P A T H 
B oyer, Heritier, Dubois, Manoury, Lallemand, Richerand, 
Petit de Lyon, and, above all, Bichat. 
To Bichat, the ingenious and enlightened Bichat, the 
world is indebted for the firft truly philofophical view 
of the ftrudture of the human body. The Ample divifion 
of it into its component parts, which this great anato- 
mift and philofopher has pointed out, mult be conlidered 
as the ground-work of all future anatomical and patho¬ 
logical inquiries. 
Bichat demonftrated, that moll of the organs of our 
body are made up of a variety of elementary parts or 
textures ; each of which, in whatever part of the body it 
is found, uniformly has the fame phyfical properties, and 
prefents the fame morbid phenomena. Thefe he confiders 
as the elementary parts ; which, by the diverfitv of their 
combinations, produce all the modifications of ftrudlure 
and functions exhibited in the different organs of ani¬ 
mals, This method of confidering organized bodies, 
accords with every phenomenon with which we are ac¬ 
quainted, and feems to arife from the eflential nature of 
their conftitution. We may trace this view of the ftruc- 
ture of the body in the obfervations of many of the older 
anatomiffs ; and particularly it may be conlidered as the 
bafis of fome of the rnoft ingenious philofophical theories 
of the late ingenious Mr. John Hunter. 
In order to fix the characters of the elementary tex¬ 
tures, Bichat employed various modes of inquiry. He 
performed numerous experiments on living animals ; 
perfevered in tedious and minute diffe&ions; employed 
chemical re-agents to fupply the place of the knife ; and 
examined with minutenefs all the varieties of morbid 
ltruCture. Having by thefe means accomplilhed his ob¬ 
ject in tracing the character of each feparate texture, he 
proceeded next to inveftigate their combinations as they 
are found in the different organs. 
The effeCts of this mode of inveftigating the ftruCture 
of the human body when difeafed, muff be at once ob¬ 
vious. We learn from it, that difeafes at their com¬ 
mencement are generally confined to one texture of an 
organ; the other textures of which the organ is com- 
pofed remaining found. There is no organ of the body 
from which this important truth may not be deduced. 
It may be readily illuftrated from confidering the dif¬ 
eafes of the mucous, ferous, and mufcular, textures, 
which compofe the ftomach and alimentary canal; of the 
cellular texture of the lungs; of the mucous membrane 
of the bronchi, the ferous one of the pleura, and many 
others. 
But difeafes are not only confined to one individual 
texture of any organ, as in the cafes juft mentioned ; 
the fymptoms and morbid changes are likewife uniformly 
the fame in textures of a fimilar ftruCture, in whatever 
parts of the body thefe textures may happen to be found. 
Thus the ferous membranes which in veil the lungs, the 
brain, the heart, the abdominal vifcera, have one com¬ 
mon character when affeCted with any fpecific difeafe; 
fo alfo have the mucous membranes, whether we trace 
them in the mouth, the nofe, the vagina, the urethra, 
or covering the eye-ball; and the fame may be obferved 
of every individual texture which enters into the com- 
pofition of our bodies. 
Befides the fymptoms and morbid changes which are 
common to all textures whole ftruCture is fimilar in the 
natural Hate, there are others which are determined from 
the particular functions of the organ in which the dif¬ 
eafed texture exilts. For example, when any of the fe¬ 
rous membranes are inflamed, the nature of the pain, 
the degree of fever, and the duration of the fymptoms, 
are the fame, in whichfoever one it may have taken 
place. But to thefe fymptoms are added, cough, diffi¬ 
culty of breathing, See. when it happens to be connected 
with the organs of refpiration, as in the cafe of pleuritis; 
coltivenefs, ftrangury, delirium, lofs of vifion, when 
the inteftines, the bladder, the brain, or the eye, are in¬ 
volved in the difeafe. 
O L O G Y. 39 
This view of the fubjeCt naturally fuggefts a corre- 
fpondent divifion of the fymptoms. The firlt clafs are ge¬ 
neral, and cbaraCterife a whole genus of textures; the 
fecond are in a manner accefifory, and depend upon the 
relative fituation or the particular functions of the or¬ 
gan into the compoiition of which the affeCted texture 
enters. But here we mud fet bounds to this theory. 
The hiftory and progrefs of difeafes Ihow, that we ought 
not to confine our obfervations within l'uch narrow li¬ 
mits. The principles which have been Hated, indeed, 
account admirably well for the propagation of fome af¬ 
fections ; and for fome of the fympathies which fubfift 
between different parts of the body; but there are other 
diforders which advance in a very different manner. In 
fome difeafes which are termed chronic, for example, the 
whole ftruCture of an organ becomes gradually altered, 
although the primary affeCtion was confined to one of 
its component textures. This is often to be obferved 
in cancer, fcrofula, lues venerea, Sec. Thefe general 
obfervations, however, will be fufficient to give an out¬ 
line of the principles of a pathological lyftem founded on 
the bafis of anatomical knowledge; but the details of 
which are referved for another place. 
With regard to the Jurgery of the prefent day, we may 
remark, that our labours have of late been chiefly di¬ 
rected, by means of phyfiology and pathology, to the 
treatment of furgical cafes ; and, though in that refpeCl 
we may be allowed to Hand far before our anceftors, yet 
even in Ample operations we are not without improve¬ 
ment. The bold and fuccefsful operations of Larrey 
will teftify this, as well as the grand operations for 
aneurifms performed by Abernethy, Lawrence, Aftley 
Cooper, and others of ourEnglifh furgeons, whofe names 
however we forbear to mention, convinced of our in¬ 
ability to do juftice to the merits of all, and unwilling to 
appear invidious by the exclufion of any. • 
We now haften to the confideration of thofe patholo¬ 
gical theories, which, perhaps more than any other 
branch of medicine, form the criteria of medical prac¬ 
tice. 
The medical theorifts, then, of the 18th century, 
were chiefly Cullen, Brown, and Darwin. If we were 
inclined to draw companions in regard to merit, the firft 
of thefe phyficians would deferve ourgreateft encomium ; 
for he obferved nature with acutenefs, and w>as conliftent 
and rational in his treatment of difeafe, which cannot be 
accorded to either of the latter. He likewife made an 
arrangement of difeafes which had great merit, and 
which nothing but the increafe of phyliological know¬ 
ledge, and its fuccefsful application to pathology, that 
has taken place in our time, can warrant us in departing 
from, and which indeed we promifed to adopt. See vol. 
xvii. p. 245. 
Cullen’s pathological doctrines were a modification of 
the theory of Hoffman. From that author he took up 
the dodtrines of l'pafm and debility, and deduced from 
them all the phenomena of febrile diforders; and he en¬ 
deavoured to confirm his theory by proofs drawn from 
the laws of the nervous fyftem, and from the confidera¬ 
tion of the remote caufes of the difeafes in queftion. 
Rheumatifm was referred by him to a fpafm of the muf¬ 
cular fibres, arifing from an increafed afflux of blood; 
but gout he conceived to originate in atony, efpecialiy 
in atony of the digeftive organs. In thefe latter difeafes, 
he rejected the idea of a peculiar morbific matter; yet in 
his explanations of certain other complaints, as, for 
inftance, of fcrofula, he had recourfe to the fuppofitiou 
of an acrimony of the fluids. He laid much ftrefs on the 
efforts of the vis medlcatrix nature, advocated the hypo- 
thefisor a nervous fluid and vital principle, and aferibed 
to the brain a peculiar faculty, by which it was enabled 
to excite the mufcles to adlion, independently of the 
mind, and to which he gave the name of irritability of 
the fenj'orium. Cullen feems to have been much in the 
fame fituation with Boerhaave as to anatomical and 
phyliological 
