Celsus mentions the operation of lithotomy, but this is not the first time of the subject occurring. We delayed, however, noticing it till we could bring the whole together. It appears from Hippocrates, that the extraction of the stone was practised in his time, but confined to particular operators, and he forbids its being attempted except by them. Of their methods or success we have no particular information; and we have only an obscure ray from the Alexandrian school, of a surgeon who attempted to break the stone in the bladder when it was too large to be extracted entire. In Celsus the operation described is that with the lesser apparatus.

One hundred and fifty years elapsed before any other author worthy of particular attention offers himself to our notice, and we then meet with the famous Claudius Galenus of Pergamus, whose undisputed sway over all the realms of medicine continued for more than twelve hundred years. Galen was a laborious collector, and a diligent dissector: his anatomical knowledge was extensive, and in his work are preserved all that former observers knew. In surgery he possesses little originality, and chiefly comments on the writings of Hippocrates. From this period, the history of anatomy presents for ages a dreary, unproductive desert. Little was added by the Galenists, who feared to step beyond their master; and the Arabians, who preserved the spark of science when it was nearly extinguished in the West, thought themselves polluted by touching a dead body. Surgery, however, was cultivated with care. It has been in all ages, in every revolution of society and science, a necessary acquisition.

Nearly two hundred years after Galen, Oribasius flourished, who explained and illustrated very satisfactorily many parts of the Pergamenian's doctrine. His chirurgical chapters are full and instructive, but he possesses little originality. He has been stigmatised as a compiler, and in reality is little more. AEtius of Amida, followed him, probably about the distance of one hundred years, and seems to be a superior author in many respects, though it is not easy to appreciate his chirurgical merit from the unconnected form of his observations. His method of puncturing the legs in anasarca, and of relieving inveterate asthma by numerous cauteries, merits particular attention. He was acquainted with the use of setons; and the wounds inflicted by the bites of mad animals should, in his opinion, be kept open sixty days. In AEtius are some fragments of Leonidas, a surgeon of the school of Alexandria. The only novelty we perceive in these, is the treatment of the Guinea worm, the dracunculis.

Paulus of AEgina, whom Dr. Friend places in the seventh century, has been styled the ape of Galen, as his works are supposed to be servilely copied from that author. We do not indeed perceive so many originalities in Paulus as some of his admirers seem to have discovered; but he is by no means a compiler only. He was apparently a judicious practitioner; and in his works the whole of the ancient surgery is detailed more copiously and accurately than in those of any other author. His account of aneurisms is new. He describes (almost) the lateral incision in lithotomy, and apparently first mentions the fracture of the patella. If not the first author who recommends bronchotomy, he is certainly the first who distinguishes with precision the circumstances in which it is successful.

The chief Arabian surgeons were Rhazes, Avicenna, Avenzoar, and Albucasis. It would fill but a few lines were we to add all the improvements of the three former. The description of an abscess in the mediastinum by Avenzoar deserves indeed to be mentioned, with his proposal of trepanning the sternum, which somemodern authors have practised with success; but the complaint is by no means so accurately distinguished as to enable us often to follow the example. Albucasis has given us a complete system of surgery copied professedly from Hippocrates and Galen, sometimes apparently from Paulus of AEgina; but many observations and improvements of his own are added. We may mention one, as it has been lately the subject of some dispute, that is, tying the artery to stop haemorrhages; an improvement usually attributed to Ambrose Parey.

At the restoration of learning, authors of credit were soon numerous, and surgery improved rapidly. Anatomy fur a time lingered in its former imperfect state. When a surgeon appears only in a century, he becomes a distinguished figure on the canvas: the crowd that now hastily follow each other must be considered more cursorily. Indeed, the greater number who first distinguished this era were merely copyists of Albucasis; nor have Saliceto orlanfranc sufficient originality to induce us to rest on them for a moment. Guido de Cauliaco was the first who had any pretensions to originality; though these rather consist in judicious remarks on his predecessors, than any improvement peculiarly his own. In cataracts he depressed the lens.

At this time surgery in England was at a low ebb. Gilbert was very imperfectly instructed in his art; John of Gaddesden was a quack; and of John Arderne's works we cannot judge, as they have not been printed, if we except the Treatise on the Fistula in Ano, translated by Read. He is spoken of, however, with respect by Friend.

The appearance of the venereal disease in the sixteenth century turned the attention of surgeons to one object, though they were not wholly inattentive to the science in general. Vigo's Surgery is a work of considerable merit; and he explains, particularly, the mode of tying the arteries when cut. Some authors think him the first surgeon who used mercury in the venereal disease, the credit of which is usually given to Carpi, who undoubtedly first employed mercurial frictions. Carpi's only other chirurgical work was on the fracture of the skull. Marianus Sanctus, who wrote on a particular mode of cutting for the stone, which he attributes to John de Romanis, was an author of this period. Intonius Ferrus, and B. Maggius of Bononia, published on gun shot wounds; Vidus Vidius and J. Andreas on surgery in general; and Taliacotius on supplemental noses, about this period.