would it be possible for him to acquire the necessary familiarity with disease; but, almost from the very beginning, he seems to have fully realized that he was destined to devote his time and his energies to a very different kind of professional work,--work which was urgently needed, which promised to be of very great value to medical science, and which probably no other physician then living was competent to do effectively. Furthermore, he was himself profoundly conscious that the work in question constituted the main object of his life. His own words (see his statement with reference to Archigenes, on page 174) show this plainly, and the huge mass of medical treatises which he wrote reveal in the most unmistakable manner with what untiring persistency he pursued the path which he believed it was his duty to follow. It being assumed, then, that such were the motives which actuated Galen, was it a mistake on his part to conclude that duty did not require him to remain in Rome? The question is a difficult one to answer, and I do not feel called upon to decide it. We do not, however, brand a general in the army a coward because he endeavors to protect himself as much as possible from danger during a battle, that he may be able, to the very end, to direct the soldiers under his command. Similarly, was not Galen justified in avoiding every risk which was likely to imperil the performance of duties which were of far greater value to medicine and to humanity at large than that of acting as a mere soldier in the ranks of medical men? It seems a great pity that one of the most inspiring figures in the history of medicine should be represented to posterity with such a blemish upon his character, and I have therefore ventured to suggest a possible defense of Galen’s action.