I wish not, by any means, to decry nosology. It has its use, and may even be regarded as absolutely necessary. But, while it has contributed, in some respects, to the advancement of medical science, it has, through misapplication, done much also to retard it. It is, at length, full time, in profiting by the good, to avoid the evil. Reference to nosology is of use, in directing attention promptly to the more important lesions, so as to ascertain what organs or functions are principally suffering. But much more is required even when this point is decided. The only mode practically valuable of scrutinizing an individual disease is, not to aim at identifying it with the nosological exemplar, but to ascertain the several functions actually depraved, making health the standard by which to judge of the nature and extent of the respective derangements. The functions of life are not very many, and the healthy condition of each is, or ought to be, well known. There is no difficulty in scrutinizing each function, so as to ascertain whether it be healthfully performed, that is, with a vigour adequate to its efficient exercise, yet not verging on excess. Yet, in this respect, the prevailing notions are much less correct than they ought to be, and numbers are daily regarded as in perfect health, who, on a very slight examination, would shew evidences of such derangement of function, as only awaited an adequate exciting cause to be aroused into disease of the most intense activity. The habit too much obtains of ascribing the degree of severity of disease to the activity of the exciting cause. Much more truly would it be imputed to the state of constitution to which the exciting cause is
