Pathological Anatomy may be said to be a modern science. It is indeed only of late years that it has assumed the dignity of an independent science at all.

Although, according to Pliny, dead bodies were examined in Egypt at the time of the Pharaohs, that is to say, many centuries before Galen, with a view to detect the seats of disease; the result of those researches has remained unrevealed to us. Even upon Greek medicine the pathologico-anatomical observations made by its founders and scholars have been without material influence. They were indeed gradually lost sight of in the medical schools, which arose out of the successive systems of philosophy of a later period.

Not until the commencement of the sixteenth century - the period of the regeneration of anatomy - does the epoch begin of an occasional, fragmentary, indeterminate study of pathological anatomy. Still, Eustachius, the rival of Vesalius, must have been deeply impressed with its importance; for, towards the close of his life he expresses his regret that he had not rather bestowed upon pathological anatomy that time and attention which he had devoted to physiological anatomy. The first who dedicated himself in an especial manner to pathological anatomy was Antony Benivieni, who wrote, at Florence, "De abditis morborum causis" (1507). He was followed by Mathieu-Reald Columbus, the protector of Vesalius (1590), Volcher Coiter, a disciple of Fallopius (1573), Salius Diversus (1584), Marcellus Donatus (1588). Johannes Schenkins collected the observations made up to his time (1584). Johannes Wierus (1569), Felix Plater (1614), Fabricius Hil-danus (1606), Tulpius (1672), Vesling (1664), Thomas Bartholin (1654-1675), Stalpaart van der Wiel (1677), Daniel Sennert (1676), Friedrich Ruysch (1691), cultivated pathological anatomy after their own fashion. Their observations, although partially of great interest, often bear the impress of superstition, and are disfigured by the fanciful way in which they are interpreted.

Since the time of Harvey, the discoverer of the circulation, who, in denominating our particular science, medical anatomy, showed how fully he comprehended its import, various physicians have worked out sundry branches of pathology anatomically. Amongst them are Thomas Willis (1677) and J. J. Wepfer (1658-1727). Others, as Fernel (1679), F. Sylvius (1734), Baillou (1735), have, in their compendia of pathology, adopted pathological anatomy for their groundwork. Bonnet was, however, the first who compiled an ample repertory on this subject ("Sepulchretum," 1679); and even this work unites to the imperfections of earlier observations the lack of a standard physiological principle, and of a definite practical tendency. The same applies equally, if not more forcibly, to Blankaard's "Anatomia prac-tica" (1688).

Above both these - above all that had been previously accomplished - stands pre-eminent, Morgagni and his work, "De sedibus et causis morborum" (1767). Notwithstanding its defects, this book remains a model of industry and perseverance, of method and arrangement, of breadth and perspicuity, and, lastly, of originality, for all time.

In the same century, special investigations, not unworthy of record, were made by J. Moritz Hofman, Walter, Albinus, Vater, Levret, W. Hunter, Senac, Meckel, Bohmer, Van Doeweren, Camper, Bleuland, and others.

In a work containing a vast number of facts ("Historia anatomico-medica," 1768), the purpose attained by Morgagni, failed in Lieutaud's hands, through lack of detail, of analysis, of a practical generalization of facts. On the other hand, Sandifort ("Observ. anat. path., 1777) merits, for the richness and solidity of his writings, to be classed along with Morgagni.

The compendia published in 1785, by C. T. Ludwig, and in 1796, by Conradi, and even the greater work of Voigtl (1804), so marked by literary industry and so serviceable withal, have not advanced science, either by aptness of discrimination, by a judicious selection of matter, nor yet by any remarkable progress in the method of anatomical research.

Mathew Baillie's anatomy of morbid structures (translated into German by Soemmering, in 1794) is distinguished by greater depth of research into the fabric of organs, and both by its generalizing tendency and its physiological character. These latter qualities are, however, still more decidedly impressed upon the aphorisms from pathological anatomy published at Vienna, by Velter, in 1805.

The most decided impulse was given to a right conception and application of pathological anatomy by Bichat in his general anatomy. Bichat founded upon the latter an especial physiology, or rather, blended the two. Pathologists, imitating this, endeavored to reconstruct their science upon an anatomical basis.

France was the country in which this attempt was made in the most effectual manner; not that it was exactly the cradle of pathological anatomy, but that it was the land of all others, in which men sought and found in it a solid foundation for medical knowledge. Such men were, amongst others, Bayle, Corvisart, Laennec, Dupuytren, Broussais, Cruveilhier, Rochoux, Lallemand, Riobe, Andral, Louis, Gendrin, Bouillaud, Billard, Rayer. It is true that one of these, namely, Broussais, disseminated an error from which his pupils cannot yet disentangle themselves, an error in which Brunonianism seemed once more to be trying its strength upon novel ground. On the other side, however, Laennec invented and carried out a method which insures to him and to his work the acknowledgment and admiration of future ages.

In England many have, up to our own day, worked in a similar spirit. Amongst these, we may mention the names of Abernethy, Charles Bell, Astley Cooper, Hodgson, Farre, Wardrop, Howship, Baron, Hodgkin, Hope.

In Italy, on the contrary, and in Germany - if we except the impulse so decisively given in the same direction by the ingenious Reil - pathological anatomy has been upon the whole less cultivated, and has exercised less influence upon medicine. Accordingly, Germany and Italy have but few men to place in parallel with those of France; few to add to the names of Scarpa, Malacarne, Paletta - of J. F. Meckel, Otto, and (in industry and method, the essentially German) Lobstein.

It was reserved for Germany, at the present day, to establish a pathological anatomy and a method of working it out, partly independent, partly framed according to the best models of France. Under the auspices of German universality and analysis, this renovated science, emancipated alike from the systems of a bygone age and from a vain eclecticism, has begun to incorporate itself with pathology in a way that promises both durability and brilliant progress, more especially in its natural alliance with German physiology, and under a consistent and rational standard of pathological chemistry.