give the
reader a fair idea of the general character of Gilbert's "Compendium
Medicine."

A few words may be added with reference to the proper place of the
work in our medical literature.

It is not difficult, of course, to select from the Compendium a charm
or two, a few impossible etymologies and a few silly statements, to
display these with a witty emphasis and to draw therefrom the easy
conclusion that the book is a mass of crass superstition and absurd
nonsense. This, however, is not criticism. It is mere caricature.

To compare the work with the teachings of modern medicine is not only
to expect of the writer a miraculous prescience, but to minimize the
advances of medical science within the last seven hundred years.

Even Freind and Sprengel, admirable historians, though more thoughtful
and judicious in their criticisms, seem for the moment to have
forgotten or overlooked the true character of the Compendium.

Freind says:

"I believe we may even say with justice that he (Gilbert) has written
as well as any of his contemporaries of other nations, and has merely
followed their example in borrowing very largely from the Arabians,"
and Sprengel writes: "Here and there, though only very rarely, the
author offers some remarks of his own, which merit special attention."

Now, what precisely is Gilbert's Compendium designed to be? In the
words of its author it is

"A book of general and special diseases, selected and extracted
from the writings of all authors and the practice of the professors
(_magistrorum_), edited by Gilbert of England and entitled a
Compendium of Medicine."

and a few pages later he adds:

"It is our habit to select the best sayings of the best authorities,
and where any doubt exists, to insert the different opinions, so that
each reader may choose for himself what he prefers to maintain."

The author does not claim for his work any considerable originality,
but presents it as a compendium proper of the teachings of other
writers. Naturally his own part in the book is not obtruded upon our
notice.

Now the desiderata of such a compendium are:

1. That it shall be based upon the best attainable authorities.

2. That these authorities shall be accurately represented.

3. That the compendium shall be reasonably comprehensive.

In neither of these respects is the compendium of Gilbert liable, I
think, to adverse criticism.

The book is, undoubtedly, the work of a famous and stric