into excessive action by causes which would not have this effect in health. I have before alluded to the tumultuous disorder produced under these circumstances, in the respiratory and circulatory systems, by moderate muscular exertion, and in the nervous system by slight causes of disturbance. Even without any apparent excitement, the heart very often acts with greatly increased frequency. This phenomenon, however, is susceptible of explanation. The nutrition, muscular contraction, digestion, and other functions constantly going on in the system, require a certain amount of blood for their support; and in order to insure the requisite supply, nature has established such a sympathy between the parts in which these functions are performed, and the heart, as to call the latter organ into increased action, when any deficiency is experienced." (page 62.)

Whatever may be thought of the explanation, the practical deduction is of very great importance in the treatment of disease. In an enfeebled condition of the system, to bleed, purge and starve, because the heart acts tumultuously, is literally to slay the patient; and yet, regardless of all the other indications, we have known extensive bleeding performed only a few hours before death, because the heart was beating with unwonted force! In such cases, it will always be found that instead of being curbed, the frequency, at least, of the heart's contractions will be increased, and the danger vastly augmented.

The author treats of revulsion, derivation, and counter-irritation, as one and the same thing—as if, in fact, these were convertible terms. Thus he remarks: "This [revulsion-derivation-counter-irritation] consists in the diversion of disease from one part of the system, by the production of inflammation, or irritation, in another part." (p. 216.) This is true of counterirritation, but very effectual revulsion is often made by means which excite neither irritation nor inflammation. The various hygienic influences so successfully invoked in the treatment of many chronic diseases act by the production of healthy excitement of the various organs of the body, without that excitement rising to the degree of irritation.

After explaining the action of revulsive agents (or rather of counter-irritants) the reader is very properly cautioned against their employment in the active stage of inflammatory diseases.

"But," observes the author, "during the existence of high constitutional excitement, the revulsive agent is not able to unseat

the inflammation, and, if of itself irritant, as in the instances of rubefacients and blisters, may add to the existing excitement, by the sympathy of the system with the superficial inflammation they produce. But, when the revulsive impression is conjoined with copious depletion, as in the case of hydragogue cathartics, which produce a revulsion towards the whole lining membrane of the bowels, while they evacuate the contents of the blood vessels, it may be resorted to even in the greatest height of the inflammation. The copious secretion prevents the excitement of an irritation in the bowels, sufficient to bring the constitution into sympathy." (p. 217.)

We cannot assent to the correctness of the practice inculcated in this paragraph. Although hydragogue cathartics produce "copious depletion," it is only of the watery part of the blood, and not its richer and more stimulating portion; and beside, the action of several medicines of this class is sufficiently energetic to cause so great local excitement as to materially effect the general nervous and vascular systems. We think that Dr. Wood himself, on reflection, would hardly prescribe colocynth, scammony or gamboge in hepatitis, peritonitis, or pneumonia, "in the greatest height of the inflammation;" trusting to the copiousness of the secretions to counteract their general excitant influences.

We have noticed occasional instances like these in which we differ from the author in points of practice, and in which we think he differs from himself-for in the general soundness of his therapeutical principles we entirely concur. They are such as we have acted on for a third of a century, slightly modified, it may be, by the progress of our science. It is, however, in carrying into practice these principles, that we should have occasion to differ from the author, and on a closer examination of the work, it is not unlikely that these occasions would be multiplied. We perceive, for instance, the greatest confidence reposed in certain articles of the materia inedica, to which we attach very little; such as the citrate of potassa in fevers of almost every type, but especially bilious fevers. The acetic and tartaric acids in combination with potassa, according to Dr. Wood, will not do-nor the citric acid with either of the carbonates of soda. "I feel very confident," he remarks, "that no practitioner who has ever been in the habit of using the effervescing draught,' properly pre

́pared, (i. e. fresh lemon juice and carbonate of potassa, in the effervescing state) in the treatment of bilious fever, will be disposed to abandon it." We have no doubt that this is true, and that those who are "in the habit of using" any other article. will not be disposed to abandon it. "Habit" is a strong law, that few venture to dispute. We acquire the "habit" of giving certain things in particular diseases, and, in self-limited diseases, as fevers often are, our patients generally get well, and of course the medicine, no matter how inert, gets the credit of the cure, and our "habit" is confirmed.

We do not object to the efferverscing draught in bilious fever. It is as simple and innoxious as any thing else, and if something must be done to keep the patient and the doctor quiet, it may as well be given, although we should much prefer a piece of ice or a little cold water: but we object to overweening confidence in any single article in all cases of disease wearing the same general character, and especially to the ascription of very active properties to such as are really inert under almost any circumstances.

Generally speaking, the pathological principles, as well as the therapeutical laws, set forth in this treatise, will be found in accordance with the present advanced state of our knowledge on these subjects. Usually, it is not the author's custom to doubt, even on points regarded by the generality of authors as doubtful. Thus, yellow fever is neither gastritis nor a form of bilious fever, nor miasmatic, but a peculiar fever.

"There can, I think, be no doubt, that yellow fever is an entirely peculiar and distinct disease. What are the precise pathological conditions essential to it are unknown. It is highly probable that the blood is prominently in fault, being deranged by the immediate action of the morbific cause."-(p. 30s.)

Congestive, or, as the author calls it, pernicious fever, is a "form of miasmatic fever," in which the congested condition of the vessels of certain organs is merely a consequence of the disease, and "it is in the peculiar state of the innervation, that we are to look for the source at once of the symptoms and the danger."

Continued or Typhoid fever he denominates "enteric fever," and makes it, in its causes, symptoms and character, a distinct disease from typhus, thus cutting the knotty question of identity in the most summary manner, although M. M. Louis, Gaultier

de Claubry and others, believe their typhoid and typhus to be absolutely identical: and one of the most recent numbers of the Archives Generale des Mèdicine (for May, 1847,) states that typhoid fever is one of the most irritating questions to the Academy de Medicine, and one on which the opinions of its members are most divided and most in contradiction. Its identity with remittent or bilious fever is also denied, notwithstanding the author admits that "cases having all the essential characters of enteric fever occasionally end in intermittent; and bilious fevers, or affections which cannot be distinguished from them, sometimes show signs of enteric fever during their progress."

The "present work claims to be something more than a mere compilation." The author does not, however, pretend that the facts or opinions advanced are generally original with himself: but that "these materials have for the most part been maturely considered, have been submitted to the closest scrutiny of which he was capable, and have been re-arranged in accordance with his own best judgment." This is certainly the true course for a writer to pursue who desires to prepare a comprehensive treatise which shall do full justice to the subject without undue prolixity. To do justice, however, at the same time, to antecedent and cotemporary writers and observers, by awarding to each the credit of what properly belongs to him, when thus "re-arranging" these materials to suit an author's own judgment, is not so easy a matter; and we regret to find that in the work before us the effort does not seem to have been always made, where early impressions or personal predilections were not strong enough to incite to the task. We think there are many instances overlooked where the writings of American physicians might have been profitably cited, whilst the published opinions of some of the most eminent of the profession, whose names are rarely if at all alluded to in the course of the work, would have given additional interest to its pages.

We have thus cursorily noticed some of the points on which we do not entirely accord with the author in the work before Candor would not allow us to do less. We are fully sensible of the difficulty there is in speaking of the productions of a writer whom we have known and esteemed through

us.

many long years of uninterrupted friendship, but we have endeavoured to do so with the impartiality demanded by truth and science, and it is in this spirit that we pronounce the treatise of Dr. Wood, notwithstanding the objections we have made, to be one of the most valuable of the works that have come from the American press, and exceedingly creditable to the zeal and abilities of the accomplished author.

Elements of Chemistry, including the history of the imponderables, and the Inorganic Chemistry of the late Edward Turner, M. D., F. R. S. L. and E., Seventh Edition, and the Outlines of Organic Chemistry, by William Gregory, M. D., &c., Professor of Chemistry, University of Edinburg. With additions, by JAMES B. ROGERS, M. D., Professor of General Chemistry, Franklin Institute, and Lecturer on Medical Chemistry, &c., and ROBERT E. ROGERS, M. D., &c., Professor of Chemistry and Materia Medica, University of Virginia, &c., Svo. pp. 848. Thomas, Cowperthwaite & Co., Philadelphia,

1846.

Dr. Turner's elements of Chemistry has for many years sustained the highest character, both in Europe and America, as a full and accurate exposition of the principles of the science. It has already passed through several editions in this country, under the careful supervision of Professor Bache, to whom the Author, in the European edition, published shortly before his death, acknowledged himself indebted for the correction of numerous errors and the addition of much useful matter. We are pleased to find that the editors of the present edition have adopted these corrections of Dr. Bache, to whose labours they refer in the following courteous and just language: "In labouring to correct the numerous typographical errors of the London work, the editors have been greatly assisted by the American re-prints of the former edition of Turner's Elements, the great accuracy of which reflects so much credit on the industry and attaimnents of their accomplished editor."

In noticing a work which has passed through so many editions, neither analysis, criticisin, nor commendation, is required or will