of social life, there remains great inequality, much room for difference of opinion. On one side, the followers of Malthus would regard as a crime what religion holds faultless; would make the citizen responsible to the State, not for the greatness of his family, as he was in olden times, but for its due suppression to the capacities of the period, to his own powers of sustaining it, and to the relative density of population. We feel that such artificial limits are of man's making, and have no warrant either in physiology or revelation; and yet the opposite alternative is worse, and must have often painfully affected the medical man whose duties have led him into the poorer districts of great towns, where early marriages, contracted almost between children, coexist with a variable demand for labour, and a trade whose products depend for their sale on fashion, or some other temporary and evanescent exigency.

And again, we are bound to give the writer credit for protesting against some of the older and more ingrained fallacies on this subject. He inveighs with much vehemence against the monastic doctrine of the impurity innate in woman, and of the consequent virtue of celibacy. In England this seems of little force, and a struggle with a shadow; but probably in Roman Catholic countries the case is different, where a party will always be found who will attempt to enforce this view, and in some cases with more or less success. Whatever, therefore, without immorality, tends to enfeeble a dangerous perversion of truth, in so far deserves our approbation.

In

But besides this negative and otiose merit, the book inculcates a domesticity and satisfaction in the pleasures of family intercourse, which is less common on the Continent than with us. In this there is a tacit protest against the practical polygamy and the need of esoteric excitement which make some foreign nations recal so irresistibly the society of Ancient Athens or Rome. Whether we visit some of the great European cities or follow the vivid pictures of a Platonic dialogue, nothing strikes the observer more painfully than the absence of that humanized tone which is the proper product of the blended sexes. the latter instance we are able to watch the interlocutors through their day's work, from the morning gymnasium to the political intrigue, or philosophical discussion of the afternoon, and to the evening meal, followed by light games of dexterity and chance, or by the looser recreations of the wine-cup, the song, and the recitation. We hear of games and theatres, of battles and military services, which, not unlike those of the present day, passed with the bulk of the citizens rather for recreation than the severer labours of men in earnest; everywhere we find this unsettled kind of life, with its hatred of retirement and its ignorance of the more recondite pleasures of the family. And yet we have evidence that these men could rise to speculations of nobler import. In the 'Symposium' of Plato, to which our allusions more especially refer, there is a remarkable passage which deserves notice, not merely for the doctrines which it holds out, and which are very apposite to the present subject, but also for the fact that the main interlocutor is a physician. A double interest results from this; for if we

suppose, as seems the most reasonable conjecture, that these narrative dialogues are not pure fictions, but rather events substantially authentic, adorned and illustrated by the genius and fancy of the narrator, we have not only the opinions of a cultivated Athenian on topics the especial study of classical times, but we also gain some insight into the social position of our brethren in the Greek metropolis, and the kind of scientific conversation which would pass current as a fair representation of their skill and doctrines. At the banquet, of which we have a detailed account, Socrates and his friends start the subject of Love for discussion. After some preliminary matter, Pausanias draws the distinction which has since become so famous, and from which, probably, our modern phrase of "Platonic affection" originally springs. He says, it is impossible to discuss love without separating the two kinds the Uranian and Pandemic, the heavenly or intellectual, and the vulgar or bodily love. In the nature of things neither of these can be called good, neither bad; for both are implanted in us, and exist as physical facts; but the one leads to honourable, the other to base results; the latter is common to all animals, the former exercises the mind and sets in motion the finer portions of our nature. Here Pausanias ends, and Aristophanes should by turn take up the conversation, but from some accidental haste in drinking, he is seized with a violent suffocating cough; upon this he turns to Eryximachus the physician, who is next him at the table, and challenges him either to stop his fit of coughing, or to speak in his stead. Eryximachus replies he will do both, and before commencing to speak, prescribes for his suffering neighbour. First he tells him to hold his breath as long as he can, which will very likely stop the paroxysm, if it should not, he is to gargle his throat with water; lastly, if this should prove ineffectual, he is to irritate the nostrils with some small body till he sneezes once or twice, and however violent the cough may have been, this will put a stop to it.

During the carrying out of these instructions, which, by the way, have lost none of their value at the present day, and which we strongly recommend to any of our readers who may be similarly afflicted, Eryximachus follows in the line which the preceding speaker has begun, and says, that this double nature of love is not only discoverable in men's minds and bodies, but in all created nature. He then enters into a somewhat imaginative illustration from the medical fact of morbid longings after unwholesome articles of food, giving, in the course of it, a definition of medicine, which is not only original but also of some value: ἔστι γὰρ ἰατρική, ὡς ἐν κεφαλαίῳ εἰπεῖν, ἐπιστήμη τῶν του σώματος ἐρωτικῶν πρὸς πλησμονὴν καὶ κένωσιν. If this be rendered to define medicine as "the science of the longings of our bodies towards support and evacuation," it is not easy to deny its truth or competence. Allusion is then made to gymnastics, diet, and the admixture of heat and cold in the various seasons of the year, and their effect on the bodily frame. Through these, which would now be termed questions of hygiene, he passes on to sum up the medical view of love in very remarkable words, which are not only far in advance of the concep

tions of M. Michelet, but really present a fair statement of the philosophical question in its widest bearings:

"So great and powerful, and indeed so omnipotent, is love in all its forms but that which aims at a noble end, subject to the restraints of justice and temperance, has the greatest power of all. It furnishes us with every form of happiness by binding us together in the closest relations of social union among ourselves, and in proper dependence on the gods, our rightful superiors."

The contrast between this view and that of the modern French writer is remarkable. Open as Plato's dialogue is to serious objections, we cannot help being of opinion that its tone is healthier and its tendency more elevating than anything in M. Michelet's work. For recognising, as both do, the innate and physical character of the basis on which this and our other emotions are ultimately founded, the heathen writer can see through this and other obstacles an upward and eunobling path to the society of our loftier fellow-creatures, and to communion with the gods; while an author in the nineteenth century of Christianity, not only never seems conscious of the religious aspect of the question, but is perpetually engaged about the most servile ideas, and is constantly falling to the very level which Plato looks down upon-namely, that of the Pandemic, or vulgar corporeal love. Nay, so great is this contrast, that we cannot refrain from quoting, in conclusion, a farther passage, in which Socrates takes up and follows out the previous idea:

"When," he says, a man, through the exercise of an honourable love, rises to the perception of what is intrinsically good, he is near his goal. For the right course in pursuit of the pleasures of love is to start from visible beauty and its possessors, in a frame of mind constantly ascending step by step, as though with help of ladders, from one fair person to many, and from many to all that exist; and from fair features to noble acts, and from noble acts to honourable studies, until we reach that first of studies-the knowledge of the real and abstract good. If we thus nurture true virtue in our minds, it is in our power to become adorers of the gods, and above all other men to aim at immortality."

REVIEW XIV.

1. Notes on the Wounded from the Mutiny in India: with a Description of the Preparations of Gun-shot Injuries contained in the Museum at Fort Pitt. By GEORGE WILLIAMSON, M.D., StaffSurgeon.-London, 1859. pp. 124.

2. A Treatise upon Penetrating Wounds of the Chest. By PATRICK FRASER, M.D., &c. &c. &c.-London, 1859. pp. 140.

DR. WILLIAMSON's handsome little volume, which is illustrated by some excellent representations of the preparations described in it, is a reprint from the Dublin Quarterly Journal.' It is an excellent example of a class of books which is increasing at the present day with a rapidity which, while it promises the greatest advantages to science, must increase most materially the labours of those by whom that science is to be promoted. This class consists of books which are

mainly intended to be referred to by writers who may have in hand a special subject, and comprises catalogues of museums, collections of cases, statistics of practice, and all such-like things.

These useful books are, unhappily for their authors, quite unreadable, notwithstanding the interest of much of their contents. Yet what stores of facts are comprised in them, and what an advantage the present generation of medical writers ought to have over our ancestors, whose crude judgments were necessarily founded on individual experience and on vague impressions, which the more extended records of after times have shown to be often baseless. In order to call the attention of our readers to one of the most interesting collections of material for the description and treatment of gun-shot injuries in existence, we will select a few of the miscellaneous items of which Dr. Williamson's book consists.

To commence with the first page-here is a very important suggestion for remedying one of the most universally admitted defects in our army-the means of transporting the wounded. Speaking of the

"Large number of cases of gun-shot compound fracture of the femur, in the Indian mutiny, where the patients recovered with good useful limbs, as compared with the number of thigh-stump cases, and the total by all wounds;" Dr. Williamson says, "this very satisfactory feature in the classified return of invalided wounded by the mutiny, appears to me perhaps not uncommon for Indian wars, but certainly very much so for European wars, as far as records enable us to make the comparison. This difference in favour of results by Indian wars I believe to be mainly due to the facilities afforded by the dooley for the successful treatment of this severest of all forms of compound fracture." -Preface.

Suggestions are given as to the means necessary for securing an adequate supply of doolies, and their bearers, from India; and a plate (p. 123) representing a dooley (a portable chamber, enclosed in tarpaulin curtains, large enough to carry a man reclining at full length, furnished with cushions and mattrass, and carried on a pole), accompanied by the necessary details as to number of bearers, &c.

There can be no doubt of the immense advantages in the treatment of certain cases from such a contrivance. The obvious objection to it is the great number of men required, "eight bearers to each dooley, with the usual number of sirdars, mate bearers, and mussalchees," says our author, in all between a dozen and a score, we suppose, for the service of each dooley, accommodating, if we understand the description, at most two patients. Still they would, of course, be reserved for special cases, and if the bearers could be procured, would, we doubt not, amply repay their expenses. The expense, indeed, would be a mere nothing, amidst all the lavish waste of a time of war, and as the scheme has answered in India, according to the concurrent testimony of many competent authorities, there is no reason why it should not be tried when next we are so unfortunate as to require it in Europe.

We cannot follow Dr. Williamson through all the subjects which his collection of cases and specimens illustrates; and we may remark in passing, that he has thrown unnecessary difficulties in the way

of persons wishing to do so, by omitting index, table of contents, and headings to pages; but we will select two classes of cases-viz., resections of joints and bones, and gun-shot wounds of the thorax, on the latter of which his work may be compared with that of Dr. Fraser.

The following passages contain the principal information which Dr. Williamson's work conveys on the subject of resection of each of the larger joints.

"Hip.-Excision of the hip-joint for gun-shot injury has been performed eleven times. Of these, but one recovered, that of a soldier wounded by a shell at Sebastopol, and operated upon by Dr. O'Leary. The patient was twentyfive years of age; the head, neck, and trochanter of the femur were removed.

"Of the 11 cases recorded, 6 occurred in the Crimean war, 1 occurred in the Schleswig-Holstein war, 1 by Dr. Ross, 1 by Oppenheim, 1 by M. Seutin, and· 1 by Schwartz. In the Crimean war, excision of the head of the femur was performed six times, and all but one were primary operations. One of the patients survived the operation and recovered-viz., Private Thomas McKenna, 68th Regiment. On his arrival at Chatham, the limb is reported to have been about two and a-half inches shorter than the other, and capable of bearing some considerable portion of the weight of the body. He could swing it and advance it, but the knee could not be bent. Rotation was admitted to a very limited extent, but performed with considerable pain. The wound was soundly healed.

"So far as the Crimean war goes, it clearly proves the superiority of excision of the head of the femur over amputation at the hip-joint. No doubt in any future campaigns, excision of the hip joint will be much more frequently employed, and great attention paid to the selection of cases." (p. 83.)

"Knee.-As yet our experience of excision of the knee-joint in cases of gunshot fracture is not extensive, and the means necessary for after treatment in military practice are not encouraging; but the success which has followed it in cases of disease of the joint, makes military surgeons also wish to extend it to the field. The absolute rest and quiet after the operation, which are so difficult to obtain with an army in the field, is the chief and only objection to its adoption.

"There are two cases recorded of excision of this joint for gun-shot injuries, one in the Schleswig-Holstein war, and the other in the Crimean war. Both died." (p. 85.)

On this head we will merely observe, that the results of more extensive experience seem likely to diminish our estimate of the comparative success of this operation over amputation of the thigh; and that it seems very doubtful whether it is worth while to endeavour to practice it in the field itself. Exceptional cases may of course occur where the patient is wounded in the immediate neighbourhood of a stationary hospital, provided with the necessary appliances and situated in good air, but without such essential requisites we should shrink from an experiment in which, we fear, lives would be uselessly sacrificed.

When we turn to the resections on the upper extremity, there is no longer any doubt of the propriety of the operation, and the success of our military surgeons in this, as in every other department of operative surgery, seems to have been unexampled during the Crimean and Indian campaigns, especially the former, when their services were requited by such a storm of unmerited and ignorant obloquy. On the subject of resection of the shoulder, Dr. Williamson says—