ly disregarded in an effort to build up a purely artificial classification of diseases and their treatment. Rush attacked the prevalent theories of medicine at once. He proclaimed the importance of the principles upon which a correct knowledge of the practice of medicine could only be based. "In his public instructions, the name of the disease is comparatively nothing, but its nature everything. His system rejects the nosological arrangement of diseases, and places all their numerous forms in morbid excitment, induced by irritants, acting upon previous debility. It rejects, likewise, all prescriptions for the names of diseases, and by directing their application wholly to the forming and fluctuating state of diseases, and of the system, derives from a few active medicines all the advantages which have been in vain expected from the numerous articles which compose European treatises upon the materia medica. This simple arrangement was further simplified by considering every morbid state of the system to be of such as neither required repletion or stimulation."
The author of the above quotation then goes on to state in pathetic terms what an advantage this has given the students who have studied under Benjamin Rush over those who, like himself, bad been obliged to learn by the old methods.
One marked peculiarity in Rush was his readiness to acknowledge an error and retract opinions proven erroneous by subsequent researches or events. One of his active and enquiring mind, continually employed in original researches and constantly by his writings and teaching endeavoring to advance medical science, was bound to err sometimes, and it redounds to his credit that when such mistakes were seen, he promptly acknowledged the fault.
His therapeutic standbys were the lancet and calomel. The latter he called Sampson, and his enemies in derision were wont to say "because it has slain its thousands." It was in the yellow fever of 1793 that Rush had the efficacy of these two therapeutic agents especially impressed upon him and the lesson he then learned as to their value, he never allowed himself to disregard. He states that he and other physicians of Philadelphia had been completely nonplussed in their efforts to find a method of treatment which seemed in any way to control the course of the disease. In this extremity he found among some papers in his library a manuscript which had been prescribed to him by Dr. Franklin years previously. It was an account of the yellow fever of 1741 in the Province of Virginia, written by a Dr. Mitchell. In it the latter put forth the strongest claims of the value of free purgation in the treatment of yellow fever, even where the disease was accompanied by an extreme degree of debility, and a very feeble pulse. Rush, upon reading Mitchell's manuscript, reasoned that the feeble pulse seen in so many cases was the result of debility from "an oppressed state of the system." He proceeded to immediately put his ideas into effect by administering enormous doses of calomel and jalap to all his patients. In addition to this he practised copious venesection, put the patient upon a low diet and used applications of cold water to the surface of the body, combined with the drinking of large quantities of water. He also advised that the temperature of the sickroom be low.
Rush hastened to impart his ideas to his fellow practitioners, and, indeed, to the public at large. The results achieved by his methods were certainly most gratifying. An oft-quoted statement is contained in his notebook for September 10. "Thank God! out of one hundred patients whom I have visited or prescribed for this day, I have lost none." He was overwhelmed with patients, and at length was himself taken ill and underwent a course of his own treatment. After his recovery he resumed his labors and remained at them until the epidemic was ended.
He shared the common fate of the famous in stirring up detractors. By his proclaiming his belief that the yellow fever was the result of filth in the streets of their city and not an importation, he caused the greatest anger among the citizens of Philadelphia. His most infamous assailant was William Cobbett, in his Peter Porcupine's Gazette. Rush sued him for defamation of character, and, having won his suit, gave the $5,000 which the law awarded him to the poor. Another famous quarrel in which Rush was involved occurred in the yellow-fever epidemic of 1797. Rush again published and adhered to his views on the efficacy of bleeding and purgation and also to the claim that the disease arose from the filthy condition of certain parts of the city. The United States Gazette published a very severe article on Rush, which he supposed had been written by a Dr. Ross. John Rush, son of Benjamin, wrote a bitter reply to Dr. Ross, and after some further interchange of literary hostilities proceeded to cane him. Dr. Ross challenged Dr. Benjamin Rush to a duel, as he declared him responsible for his son's actions. Rush refused the chal-
