41 
P A T H 
We will not detain our readers by detailing all the 
numerous controverfies in which this theory has engaged 
the medical world, nor by repeating the various argu¬ 
ments which oppofed its adoption among the more en¬ 
lightened of our own phyficians : for an hypothecs which 
fails to explain all the phenomena of difeafe cannot be 
confidered worthy of our notice ; and how could it be 
fuppofed that Brown, who paid little attention to the 
minute fymptoms of difeafe, was capable of generalizing 
fadts fo various and anomalous ? In no inftance does 
the application of thefe principles form fo much a fubjeCt 
for regret as in regard to the treatment of fever prac- 
tifed by the followers of Brown. It may be laid, without 
exaggeration, to have immolated millions of our fellow- 
creatures. It inculcated methods of treatment the moll 
oppofite to thofe indicated by nature and common fenfe. 
Let the ftatiftical reports of mortality in every climate 
teftify the truth of this painful affertion. To ftimulate 
in inflammatory diforders is a mean fo repugnant to the 
feelings of the patient, or the advice of every practical 
author, from the time of Hippocrates downwards, that 
we are aftonifhed at the extenfive prevalence of fo ablurd 
a practice. We fliould remark, however, that the more 
enlightened of Brown’s followers modified his doCtrines 
conliderably, and in their practice often departed ef- 
fentially from his dogmas. In attempting to explain the 
phenomena of fever according to the doCtrine of direCl 
and indirect debility, Brown has the following expref- 
lions: “ The diftinCtions that phyficians have made 
about the differences of fevers are all without foundation ; 
they are all the fame, with no other difference but in de¬ 
gree ; and, unlefs in that refpeCt, they do not differ from 
other difeafes of the fame form.” Elements of Medicine, 
§ 662. note m. He does not, however, attempt to ex¬ 
plain the manner in which the various fucceffion of fymp¬ 
toms refults from the ftate of debility, or how the various 
modifications of the pyrexiae are to be accounted for 
upon this principle. The only approximation to fuch 
an explanation, is merely an enumeraiion of the leading 
changes in the fymptoms after the manner of Cullen, but 
lefs explicit than the one given by that author. We are 
told, that “ the debility during the cold ftage is the 
greateft; that of the hot lefs; and that of the fweating 
ftage, wdiich ends in health for the time, is the leaft of 
all. Hence, in a mild degree of the difeafe, as cold is the 
moft hurtful power, its effeCt is gradually taken oft'by the 
agreeable heat of the bed or of the fun, and the ftrength 
thereby gradually drawn forth. The heart and arteries, 
gradually excited by the heat, acquire vigour, and, at 
laft, having their perfpiratory terminations excited by the 
fame ftimulus, the moft hurtful lymptom is thereby re¬ 
moved, the hot fit produced, and afterwards the fame 
procefs carried on to the breaking out of fweat.” § 666. 
We are farther told, that “ the caufe of all thefe diieafes, 
(viz. fevers, from the Ample and intermittent to the 
gaol-fever and the plague,) is the fame with that of dif¬ 
eafes not febrile, to wit, debility ; differing only in this, 
that it is the greateff debility compatible with life, and 
not long compatible with it.” § 670. 
Such is the vague and inexplicit theory which divided 
the medical world, which excited fo much intereft in 
thofe who efpoufed or oppofed it, and infpired fuch a de¬ 
gree of enthufiafm in the debates and writings efpecially 
of the pupils of the feminary which gave it birth, that it 
not unfrequently burft forth with all the violence of re¬ 
ligious phrenzy. This indeed is little to be wondered 
at, when we confider that half-educated young men, as is 
the cafe with the great proportion of medical ftudents, 
unaccuftomed to patient inveftigation, and fond of no¬ 
velty, are the moft apt to embrace fuch fpeculations as 
could be fupportedand defended by ingenious and lubtle 
reafonings rather than by accurate and extenfive<obferva- 
tion. It was admirably well calculated to flatter the va¬ 
nity of the fuperficial, and to abridge the labours of thofe 
difpofed to be idle, fince it was abundantly more eafy to 
Vol. XIX. No. 1285. 
O L O G Y. 
defcant upon the fthenic and affhenic forms of difeafes, 
and the excefs and deficiency of excitement, than to de- 
fcribe the diftribution of the blood-veffels, or to trace 
the courfe of the nerves. The knowledge of anatomy 
and phyfiology was toaBrunonian perfectly ufelefs; and 
the laborious foil requifite for the acquirement of thefe 
branches of ftudy might well be fpared him, fince the 
ftruCture of the human frame and the functions of its va¬ 
rious organs were by no means neceffary confiderations, 
either in his eftimation of the caufes of difeafes or of the 
means requifite for their removal. The beautiful Jintpli- 
city of the fyftem, accordingly, recommended it chiefly to 
thofe who were moft deficient in that folid knowledge 
which can alone form the balls of a fuccefsful cultiva¬ 
tion of medical fcience; whilft its fallacy was too evident 
to thofe who had opportunities of witnefling its want of 
accordance with the natural operations of health and the 
phenomena of difeafes. 
It is, however, fully admitted, that Dr. Brown poffeffed 
great vigour of mind, and feems to have been capable of 
confiderable application. His talents, had they been di¬ 
rected to more practical and more ufeful objedts, would 
have probably raifed him to eminent diftinCtion, and ren¬ 
dered him a valuable member of fociety. The ftyle of 
his Elementa Medicines is harfli and unpolilhed, and his 
meaning is often dark and ambiguous. But perhaps this 
want of perfpicuity is as much owing to the fubjeCts 
which he treated, the principles of which are far from 
being fettled, as to the obfcurity of his expreffion. He 
attempted an unbeaten path ; it is not wonderful that he 
was often bewildered and loft. 
A French phyfiologift and pathologift of the prefent 
day, Dr. Brouffais, (Examen des DoCtrines Medicates, 
1821.) has bellowed about a hundred pages on a review 
of the Brunonian fyftem; but at length he happily comes 
to the conclufion, at which all the reft of the medical 
world had arrived long fince, “That the claflification of 
difeafes by Brown, into fthenic and althenic, general and 
local, is quite arbitrary.” He then enters upon the con- 
fideration of what he calls the Brownifm of the Italian 
fchool. He firll (hows how readily the Italian phyficians 
adopted the fyftem of the Scotch reformer in the firll in¬ 
ftance; and, next, how they fubfequently modified it, by 
various interpolations of their own, fo as to create a new 
doctrine, to which the name of contra-ftimulant has been 
given. According to this fyftem, of which Rafori was 
the founder, there exift but three claffes of difeafes: ill, 
thofe arifing from excefs of excitement; 2dly, thofe from 
want of due excitement; and sdly, thofe refulting from 
local irritation, or dillurbance of the vital aCtions of the 
part, differing both from inflammatory excitement and 
from debility. The two former are, refpeCtively, the 
fthenic and afthenic maladies of the older fchools. The 
latter requires a little explanation. According to Guani, 
the founder of this point of doCtrine, the animal body 
is endowed with a property, inherent with its organiza¬ 
tion, by which it either aflimilates to itfelf thole fub- 
ftances brought into contaCt with it, or enters into a re¬ 
action for the purpofe of rejecting them. All thofe fub- 
ftances which it appropriates to itfelf, produce what is 
termed animal excitement which is the agency of the affi- 
milative property; whilft thofe which are not afiimilable 
produce an action called irritation, which is a fort of dif- 
turbance, tumult, or orgafm, of the part, and which 
may extend from the part where the irritating caufe is 
applied more or lefs generally over the fyftem. This ftate, 
he argues, differs from the two former, becaufe it is not 
relieved by either ftimulants or fedatives. It obftinately 
continues as long as the caufe of it exifts ; but, when the 
caufe is removed, the effeCt inftantly ceafes, and it is 
never productive of real excitement, but foon, if it per- 
fift, induces debility. 
Guani appears to confider that animal excitement pro¬ 
perly, (by which he means exaltation of the vital aCtions 
without abfolute change of their qualities,) only arifes 
hi from 
