lator of Lucretia. If the accidental formation of verse should be allowed as evidence of a poetical origin, we should discover abundant traces of it in every prose writer, whose style was at all of an elevated structure.* In fact, Livy's style, like that of his abbreviator Florus, is a measured prose, but little removed from the dignity of neglected Iambics. Moreover, to adopt the words of a late excellent writer on Roman literature-"Any period of history may be thus exhibited in the form of an epic cycle; and though there can be little doubt of the existence of ancient Saturnian ballads at Rome, I do not think that Niebuhr has adduced sufficient proof or authority for his magnificent epopée, commencing with the accession of Tarquin, and ending with the battle of Regillus."

We are sorry that we cannot congratulate our readers on the possession of a translation of the masterly work which we have now noticed, in any degree proportioned to its merits, or even adapted to convey any just notion of the writer's meaning. If our author, from the desire of combining great brevity with very accurate learning, has become obscure, the translator has been far from successful in elucidating his meaning. He sometimes leaves his sentences nearly unintelligible. We shall cite but one instance, which occurs in vol. i. p. 437, and is thus "done into English." "A cold people, when they degenerate into democracy, sink much deeper than the impassioned and lively; they plunder and waste and irrecoverably destroy, while the latter awakens from their lethargy, and can seize a commanding position with equal energy." It should read thus-"A cold people, when it gives way to the excesses of democracy, sinks far deeper than one that is lively and impassioned; it robs and rages and destroys beyond recall, whilst the latter can awake from its delirium, and with equal passion, grasp an honorable object." In general, the order of the sentences in the translation is rather German than English.

We look with great expectation for the sequel of this History, and rejoice that the entire work is likely to be presented to the denizens of the English language, in an idiom a little further removed from that of their Saxon ancestors. Of this, the public have the best possible pledge in the encouragement which the author has bestowed upon the undertaking of the new translators.

* Sallust. de Bello. Catalin. "Cneii Pompei fidos veteresque clientes"-a perfect hexameter.

ART. III.-Traité de Therapeutique, redigé d'apres les principes de la nouvelle doctrine Medicale. Par L. J. BEGIN. 2 tomes. Paris. 1825. 875 pages.

IT may seem somewhat out of place to occupy the pages of a general review, with a notice of works relating to the practice of Medicine. On the present occasion, however, the question is concerning a theory that aims at overturning every former medical system, changing the routine of medical practice, and forming a new era in the science itself. Such an attempt belongs rather to the history of medical literature, than to the more technical part of the profession; and the book, now under review, is the first arrangement of Therapeutics, which has conformed entirely to the views of health and disease, which Dr. Broussais has so successfully adopted. It is still, even in Paris, considered as "the new doctrine;" and, therefore, a fair object of literary inquiry here or any where.

Indeed, our literary men are, for the most part, deplorably ignorant of every thing relating to physiological and medical science. They learn nothing of it at school or college; and unless they be intended as practising physicians, one of the most important branches of knowledge is to them as a forbidden treasure. We have long been persuaded, that the elements of Physiology, Anatomy and Medicine, ought to be forced, if possible, upon the trustees of every collegiate institution: nor should a young man be considered as well educated, who enters into life without being able to exhibit to himself, however necessary, the most simple medicine. The good sense of Mr. Jefferson saw this deficiency and provided against it; but the University of Virginia is the only institution among us, where that provision is made.

It may be useful on the present occasion, to run over, not the history, but the list or catalogue of the different theories and systems by which the science of Medicine has been principally characterized, at various epochs, from Hippocrates to the present day. A brief review of the fallacies and failures of men, by no means inferior in natural talent or laborious acquirement, to their successors who now figure in the schools of Medicine, may inspire us with some portion of that necessary diffidence, without which no improvement can be successfully urged; and with some regard to that necessary caution which should attend the adoption of new proposals, however respectable the quarter from whence they are recommended.

We may safely omit all notice of the fabulous history of Medicine, and regard Hippocrates as the first author on the subject worthy our attention.

He considered the body as composed of blood, bile, phlegm, and atrabile, each striving for the mastery over the rest. To regulate these disputes, he introduced nature, pues, and subordinate powers or faculties; duvams, not unlike the modern notion of a vis medicatrix naturæ. In this, it is the duty of the physician to lend his aid; but not by any other mode of interference than by assisting what appear to be the efforts of nature to expel disease.* For this purpose, it is necessary to reduce the predominant humour by the specific medicines that will act upon it, and to counteract all congestion and repletion by evacuations. To effect this, he employed purgatives, injections, diuretics, sudorifics, the lancet, scarifications and cupping, and issues. His practice appears to have been successful. No wonder: threefourths of our disorders arise from repletion, and evacuants are the obvious remedy. The pathology of Hippocrates appears to have been humoural.

This humoural pathology was carried to a still greater extent by Galen, and continued to be the favourite doctrine of medical orthodoxy for 1300 years. All disease was located in the fluids of the body. Then came on the chemical notions of Paracelsus, who conceived that all the living matter of an animal body, was subjected to the same chemical laws, as matter unorganised and extraneous. With him, every thing depended on salt, sulphur and mercury, their proportions and combinations; regulated in the human body by an intelligent, sidereal, spiritual director, whom Van Helmont afterwards styled Archæus, and five subordinate astral spirits. These wild notions soon went out of fashion; though it must be allowed that Paracelsus first led the way to the employment of chemical medicines.

The humoural pathology still prevailed, with the chemical addition of ferments and fermentations.

By and by, mathematics and mechanical philosophy became greatly in fashion. Then all health and disease, and all the operation of medicine were explained by the laws of magnitude and motion. The body was considered as an hydraulic engine. This system of physiology and pathology came into vogue with Borelli, Bellini, Mead, Keith, and Sir Clifton Wintringham. Pitcairn's "Physico-mathematical Elements of Medicine" took the lead of all other theories in England. Students of medicine read with wonder, the calculated forces of the heart and arte

* Hence, la Medecine expectante, of the French.

ries, and were not a little confused by the discordant results of the calculations. At this time too, the diseases of the body and the operation of drastics, were referred to the morbid stimulations of spiculæ, either pathologically inducing disease, or therapeutically as medicines introduced in the circulating fluids.

This theory ran its course. That of Dr. Stahl, of Germany, succeeded: who clearly perceiving that neither chemical nor mechanical philosophy would suffice to explain either the vital functions, or the phenomena of disease, recalled under the name of the Soul, [Anima,] the Ovis of Hippocrates, and the Archæus of Paracelsus and Van Helmont. He may fairly be considered as the supporter of those modifications termed the vis medicatrix naturæ, the vis insita of Haller, the vital principle of John Hunter and the physiologists and physicians of Great-Britain about half a century ago: of whom Abernethy is still a disciple.

It is not worth the while to enter into detail concerning the changes and modifications with which the respective inventors of this superadded agent or being, introduced their hypotheses. It was manifest, that neither chemistry nor mechanical philosophy were competent to explain either the normal or the morbid functions of the animal body; and the hypothesis in question may be considered as forced upon the medical world in the imperfect state of physiological and pathological knowledge at the time. At present, these phenomena are accounted for more satisfactorily by the known properties of the several tissues, and the necessary effects of stimulants upon them. Stahl, however, did not fail to be a good prescriber in consequence of his notion that the system had a constant tendency to plethora, from the redundance of nutriment afforded by the food taken into the stomach. Hence, he attended particularly to the various evacuations necessary to counteract this tendency. In civilized society, his theory of plethora puts on the form of matter of fact so frequently, that if erroneous, it was an error on the safe side. Stahl's theory was taken up and explained by the Englishman Nichols, in a treatise De Anima Medica, and was adopted with some limitations by Whytt, Gaubius, Sauvages, Feriar, and others. The chemical doctrine of Phlogiston, now renounced, originated with Stahl; and though it has no defenders among modern chemists, the modern language of medicine, founded upon that exploded hypothesis, still adopts phlogistic regimen and phlogistic diathesis: expressions relating to Stahl's discarded theory. Descartes rejected all these notions of Stahl's, and first resorted to the theory of animal spirits and a nervous fluid. Baglivi, of Rome, appears to have been the first who suggested that disease consisted in abnormal affections of the solid moving

fibres of the body, producing irregular action inconsistent with health; and in their turn acting upon the fluids in manner dependant on the regular or irregular actions of these solids. This theory was adopted by Hoffman, and formed the basis of Dr. Cullen's system, who has done more than any other person to give it currency. But the peculiar doctrines of this great man, spasm on the extreme vessels, and excitement and collapse, have not maintained their ground in modern times.

Preserving the theory of solidism, John Brown, (Johannes Bruno, as he was usually called) attempted to simplify the doctrines of physiology and pathology, and the theory of medicine and therapeutics, by a few plain laws which were applied by him to all the phenomena of health and disease. The living fibre of the animal body is excitable, irritable, on the application of those substances which are found by experience to call this property into action. These substances are stimulants. Life itself, the aggregate of the functions of the organized animal, consists in the actions excited in the living fibre by the natural stimuli of air, heat, food, necessary to the healthy and moderate state of the several functions which the living fibre is destined to perform. Excitability, by the long continued application of stimuli, becomes exhausted, and a state of rest or collapse ensues in all the parts subject to the will, during which it is renewed; or excitability may, from various circumstances, be accumulated in excess. Stimulants also may act too feebly or too violently. When excitability is in defect, asthenic diseases, or diseases of debility, requiring stimulants, appear: when in excess, sthenic disease occurs, and sedatives and depletion are indicated. So by the over action, or too long continued action of stimuli, a state of collapse, asthenia, or as he calls it, indirect debility is produced. Hence the theory of medicine, and its practice only requires that the physician should determine by the symptoms or indications, whether the living and solid fibre be in a sthenic or asthenic state; whether stimulation has been in excess or defect; whether asthenia or debility be idiopathic or consequent; and prescribe accordingly. This very ingenious but far too compendious system, was found not so useful in practice, as beautiful in theory; and experience has banished from practice his theory as he applied it.

Brown was not aware how frequently debility, both real and apparent, was owing to inflammation, and inflammation to debility. Nor did he pay due regard to the numerous inflammatory complaints arising from causes that he would have termed debilitating, such as rheumatism and pleurisy from cold and VOL. I.-NO. 2. 44