84 PATHOLOGY. 
to give a lift at the end of his Synopfis, under the title of 
“ Catalogus Morborum a nobis omifforum, quos omiffiffe 
fortafiis non oportebat 5” and has thought himfelf called 
upon to offer an apology in his Prolegomena. “ Thefe 
©millions,” fays he, “I confefs and regret; but various 
reafons operated to the omiffion of fome difeafes. 1. In 
the firft place it mnft be acknowledged that feveral utterly 
efcaped our attention. 2. Next, there are others, Suffi¬ 
ciently known, for which a fit place cannot he found in our 
fyftem. 3. And, laftly, there are others whofe hiftory 
-among medical w'riters is fo imperfedf, that no fit place 
or character can bealfigned to them.” 
It is the fecond of thefe apologies, which we have 
printed in Italics, that has determined us in the courfe 
we have adopted, of rejedling the fyftem altogether. 
Time and ftridter attention may overcome the evils t8 
which both the others relate. But the utter want of fit 
places for well-known difeafes in a nofological fyftem, and 
this too, in the opinion of the author of the fyftem, is a 
defedf from which no time or labour can ever relieve it. 
, Since, therefore, the diftinguiflied reputation of Dr. 
Cullen was incapable of fecuring to his nofological fyftem 
the popularity with which it was at firft greeted ; we need 
not wonder if a hoft of learned rivals, few of whom how¬ 
ever have humiliated him by their competitions, fnould, 
in different parts of Europe, have endeavoured to offer 
fchemes big with the fair promife of realifing the noble 
objedf he had in view, and free from the defeats he has 
exhibited. Thefe rival attempts may be fummed up in 
a few words: for fuch is the difficulty of the fubjedl, that 
none of them have been eminently fuccefsful; while the 
greater part have dropped from the cradle into the grave. 
The chief foreign competitors are Selle, Plouquet, and 
pinel.— Selle is rather a monogrammift, to borrow a term 
from the vocabulary of natural hiftory, than a writer on 
general nofology. His firft attempt was confined to the 
province of fevers alone, and appeared at Halle in 1770, 
under the title of “Methodi Febrium naturalis RudL- 
menta:” and it was only to an enlarged edition of this, 
publifhed at Berlin in 1786, that he fubjoined a fpecimen 
of his general claffes. They are altogether theoretical; 
and, as he has not accompanied them with their refpedtive 
genera, it would be fuperfluous to copy the claffification. 
The cloudinefs that hangs over his divifion of fevers 
leaves us.without regret that he did not complete his 
entire fciieme. It may be fufficient, perhaps, to obferve, 
that in his “ Methodical Pyretology,” rheumatifm, ca¬ 
tarrh, and exanthems, are included under a fingle genus. 
The “ Outlines” of Plouquet furnifh a fyftem that wan¬ 
ders lefs into theory ; but which is far too complicated, 
and certainly not without its nebulofity. It was pub- 
lifned at Tubingen in 1791, in four volumes odlavo, 
under the following title : “ Delineatio Syftematis Nofoio- 
cise naturte accommodati.” It is fingularly diftinguiflied 
by the author’s fondnefs for long crabbed words. He 
made a far better prefent to the public a few years after¬ 
wards in his “ Initia Bibliotheca il ledico-praftica, et Chi’ 
rurgia realis ; or Hints towards a Medicaland Chirurgical 
Library,” extending to feven volumes quarto, in the 
order of an alphabetical arrangement. 
To Pinel, as to Selle, we are indebted for both a mo¬ 
nographic and a general attempt. The firft is his well- 
known “Traite Medico-Philofophique fur PAlienation 
Mentale ;” the diviiions of which are clear, and the re¬ 
marks of high practical importance. The prefent writer 
will be found to have availed himfelf, as far as poflible, 
of the advantages which this excellent treatiie affords, 
under the article Insanity, voi. xi. He has not, how¬ 
ever, been able to make the fame ufe of M. Pinel’s “ Phi- 
lolophical Nofography.” It is too refined for popular 
ufe, and too indiftindl for pradlical benefit. The claffes 
are as follow : 1. Fevers. 2. Inflammations. 3. Adtive 
Hemorrhages. 4. Neurofes. 5. Lymphatic Difeafes. 
6. An indeterminate clafs for the reception of diforders 
which cannot be received into the preceding claffes, or 
whofe charadters yet remain to be afcertained. This laft 
divifion evinces a woeful want of fkill, and is perhaps 
more reprehenfible than the Locales of Dr. Cullen. M. 
Pinel has, moreover, betrayed a Angular itch for changing 
eftablilhed terms which, in many cafes, require no change 
whatever; and fuperfeding them by others which are 
neither more true to corredt theory, nor more euphonous 
to a corredt ear. As examples we may notice, that in¬ 
flammatory fever is here denominated angi-fienic ; bilious 
fever, meningo-gafiric ; putrid, adynamic ; malignant, 
ataxic. 
In turning our attention to our own country, w-e fhall 
perceive that the firft attempt to improve on Cullen’s 
fyftem was hazarded by Dr. Macbride. It was publifhed 
as early .as 1772, and confifts of nothing more than a 
nofological table, embracing indeed the divifions of ge¬ 
nera and fpecies (except in the order of Vefaniae, which 
is left imperfedt, from an indetermination in the author’s 
mind upon this fubjedl), but totally void of definitions. 
It is the opinion of Dr. Good, that this unfinifhed Iketch 
is well worthy of attention, and has not had fufficient 
juftice rendered to it. Its chief failure confifts in the 
nature of its claffes or primary divifions. Thefe confift 
of four; Universal Diseases, Local, Sexual, and 
Infantile. The fecond, or local clafs, is evidently de¬ 
rived from Dr. Cullen, though the term is employed in 
a ftridler fenfe : and the formation of a clafs of Univerfal 
Difeafes follows naturally, and indeed neceffarily, from 
the inftitution of a clafs of Local. A precife line of dif- 
tindlion, however, can never be drawn by the moft de¬ 
licate hand ; and it is obvious to every one, that the em¬ 
ployment of other-claffes after thefe, whatever be their 
names, ranges, or attributes, muft be abfurd ; for the 
terms Univerfal and Local neceffarily include every dif- 
eafe in nature, and leave no other diftindtive clafs to be 
added. Yet Dr. Macbride appears to have exhibited as 
nice a fkill in the arrangement of his genera and fpecies, 
as he has want of fkill in his primary outline. There is 
a clearnefs, a neatnefs, and fimplicity, which, fays Dr. 
Good, “ J have endeavoured to avail myfelf of, wherever 
the ftrudture of my own fyftem w'ould allow, and which 
I have often left with regret where it would not.” No¬ 
thing can moreeffedlually fhow the good tafte and liberality 
of Dr. Cullen, than his Latin tranflation and introduc¬ 
tion of the firft and moft extenfive clafs of Macbride’s 
Table into the laft edition of his Synopfis, for the purpofe 
of comparifon with his own arrangement, as well as with 
the fyftems of thofe to whom he was moft indebted. 
Another Table of Difeafes, diftributed under a diffe¬ 
rent fyftematic arrangement, was publifhed not many 
years after, by Dr. Crichton ; and, like the preceding, 
unaccompanied with definitions of any kind. Its claffes 
are eight, confifting of Cullen’s four, with the addition 
of four others, for the purpofe of accommodating thofe 
genera which are chiefly under a ftate of reftraint in the 
Cullenian method ; and to which he has given the names 
of H/t.morrhagijE, Fluxus, Intumescentije, and 
Epischeses. This affuredly offers fome improvement; 
but the retained clafs Locales is fubjedt to the common 
objedfions againlt it; and in the fubdivifions of this clafs 
Dr. Crichton has no reafon to boaft of being more fuccefs¬ 
ful than his predeceffors. He feems fenfible, indeed, of 
the difficulty, and appears to ftirink from it; for in the 
fourth, fifth, and fixth, orders of the local clafs, entitled 
Prolapfus, Luxatio, and Tumores, he has withheld his 
fpecies; and in the three enfuing orders, entitled Vul- 
nus, Ulcus, and Fradtura, he has equally withheld 
his genera. For the moft part his generic and fpecific 
diftindtions exhibit far lefs precifion than thofe of Dr. 
Macbride, whilft he has moft unaccountably reftored the 
fymptomatic fpecies of difeafes which Cullen laboured fo 
meritorioufly to fupprefs. It is fomew'hat Angular,therefore, 
that Dr. Crichton fliould have belt fucceeded where Dr. 
Macbride principally failed, and chiefly failed where 
Macbride has been moft fuccefsful. 
Dr. 
