and others. Smollett was only just in time to consult the
reigning oracle, for the "illustrious" Dr. Fizes died in the following
year. He gives us a very unfavourable picture of this "great lanthorn
of medicine," who, notwithstanding his prodigious age, his stoop, and
his wealth, could still scramble up two pairs for a fee of six livres.
More than is the case with most medical patients, however, should we
suspect Smollett of being unduly captious. The point as to how far his
sketch of the French doctor and his diagnosis was a true one, and how
far a mere caricature, due to ill health and prejudice, has always
piqued my curiosity. But how to resolve a question involving so many
problems not of ordinary therapeutic but of historical medicine! In
this difficulty I bethought me most fortunately of consulting an
authority probably without a rival in this special branch of medical
history, Dr. Norman Moore, who with his accustomed generosity has given
me the following most instructive diagnosis of the whole situation.

"I have read Smollett's account of his illness as it appears in several
passages in his travels and in the statement which he drew up for
Professor 'F.' at Montpellier.

"Smollett speaks of his pulmonic disorder, his 'asthmatical disorder,'
and uses other expressions which show that his lungs were affected. In
his statement he mentions that he has cough, shortness of breath,
wasting, a purulent expectoration, loss of appetite at times, loss of
strength, fever, a rapid pulse, intervals of slight improvement and
subsequent exacerbations.

"This shortness of breath, he says, has steadily increased. This group
of symptoms makes it certain that he had tuberculosis of the lungs, in
other words, was slowly progressing in consumption.

"His darting pains in his side were due to the pleurisy which always
occurs in such an illness.

"His account shows also the absence of hopelessness which is a
characteristic state of mind in patients with pulmonary tuberculosis.

"I do not think that the opinion of the Montpellier professor deserves
Smollett's condemnation. It seems to me both careful and sensible and
contains all the knowledge of its time. Smollett, with an inconsistency
not uncommon in patients who feel that they have a serious disease,
would not go in person to the Professor, for he felt that from his
appearance the Professor would be sure to tell him he had consumption.
He half hoped for some other view of the