He did not limit himself to dissection of his own cases, but sought autopsies in the cases of others. He examined the bodies of those who had been hung, always thinking to find in them something of interest. In this regard he was followed by one already mentioned,--namely, Eustachius. After these two the men who most cultivated pathology and anatomy in the sixteenth century were Rembert Dodoens and Marcellus Donatus. The former was born in 1517, in Mecheln, traveled extensively, was physician to Maximilian II and the Emperor Rudolph, and died in 1585. The latter lived and worked in the latter half of the sixteenth century, the dates of his birth and death being somewhat uncertain. The next man whom we must mention is one who did a great deal for internal medicine, pathology, and anatomy. Jean Fernel, who has been surnamed "the modern Galen," was born in Clermont in 1497. Even as a boy he showed great aptitude, and very early made himself a reputation in philosophy, law, and mathematics. In 1530 he was received as doctor, with the unanimous applause of the entire faculty of Paris. He seems to have been stimulated by this only to more extended study; in fact, so hard did he work at his studies that his friends became seriously alarmed for his health, and remonstrated with him; they received for reply: "_Destiny reserves{116} for us repose enough_." He became physician to King Henry II, of France, and in the midst of a very extensive practice undertook to collect all the medical knowledge scattered in the Greek, Arabic, and Latin works, in order to form from it a body of doctrines. His work was written with a purity and elegance of Latin that reminds one of Cicero. Throughout its pages he was philosophic, and sought to unite the apparently irreconcilable doctrines of Plato and Aristotle. [Illustration: 0137] He divided medical science into three great sections,--physiology, pathology, and therapeutics. In his explanations of disease he was too often fanciful, following the speculations mainly of Galen, and making free use of the hypotheses of humors, temperaments, vital spirits, etc.; but the following statement of his would do credit to a trained pathologist of to-day: "As for myself, I shall never believe I have profound knowledge of any affection if I do not know positively, just as if I could see it with my eyes, in what part of the human body is the disease, its primitive seat, what suspicion of organic lesions constitute it, whence it proceeded, if it exists idiopathically or by sympathy, or if it be kept up by some exterior cause. He who pretends to be a rational physician must sound each of these subjects, and discern them by certain signs." The problem which he thus set himself he certainly, for his own part, considered as solved, although it was not long before his solutions were set aside and the original uncertainty reappeared.