66

interpretations of them may be made; and the discussion would perhaps terminate in a verbal dispute. For our own part, we have been accustomed, on the perusal of the authors alluded to, to consider the fever of dysentery, under those different appearances, as the proper symptomatic fever of the disease, moded by the circumstances of climate, soil, foui air, &c.; and this notion, which we conceive every reader of discrimination will have entertained, or something like it, is, we apprehend, to all practical intents and purposes, the same with that which Dr. Harty has compiled this volume to illustrate. Sir John Pringle affirms, that whenever the dysentery was epidemic, he always found it in some degree infectious, especially in military hospitals, and in the houses of the poor, who want the means of cleanliness;" circumstances, it may be presumed, sufficient to give the original fever a typhoid type. He observes, that he has sometimes, though seldom, seen the same kind of fever accompany the flux from the first," independantly of neglect or improper treat ment. Zimmerman says, in a quotation made by Dr. Harty, "it appeared to me that our dysentery in general became contagious purely through nastiness, and the crowding many people together in a small space, but was by no means so of itself." This surely implies rather a modification of the primary disease, than a combination of two diseases. The influence of occasional circumstances in modifying the fever of dysentery, seems to be confirmed by the observation of Sydenham (if indeed it be necessary to multiply evidence on the subject), who remarked, in speaking of an epidemic dysentery, that it seemed to be " the fever of the season turned upon the bowels." In short, when we consider the perspicuity of those practical authors, whose writings are familiar to medical men, in pointing out the modifications or combinations of fever with dysentery, we are somewhat surprised that Dr. Harty should be vain enough to imagine that he alone had the sagacity to make the discovery, and that the whole profession laboured under a mistake respecting the books they were accustomed to read.

With respect to the statement, that dysentery is never contagious except when the fever assumes a typhoid type, or, in the language of Dr. Harty, when it is combined with typhous fever, we are disposed to entertain some doubt. The remittent form of the disease appears to have spread, in several instances, in such a

manner as to give every reason to believe in the existence of contagion, if we may credit the account of sir J. Pringle and Dr. Huck. The analogy of the epidemic catarrh also supports this opinion, even in the quotations made by Dr. Harty; for in this disease, according to Mr. Chisholm and others, in 1790, the fever was “most generally" of an intermittent or remittent form, yet in their opinion decidedly con tagious.

In corroboration of his notion respecting dysentery, Dr. Harty has given a slight view of several diseases, which are at one time contagious, at another not so; and affirms that it is his belief that every disease of this kind "acquires that property only in consequence of its combination with typhus fever." The diseases which he enumerates are catarrh, cynanche, ophthalmia, erysipelas, ulcer, and peritonitis.

With regard to catarrh, he is altogether unable to substantiate this opinion, and even remarks in plain terms, that “it often exists sporadically, with or without much fever, and is then never suspected of contagion: it frequently prevails epidemically, in combination with remittent fever, and is then very erroneously denominated influenza; (why?) for this is another form in which it spreads epidemically, is propagated by contagion, and when it does occur is very general." p. 265. The general course of the influenza, or epidemic catarrh, in any of its forms, was extremely unlike that of typhus, and the occurrence of true typhoid symptoms was unques tionably rare,

The only circumstance by which aphe thalmia is presumed, when contagious, to be combined with typhoid fever, is an unphilosophical conjecture of Mr. Power, a writer on the Egyptian ophthalmia. This gentleman "regards the putrid viras as the great source of disease in Egypt""partially applied it produces ophthalmia"

"it is probable that this putrid virus has some similitude, if not the same, with the contagion of typhus"-and he very sagaciqusly concludes, from the phenomena, "and from the mode of treatment which alone was found successful, that it was contagious, and existed in combination with typhoid fever." Admirable data for a philosophical deduction!

On the whole this volume adds little or nothing to the information of the enquiring practitioner, and will afford little reputation to the author, except as a laudable essay, of an industrious and intelligent

student. He would have done well to have delayed his work until he had become acquainted with the opinions of intelligent practitioners, beyond the school in which he had principally studied. It is matter of astonishment, as well as of regret, that a few obvious Cullenian errors still remain in that enlightened school of Edinburgh. But whatever they may have heard from the professorial chair, few of the regular attendants of the clinical

wards, we believe, quit the school alluded to with an opinion that dysentery, when sporadic, is contagious.

There is a laboured adherence to method in this work, which frequently tends rather to obscure than to elucidate the author's views. His manner is diffuse; and the discussion often interrupted through a fear of anticipating what should be, secun dùm artem, discussed in a different chapter.

A CELEBRATED philosopher of antiquity has asserted that there is nothing new under the sun; but had he lived in this age of revolution, he would probably have entertained a different opinion. The idea which forms the basis of the work now before us, we certainly consider as possessing the merit of originality; it is a proposal for curing some of the most obstinate constitutional diseases, among others, scrofula, consumption, cancer, and gout, by DISTILLED WATER. We shall endeavour to lay before our readers the grounds of so singular an opinion.

The work commences by an explanation of the term, constitutional diseases.

"By constitutional diseases I understand those which arise slowly and spontaneously, and concerning which we are hitherto ignorant, whether they are to be attributed to the operation of foreign and external causes, or to an original imperfection in the structure or functions of any of the different organs of the body."

All the diseases that are included under this comprehensive definition, he conceives may be traced to one common origin, viz. some substance introduced into the body ab extra, and this substance he farther supposes proceeds from the decomposition of animal and vegetable bodies. This substance he denominates septic poison, and to its introduction into the system, he ascribes the prevalence of consumption, gout, cancer, mania, epilepsy, and even many cutaneous eruptions." The greater part of these diseases are unknown in the savage state; they have been generally attributed to that delicacy which the constitution necessarily acquires in civilized life; but this our author conceives is not an adequate cause, and he imagines that we shall find them to depend upon this septic poison which he

imagines is conveyed into the system by the water usually employed in diet.

This opinion respecting the injurious effect of common water was originally suggested by the following circumstance. A lady who was affected with severe pains of the stomach, had repeatedly found the complaints to disappear upon changing her residence; this led to a suspicion that the water employed might not be pure, and upon examination, though no metallic impregnation could be discovered by the usual tests, yet the author found that the residuum left by evaporating the water impressed the fauces with a sense of constriction, which led him to suspect the presence of arsenic. A little of the residuum being heated between two copperplates, imparted to them a white stain, and thus gave a degree of probability to the suspicion that had been excited. So far we follow the author with some satisfaction; but instead of pushing his enquiries farther, and examining more minutely every circumstance respecting this supposed arsenical impregnation, he boldly, of its existence, not only in the water now and unwarrantably, assumes the certainty under consideration, but in all, or the greater part. of the waters that are employed for economical purposes. Some other nature than that stated above, occurring to circumstances, of a still more indefinite the author about the same time, he was led to an experimental inquiry into the subject, from which he deduces the following propositions :

"1. Common water gives products much resembling those which are derived from anihas received a taint from this matter in a state mal matter. It is probable, therefore, that it of decomposition, or, in other words, from putrefaction.

"2. The metallic basis of the matter, which contaminates common water, exactly resem

in diet.

If we can only establish this as the cause of all constitutional diseases, the method of curing them will be simple.

It will be effected

"Ist. By the application of substances which have the power of counteracting the poisonous matter; and 2dly. By a regimen which will exclude, as much as possible, the introduction of new matter into the system."

The first indication, however, he conceives it impossible to fulfil, and in consequence places all his dependance upon the second, which may be brought about either by sending patients to reside near springs of peculiar purity, or by causing them to employ distilled water.

Salt meats are also forbidden, and all those liquors, as beer and porter, in the preparation of which water is used. As some confirmation of his opinion, which he seems to apprehend will not be very easily credited, he adduces the example of the Malvern waters, a spring which has been long celebrated for its curative effects in many obstinate complaints, and in which the chemical tests have not been able to detect any impregnation. An obvious objection seems to arise against the doctrine maintained by our author, that arsenic has often been intentionally taken into the stomach, as a remedy for some diseases, in greater quantity than that in which it can be supposed to exist in common water, without prodacing any of

the effects which are here attributed to it. This objection does not indeed pass altogether unnoticed, but the author only observes, that if its use has been too long persevered in, the most essential injuries have occurred to the constitution. This, however, is saying no more than that all powerful medicines may be taken in too large quantity; there is no attempt at proving that the same kind of effects is produced by its casual introduction into the system, which we observe to enste from its intentional exhibition, a circumstance essential to the support of the argument.

A considerable number of cases are afterwards detailed: first, of those in which general debility and dyspeptic complaints were the most urgent systems, and which were, as the author conceives, relieved or diminished by the use of distilled water. A distinct section is allotted to scrofula, consumption, cancer, and gout, in which instances are likewise pointed out, where advantage was supposed to be gained by the employment of the same remedy. We shall not pretend to make an accurate analysis of these cases; our opinion of them is, that they are very unsatisfactory. A degree of amendment seems to have taken place, as is often observed when a patient is put under any accurate plan of regimen, but the cases generally conclude with the remark, that the use of the water was not continued long enough to perfect the cure. To this we cannot but oppose the obvious question, why the author did not delay his publication until the cures were completed. Upon the whole, we have seldom observed any collection of cases brocht forward in support of a new piece of prac tice, so meagre as that now before us.

After all, the grand question remains, upon what evidence does the existence of this arsenicated manganese depend. At the end of the volume are detailed, at considerable length, the experiments that were performed by the author to prove his position. They are divided into three sections; in the first he examines the properties of the compound produced by the union of the manganese and the arsenical acid; in the second he endeavours to prove that a similar substance may be procured from the ashes of animal substan ces; and in the third, that it also exists in the residuum of the New-river water. The experiments appear to have been con ducted with perseverance, but we cannot say that our minds are impressed with a conviction of the justness of the juferences

deduced from them. The properties which are assigned to the arsenicated manganese, are principally negative; the mere circumstance of a copper plate being stained, and a blue tinge imparted to a glass tube, we cannot consider by any

means sufficient evidence of the existence of this metallic salt; yet, as it appears to us, these are all the positive proofs that are brought forward of its presence. In short, the hypothesis seems to us unfounded, and the cases incomplete.

THE old method of remedying the blindness which is produced by an opacity of the lens, has been for some years impugned by several eminent practitioners, and the extraction of the cataract has, upon their authority and recommendation, been very generally substituted, or has met, at least, with a considerable majority of advocates. Mr. Cooper is of opinion that the preference of the latter has been assumed without just grounds, and that it is, in fact, a much more difficult operation than that of couching; the practice of which, therefore, it is the object of this volume strenuously to recommend. In this view of the subject he has the support of some of the most eminent surgeons of Europe; especially Mr. Hey, of Leeds, professor Callisen, of Copenhagen, professor Richter, of Gottingen, and more especially the celebrated professor Scarpa, of Pavia. From the writings of these authors he has adduced a strong collection of evidence, in favour of the success of the more simple operation of couching; of which we shall endeavour to give a brief sketch, without pretending to decide upon a question on which the experience of so many able practitioners has led to different conclusions.

Mr. Cooper apprehends that the frequent failure of the operation of couching, which induced the French surgeons, in the early part of the last century, to have recourse to the method of extraction, arose from an ignorance of the minute anatomy of the eye; and that the original objections to the former operation, valid as they were at that period, have been dispelled by the more perfect knowledge of the organ of sight, which the anatomists of the present day have acquired. He quotes Fabricius in order to shew "that the success of couching depended, in his days, almost upon chance, and that the rudeness of the style in which it was then for the most part executed, was only equalled by the injury which the eye sustained, and the train of bad consequences which en

sued." And he afterwards answers the objections of baron Wenzel to this operation, chiefly by opposing to his statements the extensive experience of Mr. Hey, Scarpa, and others. The author then dilates upon the difficulties and the untoward consequences which are liable to ensue to the extraction of the opaque lens; among which may be enumerated, the division of the iris, protrusion of the vitreous humour, separation of the iris at its outer margin from the choroid coat, prolapsus of the iris, irregularity of the pupil, irremediable opacity of the lower half of the cornea, &c.

Professor Richter, it appears, though formerly a decided advocate of the plan of extraction, now prefers, after the test of a long comparative experience, the method of depression. He says, "the principal advantages of extraction consist in its injuring none of the more sensible parts of the eye, only insensible cornea, and in radically curing the cataract, that is, taking it entirely out of the eye. But it may with reason be objected, that the cure of the cataract by extraction ought on no account to be called radical, while the capsule, the seat of the possible, and not unfrequent membranous cataract, remains behind in the eye; that far more important accidents are to be dreaded after extraction than couching; opacity of the cornea, closure of the pupil, prolapsus of the vitreous humour and iris; and that extraction is much more difficult, and more subject to consequent-inflammation, than depression."

The author takes a discriminating view of those appearances, which may guide the practitioner to anticipate relief, or the contrary, from an operation. He thinks that the power of still distinguishing light from darkness is a more certain test of the healthy state of the retina, than the contractions of the iris. The general practice of postponing the operation, when one eye alone is affected, until symptoms of the disease appear in the other, is not, in his