Not nearly every case will correspond with such an average in all respects. Moreover, so great is the possible variety of alterations among the different organs of the body that the chances of two instances of disease being precisely alike in every particular are hardly greater than those in favor of every move being the same in two games of chess with the same opening. In an essay like the present it is not easy to decide upon the best manner of treating the subject before us. Too much or too little may be said. With advanced readers the whole history of symptoms and physical signs might be left to the special discussions occurring in articles upon different diseases. But it may be taken for granted that those who consult the present work will do so either at a comparatively early stage of their studies or when time has made desirable a renewal of what may have been once known and then forgotten. Since, then, it is impossible {150} to anticipate what may be the exact needs of either class, a somewhat elementary statement of main facts appears justifiable here. Following the natural method, we may suppose a call to visit a patient. Arriving in his presence, the first question (mostly left out of view and rarely expressed) may be, Is it a case of real or only imaginary indisposition? Army medical officers, more than most others, can appreciate the possibility of this inquiry sometimes disposing of the whole case. Supposing it to be real, is it an illness or an accident or other injury? Is it severe or of trifling account? Acute or chronic? We observe the position of the patient, lying quietly in bed, sitting up, or walking restlessly about the room. Then the countenance is observed--pale or flushed, tranquil or excited in expression. We feel the forehead, touch the cheek and hand. Is the skin hot or cold, dry or moist? The pulse is felt; the breathing also is counted. Of the patient himself or of another (in serious acute cases better of his care-taker, in another apartment) we ask questions whose answers give us the general history of the case. When not before known these should include his antecedent personal history, even extending to that of the family, as far as can be learned. What tendencies have they, or has he or she, shown by previous attacks and their results?