First, as to the manner of man, while one would not decry the hints obtainable from _physiognomical_ peculiarities, it is often hard, if not impossible, to fit the subject to the so-called “gouty diathesis.” They are not all of the John Bull type; not a few are spare in build. Hence the danger of too ready inference from so-called “gouty” traits, to be regarded rather as ancillary to, but not substitutes for, more exact criteria. Now, as to heritage, for, despite the fallacies that surround inquiries into family predispositions, they often furnish valuable hints as to the metabolic trend of the stock. True, ancestral stories often prove indefinite, but fortunately less so in the “gouty” than in those of “rheumatic” tendency. For, as Sir Dyce Duckworth points out, even the laity are quick to recognise what they term “chalky” gout, and so “if a history be given of ancestors or relatives thus affected, there need be no hesitation in pronouncing for true gout amongst them, and for the probably gouty nature of such arthritic ailments as may be complained of by the patients under examination.” Turning to the individual himself—for the subjects of regular gout are rarely women—what is his age? If he is over thirty-five and has never previously had an arthritic disorder, it is much more likely to be _gout_ than rheumatism, this only as a broad generalisation. What occupation does he follow? What are his habits? Is he of the “idle rich” who “fare sumptuously every day”? Is he a plumber, a painter, or a butler, coachman, or club waiter, these last being men who, as Sir Thomas Watson observes, “often live more luxuriously and more idly a great deal than their masters”? In short, we must search for any evidence of overeating, overdrinking, and indolence. For of this triad of vices is gout too oft begotten. As to illnesses, his past may tell of classic outbreaks, one or more in the great toe, and if to this be added a visible _tophus_, we stand face to face with a “gouty diathesis.” More eloquent this than a “cloud of witnesses” as to previous attacks of migraine, asthma, eczema, etc. All these and more may emerge during the subject’s recital, and by all means let them be ascertained. But forget not that they often arise in the _non_-gouty. Above all, though, miss not the significance of heightened blood pressure, a cardiac lesion of degenerative type, sugar or albumen in the urine. For these are of the things that will out, but let it not be to our discomfiture! Even presuming that all facts and observations up to now point to a “gouty” origin of the arthritis, the end is not yet. What has evoked the arthritis? We seek a cause. For to call an arthritis “gouty” is but to restate the problem. How clear the need then for a meticulously careful investigation, in the hope of achieving not a merely nosological, but an _etiological_, diagnosis.