(4) His keen appreciation of the unity of the organism, and of the inter-dependence of its parts; his realisation that the vital phenomena (physiological and pathological) in a living organism can only be understood when considered in relation to the _environment_ of that organism or part. This is the foundation for the war that Galen waged _à outrance_ on the Methodists, to whom diseases were things without relation to anything. This dispute is, unfortunately, not touched upon in the present volume. What Galen combated was the tendency, familiar enough in our own day, to reduce medicine to the science of finding a label for each patient, and then treating not the patient, but the label. (This tendency, we may remark in parenthesis, is one which is obviously well suited for the _standardising_ purposes of a State medical service, and is therefore one which all who have the weal of the profession at heart must most jealously watch in the difficult days that lie ahead.) (5) His realisation of the inappropriateness and inadequacy of physical formulae in explaining physiological activities. Galen's disputes with Asclepiades over [Greek: ta prôta ekeina sômata ta apathê], over the [Greek: anarma stoicheia kai lêrôdeis onkoi], is but another aspect of his quarrel with the Methodists regarding their pathological "units," whose primary characteristic was just this same [Greek: apatheia] (impassiveness to environment, "unimpressionability"). We have of course our Physiatric or Iatromechanical school at the present day, to whom such processes as absorption from the alimentary canal, the respiratory interchange of gases, and the action of the renal epithelium are susceptible of a purely physical explanation.[4] (6) His quarrel with the Anatomists, which was in essence the same as that with the Atomists, and which arose from his clear realisation that that primary and indispensable desideratum, a view of the whole, could never be obtained by a mere summation of partial views; hence, also, his sense of the dangers which would beset the medical art if it were allowed to fall into the hands of a mere crowd of competing specialists without any organising head to guide them. [1] _On the Affections of the Mind_, p. 41 (Kühn's ed.). [2] "Averrhoës who made the great Commentary" (Dante). It was Averrhoës (Ebn Roshd) who, in the 12th century, introduced Aristotle to the Mohammedan world, and the "Commentary" referred to was on Aristotle.