81 
PATHOLOGY. 
arrangement, even from its firft publication ; and that, 
fince that period, phyfiology and pathology have made 
fo much progrefs, that they may literally be faid to be 
revolutionized. Nor is the fyftem we have adopted to be 
confidered as a crude fpeculation, un matured by experi¬ 
ence, or unfanftioned by general affent. .It is founded 
on the cleared and mod comprehensive views of the ani¬ 
mal economy; and its projector was entirely free from 
that fatal error of mod new fydem-makers, that of defpi- 
fing the labours of his predeceffors in the fame path. 
On the contrary, he has availed himfelf of all that had 
been done before him by Sauvages, Pinel, Linnaeus, Cul¬ 
len, Vogel, and many others; and has added the infor¬ 
mation which long dudy and experience had furnilhed 
him with. A dronger reafon than all thefe, which has 
induced us to employ Dr. Good’s nofology, is its claffical 
and correct nomenclature. Our medical technicology 
abounds in the mod barbarous and abfurd appellations; 
which, fo far from having any meaning, or affording 
any account of the nature or appearance of difeafe, often 
ferves only to perpetuate fome ancient and ridiculous 
notion. Often derived from the oriental languages, half 
latinifed, they have been long cenfured by claffical phy- 
ffcians; and fome alterations have accordingly been made 
from time to time. But it was referved for Dr. Good 
entirely to alter the medical nomenclature, and at once 
to fimplify and adorn a very dry and uninviting fub- 
je£t. We may further remark, that Dr. Good’s work is 
patronifed by the heads of the medical profeflion in Eng- 
We (hall now' give an outline of the different fydems, 
or claffifications, of difeafes, which have fucceffively pre¬ 
vailed ; and the few remarks we fliall make as we go on, 
will, we think, furniffi additional reafons for the courfe 
we mean to adopt, of forming the great body of our ar¬ 
ticle upon the fyftem of Dr. Good. 
Dr. Good himfelf very judicioufly obferves, that no art 
or Science can be acquired, for none can be clearly treated 
of or communicated, without arrangement. All nofo- 
logical works, therefore, poflefling any value, have an ar¬ 
rangement, or method as itis called, of fome kind or other. 
The Simplest arrangement, if it be in any-way worthy 
of the name, is the alphabetic, of which, in the prefent 
day, we have many copious examples, highly valuable as 
works of eafy reference, though fcarcely entitled to rank 
under the character of fydematic arrangement. To this 
daffification belongs the very excellent and important 
work of Dr. Heberden.—Another modification which 
has been had re courfe to, is that of the duration of dij- 
enfes, .as divided into acute and chronic ; it is a modifica¬ 
tion of confiderable antiquity, and has defcended to us 
in the works of Aretasus, and of Cadi us Aurelianus.-— 
A third modification has confifted in taking the anatomy 
of the animal frame as a ground-work for divifions ; and 
confequently in afiforting difeafes, as has been done by 
Jonfton, Sennertus, and Morgagni, (and fince recom¬ 
mended by Dr. Mead in his Medical Precepts and Cau¬ 
tions,) info thofe of the head, cheft, belly, limbs, and 
aim oft every other part.—A fourth invention has fixed 
upon the fuppofed cauj'es of difeafes as a bafis of diftribu- 
tion ; and to this has been applied the epithet etiological, 
from the Greek term aina., a caufe; it has acquired 
more popularity than any of the preceding, and was es¬ 
pecially embraced by the fchools of Boerhaave, Riverius, 
and Hoffman.—Sometimes a mixed modification has been 
attempted, as in the nofology of Dr. Macbride, who 
takes extent for his firft two general divifions of difeafes, 
as being univerfal or local -,J'ex for his third ; and the age 
of infancy for his fourth and laft.—And fometimes, and 
far more generally of late years, the nofological fyftem 
has been built upon the diftinblive J'ymploms of difeafes; the 
peculiar marks by which they identify themfelves, and, fo 
to fpeak, become individualized: and fuch is the princi¬ 
ple adopted by Sauvages, Linnaeus, Cullen, and all the 
Hi oft celebrated nofologifts of recent times. 
This laft is, in effeft, the only method in any degree 
worthy of attention ; for it is the only one that will ge¬ 
nerally hold true to itfelf, or on which we can place any 
dependance. Of the feat of difeafes we often know but 
very little $ of their caufes far oftener (till lefs ; but there 
are certain marks or characters in the ufual progrefs of 
moll difeafes which uniformly accompany and diftinguilh 
them, and to which, therefore, the epithet pathognomic 
has been correftly applied. It is not, indeed, to be con¬ 
tended that thefe distinctive Signs are as constant and de¬ 
terminate as many of the distinctive figns that occur in 
zoology or botany. So complicated is the animal machi¬ 
nery, fo perpetually alterable and altered by habit, cli¬ 
mate, idiofyncrafy, and the many accidental circum- 
ftances by which life is diverfified, that the general rule 
mull admit of a variety of exceptions; and is here, per¬ 
haps, rather than any-where elfe, bell established by fuch 
exceptions. Yet, after all, every diftinCt difeafe, occur 
where it may, and under what peculiarity of constitu¬ 
tion it may, proves fo generally true to its own courfe, 
and is fo generally attended by its own train of fymp- 
toms, or “ co-incidents,” (which is the literal rendering 
of fymptoms,) that he who fteadily attends to thefe will 
not often be greatly deceived; “ and if he ftiould be, 
(fays Dr. Good,) he can find no other guide to fet him 
right.” 
Plater may be regarded as the morning-ftar that firft: 
glimmered in the hemifphere of fymptomatology, as Ser- 
vetus was in that of the circulation of the blood. The 
light of both was feeble and tremulous ; but it twinkled 
in the midft of darknefs, and led on to the brightnefs of 
day. His work, entitled Praxis Medica, in which he 
gives an imperfect Sketch of a fymptomatic plan of nofo¬ 
logy, was published in 1602. Sydenham, if he did not 
avail himfelf of it, was actuated by the fame quickening 
fpirit; for his various treatifes and epiftles, published for 
the moll part mifcellaneoufly, are a practical comment 
upon Plater’s principle, and feem chiefly to have Stirred 
up the well-ftored and comprehenfive mind of Sauvages, 
who was peculiarly attached to Sydenham’s opinions and 
practice, whom he is continually praifing, and whom he 
distinguishes by the name of “ Anglus Hippocrates,” to 
that full illuftration of the fymptomatic method which 
has given form and being to almoft every attempt that 
has fince appeared upon the fubjedl. 
Sauvages firft published the outlines of his plan in 1731, 
in a duodecimo volume, under the title of “ Nouvelles 
Clafles de Maladies,” after having fubmitted his intention 
to the judgment of Boerhaave. This precurfory Sketch 
defcended no lower than to the divifion of genera ; but, 
having been encouraged to perfevere, he laboured on 
the fpecies, and introduced them in their proper fuccef- 
fion into a new and more extenfive edition of his work, 
published in 1763, in five volumes oCtavo; and, conti¬ 
nuing his exertions yet further in the fame vineyard, 
he put his finishing hand to the great talk he had under¬ 
taken by preparing a Still more complete and final edi¬ 
tion, which he did not live to publish, but which was 
given to the world Shortly after his death, in 1768, in two 
large volumes quarto. 
The “ Nofologia Methodica,” for fuch is the title of 
M. de Sauvages’s work, is, indeed, an Herculean la¬ 
bour. It confifts, in its lateft and mod perfect form, 
of three diftinCt arrangements, a fymptomatical, an 
etiological, and an anatomical, fo as to accommodate 
itfelf to the tafte of the old fchool as well as of the 
new. The fymptomatical, to which the others are 
profefledly fubordinate, is by far the mod extenfively 
elucidated; and comprifes ten clalfes, (each introduced 
by an elaborate pathological fynopfis,) upwards of forty 
orders, more than three hundred genera, and an almoft 
innumerable holt of fpecies. “ Quel no mb re prodigieux 
d’ennemis!” exclaims M. de Ratte, alluding to this valt. 
mu Iter, in his eulogy on the author, delivered before the 
Royal Society of Sciences in Montpellier; or rather allu¬ 
ding 
