of a surgeon, now at the head of his profession, and approaching the octogenarian period, remarkable for his health and juvenility of appearance, whose under dress throughout has been silk. How much of his good health he has owed to this peculiarity of dress, who can say! But we must infer that he thinks well of its influence; and, if an electrical atmosphere can conduce to health, the silk, in contact with fabrics of other kinds, may have some virtue. These are a few desultory remarks on a subject which we could wish to see treated more in extenso, believing that it deserves it, and that it would not prove ungrateful for the attention.. On the dress of the people at large, in its minute details, we shall not at present enter; our limited space forbids it, enforced further by the persuasion that in a matter in which fashion is so much concerned, the pages of our Review are not the fit medium for making any salutary impression on the public mind, especially of the women-kind: we have enunciated what we believe to be the principles of rational dress, and willingly resign to Punch' and the 'Times' the reformatory pen; if we may venture to express a hope, it is, that the one will not spare its jest, nor the other its fulmination, so long as the power of either of them continues to have effect, that is, so long as the one can raise a smile or excite a laugh, or the other produce a serious thought or a rational conviction. REVIEW VII. 1. Lehrbuch der Physiologie für Akademische Vorlesungen und zum 2. Traité de Physiologie. Par Dr. F. A. LONGET.-Paris, 1850–57. I Treatise on Physiology. By Dr. LONGET. Two Volumes. PHILOSOPHY has undergone an important change. Science has passed through a mighty revolution. The fancies of alchemy have been replaced by the facts of chemistry. The transcendental views of sary than attention to the head. Fortunately, a foot-bath of some kind is easily attainable: if heated and foot-sore after a long march or walk, how refreshing is such a bathi of tepid or cool water in a hot climate, or during our summer heat; if in a cold climate and after passive exercise, on horseback or in a carriage, how grateful is one of hot water! And it is hardly less so, if not taking any exercise, as when at night-time the feet may be cold before retiring to rest, then warmth thus imparted has a calming effect, promotes sleep almost as much as the contrary treatment of the head, as described above, does in a hot climate. The effect of the bath, whether cooling or warming, is not confined to the feet, through the circulation, in the returning blood, the system becomes a partaker of it. How much is it to be desired that we followed the Orientals in the habit of foot-washing, a habit so sadly neglected by the English people of the working class. We have been tempted to point to this, though not strictly belonging to the subject before us; and we would add, speaking from some experience, that even the nightly bathing of the feet in hot water has no relaxing, debilitating tendency, but we believe even the contrary, as conducive to their healthy condition. astrology by the sober calculations of astronomy; and now also we find a peculiar spirit pervading the physiology of the present day. The cord that has so long bound it to the metaphysical dreams of the middle ages is fast being gnawn asunder. Men doubt, where they once blindly credited; and inquire into what they formerly took for granted. They cease to believe that causes of which they are ignorant, originate in a supernatural agency, and no longer fear to affirm that the transformation of dead matter into living tissue is dependent upon something else than the spectre called "vital action." True physiology, by which term we mean physiology as an exact science, does not yet exist. But nevertheless no one can shut his eyes to the fact that an important change is taking place in this department of knowledge; and that, just in the same way as the astronomy of the nineteenth rose out of the astrology of the eighteenth century, so will true physiology rise, sphinx-like, from the ashes of the pseudo-physiology which still encumbers us. The new school that has risen up in Germany, in France, and in England, has sent forth pupils who have thrown off the yoke of credulity, and who no longer fear to be branded as sceptics, since they have learned to regard the brand as the Victoria Cross of the true science they are fighting to establish. The members of this, the chemico-physical school, are often tauntingly asked, what practical good their researches do? They are told that, in spite of all their boasted knowledge, medicine is still left in the "dark ages." That there are still but two diseases which she can cure-itch and ague. That she has still but two remedies-sulphur and quinine. Now, is this true, or is this false? We do not hesitate to affirm that the injustice of the reproach is only equalled by the ignorance of those who make it. It is humiliating to have to refute such an assertion; nevertheless we shall bestow upon it a passing remark. The chemico-physical school has taught us many important facts. From its members we have derived a clearer, and we might say simpler, conception of what life is than we previously possessed. They have shown us, for example, that absorption follows the ordinary physical law of diosmose, that the crystalline leus acts according to the law of optics, that the limbs move in obedience to mechanics, and that digestion, respiration, &c., are performed on purely chemical and physical principles. In a word, they have pointed out to us that the phenomena of life are the effects of a combination of the natural laws which govern the universe at large. It seems to us a strange thing that there should still be found individuals in the ranks of the medical profession who regard physiology as a science apart from medicine, and talk about a course of lectures upon it as if they were lectures upon comparative anatomy and zoology. This arises from a total misconception of what physiology is. For any one at all acquainted with physiology must be fully aware of the fact, that this branch of study and rational medicine are inseparable. The former indeed occupies, in relation to the latter, a much more intimate position than anatomy does to surgery. A surgeon may successfully amputate a limb with 46-XXIII. זי but an imperfect knowledge of the position of the arteries, for, during the performance of the operation, his eyes will tell him where to place the ligatures. A physician, however, cannot rationally treat the disordered function of any organ without a previous knowledge of its healthy action. Nay, more, in order to be a good physician, he must not only know the normal function of the organ in question, but he must also be fully acquainted with the variety of influences which the functions of the various organs exert upon each other, both in health and in disease. If the practitioner be ignorant of these when he comes to the bedside of his patient, he will find it impossible to acquire the requisite information while there; and his ignorance will lead to bewilderment in diagnosis, absurdity in theory, empiricism in treatment. We can see no line of demarcation between physiology and pathology. The same laws which act in health act also in disease, and it is only on account of a change in their rhythm, or in their force, that the result of their action is different. Hence it is that a knowledge of these laws is essential to the physician, and hence also it is that physiology, which teaches them, is synonymous with rational medicine. This is no new view of the case; for in one of the oldest and largest of our British medical schools (Edinburgh), the course of lectures on physiology is, and has long been, termed "Lectures on the Institutes of Medicine." This being true, one feels inclined to ask, how it has happened that the gentlemen who lately framed the new code of regulations at the College of Surgeons, should have thought that physiology-the principles of medicine-could be properly taught in forty-eight lessons? Did they imagine that the clinical physician was to teach his students physiology at the bed-side? Surely not. One might as soon expect the hospital surgeon to demonstrate on the limb of a patient the origin and insertion of the various muscles and ligaments, as expect the clinical physician to explain the course of the circulation, the mechanism of respiration, or the chemistry of digestion in the wards of an hospital. Now, as it caunot be taught there, and it is impossible to teach it in forty-eight lessons, it is perfectly clear that it will never be taught at all. The thoroughly practical men, then, which our schools are expected to produce under the new regulations, will approach much nearer than they have hitherto done to the skilful old woman, the Esculapius of the village. The practice of the one being, like that of the other, guided by no principles but those derived from bed-side experience. ! 1 Some, we know, are bold enough to assert that it is quite unnecessary for a medical man to be acquainted with the normal functions what he has to treat being the diseased; and that if he understands the derangements of an organ he knows enough. To this class of thinkers we would address the question, "When your watch is out of order, do you take it to a workman who neither understands the construction of its different parts, nor the offices they perform?", If you do not, why do you ask people to take the human machine, when it is out of repair, to an individual who does not comprehend the construction and function of its various parts? You will tell us, perhaps, that you never asked people to do any such thing; what you wish being, for them to go to men who have learned the functions and diseases of organs at the bedside instead of in the lecture room. Our answer to this is, that such a thing is utterly impossible. Before one can know the diseased, he must first of necessity understand the healthy functions; and, no matter however talented and diligent he may be, he can never understand the healthy functions by simply regarding them in a diseased condition. Dr. Marshall Hall spoke well when he said, that "to be a good physician a man must be a good physiologist." The flexibility of our pen has led us to make remarks other than we had intended when we at first took it in hand. But to make up for the digression, we shall at once enter upon the consideration of the books before us. I To many of our readers the name of Funke's Physiology may sound new. The work is not so new, however, as it at first sight appears; for on closer inspection it turns out to be an old book in a new cover. It is, in fact, a new and modified edition of Wagner's Physiology," which had for some years been out of print. The last edition of Wagner's book was published in 1844, and four years ago a new edition of it appeared, edited by Dr. Funke. The latter differed so much from the former edition, however, both as regards plan and substance, that the editor replaced Wagner's name by his own. The copy that we are now about to examine is a still newer edition, the first volume of which appeared in February, 1858, the last about two months ago. On seeing that the book was a manual for students, we did not expect to find in it much material for criticism; for in general such works neither contain a great amount of original matter, nor give a detailed account of unsettled questions. A careful perusal of Funke's Physiology has, nevertheless, taught us that not only the plan and style, but even the substance of a mere compilation may prove a fruitful field for the reviewer. In order to produce a good text-book on physiology, the compiler not only requires to have a very extensive knowledge of his subject, but must possess a remarkably sound judg ment to guide him in the selection of material. Again, if the writer presumes to a still higher office than that of a mere collaborator, and attempts to inculcate a new doctrine, or extract truth from the midst of conflicting opinions, extensive knowledge and sound judgment become still more essential. On examining the work before us, we find that Dr. Funke has not condescended to be the mere compiler of the labours of others, but has frequently taken to himself the duties of an advocate, pleading now the case of this, then of that theory. Nay, more, he has occasionally assumed the office of a judge, and after summing up the cause, has pronounced judgment in accordance with his own views. Consequently, our author has laid himself open to criticism, as will be seen in the following analysis of his book. The introduction need not detain us; for notwithstanding its being headed by the attractive title, "On the Physiology of the Metamorphoses of Animal Tissues," we have discovered in it nothing new either in the way of fact or theory. We at once pass on, then, to about the middle of the first chapter, where the author, speaks of the quantity of blood contained in the human body. This is a point of some impor tance, and one about which, unfortunately, there still remains considerable difference of opinion, although nothing like what formerly existed when some authors gave the amount of blood in an adult as low as eight, while others reckoned it as high as one hundred pounds. Within the last few years several physiologists, seeing the necessity of ascertaining, with something like exactitude, a knowledge of the amount of blood circulating in the human body, have attempted in various ways to collect and weigh it. One and all of them, however, have discovered the task to be much more difficult than they. had at first anticipated. The amount of fluid poured from the vessels of an animal bled to death, has been found to be far short of the actual amount present in the body. Life becomes extinct after the removal of a mere fractional part of the blood, and no sooner has death supervened than the flow is arrested. Even the application of mechanical pressure to the limbs and internal organs has proved insufficient to empty the vessels of their contents. Hence it is that observers have been driven to attempt the solution of the question by a variety of other means, Some have measured the volume of liquid which the bloodvessels of a dead body are capable of containing (Herbert), and have resigned it as fallacious. Others have invented a method which they supposed would be more trustworthy than the preceding. We allude to that adopted by Valentin. Being aware that the absolute quantity of a solution, which contains a definite per-centage of salts, may be ascertained by adding a known amount of water to it, and determining the per-centage of salts in the diluted mixture, Valentin removed by venesection, from a living animal, a small quantity of blood, carefully weighed, and estimated the amount of solids it contained. Then, after injecting into the animal's circulation a measured quantity of water, he immediately withdrew another portion of blood, and ascertained, as before, its percentage of solids. Out of the relative concentration of these two por tions of blood he was able to calculate the amount of fluid circulating in the system. His experiments, which were made upon, sheep, dogs, rabbits, &c., led him to the conclusion that herbivorous, had less blood than carnivorous animals; and that the proportion of blood was to the weight of the body from one to four, to one to six. Taking the average value, he reckoned that the human body would contain one fifth of its weight of blood. It is easily seen that the method pursued by Valentin is open to many objections. The injection of water into the circulation has a very important effect upon the various secretions, and although the second portion of blood is withdrawn almost immediately after the water is injected, yet, during the interval, a quantity of fluid must escape by the renal, cutaneous, pulmonary, and other secretions, and thus give rise to considerable inaccuracy in the calculations. It is generally agreed that Valentin's method yields too high an estimate, ** yine munt vira jotetmagst vð ardi bon à 15. Drs. Ed Weber and Lehmann proceeded in another way to elicit |