of Boerhaave, the school of Leyden rapidly declined, while those of Edinburgh and Vienna became rivals for the first place. It is thus seen that after an interruption of more than two thousand years clinical teaching was revived and became more brilliant than ever before. I now propose to recount the methods and deeds of some of those concerned in the development of systems, so called, and make mention of the most prominent medical men in national and historical order. This will not prevent going back to philosophical conclusions or reflections upon the philosophy of the history of medicine, when it may seem wise so to digress. First, of the system of J. B. Van Helmont, which in its day was most highly regarded, and which seems to have been, in some measure, a rearrangement of the views of Paracelsus into a mystic and pietistic system based upon mechanical principles. Van Helmont was born in Brussels in 1578, and was so precocious that he entered the University of Louvain at an age which would have enabled him, had he so desired, to obtain the degree of Magister when only seventeen years old, he deemed the degree frivolous. He had studied mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, and astrology. Going now to the Jesuits, who at that time, even, taught music, he soon became dissatisfied, and turned to the study of stoical philosophy. Believing that the{169} Capuchins (who were mere lascivious gluttons, and considered even washing unchristian) were the true stoics, he sought to join this order, but ere long abandoned them and resumed his studies in law, botany, and medicine. For the latter Van Helmont had at first little respect, since his studies in this line did not enable him to rid himself of the itch. He soon again lapsed to the monastics, and came to the conclusion that wisdom, like the grace of God, was obtainable only by fasting, supplication, and poverty; accordingly he practiced medicine among the poor as a labor of love (having received his degree of Doctor in 1599). During his travels he became familiar with the writings of Paracelsus, which he studied zealously. Finally he settled down in Vilvorde, where he practiced medicine and chemistry until his death (in 164-4). Like most "systems," that of Van Helmont is valued only as an expression of the spirit of the age, since it embodied largely the pantheism of Paracelsus, merely cloaked with a more religious or monkish dress. He held that the general cause of disease was the fall of man; though there also figured a subsidiary cause, which he denominated Archeus,--a faculty of appetite seated in the spleen or in the stomach; thus dropsy was a hindrance of renal excretion by the enraged Archeus. Demons, witches, and ghosts were included in Van Helmont's system as causes of disease. Indeed, the man seems to have been a second Paracelsus, lacking only in the dishonesty and bombast of the latter. He had no followers of any prominence, and the "system" soon lapsed into obscurity.