the pathology well up to date, and the authors broke away in a remarkable manner from many of the traditions and routines of old-time practice. If you compare Meigs and Pepper of 1870 with the third edition, or with the contemporary books on the same subject, you will see what a radical work it was for that date. To one section of the edition we may turn with special interest, namely, to diseases of the caecum and appendix. Nowhere in literature, I believe, before 1870, is the importance of the appendix so fully recognized, or is there so good a description of the results of perforation. One cannot but regret that no edition of this work appeared after the sixth, in 1877. The experience gained by Pepper, while still a very young man, in the preparation of this work, was of incalculable value. It familiarized him with the literature, gave him an insight into the art of book-making, brought him into close personal contact with a man with remarkable medical instincts, and altogether was a circumstance which, I think, may be justly regarded as one of the three most powerful influences during the formative period of his career. Indeed, in many quarters, Dr. William Pepper, jun., as he used to be called, really never got the credit for the association with Meigs in the work on For years I had the impression that it was his father who was the joint author of the work; and even quite recently, since Dr. Pepper's death, I heard a man well versed in medical literature and interested in diseases of children, express great surprise that the Pepper of Meigs and Pepper was the late Provost of the University.
This address was prepared to be delivered at the opening of the session of the Johns Hopkins Medical School, October, 1898; but I was ill at the time.
one reads the nonfiction work of Robert Louis Stevenson along with the novels and short stories, a more complete portrait emerges of the author than that of the romantic vagabond one usually associates with his best-known fiction. The Stevenson of the nonfiction prose is a writer involved in the issues of his craft, his milieu, and his soul. Moreover, one can see the record of his maturation in critical essays, political tracts, biographies, and letters to family and friends. What Stevenson lacks, especially for the tastes of this age, is specificity and expertise: he has not the depth of such writers as , , or . But he was a shrewd observer of humankind, and his essays reveal his lively and perspicacious mind. Though he lacked originality, he created a rapport with the reader, who senses his enthusiastic embrace of life and art. If Stevenson at first wrote like one who only skimmed the surface of experience, by the end of his life he was passionately committed to his adopted land of Samoa, to his own history, and to the creation of his fiction.
Robert Louis Stevenson was born to Thomas and Margaret Isabella Balfour Stevenson in Edinburgh on 13 November 1850. From the beginning he was sickly. Through much of his childhood he was attended by his faithful nurse, Alison Cunningham, known as Cummy in the family circle. She told him morbid stories about the Covenanters (the Scots Presbyterian martyrs), read aloud to him Victorian penny-serial novels, Bible stories, and the Psalms, and drilled the catechism into him, all with his parents' approval. Thomas Stevenson was quite a storyteller himself, and his wife doted on their only child, sitting in admiration while her precocious son expounded on religious dogma. Stevenson inevitably reacted to the morbidity of his religious education and to the stiffness of his family's middle-class values, but that rebellion would come only after he entered Edinburgh University.
The Jewish immigrant culture of turn-of-the-century New York was by no means eitheranti-intellectual or parochial, and for a boy as intelligent and curious as Zukofsky itafforded a wealth of cultural opportunities. Although he could have gone to City Collegefor free, his parents sacrificed to send him to Columbia, where he studied philosophy andEnglish, was a member of the student literary society, and saw his poems published in thestudent literary magazines. Zukofskys classmates at Columbia included many namesthat would become well known in later years, among them educators Clifton Fadiman andMortimer J. Adler, literary critic Lionel Trilling, art historian Meyer Schapiro, andtheater critic John Gassner. One of Zukofsky's closest friends in his first years atColumbia was Whittaker Chambers. During this period of his life the future accuser ofAlger Hiss and author of (perhaps the most famous anti-communist documentof the century) had become a member of the Communist Party, and could introduce the youngZukofsky both to radical modernist literature and to Party circles. In 1922, Chambers wasexpelled from Columbia for publishing an "atheistic" play in a student magazine,though he would remain an associate of Zukofskys: in 1931 he appears among the poetsof Zukofskys new movement, the "Objectivists." Zukofsky's own writings ofhis Columbia period are not particularly political: they show a very sensitive and veryyoung man struggling to find his voice in poetry, with some success. One poem at leastachieved publication in Harriet Monroe's (Chicago) in 1924 (though Zukofskywould never reprint it).
This most noble lord, aged 45of very slight build and delicate constitution, had been an invalid for many years, and was exceedingly subject, upon the slightest cause, to a recurrent yellow jaundice. There was a painless internal tumour, broad, and slightly projecting, about the anterior region of the liver, and his hypochondria was very apparent to the touch. Although it had been observed 12 years before, the exact time when the tumour first began is uncertain. For since the colour of the skin was unchanged and no swelling was apparent externally, unless the hand were applied it easily escaped the eye; nor through the whole 12 years did it seem to change in the least. The doctors called into con-
The story of the friendship of these two great men has been told in a delightful way by the late Dr. John Brown, but he knew nothing of the Shaftesbury papers or of several other important manuscripts which have come to light since his essay was published. Sydenham, eight years Locke's senior, had taken the M.B. of Oxford in 1648, four years before Locke entered Christ Church. There is no evidence to indicate that these well-paired friends, as Fox-Bourne calls them, had met before Locke went to London with Lord Ashley in 1667. In the following year we find them practising together, Locke accompanying Sydenham on his rounds and much interested in the new plan of treating smallpox. In 1668 Sydenham wrote to Boyle: 'I perceive my friend Mr. Locke hath troubled you with an account of my practice as he hath done himself in visiting with me very many of my variolous patients especially.' But the best evidence of Locke's practice at this time and of his intimacy with Sydenham is found in his own
Evidence of their friendship exists in the comments and annotations which Sydenham has made in his own hand on some of Locke's writings, and the great interest which Locke took in those of Sydenham. In the second edition of Sydenham's there is inserted after the preface a Latin poem of fifty-four lines, signed, 'J. Locke.' It was Sydenham's purpose at a later date to write a separate work on smallpox, and for this Locke prepared in 1670 a dedication and a preface, neither of which was used. They will be referred to later. Letters written by Locke during his long residence in France contain frequent references to Sydenham and frequent inquiries after his health; particularly the letters to Mapletoft, who was a common friend. He also consulted Sydenham about Lady Northumberland's illness. It was probably before leaving England that Sydenham gave Locke the advice in a letter, the original of which is in the Record Office.
throughout the greater part of his long life he was ready to treat cases and to give advice; still less was it known that he was a writer of medical essays, and that he had left a large body of clinical reports and papers. I had become familiar with his professional relations through John Brown's essay, and many additional details are given in the just referred to, but for the more important facts I have made a careful study of the Locke MSS. in the British Museum and in the Record Office.
Fortunately, Dr. Holmes's medical essays are reprinted with his works. Several of them are enduring contributions to the questions with which they deal; all should be read carefully by every student of medicine. The essay on Homeopathy remains one of the most complete exposures of that therapeutic fad. There is no healthier or more stimulating writer to students and to young medical men. With an entire absence of nonsense, with rare humour and unfailing kindness, and with that delicacy of feeling characteristic
'3. Convenient not only till the flux of matter be no more than may be well expected from a flesh issue of that depth, but after it hath gradually decreased to that small thing, it be kept open at least three or four months at what time soever the flux come to that low ebb, but if it happen after Xmas, as in the spring, that it be kept open till the beginning of the next winter, that the flux be constantly and warily observed, and that it be sometimes diligently searched, so that by these ways all the security possible may be had that there is not the least sore or hollow left behind unhealed up. And to prevent a fever or other disorder in the blood upon its stop ping up, it will be necessary then and sometimes a fter to use a spare diet with frequent purging, till Nature, used to the convenience of this discharge, may by degrees accustom herself either to master or vent her humours some other way.