THE INDIAN MEDICAL GAZETTE.
130
NOMENCLATURE OF DISEASES. That the
gratitude
of
Royal College
not
of London deserves the
Physicians
of the Profession and of the world for
Nomenclature of Diseases there
perhaps
be
in medicine.
going
countries to compare also to banish certain to arise when
a
together sources
publishing
doubt.
no
was a
foundation for medical
a
as a
the
It would
distinct
epoch
iu various
men
their of
experiences. It went far fallacy that are always apt;
nomenclature is used.
complex
small extent also it acted
be
far to say that it
too
It gave
can
have
record of
our
To
certain
a
progress in medi-
cine and surgery. If, during the last century, at stated intervals, a series of works of this kind had been published, a perus?l
of them would afford and
grandfathers
there is ns now
of
a
great deal in
bears
on
small
110
insight
into how
reasoned about disease. a
its front
name?many a
whole
a
Say
word in
history
of
our
fathers
what you will, use
the
amongst
pathology
predecessors. It appears that though only some seven or eight years have elapsed since the Nomenclature of Diseases was published, yet the copies of the work are nearly all exhausted, and the alternative lay with the College of Physicians of either reprinting the old one or publishing a new edition. The College has very wisely, we think, decided on the latter, and has nominated a Committee for the purpose of preparing it. It may not be uninteresting to recall the names of those who sat on the Committee that drew up the first edition. Dr. Mayo, Sir James Alderson, Drs. Hawkins, Jeaffreson, Pitman, Bence Jones, Risdon Bennett, Munk, Babington, Addison, Nairne, Barker, Budd, Sir William Gull, Drs. Baly, Barclay, Sibson, Parkes, Mr. Stanley, Dr. Druitt, Sir John Liddell, Sir Galbraith Logan, Sir Ranald Martin, Dr. Farr, Mr. Simon, Mr. Holmes, Sir Thomas Watson, Mr. Luke, Dr. Bryson, Dr. Balfour, Dr. Stark, Dr. Burke, Dr. Ma>kay, Mr. Moore, Drs. C. J. B. Williams, Barlow, Arthur Farre, Black, F. Weber, Charles West, Chambers, Monro, George Johnson, Qtiain, Kirkes, Wilkes, Bristowe, Henry Thompson, Herman Weber, Gueneau de Mussy, McWilliam, Mr. Gaskill, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Tomes, Mr. Partridge, Drs. Birkett, Owen Rees, Handfield Jones, Basliam, Herbert Uavies, Guy, Peacock, Wegg. This is indeed a long list, but when we remember that the book was not completed till twelve years after its commencement, a great deal of the delay being due to the reconstitution of the College compelled by the Medical Act of 1858, it is no -ironder. On looking over these names, it must be a matter of regret that if the old Committee were summoned again, how many a chair then ably filled would now be vacant through death. The College, however, has selected a sufficiently small our
.
Committee this time; the
names
are:?The President Dr.
Peacock, Drs. Wilks, Bristowe, RadclifFe, Barclay, Bucknill and Barnes, the President of the Royal College of Surgeons or his
representative,
Sir
Joseph Fuyrer,
the Directors-General of the
Medical Department of the Army and Navy the
or
their represent-
of Scotland and Irelaud
Registrars-General atives, Dr. Farr, their representatives, Messrs. Simon, Holmes, and Hutchinson and Drs. Balfour, Fagge, Payne, and Galabin. Now it must, be or
thein. to
do
"
Nomencla-
College of Physicians Diseases," and the copyright so to speak belongs to Iu other words, it is their own and they have the right what they like with it. And yet we think they would
conceded that the ture
created the
of
[May 1,
been wise to have
instead of
naming
up this
given
members and then have asked tiie a
right,
and
simply,
Committee, hare nominated four
a
of
College
1877.
Surgeons
or
to
five
name
similar number, who with the various official members should The Committee nominated
have constituted the Committee. is
very fair one, but it lacks the
a
if it had emanated
from
jointly
it would have had
authority
The
Colleges.
tho two
sur-
gical portion of the work will certainly not be the least, important, and it would have been much better for it to come forth stamped with the full authority of the College of Surgeons, than merely from some surgical nominees of the College of Physicians. We think also the board is not sufficiently comprehensive in character. Ophthalmologists, aurists, dentists, dermatologists should have been represented. The College of Physicians would, no doubt, meet this objection by saying:? ''Oil!
have selected
we
of
some
Fellows who
youngest
our
well known to be universal
what
can be the geniuses, objectionable crowd of specialists?" But we think a work that is so representative of the British Medical Profession should have every advantage that can be obtained by the special knowledge of every section of the profession. are
so
of the
use
Without this the work is
not truly representative of the time live, nor will it possess the authority it otherwise would have, the juvenile geniuses of the College of Physicians notwithstanding. That the first edition suffered through not being thoroughly representative in it s board of authors, there Under the defects of sight in that edition can be no doubt. wo read:?Short sight; long sight; colour blindness ; hemeralopia; nyctalopia; astigmatism. Long sight is represented in the French column by pretbytie, and in the Latin by visus longior, so the chances are that the College meant Presbyopia. But what about Ilypermetropia ? We are left on the horns of dilemma, either the Committee did not know of tho existence of this condition, or did not think it of sufficient
in which
we
importance
to mention it.
which is the more
Talking
about synonyms,
its Latin.
It is too
the Latin
medical
of
science
we
Wc think
our
hope
the
readers will agree,
probable. painfully classic,
may
we
use
but
terms
surely
College
will revise
No doubt Celsus is
classical. in
the
that Celsus sentence
present
never
from
Btate
heard
of.
Erasmus
very apposite Macaulay quotes against those who exclude useful terms from their vocabulary, simply because they are not Ciceronian. "Posthac non licebit episcopos appellare patres reverendos, nee in calce literarum scribere annum a Christo nato, quod id nusquam faciat Cicero. Quid autem ineptius quam toto seculo novato, religione, imperiis, magistratibus, locorum vocabulis, cedificiia, cultu, moribus, non aliter audere loqui quam locutus est Cicero. Si reviviseeret ipse Cicero, nderet hoc Ciceronianorum The College is right no doubt in genus. excluding barbarous, ill-formed, and unnecessarily coined words;" but thej perhaps have gone a little too far and, in excluding some words used in modern Latin, have had now and then to go a very long way round to express their meaning. a
(
Sir Joseph Favrer, misgivings.
or
glad to they need
against
are
say, be
so
have
110
The work would be increased in value if here and there definition
exactly the sense adjoined ought to be used.
to which it is
term terms term
added,
were
to
tiling is bad enough, but
one
express
in two different
show
to
senses
is
likely
to
lead to
to
a
in which the To use
use
two
the same
infinitely
greater
confusion. There will have, we are sorry to see, to be added several new members to the eleven hundred and forty-six "ills that flesh is heir to."
But
which
rejret will be lessened when we consider
our
really new conditions, but only those previously had either not been recognized, had been included in a more or
that these addenda
though recognized, or if
are
in
not
existence
less similar disease. We sincerely hope that our old friend Beri-Beri decently interred and not again occupy a place in the clature.
known
well
It is now
to be
merely
a
will be Nomenstate
after
of
commonly general dropsy, poisoning; that it occurs with special frequency in certain districts is of course to be expected ; but if a condition like this deserves a snecial name, why not have one for every sequela of every disease, and bring out the Nomenclature in ten anaemia and
so
seen
severe
malarial
?volumes ?
Each
of Medicine" will,
new
"
edition of Aitken's
of course, still contain
Science and Practice
long article 011 it with remedy of the Treak Farook ; but the editor of that work, for he csn scarcely be called its author?unless a man is an author who copies down every tiling lie reads with as much power of selection, comprehension, and condensation, as a
its ?wonderful
there is in
a
manifold letter-writer, and then
we
take it that the
editor of the London Post Office
Directory is even a greater author than Dr. Aitken, a position we should not greatly care to dispute?we believe would hardly be quoted as an authority Excluded from
against the Nomenclature. this disease would soon die We success
far,
congratulate
the Nomenclature
natural death.
College of Physicians heartily,
on
which has attended their efforts of nomenclature
and though
cisms
the
a
we
feel
we
have
we owe no
penned
these
small debt of
suggestions
gratitude
to
their
the labours
and
who
the first lines of
so
ably
assisted them, in
universal system of medicine.
so
and criti-
of the Fellows of that learned
Society laying down
the
colleagues, an
13^
130
NOMENCLATURE OF DISEASES. That the
gratitude
of
Royal College
not
of London deserves the
Physicians
of the Profession and of the world for
Nomenclature of Diseases there
perhaps
be
in medicine.
going
countries to compare also to banish certain to arise when
a
together sources
publishing
doubt.
no
was a
foundation for medical
a
as a
the
It would
distinct
epoch
iu various
men
their of
experiences. It went far fallacy that are always apt;
nomenclature is used.
complex
small extent also it acted
be
far to say that it
too
It gave
can
have
record of
our
To
certain
a
progress in medi-
cine and surgery. If, during the last century, at stated intervals, a series of works of this kind had been published, a perus?l
of them would afford and
grandfathers
there is ns now
of
a
great deal in
bears
on
small
110
insight
into how
reasoned about disease. a
its front
name?many a
whole
a
Say
word in
history
of
our
fathers
what you will, use
the
amongst
pathology
predecessors. It appears that though only some seven or eight years have elapsed since the Nomenclature of Diseases was published, yet the copies of the work are nearly all exhausted, and the alternative lay with the College of Physicians of either reprinting the old one or publishing a new edition. The College has very wisely, we think, decided on the latter, and has nominated a Committee for the purpose of preparing it. It may not be uninteresting to recall the names of those who sat on the Committee that drew up the first edition. Dr. Mayo, Sir James Alderson, Drs. Hawkins, Jeaffreson, Pitman, Bence Jones, Risdon Bennett, Munk, Babington, Addison, Nairne, Barker, Budd, Sir William Gull, Drs. Baly, Barclay, Sibson, Parkes, Mr. Stanley, Dr. Druitt, Sir John Liddell, Sir Galbraith Logan, Sir Ranald Martin, Dr. Farr, Mr. Simon, Mr. Holmes, Sir Thomas Watson, Mr. Luke, Dr. Bryson, Dr. Balfour, Dr. Stark, Dr. Burke, Dr. Ma>kay, Mr. Moore, Drs. C. J. B. Williams, Barlow, Arthur Farre, Black, F. Weber, Charles West, Chambers, Monro, George Johnson, Qtiain, Kirkes, Wilkes, Bristowe, Henry Thompson, Herman Weber, Gueneau de Mussy, McWilliam, Mr. Gaskill, Mr. Cartwright, Mr. Tomes, Mr. Partridge, Drs. Birkett, Owen Rees, Handfield Jones, Basliam, Herbert Uavies, Guy, Peacock, Wegg. This is indeed a long list, but when we remember that the book was not completed till twelve years after its commencement, a great deal of the delay being due to the reconstitution of the College compelled by the Medical Act of 1858, it is no -ironder. On looking over these names, it must be a matter of regret that if the old Committee were summoned again, how many a chair then ably filled would now be vacant through death. The College, however, has selected a sufficiently small our
.
Committee this time; the
names
are:?The President Dr.
Peacock, Drs. Wilks, Bristowe, RadclifFe, Barclay, Bucknill and Barnes, the President of the Royal College of Surgeons or his
representative,
Sir
Joseph Fuyrer,
the Directors-General of the
Medical Department of the Army and Navy the
or
their represent-
of Scotland and Irelaud
Registrars-General atives, Dr. Farr, their representatives, Messrs. Simon, Holmes, and Hutchinson and Drs. Balfour, Fagge, Payne, and Galabin. Now it must, be or
thein. to
do
"
Nomencla-
College of Physicians Diseases," and the copyright so to speak belongs to Iu other words, it is their own and they have the right what they like with it. And yet we think they would
conceded that the ture
created the
of
[May 1,
been wise to have
instead of
naming
up this
given
members and then have asked tiie a
right,
and
simply,
Committee, hare nominated four
a
of
College
1877.
Surgeons
or
to
five
name
similar number, who with the various official members should The Committee nominated
have constituted the Committee. is
very fair one, but it lacks the
a
if it had emanated
from
jointly
it would have had
authority
The
Colleges.
tho two
sur-
gical portion of the work will certainly not be the least, important, and it would have been much better for it to come forth stamped with the full authority of the College of Surgeons, than merely from some surgical nominees of the College of Physicians. We think also the board is not sufficiently comprehensive in character. Ophthalmologists, aurists, dentists, dermatologists should have been represented. The College of Physicians would, no doubt, meet this objection by saying:? ''Oil!
have selected
we
of
some
Fellows who
youngest
our
well known to be universal
what
can be the geniuses, objectionable crowd of specialists?" But we think a work that is so representative of the British Medical Profession should have every advantage that can be obtained by the special knowledge of every section of the profession. are
so
of the
use
Without this the work is
not truly representative of the time live, nor will it possess the authority it otherwise would have, the juvenile geniuses of the College of Physicians notwithstanding. That the first edition suffered through not being thoroughly representative in it s board of authors, there Under the defects of sight in that edition can be no doubt. wo read:?Short sight; long sight; colour blindness ; hemeralopia; nyctalopia; astigmatism. Long sight is represented in the French column by pretbytie, and in the Latin by visus longior, so the chances are that the College meant Presbyopia. But what about Ilypermetropia ? We are left on the horns of dilemma, either the Committee did not know of tho existence of this condition, or did not think it of sufficient
in which
we
importance
to mention it.
which is the more
Talking
about synonyms,
its Latin.
It is too
the Latin
medical
of
science
we
Wc think
our
hope
the
readers will agree,
probable. painfully classic,
may
we
use
but
terms
surely
College
will revise
No doubt Celsus is
classical. in
the
that Celsus sentence
present
never
from
Btate
heard
of.
Erasmus
very apposite Macaulay quotes against those who exclude useful terms from their vocabulary, simply because they are not Ciceronian. "Posthac non licebit episcopos appellare patres reverendos, nee in calce literarum scribere annum a Christo nato, quod id nusquam faciat Cicero. Quid autem ineptius quam toto seculo novato, religione, imperiis, magistratibus, locorum vocabulis, cedificiia, cultu, moribus, non aliter audere loqui quam locutus est Cicero. Si reviviseeret ipse Cicero, nderet hoc Ciceronianorum The College is right no doubt in genus. excluding barbarous, ill-formed, and unnecessarily coined words;" but thej perhaps have gone a little too far and, in excluding some words used in modern Latin, have had now and then to go a very long way round to express their meaning. a
(
Sir Joseph Favrer, misgivings.
or
glad to they need
against
are
say, be
so
have
110
The work would be increased in value if here and there definition
exactly the sense adjoined ought to be used.
to which it is
term terms term
added,
were
to
tiling is bad enough, but
one
express
in two different
show
to
senses
is
likely
to
lead to
to
a
in which the To use
use
two
the same
infinitely
greater
confusion. There will have, we are sorry to see, to be added several new members to the eleven hundred and forty-six "ills that flesh is heir to."
But
which
rejret will be lessened when we consider
our
really new conditions, but only those previously had either not been recognized, had been included in a more or
that these addenda
though recognized, or if
are
in
not
existence
less similar disease. We sincerely hope that our old friend Beri-Beri decently interred and not again occupy a place in the clature.
known
well
It is now
to be
merely
a
will be Nomenstate
after
of
commonly general dropsy, poisoning; that it occurs with special frequency in certain districts is of course to be expected ; but if a condition like this deserves a snecial name, why not have one for every sequela of every disease, and bring out the Nomenclature in ten anaemia and
so
seen
severe
malarial
?volumes ?
Each
of Medicine" will,
new
"
edition of Aitken's
of course, still contain
Science and Practice
long article 011 it with remedy of the Treak Farook ; but the editor of that work, for he csn scarcely be called its author?unless a man is an author who copies down every tiling lie reads with as much power of selection, comprehension, and condensation, as a
its ?wonderful
there is in
a
manifold letter-writer, and then
we
take it that the
editor of the London Post Office
Directory is even a greater author than Dr. Aitken, a position we should not greatly care to dispute?we believe would hardly be quoted as an authority Excluded from
against the Nomenclature. this disease would soon die We success
far,
congratulate
the Nomenclature
natural death.
College of Physicians heartily,
on
which has attended their efforts of nomenclature
and though
cisms
the
a
we
feel
we
have
we owe no
penned
these
small debt of
suggestions
gratitude
to
their
the labours
and
who
the first lines of
so
ably
assisted them, in
universal system of medicine.
so
and criti-
of the Fellows of that learned
Society laying down
the
colleagues, an
13^
