on these subjects is purely hypothetical, and hence unworthy of consideration in choosing treatment. For them objective symptoms--or, as we would say, signs--constituted the natural history of disease, they thus believing that their remedies could only be suggested by experience, since nothing else could reveal itself to them. They therefore took the name of _Empirics_. Finally a fourth class of physicians arose who would not adopt any one of these systems exclusively, but chose from each what seemed to them most reasonable and satisfactory. They called themselves _Eclectics_, wishing thereby to imply that they made rational choice of what seemed best. The idea conveyed in the term "eclecticism" has been fairly criticised for this reason: eclecticism is in reality neither{015} a system nor a theory; it is individual pretension elevated to the dignity of dogma. The true eclectic recognizes no other rule than his particular taste, reason, or fancy, and two or more eclectics have little or nothing in common. If that were true two thousand years ago, it is not much less so to-day. The eclectic carefully avoids the discussion of principles, and has neither taste nor capacity for abstract reasoning, although he may be a good practitioner; not that he has no ideas, but that his ideas form no working system. With him medical tact--i.e., cultivated instinct--replaces principle. The eclectic of our day, however, is only an empiric in disguise,--that is, a man whose opinions are based on comparison of observed facts, but whose theoretical ideas do not go beyond phenomena. In older days philosophy embraced the whole of human knowledge, and the philosopher was not permitted to be unacquainted with any of its branches. Now physics, metaphysics, natural history, etc., are arranged into separate sciences, and the sum-total of knowledge is too great to be compassed by any one man.