an

under different circumstances, have yet so much in common that they may very well be noticed together. Each work is the substance of a course of lectures on the history of medicine, delivered before an academical audience; and this fact might well suggest a useful hint to the medical schools in this country, in all of which (so far as we know) the history of our profession is completely ignored, although it surely might claim to be considered as a branch of knowledge, which (in the well-known words of Celsus), "quamvis non faciat medicum, aptiorem tamen medicinæ reddit," (lib. i, Proem.) Dr. Dunglison's little work has been published since his death under the editorial superintendence of his son, who tells us in the preface that it is embodiment of the course of lectures delivered by his father at the University of Virginia many years since." It was 66 the desire of Thomas Jefferson, at that time Rector of the University, and of those associated with that illustrious personage in its government, that the student should learn something of the earlier progress of the science and the art, while he was at the same time pursuing a course of instruction in the usual technical details of a collegiate medical education." Accordingly Dr. Dunglison (who was, we believe, one of the five professors from England who, with two Americans, formed the whole of the educational staff of the University when it was opened in April, 1825) "was expected to teach to the best of his ability, and with due diligence," not only anatomy, surgery, materia medica, and pharmacy, but also "the history of the progress and theories of medicine." It will thus be seen that "the arduous duties devolved upon him in that institution covered a much more comprehensive field than would be possible or practicable at the present day;" and that "the labour now usually allotted to almost an entire faculty of professors was there assigned to him alone." Under these circumstances it will readily be understood that we intend to impute no blame whatever to the author when we say that his work could not be otherwise than a compilation, and that he had no time for original research. As it was written probably about five and forty years ago, it would d'Observation et Expérimentale sur les Méthodes à priori. Extrait de l'Union Médicale (3e série), Novembre, 1871. 8vo, pp. 16.

Faculty of Medicine of Paris. Course [of lectures] on the History of Medicine and Surgery. By Professor CH. DAREMBERG. Opening Lecture, Nov. 11, 1871. Historical Demonstration of the Superiority of the Methods based on Observation and Experiment over à priori Methods. Extracted from the Union Médicale' (3rd series), Nov., 1871. 8vo, pp. 16.

3. History of Medicine from the Earliest Ages to the Commencement of the Nineteenth Century. By ROBLEY DUNGLISON, M.D., LL.D., late Professor of the Institutes of Medicine and Medical Jurisprudence in the Jefferson Medical College of Philadelphia, &c., &c. Arranged and Edited by RICHARD J. DUNGLISON, M.D. Philadelphia, 1872. 8vo, pp. xii and 287.

66

have been better to have published it nearer the time of its composition, when it, no doubt, fairly represented the knowledge of medical history possessed by his contemporaries. It is now published because it is believed that it will supply the want, long felt by the profession, of a condensed history [in English] of the progress of medicine, presenting all the main facts in systematic order, avoiding, as much as possible, prolixity or unnecessary discussion of the merits of men and theories, and not laying any claim whatever to the title of an exhaustive treatise." To a certain extent it will do this, and accordingly we recommend it to our readers as probably the most useful manual they are likely to meet with. At the same time, we must add that in our opinion the editor has scarcely done justice to his father's memory in printing a work, not prepared (perhaps not even intended) for publication, without doing more to remedy some of the omissions, and modify some of the statements, which were perfectly excusable forty years ago, but which the author (if we may judge by the care bestowed on successive editions of his Medical Lexicon') would certainly not have allowed to continue uncorrected in the present day. If the work should reach a second edition (which may very possibly be the case), more care should be bestowed on the printing of the proper names and the titles of the works mentioned; and especially a series of references should be given to the authorities for the statements in the text. In this latter respect the work appears to disadvantage when compared with Bostock's History of Medicine," (published in the Cyclopædia of Practical Medicine,' and not often met with in a separate form), which is composed partly on the same plan, and is not the result of original research, but which from the numerous references at the foot of the pages gives the reader the means of continuing his investigations on any subject mentioned in the text on which he needs additional information. The chapter on Hippocrates requires to be corrected, both as the facts of his life,1 and the list of writings ascribed to him, by the result of the inquiries

66

1 One of the errors respecting the events of the life of Hippocrates, which has been corrected in print at least five times within the last five-and-twenty years, but which reappears in Dunglison's History,' (p. 108), we will notice again, and recommend the editor to correct in the next edition. In January, 1849, it was stated in this Review (vol. iii, p. 210), that the mistake made originally by Sprengel in his History,' who said that there was no chronological difficulty in the way of accepting the story about Hippocrates and Perdiccas, king of Macedonia, had been repeated and perpetuated by Jourdan his French translator, by Rosenbaum his then recent editor, and by M. Littré, the editor of Hippocrates ;' but that it had been noticed and corrected by Dr. Greenhill, in Smith's Dict. of Biogr.,' (art. "Hippocrates,") and in Henschel's 'Janus' (vol. iii, p. 357). Since that time the correction has been accepted and repeated by M. Littré, (Hippocr.,' t. vii, p. xlix) and by Dr. Daremberg (Hippocr.,' p. xxix), and it is time that Sprengel's mistake should disappear from American books also.

of Littré, Daremberg and Ermerins. The chapter on the "Medicine of the Hindoos" may be greatly improved by consulting Dr. Wise's History,' and also the work of Susruta, which has been published since this book was written. In fact we think that the whole work should be carefully revised, as, besides the numerous typographical errata, there are several statements and sentences in it, each of which we have not time to examine now, but which, taken altogether, prevent our considering it as perfectly trustworthy.

1

In turning to Dr. Daremberg's works, the first thing we notice is that when he delivers his opening lecture in November, 1871, he is a Professor at the Faculty of Medicine, whereas, in the titlepage of the two volumes published in 1870, he appears only as a Professor charged with a course of lectures at the College of France. The difference is important, and bears upon a point of the history of medical education in France, of which the professor gives us an interesting sketch, and which we will briefly lay before our readers. It appears that towards the end of the last century, when the École de Santé (afterwards called the "Faculté de Médecine") was reorganized by the Committee of Public Instruction, a professorship was appointed for "legal medicine" and for the "history of medicine" (1794). Shortly afterwards (1795) the librarian of the school (Peter Sue) was appointed to lecture on "Medical Bibliography," and Thouret, the Director, on the "Doctrine of Hippocrates." In 1799 Thouret applied for the foundation of a professorship of the "Philosophy of Medicine"; but the application was not granted, and the existing professorships were in process of time amalgamated, and, finally, suppressed in 1822. In 1837 M. Dezeimeris, the librarian of the Faculty, applied for the re-establishment of the professorship of medical history, but without success; and the same result attended some other attempts made in the same direction in '45 and '59. But though it was not possible to procure the re-establishment of the professorship at the Faculty of Medicine, Dr. Daremberg was, in 1864, commissioned to deliver lectures on Medical History at the College of France; and it is the result of these lectures, delivered in the years 1864-67, that he has now given to the world in the form and with the title of a History of the Medical Sciences.' Thus, then, a sort of readership was

1 Some of these mistakes, however, would seem to be due to the author, and not the printer: as, for instance," Alexander of Damas," p. 172 (for Damascus), which is evidently taken from the French translation of Sprengel's History,' (tome ii, p. 100); "De Methodo Medendi ad Glauconem " (p. 174), where the last two words should be omitted, and where he seems to have mistaken Sprengel's reference (tome ii, p. 103);-but what is to be said for the strange word "scientist," used for a scientific man (p. 34)?

established, which promoted the study of medical history by employing a competent person to give his time and attention to the subject; but, the matter has at last been finally settled on a more permanent and satisfactory basis. In July, 1869, it was announced in the French medical journals that a M. de Champotran, a former "mâitre des requêtes," had left a considerable sum to the Faculty of Medicine of Paris for the purpose of founding a professorship of medical history. He had been induced to take this step by the advice of his surgeon, M. Cusco, whom in his will he recommended to the Faculty as a person perfectly capable of fulfilling the duties of the office. M. Cusco, however, declined the place, and Dr. Daremberg (probably the fittest person that could have been found) was appointed the new professor. This was shortly before the breaking out of the late war, which, of course, put a stop to medical lectures, as well as to many other things of more importance. During the siege of Paris by the Germans, Dr. Daremberg remained in the city, kept partly by his employment at the Mazarine Library, of which he is one of the librarians, and partly by his duty to his sick and wounded fellowcitizens, in which he was well seconded by his young son, who, we believe, was only a medical student at the time. Our readers will not be surprised to hear that the events of that terrible siege (the bodily fatigue, the scanty and unwholesome food, and the mental anxiety), have left their traces behind, from the effects of which it is probable that the Professor will never entirely recover.1

And now, having given an account of the establishment of the professorship, which is itself (as Dr. Daremberg says)" une question historique," we will turn to the work itself; and in this it seems to us that almost everything is good except the name, which is badly chosen. Perhaps we may explain our meaning at once when we say that if it had been called a Course of Lectures on Medical History,' we should have found it a delightful book, with which no one would have had a right to find fault; but that if it is to be called a History of the Medical Sciences,' there seem to us to be grave faults in the plan of the work (or rather in the disproportion of its several parts), and perhaps now and then in the execution also. In a course of lectures on any subject the Professor (unless, indeed, he intends to give a complete and systematic treatise merely cut up into lectures instead of chapters) may enjoy a certain amount of latitude in the choice of what he mentions and what he omits to notice. But surely, in a history, the writer has no such In his opening lecture, he touchingly alludes to "ma voix un peu haletante,” "mon visage fatigué," "la souffrance qui me trouble"

liberty; he should exclude all extraneous matter (or at least throw it into the form of an appendix or notes), however convenient or tempting it may be to insert it; and he should not only mention whatever deserves to be mentioned, but he should also preserve a due proportion between the several parts, in accordance with their relative importance. And this is what Dr. Daremberg has not done, and therefore we repeat that if it is to be considered as a work of art, a real history, as distinguished from a series of historical sketches, it appears to us to be seriously defective. We will illustrate our position by a few instances:-The most flagrant cases of disproportion are those of Paracelsus and Van Helmont, to the former of whom the Professor allots no less than one hundred and nine pages, and to the latter seventy-six, thus occupying one seventh part of the whole work with these two personages. As they have received more than their due amount of commendation from some modern writers, perhaps it was necessary to represent them in their true colours, and this Dr. Daremberg has probably done more completely than any of his predecessors. The two chapters are full of interesting and (in a certain sense) original matter; but we would suggest to the Professor that, after the delivery of these lectures, the proper thing to do with them would have been to publish them as a separate brochure, and not to have marred the symmetry of his work by inserting them at full length therein.1

The same objection (though not to the same extent) may be brought against the account of Sylvius de la Boe, to whom are assigned thirty pages, and that of the iatro-mathematical (or iatro-mechanical) school, which occupies 200; but then it must be borne in mind that to this school belonged an unusual number of eminent men, e. g. Borelli, Bellini, Pitcairne, Boerhaave, Hoffmann, &c.

This want of symmetry, which is so great that it indicates a certain amount of want of judgment also, and which appears to us to be the chief blemish in the book, can easily be removed in a second edition; and, perhaps, if it is still to be called a history, those passages which belong simply to a course of lectures may be omitted with some economy of space, and without lessening the interest or value of the work.

The general character of the book is such as might be expected by any one who has read Dr. Daremberg's former writings, in which we find extensive, accurate, genuine learning

To make the matter still more striking (if necessary) we may mention the space allotted respectively to some of the most celebrated physicians of ancient and modern times -Hippocrates, 56 pages; Galen, 30; Harvey, 44; Sydenham, 28; Boerhaave, 16; Haller, 10; Bichat, 11; Cullen, 18.