the axe happened to be at some distance, a messenger was sent in great haste, who found that it had fallen down from its place, and the dressings were consequently deranged. Here was certainly the cause of all the pain, and accordingly it was ascertained, that at the very time that the messenger re-applied the salve to the axe, and set it up in its place, the patient became perfectly easy![4] As another very common example of an undue disposition to refer results in the course of disease to positive medication, I would mention the fact, that those who have the care of the sick, often attribute any change that may occur, whether it be favorable or unfavorable, almost as a matter of course, to the remedy that was administered immediately before the change took place. They do this sometimes when the medicine has not had time to produce any effect at all. They do not reflect that some remedies act much more slowly than others, nor that changes are often induced by other agencies than the action of medicine. This error is met with every day, and the cunning and dishonorable physician makes capital out of it whenever he can. A physician of this character was once called to a case of quinsy, in which the abscess in the throat was just ready to break. Perceiving that here was a fair chance for making the “_post hoc, propter hoc_” mode of reasoning subserve his purpose, he assured the suffering patient that he had some powders, which were “sure to break the quinsy.” While he was preparing some of them in an adjoining room, the nurse came out and told him that they should not need his powders, for the quinsy had broken. The wily doctor could not help remarking in an undertone to a student, whom he was indoctrinating in the _arts_, as well as in the science of medicine, “I wish that I had been lucky enough to have got down one of my powders before that quinsy broke.” When one recovers from sickness, it is very common for his neighbors and friends to inquire, what it was that cured him—as if there was some one remedy that effected the cure. It is true, that in some cases, the agency of some one medicine is so prominent, that it may very properly be said to have been the cause of the recovery. But this does not often happen. In the great majority of cases, the cure is to be attributed to the whole course of treatment, including many different remedies and measures.[5] And very often the negative portions of the course are of as much importance as the positive remedies that have been given, perhaps even more so. Thus, in some cases of inflammation of the eye, the exclusion of light is as necessary to the cure as the leeching, the blistering, &c. So also in inflammation of the brain, the exclusion of noise and excitement from the room of the patient, is as essential as any of the positive medication which may be employed.