 
divinity. See the article Haller, vol. ix. 
The irritability of the body was the point to the efta- 
blifhment of which a very large proportion of Haller’s 
refearches were diredted ; and in this principle he formed 
a ready folution of many phenomena which had puzzled 
his predeceffors and given rife to much idle and fanciful 
fpeculation. We may be excufed, however, from en¬ 
tering into the phyfiological difcoveries of Haller, as we 
(hall have cccaflon to treat of them fomewhat largely in 
our article Physiology. It (hould be mentioned, how'- 
ever, that the Elementa phyjiologice of Haller is a work of 
thegreated merit, and which, notwithftanding the won¬ 
derful progrefs of phyfiology in our own time, may dill 
be referred to, as containing an immenfe body of refearch 
arranged in a very beautiful manner. And this book 
would probably have dill remained the text-book of 
every phyfiological fchool, had not the profound re¬ 
fearches of our countryman Hunter led mankind to de¬ 
tect its errors and deficiencies, and (hown how much dill 
remained to be done ere the fabric of this fcience could 
be confidered as reding on a ftable foundation. 
It would appear that Haller was not an operating fur- 
geo n ; for, in - hJs Bibliotheca Chirurgica, vol. ii. he fays, 
<e Although I have pradtifed furgery feventeen years, 
and exhibited the mod difficult operations on the dead 
body, I have never ventured to apply a cutting indrument 
to a living fubjedt, through a fear of giving too much 
pain.” 
Among the other phyfiologids who flouriflied' during 
the early part of the eighteenth century, we may men¬ 
tion Porterfield, Whytt, and Borden. The two former 
were diftinguiflied by their refearches on mufcular .ac¬ 
tion and nervous influence; and the latter has the merit 
of having pointed out the importance of the cellular 
tilfue, and of defcribing many properties belonging to 
it which his predeceffors had overlooked. 
We can fcarcely draw a ftronger contraft as to the 
different methods of acquiring knowledge than by men¬ 
tioning the name o f John Hunter immediately after that 
of Haller: the one pofie fling every advantage which col¬ 
lateral knowledge could procure, a man of the moft per¬ 
fect fkill in languages, and profoundly erudite ; the other 
ignorant of the moft Ample and elementary branches of 
education. Yet they (land each unrivalled in the annals * 
of our art. The name of Hunter will frequently come 
before us when treating the fciences of phyfiology and 
zoology ; but we mud here paufe to defcribe, in fome 
meafure, the fpeculation which he adopted on the fubjedt 
of life, or vitality, becaufe it has probably had much in¬ 
fluence on pathological dodlrines. Before the time of 
Hunter, many authors had remarked that a vital prin¬ 
ciple exilled in the body independent of organization ; 
but he firft afierted, (to ufe the words of his own enlight¬ 
ened eulogift,) that “ life actually conftrufted the very 
means by which it carried on its various procefles; and 
that it could operate in femi-fluid, and even fluid, 
fubdances.” 
This fpecimen of hypothetical reafoning which Hunter 
has left us, forms the only exception to the unqualified 
admiration with which we are difpofed to regard him. 
But certainly, this notion of a vital principle is very ex¬ 
travagant ; and, in attributing to it fome degree of intelli¬ 
gence (which he has done when'treating of the abforb- 
ents,) he has rendered himfelf liable to be oppofed by the 
fame conclufive arguments which had long fince refuted 
the notions of Stahl. The labours, however, of Hunter, 
by giving a more certain and fixed character to phyfio¬ 
logy, have caufed that fcience to be ufed as the bads of 
medical pradtice and every modern fyflem of nofology; 
and his extenfive refearches in comparative anatomy, 
opened a field of which the further cultivation has pro¬ 
duced, and is dill producing, great information in regard 
to the fcience of life, and, hence, to the fcience of medi¬ 
cine. The furgical operative improvements which Hun¬ 
ter made, were lome new methods of treatment in rup¬ 
ture of the tendo achillis, and in the operations for hy- 
. drocele and fiftula lacrymalis; and likewife in the mode 
of operating for popliteal aneurifm, by taking up the 
femoral artery in the fore part of the thigh. 
The publications for which John Hunter is moft diflin- 
guiftied, are—his work on the Veneral Difeafe, 1786, and 
his Treatife on the Blood, Inflammation, and Gun-(hot 
Wounds, not given to the public till after his death. 
Nor (hould we omit to notice the very numerous and im¬ 
portant papers which he prefented to the Royal Society, 
in rapid fucceflion, efpecially between the years 1773 and 
1783,chiefly relating to comparative anatomy and phyfi¬ 
ology. His fame, however, will principally reft upon his 
various difcoveries in this branch of fcience; and it would 
be injuftice to his charadier not to defcribe, as amply as 
our limits will admit, the Anatomical Mufeum, the for¬ 
mation of which may be regarded as having been the main 
objedf 
