Paulus Ægineta, like most of his _confrères_, regarded gout and rheumatism as the same disorder, differing only in their location. He subscribed whole heartedly to the prevailing humoral theory, but inclined to think the site of the discharged humours was influenced by weakness or injury of the parts. He noted, too, that mental states, sorrow, anxiety, etc., might act as determining causes. Nor will any historical _résumé_ rest complete without a reference to the numerous works of the Arabian physicians—Avicenna, Rhazes, Serapion, and Haly Abbas—who one or other all maintained gout to be hereditary, rare in women and due to peccant humours, developed in the train of depletions, debaucheries, and the like. INTRODUCTION OF THE WORD “GOUT” In the thirteenth century the Greek terms “podagra,” “chirargra,” etc., were to a large extent abandoned, and following Radulfe’s lead gave way to the use of the generic term “gout,” derived from the Latin “gutta.” Its adoption was doubtless traceable to the prevailing humoral views of the origin of the disorder, as due to some morbid matter exuding by “drops” into the joint cavities. Indeed, according to Johnson, the word “gut” was used as a synonym for “drop” by Scottish physicians even in his day. In any case, the term found little difficulty in installing itself among all nations, taking in French the form “goutte,” in German “gicht,” in Spanish “gota,” etc. Trousseau thought it “an admirable name, because in whatever sense it may have been originally employed by those by whom it was invented, it is not now given to anything else than that to which it is applied.” In contrast therewith, that trenchant critic Pye-Smith complained of the laxity with which the Germans invoked the word “gicht.” He says it is popularly credited with all the pains which are called “rheumatics” in England. “Sometimes ‘gicht’ is nothing but bad corns and is rarely true gout.” Albeit, Pye-Smith did not, as we shall see later, hold even his English _confrères_ in this respect void of offence. From these remote times onwards through the Middle Ages to the present day, an almost continuous series of historical records testify that not only has gout always been with us, but that its clinical characters throughout the ages have remained unaltered, conforming ever to the primitive type. During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries many physicians, both British and continental, ventilated their views as to the nature of gout, all swearing allegiance to the old humoral pathology, notably Sydenham, Boerhaave, Van Swieten, Hoffmann, Cadogan, etc.