The contributors were, in general, unknown writers, mere literary adventurers, the majority of whom were not versed in medical literature, and evinced but little skill in composition.

These strictures, which were certainly merited, gave you deadly offence. Some more accommodating journalists, it is true, lauded the work at first to the skies, merely to gratify you and the publishers; but even these candid and honest critics were eventually compelled to approve of the judgment I had passed upon it. I again maintain, that no well-informed physician in the kingdom will refuse to admit, that many of the articles are badly done, that the work might be reduced to half the size and price, which by the way was the determination of the late Mr. Sherwood, if ever a future edition was required; and that, as a whole, it is far inferior, indeed can scarcely be compared, with the truly learned, practical, and unequalled Dictionary of Medicine, by Dr. Copland. In fact, all acquainted with the French Medical Dictionaries, are disgusted with your production. It is too long-winded-or, to use a French proverb, Ouvrage de longue haleine. Nevertheless, you are, as part owners of the work, incessantly puffing it in your journal; a most disinterested proceeding, truly, on your part, while you are as incessantly either abusing or sneering at the works of able and more judicious writers.

The next ground of offence was announcing it as my conviction, that your Quarterly Journal was, in merit and usefulness, far inferior to the Medico-Chirurgical Review, and could never approach it in circulation, in the way it was conducted.

I now ask you, has not my judgment been fully verified? Is the sale of your unfair and heavy periodical, one-half of that of the Medico-Chirurgical Review ? According to the Spanish proverb, after having cried up your wine, you sell vinegar-Aviendo pregonado vino, vend vinagré.

Non omnia possumus omnes.

I shall not here advert to my comments upon your professional pretensions to high practice, and certain official situations in this metropolis; they have been duly appreciated by the public, and you are still left in the provinces to enlighten and abuse medical authors in general.

Under all the preceding circumstances, it cannot be very surprising to the reader, that you should abuse my productions, so soon as I ceased to be a journalist, and no longer possessed the means of reply in my own power.

Had you confined yourselves within the limits of fair and impartial criticism of any of my humble works, I should never have complained; but when you wilfully and wantonly misrepresent them, extract parts of sentences, so as to destroy the context, misquote and substitute whole sentences and expressions for others, which you well knew were too ignorant and absurd to be written by me, or by any educated member of the medical profession, I have every right to complain, and to expose your unfair and dishonest mode of criticism, to the contempt and derision of the medical profession in all countries.

Now for examples of your criticism in proof of the preceding charges— In your review of my edition of Dr. Denman's Obstetrician's Vademecumyou quote the following sentences which are not mine, nor are they in my edition of that work. "Come under the neck of the pubes." No. 4. p. 524. I never used such a barbarism as neck of the pubes. I do not know such a part of the human body as the neck of the pubes, though your placentæ præviæ reviewers may; and I consider that ascribing the use of such a term to me was a malicious insult.

Again, you state-" The ergot of rye," Dr. Ryan says, "will 'always' effect the removal of a retained placenta. This is surely attributing more certain powers to the ergot than it really possesses." I never wrote or said any such nonsensical sentence; and it is scandalously introduced, to enable the stupid and ignorant reviewer to knock down " a windmill of his own erection."

Again-" with respect to the half ounce' doses of the ergot-we never have heard the medicine was exhibited in such quantity," p. 525. My words are "The maximum dose is 3iss." p. 68. This is another windmill, the erection of a stult, on whose shallow capacity 1 have previously commented. This I now repeat, as well as my former opinion, that this worthy betrays a gross ignorance of practical obstetricy from the beginning to the end of his review of the Obstetrician's Vademecum. He has, lastly, done me the additional favour of once more misquoting me—" to breaking down the os uteri with the finger."

Et sic de similibus et de cæteris.

Was there ever such misrepresentation among gentlemen of a liberal profession? Breaking down the os uteri!!!

Do you call this fair and honest reviewing? I shall leave the profession to judge.

With reference to your review of my work on Marriage, it is not a review, but a virulent attack, and such I am proud to find is the general opinion of those few of the profession who have perused it-men infinitely your superiors in capacity and attainments. You designedly passed over the preface and introductory remarks, which proved the important object of the work, in as much as theologians, philosophers, physiologists, legislators, and lawyers, as well as the medical profession of all ages in civilized countries, have fully discussed every question relating to the reproductive functions, as well as the laws relating to marriage, bastardy, divorce, seduction, infanticides, homicides, and numerous other crimes, upon which an infinity of questions arise, deeply interesting to every class of society. But to the point. It would seem that you are apt to be intentionally blind or incapable of comprehending the various bearings of the numerous important questions that daily occur concerning abuses of the functions just mentioned, in relation to life, liberty, honour, property, &c. &c.

Damnant quod non intelligunt.

It did not suit your purpose to dwell duly upon the prefatory matter, for it would have totally upset your superficial remarks, and your unjustifiable charge that the work is immoral-though you knew it was the reverse.

According to your sapient dogmas, all works on anatomy, midwifery, law, medicine, morality, political economy, the public press, and even the Bible itself, ought to be suppressed. Now this may be the code of "the little great men of Chichester and Worcester," who fancy they can lay down laws as well as circumscribe the limits of imparting knowledge, but certainly not for men who think for themselves. Your code is unfortunately at variance with the universally-received doctrine at this period of the nineteenth century, namely, the importance of "the diffusion of all useful knowledge amongst mankind." Never did the medical profession or public condemn the diffusion of natural science. I can readily imagine your sardonic grins when I inform you, that notwithstanding your unwarrantable censure, my work has met with the approbation of many of our sound philanthropic medical philosophers, and other distinguished personages, including clergymen of every denomination, with whom you can have no pretensions. A large impression, 1500 copies, sold in one year, and I am now, notwithstanding your criticism and condemnation, about to publish a new and much larger edition. How true the French proverbIl y a des reproches qui louent, et des louanges qui medisent. Some reproaches are a commendation, and some praises detraction. Laudatur ab his, culpatur ab illis. The sure way to be deceived is to believe ourselves more cunning than the rest of the world-to abuse every one with great eloquence and little conscience, or as the Italians render it-" Di grand eloquenza, picciola conscienza"-but we should remember, that curs that are always barking generally get sore ears. Les chiens hargueux ont toujours les oreilles dechirées.

I hope I may be allowed to observe in this place, without much vanity, that there are few who have studied medicine in all its branches, both in this king

dom and abroad, with more zeal and industry than I have, and that few have evinced more researches in so many different original works. In fact, these have been more than favourably noticed both at home and abroad; while a few hireling pseudo-critics at home, who, like the Swiss amanuenses, readily undertake "what is above or below their capacity," gravely declared that those very works were the worst ever published. Nevertheless I must take leave to observe, that not one of these truly impartial and erudite critics has produced a single original work of the slightest value, while most of mine have passed through several editions, both in this and other countries. I mention these facts to shew the high claims of my worthy assailants, either as learned authors or qualified medical critics; most of whom have not had sufficient talents or attainments to produce an original sixpenny pamphlet; while the few of them, who have ventured to appear as authors, and all of them as quondam rival journalists, can never forget or forgive my just strictures and censures upon their paltry productions, and dishonest periodicals. Hinc ille lachrymæ. Hence, reader, the cause of their vituperative attacks.

I now allude to these facts to shew how little I care for unfair or unprincipled medical critics; and also to prove, that their censures have not, in any way, prevented repeated editions of the very works of mine, which they so loudly and unjustly abused and condemned. I may likewise be permitted to add, that my practice far exceeds that of my spiteful and mendacious assailants. Such are the bad effects of unfair and unmerited criticism. As a further proof of the truth and force of these remarks, I have to observe, that there are no three medical editors in this kingdom who have been so unsparingly abused as Dr. James Johnson, Dr. Copland, and myself. Indeed it is my own firm conviction, that partial and malicious criticism has never done myself, nor any other individual, any real injury.

I can aver, after careful and extensive observation and experience, that a more unprincipled and incompetent set of medical critics, with a few honorable exceptions, do not exist than in this country. Did not our infamous, sophisticated, and unchristian libel law, which enacts," the greater the truth the greater the libel," restrain me, I could enter into details which would fully prove the truth of the preceding strictures.

Suffice it then, to observe, that many of our medical critics allow private feeling, party prejudice, self-interest, and a variety of other bad motives, to influence them in their reviews. They pass over or abuse valuable works, while at the same time, they praise miserable productions, which speedily find their way to the butter-man, the trunk-maker, and "serve to put under pies, to lap spice in, and keep roast meat from burning-quos legunt cacantes."

How often had I, whilst a critic, justly praised really valuable works, which were afterwards censured in the severest terms by most of my contemporaries; and how often had I as justly censured other productions, which they lauded "to the fifth heavens."

It is very painful to me to admit, but it is the truth, that our medical reviewers in general want the talent, erudition, candour, honesty, and impartiality of their contemporaries in France, Germany, Italy, and other European nations, as well as in America and India. Every one knows that there are the most able medical writers and critics in this country, but the latter are very unfortunately the smallest portion.

But to return from this digression, I have to observe, that it is really lamentable to see critics, of your calibre, finding fault with all authors for want of original matter. It would be very important to the medical world, were you to inform it, where we can find original matter. Most assuredly not in your Cyclopædia or Review, though you who aim at tomes, the offspring of other men's brains, condemn works by wholesale; in fact, you attack every thing unless the production of a friend, for want of originality. The laborious

and learned productions of Professor Cooper, Dr. Copland, Dr. Beck, as well as my own humble works, fall under the ban of your erudite critical censure. Pray what original work have you produced? If any, when did it appear, and where is it to be found? At any rate, I have never seen one scrap of original matter upon any medical or other subject from your leaden pens.

Ever since one of you published his Homer, that is to say, his translation of Laennec's work, which by the way, a medical tyro of two years standing could as well accomplish, you have given no proficiency in medical literature, to say nothing of science, so far as I have observed, and I am not aware, that the science or practice of medicine is indebted to either of you fratrum," for one single fact, in relation to its advancement.

par nobile How well qualified must you then be to decry mine or any other work, for its want of originality, while you yourselves, have evinced none!

Admitting for the sake of argument, what is not true, that there is not "a syllable of original matter in the work" (mine); in such case you and I are precisely in the same position. So much for your love of originality.

But permit me to inform you, that your assertion, is what our polite Gallican contemporaries would designate, cela n'est pas vrai.—Anglice—not true.

No sabe uno que pensar de vm.

One does not know what to think of you. You know, or you ought to have known, before you made the preceding remark-had you condescended to peruse my work-that more than one half of it is original matter;—a fact, which ill accords with your stricture-" there is not an original syllable in the work."— p. 460. Such is your remarkably impartial criticism.

You in common with too many medical writers of the day, attack compilers of works, as if every medical book was to be original. This illiberal and foolish observation was made on a former occasion, by a brother critic of yours' on my work on Medical Jurisprudence, whose interest it was to praise the learned and elaborate compilation of Professor Beck, as it was then published by his employers, against the new edition of mine, which was declared on that occasion, the worst book ever published by this honest reviewer, though lauded in America, which has much reason to be proud of Dr. Beck-where the reviewers declared it the best manual extant-not a systematic treatise that it ought to be reprinted in that country, which was accordingly done, under the able editorship of Professor Griffiths.

Now hear the sentiment of a first rate moral philosopher, poet, and critic, of the Augustan age of classical literature in this country.

"Were all books reduced to their quintescence, many a bulky author would make his appearance in a penny paper: there would be scarcely any such thing in Nature as a folio: the works of an age would be contained on a few shelves; not to mention the millions of volumes that would be utterly annihilated."Addison.-Spectator, No. 124. Your Cyclopædia and Journal excepted !

It would be well, were many modern medical critics to remember, that a compiler is one deeply versed in all that has been written on his subject; not one of those pretended original authors, who is ignorant of the labours of his predecessors, and who sets forth his original opinions, which were really published centuries before he was born, as is too generally the case.

Lastly, you attack my article on Abortion in the Cyclopædia of Practical Surgery. I shall not now state your position with respect to that work; but I shall inform you that my article is not as you allege, copied, from my learned and able friend Dr. Copland, but was expressly written by myself, and afterwards sadly modified in the work, in which it appeared. Many of our cyclopædists are like the Swiss Amanuenses already noticed; but I must beg to assure you, that the article, such as it even now is, with all due deference to your obstetric opinion, is not below the present state of science, for it contains many practical hints, which I defy you to point out in any other work extant. No. LIX.

A A

Allow me to observe, in conclusion, that when you condescend to review any of my unfortunate works in future, pray, for your own sakes, employ some persons, who know something of the subject matter. Vaya vm. con Dios hasta la vista-Good-bye, till we meet again. I am, Gentlemen,

Your obedient Servant,

M. RYAN, M.D.

4, Charlotte Street, Bloomsbury, Bedford Square, December 12, 1838.

To the Editors of the Medico-Chirurgical Review.

GENTLEMEN. In your last Number, you have done me the honor to notice a Paper of mine on Prolapsus Uteri, read before the Medical Society of this State at its last session. You will pardon the liberty I take in calling your attention to a very strange error under which the writer of the notice appears to have penned his remarks. I am not the inventor of the apparatus called Supporter" nor of any improvement therein, neither do I reside at 279, Regent-street, London! The apparatus was invented by the late A. G. HULL, M.D. of this city, seven or eight years since, and has not, so far as I am aware, undergone any modification since its introduction into practice in this country.

The Medical Society in which I read the Paper is a representative body, consisting of one medical man from each county in the State, elected by the medical society of such county to act as its delegate, and holding annual sessions, at the seat of government. This society is established by charter, and forms a part of our sanatory police. At its meetings the delegates read papers, which if approved by the society, are on motion referred to an editorial committee for publication in the "Transactions."

Being delegate from the County of New York, where the new apparatus was in extensive and successful use, and having applied it, in many instances successfully in my own practice, I wrote the Paper you found in the last Number of the Transactions, and were so kind as to notice, as a species of local intelligence from my constituents. The Paper is entitled (I quote from memory) "Observations on Prolapsus of the Womb, with reference to the Modus Operandi of a New Apparatus, invented by the late Dr. Hull, called Utero-Abdominal Supporter," or words to this effect.

If you will take the trouble to look at your copy of the Transactions again, and make a brief correction of the errors, you will very much oblige me.

I shall call to-morrow on the Messrs. Woods, to ascertain if they will consider themselves at liberty to correct the American edition, which is probably now in press. Very respectfully, your obedient servant,