care and protection of its insane, and all that careful nursing and enlightened skill can do to restore those intrusted to their charge to the light of reason and to their homes will be done. DR. ALLEN'S LAKE GEORGE TEST. To the Editors of the Homeopathic Times: SPIRITUALISM vs. HOMEOPATHY. A Kind, Parting Word to "E. N. E. of Baltimore." With many thanks for your effort to answer my inquiries, allow me to say that I am not in the ring as your antagonist, nor is it any part of my purpose to enter here upon the grave questions so flippantly stated, and so cavalierly treated by you in the September issue of the TIMES. Your free use of the terms, sceptics," pearls before swine,' Will you kindly publish in your next issue the fact "materialists," that, when I applied to Dr. Wilson for a committee, I" capable only of eating husks," and others of like was not aware that Dr. Henry D. Paine had been ap-character, applied to those who do not accept the pointed by Dr. Dake. Immediately on learning this, theory of endless dynamization, and the whole spiritI notified Dr. Wilson, and apologised to Dr. Dake. ual, medical philosophy advocated by yourself and a I am now working with Dr. Paine, and, if health and small part of the believers in homoeopathy, led me to T. F. ALLEN. time permit, will report next June. propound, for your consideration, a few questions in I entered upon no argument (The card of Dr. T. F. Allen we publish with pleas-the October TIMES. We presume, however, our readers will be at a whatever-my interrogatories were simply to elicit loss, like ourselves, to see how the appointment of Dr. the truth from your own pen, and to secure for the Paine, by request of Dr. Allen, as the custodian of bot- great body of our profession merited justice at your tles and records, can account for the refusal of Dr. hands, so far as you could be induced to exercise it. Allen to go on with his experiments, under the auspices of the Bureau of Materia Medica, Pharmacy and Provings. ure. We are informed by the Chairman of that Bureau that, while he consented to Dr. Allen's selection of Dr. Paine, it was distinctly understood that the safeguards considered important and suggested by Dr. Sherman, should be applied in the preparation and marking of the bottles, so as to render the conditions of the test unquestionable. And, as mentioned in our last issue, Dr. Allen, after his resort to Dr. Wilson, gave up the whole matter into the hands of Dr. Dake, and nominated Professor O'Connor as his committeeman, leaving out entirely the arrangements with Dr. Paine; and yet he now says, "I am working with Dr. Paine." We confess to some difficulty in comprehending the motives of Dr. Allen in " so much, in tacking about the performance of a work proposed by himself and aided by the Chairman of the Bureau to which all such undertakings belong, so far as the American Institute is concerned. It would seem that, if Dr. Allen really intended to furnish a convincing proof of the power of the thirtieth centesimal dilution or potency" of a drug, he would have gladly accepted Dr. Sherman's sateguards and the supervision of the appropriate Bureau. As it is, we fear his test, however successful he may be in picking out the medicated bottle, will have little weight upon the minds of persons who favor exact methods. What better can it be than the numerous "provings" of that attenuation, by persons who choose their own methods and conditions, regardless of the scepticism of the medical world around them and the demands of science. So far as we, personally, were concerned, we consented to act on the committee, at the call of Dr. Dake, believing that we could thus aid in the settlement of a long mooted and vexatious question. As a member of the Bureau of Materia Medica, Dr. Allen may submit the results obtained from his work with Dr. Paine, and they will be taken for what they are worth by the Institute and the profession. We confess to a want of confidence in the methods generally pursued in our school, in determining questions like this, as well as in building up a materia medica upon the reliability of which thousands of lives must depend.—EDS.) N. Y. OPHTHALMIC HOSPITAL.-Month ending October 31, '79: Prescriptions, 3,793; new patients, 442; resident patients, 33; average daily attendance, 140; largest attendance, 200. J. H. BUFFUM, M.D., Resident Surgeon. Seeing that you were a writer of more than ordinary ability, I felt that you could appreciate the weight of facts, as well as lightness of fancies, in dealing with subjects of great practical interest; and that you would drop the exuberant pharisaism and denunciatory style of your first effort, upon a sober second thought. In a measure you have met my expectations. You have answered some of my questions very fairly, while some have been passed by without an attempt at an You realize how hard it is to answer of any kind, answer interrogatories calculated to develop the weakness or absurdity of one's own arguments. 66 animus. You seem to think I did not understand your If I was at all in doubt about that, after reading your first article, I surely am not now. But I desist. I am an extremist." I supAs to myself, you say pose it will be as well to let the readers of my questions, addressed to you, judge of that. I am not especially concerned about it. But I must here say that the question of dose and drug preparation is just as legitimate and proper, yea, even as necessary, as any other suggested by the law of similars; and there is no more occasion for the use of hard epithets, and of intemperate zeal, and poor logic, and nonsense, in its discussion, than in the discussion of any other question. The attempt to ostracise and cast out, as "non-ho""outsiders," ""eclecmœopaths," "anti-homeopaths,' materialists," "infidels," all who do not believe tics,' in the theory of infinite drug potentization, is the most ridiculous farce on record. And the timid outcry of many, so intent on gathering in shekels, or compiling books, or carrying on other schemes for which a universal patronage is desired, lamenting the discussion of the potency question, and calling for a perpetual truce, would be the most comic farce, if not so seriously and mournfully stale. It is the individual right of each qualified practitioner to determine the quality and quantity of the remedy, not only his right, in each case under his treatment but likewise his duty; and he cannot well discharge that duty without a dispassionate consideration of all that is known on the subject. What is wanted is a scholarly and dignified discussion of the potency question, without personalities and without bitterness. Let facts be stated and sifted tll principles are arrived at, at once in keeping with the demands of science and the necessities of practice. In conclusion, allow me to say that I am your friend and brother, with many years of experience in the use of attenuated doses; never yet convinced of the neces sity of "high potencies," yet willing to look all posological facts squarely in the face, and ready to accept the truth, whatever old opinions and practices may AN INQUIRER thereby be cast aside forever. A SUIT FOR MALPRACTICE-ELDRIDGE vs. FLAGG. MESSRS. EDITORS In view of its common interest to the profession, and because the daily papers have already published the result without giving the honest facts, I venture to give in detail the whole story of the suit for malpractice which was tried at White Plains, N. Y., on the 22d of September, 1879, before Judge J. O. Dykeman, in which the plaintiff sued for $5,000, and was awarded $100. I do this with the full consent of the defendant, Dr. L. W. Flagg. The case is of peculiar and personal interest to me, as the sequel will show. 66 The plaintiff, Mr. Harry C. Eldridge, is a young man, having been married about two years, and is a street or curbstone" broker in Wall Street. He came, with his young wife, in the autumn of 1878, to the Mansion House at Yonkers, where he was during Dr. Flagg's treatment of him. I need not pause to tell who Dr. Flagg is. His prolonged and successful career of more than thirty years as a homœopathic physician in Yonkers has made his name familiar to the profession, especially to the older members. on either side of the patella, and with fluctuation. Early in February, 1879, Mr. Eldridge came to Dr. Flagg's office to be treated for gonorrhoea. He denied having had illicit intercourse, and as his wife is above suspicion, it was decided that it was caused by his wife's leucorrhoeal discharges, and by his having had connection with her during her menstrual periods. He admitted that he was amorous, and that he had indulged in sexual excesses to that extent that his sys- found the patient in bed, and he freely told the foltem was very much reduced. And so it was. He lowing story: "The bandage had given him pain; the was simply "used up." Dr. Flagg treated him at his landlord, Mr. Shears, had visited him, and had told office for about two weeks, when, upon his own respon him he had a bad knee; that Dr. Phillips was a sibility, he ceased to present himself. Ten days passed, young man, a new comer, and a homeopath; that he Dr. Flagg hearing nothing from bim, till on March had better send for Dr. Upham to come and examine 3d he was sent for to visit him at his room at the his knee, as he (Dr. Upham) had been his (Shears') Mansion House. Here he found him in bed. Upon family physician for twenty years, and was a man of examination it was found that he was suffering with experience, and an allopath, and especially because general rheumatism, which was, no doubt, a complica- Eldridge had always before been treated allopathically. tion of his urethral inflammation, and was gonorrhoeal Accordingly Dr. Upham was summoned to at least rheumatism. He saw him daily for three days, and have a look at the case. Dr. Upham told him that then omitted one day. During the whole time he what Dr. Phillips was doing was well enough, but it improved rapidly, so that on the third day he became was too mild; that he had just had a case exactly the uneasy in bed, and desired to sit up. This Dr. Flagg same, in which he had drawn off the water with blispermitted him to do, and playfully remarked that there ters, and that the case was now well." Eldridge said, was no danger of a rheumatic patient taking too much"If what you say be true, then, of course, I want you exercise, meaning, of course, that the pain on motion would force him to be quiet. He complained more particularly of his right knee, and Dr. Flagg says he examined it, and found it slightly reddened and swollen. In addition to his remedies (Aconite, Bryonia, Rhus, and Salicylic acid as indicated), he directed the knee to be wrapped with flannels wrung out of hot water. On Friday (or Saturday), previous to his departure on Saturday for Mexico, he called somewhat in a hurry, and found him sitting up (or reclining), and feeling comfortable. At this visit he did not strip his knee and examine it, because he did not complain particularly of it, and because all fever had left him, and he seemed to be doing handsomely. At this visit he informed him that he was going to Mexico to be absent one month; that Drs. Howe and Phillips would have the care of his practice, and that, if he so elected, Dr. Phillips would take charge of him, to which he fully assented. He was so much improved that it was so arranged that I should not call until Monday, unless I should be sent for, which was to happen in case of any new developments. On Monday I called. He was sitting in his easy chair, and was comfortable mentally as well as physically. Upon examination I found the knee without heat or redness, but with slight puffiness to take the case.' The knee was at once blistered, and the note of dismissal was sent to me. Dr. Upham had just been there, had pricked the blister, had drawn off the water (?), and had ordered a fresh blister on the same spot, which covered the entire knee. Mr. Eldridge seemed satisfied that that was the true way to get rid of the water, and with much delight and satisfaction asked me to look at his knee, which was completely skinned. After two or three days' attendance, Dr. Upham, Sr, transferred the case to his son, who, he said, was more of a surgeon than he was, and who had finished his studies at Bellevue Hospital only a few months previously. Dr. Upham, Jr., it seems, adopted the opposite treatment, and applied ice bags. He kept the case under treatment for about two months, during which time the other knee was attacked. After Dr. Flagg's return from Mexico, he called on Mr. Eldridge, and presented his bill About a month or so later he received a note from Mr. Eldridge's attorneys, Burrill, Davidson & Burrill, of New York city, stating that Mr. Eldridge claimed damages, and that if he would call and settle, he would save expense. Dr. Flagg considered it an attempt at blackmail, and so treated it with indifference. A month or so later the complaint was served. The plaintiff complained of carelessness and neglect on the part of Dr. Flagg, because of which he had suffered great pain, and had been kept away from his business, which had been greatly damaged. He asked for $5,000 The venue was laid in New York, and was changed by Dr. Flagg's counsel to White Plains. For a month or two all was quiet. Then one day Dr. Upham, Sr., called on Dr. Flagg, and in behalf of his son, said that he had heard of the affair about ten minutes before, and had hastened to explain. He expressed his disgust with the affair, and assured Dr. Flagg that Mr Eldridge's conduct had not been influenced by any thing they (the Uphams) had done, and that he might count on their support in the trial. He also said that he did not know of the existence of gonorrhoea until two weeks after he had given the case to his son.. Finally the time for the trial came, and a fruitless attempt was made by plaintiff's counsel to have the venue changed back to New York city. At this juncture, Burrill, Davidson & Burrill seemed to get ashamed of themselves, and transferred the case to Mr. M. J. Keogh, a young criminal lawyer of New Rochelle, he being assisted by some of the juniors from the firm of B. D. & B. The Judge appointed Friday for the hearing of the case. The plaintiff appeared with his medical experts, Dr. Stephen De Wolf and Dr. Stuyvesant F. Morris, both of New York city, and with brokers to testify how much his business had been damaged. His only witness as to the facts in the case was Dr. Upham, Jr., who, it will be remembered, took the case from his father, who took it from me (and blistered it), who took it from Dr. Flagg, so that he did not see it till ten days after Dr. Flagg had sailed. An unfinished case lasted all day Friday, and on Monday all hands were again present to find the case still on, the medical experts being re-inforced by Dr. Wm. T. Bull, resident surgeon at the Chambers Street Hospital. Dr. Flagg had made arrangements with his friend, Dr. Wm. Todd Helmuth, to come up when he should be telegraphed for. Unlike plaintiff's experts, Dr. Helmuth's business would not permit of his hanging around two whole days for a chance to distinguish himself. At two P. M. on Monday the case was called, and Dr. Helmuth was at once sent for, but unfortunately he had decided that at that late hour he would not be sent for, and had gone out of town to operate. The plaintiff swore that he had suffered from synovitis, and had called in Dr. Flagg, who, without examination of his knee, of which he had especially complained, had diagnosed his case rheumatism, and had treated him accordingly. Dr. Flagg's counsel attempted to show by the plaintiff himself that he had gonorrhoea, and to so build a foundation for a truthful history of the case, which, of itself alone, would be a sufficient defense. Judge Dykeman ruled that what the man previously had was impertinent, remarking," Supposing he had had consumption?" Dr. Upham, Jr., swore that, succeeding his father, he found the patient with acute synovitis, and treated him for it, and that he did not know of the existence of gonorrhoea until after he had been in attendance about two weeks. He thought it only possible for synovitis to follow gonorrhoea. His whole testimony and opinions were based on the theory of acute, idiopathic synovitis. The experts were then called, and,one after another, by the support of Judge Dykeman, and in spite of the strong protest of Dr. Flagg's counsel, gave their testimony and opinions based upon the same false premises of acute, idiopathic synovitis They swore that it was not to be looked for after gonorrhoea, notwithstanding such authorities as Van Buren, and Keyes, and Bumstead. Dr. Wm. T. Bull, a graduate of eighteen months, did not regard authorities at all, but said he was a law unto himself. (The marvelous wis dom of this young man is simply astounding, and yet, to look at him, no one would suspect that he was any thing else than a young man with an immense amount of conceit, and of only ordinary ability But then appearances do so deceive.) They all swore that it is a slow, insidious disease, and that blisters, etc., were indispensable, etc. Now, this fact of its being slow and insidious in its approach may be true enough of idiopathic synovitis, but all authorities agree that the effusion in gonorrheal rheumatism, which this man certainly had, may take place very suddenly and unexpectedly, e. g., in a night. The Judge insisted that this procedure on these false premises was all right, and overruled almost every objection of counsel for defense. He forced everything aside that at all conflicted with his preconceived false notion, viz.: that what the man had previously had, and, as shown by Dr. Upham, Jr., did have three weeks after Dr. Flagg's departure, had nothing to do with the case. Said he, The question is, did the man have synovitis ?" The plaintiff's case closed between four and five, P M. Dr. Flagg was then called, and on the main issues contradicted every statement made by plaintiff. He testified that he did examine the patient at every visit except the last, and omitted it then because he was so much better that it seemed unnecessary; that he did not have synovitis while he treated him; that he did not tell him to take exercise, but simply that he might sit up and rest himself when he felt tired of bed (remarking jokingly that there was no danger of his moving about too much); that he did have gonorrhoal rheumatism, which was general; that he improved under treatment very rapidly, so that, when he left him, he had no fever, and was comfortable, sitting up, enjoying himself, and perfectly satisfied. On cross-examination plaintiff's counsel asked Dr. Flagg if the three medical experts were wrong in their testimony that synovitis was a slow, insidious disease, and demanded an answer, yes or no. Dr. Flagg appealed to the Judge for the privilege to explain that, while they might be right in acute idiopathic synovitis, yet, in this particular case, it being secondary and sub-acute, they were all wrong. The Judge said he must answer yes or no. He answered they were wrong. The same thing happened to me in my cross-examination. I was the next witness called, and testified as follows: That I found the patient, on the third day after Dr. Flagg's last visit, sitting in his easy chair, and comfortable (he had been so comfortable that he had not sent for me); that I found effusion in the knee joint which was not extensive, there being just a little puffiness on either side of the patella; that there was no pain (or but little on motion), no heat, no redness, and no swelling (save the little puffiness); that it was sub-acute synovitis, or hydrarthrosis, which was the undoubted result of gonorrhoeal rheumatism; that the effusion probably took place suddenly, citing as authorities, Billroth, Van Buren, and Keyes, and Bumstead; that he did very well under treatment, and that when I last saw him, it was not acute synovitis, but simply dropsy of the joint; that my treatment had been with a view to hasten absorption by the use of iodine, gentle pressure, and the internal use of Bryonia; that when I called to see him after my dismissal, his knee had been blistered all over the anterior and lateral surfaces; that in my opinion the repeated blistering in that position would certainly change it from a sub-acute to an acute condition, in which Dr. Upham, Jr., says he found it; and that, if blistered at all, it should have been either a little above or below, and not directly over the synovial membrane. this last fact Dr. Flagg had also testified, To Dr. Flagg's counsel asked to read from Van Buren and Keyes to corroborate my testimony, which, on many important points, was in direct contradiction to the medical testimony on the other side, but Judge Dykeman said, “No.” When I had finished, it was about an hour past the time for the court to close. It was asked by defense that an opportunity be given in the morning to present expert and other evidence, especially to show Dr. Flagg's standing as a man of veracity, as well as his skill as a physician. Again Judge Dykeman said: “ No.” The evidence must be closed to-night, if I have to sit till midnight;" that no evidence would be admitted in the morning, under any circumstances, and that evidence showing his skill and reputation was impertinent, and would not be admitted at all. The case was accordingly closed. In the morning, after the pleas by counsel, came the charge to the jury. The judge said it was for the jury to decide whether or not the man had synovitis. If they decided that he did have synovitis, then it was for them to decide whether or not Dr. Flagg neglected him. If they found that he did neglect him, then the damages would be so much the greater, because of his high rep utation, arguing tha', if a man has a high reputation, people trust to him more confidently, and it is so much the more incumbent upon him to do to each full justice. He said nothing about Dr. Flagg's positive testimony, that while he had him under observation, he did not have synovitis. He perverted my testimony completely by saying that I swore that, when I found him, he did have synovitis, but said not a word about my explanation that neither when I took it, nor when I left it, was it acute synovitis, but sub-acute synovitis, or dropsy of the joint. He said nothing of the real essence of the matter of its being a secondary condition, which both Dr. Flagg and I had insisted upon. He made no reference to the fact that I swore that it was not acute when I left it, and that Dr. Upham, Jr., swore that, when he took it from his father (who blistered it), it was acute, and that this important link in the chain of evidence (Dr. Upham, Sr,) was entirely left out. The jury retired, and after almost three hours' deliberation, found a verdict for plaintiff for $100. I have gone minutely into the history of this whole affair, believing it to be of interest to each and all, as all are liable to the same attack. I ask, too, is not every reader honestly indignant at the outraged justice ? Now, Messrs. Editors, permit me just a few observations. There was no satisfactory evidence that he did go about on the knee, even admitting that Dr. Flagg had told him he might do so, proving, after all, the truthfulness of Dr. Flagg's remarks, viz: that a patient with rheumatism will not exercise too much, because exercise will hurt, and if the man isn't a fool, he will be quiet. Let us look for a moment at the circumstantial evidence, entirely outside of Dr. Flagg's and my own testimony. It is certain that Dr. Upham, Sr., blistered the knee. Admit that this was the one thing to be done. What, then, is the inevitable conclusion? Why, certainly, that it was a sub-acute condition. Would Dr. Upham, supposed to be an intelligent physician, put a blister directly over an acutely inflamed membrane, and repeat it? Certainly not. Now what did the junior Upham find? He says he found acute synovitis. He applied ice. Admit that he was right both in his diagnosis and treatment. What is the conclusion? Inevitably, that the condition had changed, or else either he or his father was wrong; because, the condition being the same, if blisters were right, then ice was wrong; and if ice was right, then blisters were wrong; both could not be right at the same time. Why did not the plaintiff bring Dr. Upham, Sr., to testify? Dr. Upham says that Mr. Eldridge told him of a friend of his in New York who sued a prominent surgeon for malpractice, and the surgeon had paid the amount sued for without its coming to trial. Mr. Eldridge, it will be remembered, kindly offered to allow Dr. Flagg to pay up, and save costs, He wanted to make it easy for him. These medical experts, who are they? Dr. Stephen DeWolf, Dr. Stuyvesant F. Morris, and Dr. William T. Bull, of Chambers Street Hospital, a doctor of eighteen months' experience. Did they have a direct interest in this dirty scheme? Certainly no man of any character would leave his practice (if he had any), and spend two full days hanging around a court house to assist in blackmailing a brother practitioner. and then give unheard of opinions unsupported by the recognized authorities. No doubt they were tickled with the thought of the honor of being called as experts, and were inspired by the hope of a fat fee if the case were successful. With these considerations in view they could swear more expertly. Soon after the trial, the judge was asked to allow $250 to pay these experts for their wonderful opinions. Not half enough for such opinions from such celebrities. The court allowed them $3 apiece. An important point: Judge Dykeman's ruling will be remembered, which excluded evidence proving Dr. Flagg's skill and reputation When plaintiff's counsel was pleading, he read a decision of the General Term of the Supreme Court (per Mullin, Justice) sustaining the above ruling. Counsel for defense interrupted, and called attention to the continued report of the same case, when the Court of Appeals had reversed that identical case on that identical point, viz.: because such evidence was not admitted. Judge Dykeman examined the reports. In his charge he said nothing about this fact, until asked by counsel for defense to charge the jury that such evidence was important for their consideration, and, in spite of his former opposite rulings, excluding all such evidence, he said: "They are so charged." A strange coincidence: When the clerk called the roll of impaneled jurors for this case, it was noticed that to one name there was no response; yet there were twelve men in the jury box. The clerk could not understand it, and again called the roll, but with the same result. He was about to investigate the matter, when the missing man appeared from the back part of the court room, and at the same time a man known to be a client and neighbor of Mr. Keogh (plaintiff's counsel), quietly left the jury box. Why was that man there? And why did he persist in staying there until it got so uncomfortably hot? Moreover, it was predicted by a friend of Dr. Flagg's, who knew some of the jurors and their relations with Mr. Keogh, that they would never bring in a verdict against Mr. Keogh. I could mention other incidents, equally contemptible and outrageous, but I have already spun my yarn too long. Dr. Flagg has the hearty sympathy of a host of friends; in fact, of every decent person who knows the circumstances Some are so anxious that he should appeal it that they have offered to help pay the costs; but he considers it a privilege as well as a duty, both to himself and to the profession, to carry it up, and to place this blackmailing viper and his accomplices in their proper light before the public, and so to lessen the danger of like assaults upon the profession by similar speculators, who might be encouraged by this fellow's success (as he was by his friends), providing Dr. Flagg should submit to this decision. Therefore, the case will be carried to a higher court, and in due time the result will be made known in the columns of your journal. I am yours sincerely, R. OLIVER PHILLIPS, M. D. YONKERS, N. Y., Oct. 30, 1879. DR. BUKK G. CARLETON has removed to 166 West 34th St.; Dr. Geo. Vandenhoff to 232 West 43d St.; DR. GEO. E. BELCHER to 522 Madison Ave. BIBLIOGRAPHICAL. THE ENCYCLOPEDIA OF PURE MATERIA MEDICA: A the expression of individual opinion as to the general scope of the work, to a careful scrutiny of the editor's translations of Hahnemann. We have a right to expect here scholarly work, and if we find a simple translation, from so important a writer as Hahnemann, full of errors, what reliance can be placed upon any of the editor's work? A sentiment of reverence for the great founder of our school, and a due sense of literary responsibility, ought surely to have incited Dr. Allen to put forth his best efforts in this particular department of his editorial labors. Nor can we conceive what valid excuse he could offer in the event of failure. Unlike his predecessor in the same field, he has not been compelled to hurry over it under the stimulus of poverty and meagre remuneration. He has occupied for years the chair of materia medica in a leading homœopathic institution. He has received a classical education. He enjoys the reputation of an accomplished German scholar; and is able to command, in aid of his literary enterprises, the counsel and cooperation of some of the leading veterans of his school. Moreover, he has publicly announced that while, of necessity, much of the work on the Encyclopedia has been confided to the hands of subordinates, all the translations from the German have been executed, and finally revised, exclusively by himself. Surely, then, it was not too much to expect that, in this highly vaunted publication, we should be presented with what we have never had before-the exact meaning of each one of Hahnemann's symptoms, in clear and correct English. If this shall be found to be the case, there will be ground for assuming that the authorities throughout have been equally well treated. Reasoning thus, we took up the seventh volume, and opening at the article "Nux vomica," proceeded to gather together the extracts from Hahnemann's "Materia Medica Pura," arranged therein under the rubri e "Mind;" seventy-six symptoms in all. Each of these we compared carefully with the original text. The ensuing columns display at a glance the more strik ing results of our investigations: Literal Translation. Our first glance at these ten stately volumes sufficed to convince us that they might truly be styled a "monument"-at all events, to the enterprise and liberality of their publishers. We heartily wish the liberality and enterprise of the publishers had been engaged in a better cause than in presenting in clear and beautiful typography and substantial binding the mass of trash, of wild vagaries, of symptoms which seem to have been gathered at random from every language under heaven, from every insane asylum in the land, and from nurseries where fond mothers take seriously to heart the symptoms and sayings of their young offspring. Mixed with all this trash, the trained searcher may possibly find the real gems of our therapeutics, for they are there; but they are often so covered with what is perfectly worthless, that a special training is necessary to evolve them from surrounding rubbish. We are inclined to think this work will stand for something more than a monument" to the liberality of the publishers; it will also form a "monument" to the folly of a school, claiming to be scientific, which could receive with strong expressions of commendation-as this book has been received by many of our medical journals-a book like this. There was a time when our school, with its scientific basis and its earnest common sense workers, might have conquered the medical world, but, by just such folly as we find in this work, such grave consideration of ridiculous symptoms and transcendental nonsense, it has done more to fritter away its power, and clip its own wings, than any opposition by our opponents. It gives us no pleasure to speak in this manner, and we turn from Hahnemann. .S. 1238. Sie hält den gegenwärtigen Schmerz für unausstehlich, etc. S. 1236 Zanken, Vorwärfe, Schimpfreden, eifersüchtige Schmä hungen, mit unzüchtigen Ausdeücken gemischt, etc. She regards the present pain as intolerable, etc. Quarrels, reproaches, scolding, insults from jealousy, mingled with lascivious expressions, etc. S. 1261. Sie kann die mindeste She cannot bear the slightest conWinderrede und auch die vernün-tradiction, or even the most reasonfstigsten Vorstellungen nicht ertra- able remonstrances, etc. gen, etc. S. 1253. 8ie kann sich selbst über die kleinsten Uebel nicht hinwegsetzen. S. 1257. Sie stöhnt und ächzet jämmerlich, ohne eine Ursache anzugeben. S. 1254. Aengstliche Pedenklichkeit und Untröstlichkeit, etc. S. 1237. Nach Mitternacht sehr heftiges Herzklopfen mit aüsserster Angst, welche ihn zur Selbst-Entleibung treibt. S. 1234. Früh beim Erwachen, und Nachmittags, Angst, etc. S. 1239. Angst, mit 1rieb, sich selbst zu entleiben. S. 1256. Angst aus verdachtsamer und befürchtender Bedenklichkeit, besonders in den Nachmitternacht stunden. S. 1362. Er ist ärgerlich bedenklich, nimmt alles übel, etc. S. 1264. Zornige Aergerlichkeit, Zornmüthigkeit. She cannot disregard the smallest evil [misfortune.] She moans and groans piteously, without stating a cause. Anrious solicitude and unconsolableness, etc. After midnight, very violent palpitation, with extreme anxiety, which impels him to suicide. In the morning, on waking, and in the afternoon, anxiety, etc. Anxiety, with impulse to commit suicide. Anxiety caused by a suspicious and apprehensive doubtfulness [scrupulosity], especially after midnight. He is fretfully scrupulous, takes everything ill, etc. Angry fretfulness; irascibility. Allen's Translation. S 6. The usual pain seems intolerable, etc. S. 8. He quarrels, reproaches, scolds, mingled with unchaste expressions, etc. |