recommending especially the removal of any clots which obstruct the passage. (Cont. xxiii.) The practice of lithotomy appears to have been reckoned a disreputable occupation among the Arabians, for Avenzoar mentions it as an operation which an upright and respectable man would not witness, far less perform. (ii, 2, 7.) As there are some doubts regarding the form of the incisions in the ancient methods of performing lithotomy, we will now give the words of some of the Arabian translators. Stephanus Antiochensis, the translator of Haly Abbas, has the following words: “Inter testes anumque finde et non in mediâ viâ sed in sinistri lateris parte ab intestinis, sitque _perallela_ fissura, et ab exterioribus larga, ab interioribus non.” The translator of Albucasis expresses himself thus: “Finde in eo quod est inter anum et testiculos et non in medio, ad latus natis sinistræ: fiat sectio _transversa_.” The following are the words of Avicenna’s translator: “Cave ne scindas super commissuram quum sit malum, commissura enim secundum veritatem est locus mortalis. Amplius fac super ipsum (lapidem?) scissuram tendentem ad _transversum_, studendo ut cadat scissura in collo vesicæ.” The translator of Rhases expresses himself in the following terms: “Scinde super lapidem cum instrumento _camadan_; et scissura debet fieri _transversa_, et sit exterior caro larga et in interiori vesicæ stricta.” Yet notwithstanding all this we are inclined to think that the incision was _oblique_ and not _transverse_; for our author, whom they all follow, directs us to make the incision oblique (λοξὸς), and it is further clear that a transverse one would not answer the purpose so well. No dependence can be put in the accuracy of these barbarous translations. The language of Stephanus Antiochensis is particularly obscure. Casiri justly characterizes the translations of the Arabian authors as being “_perversiones_ potius quam _versiones_.” (Bibl. Hisp. Arab, i, 266.) The ancient operation, with scarcely any alterations, is described by the earlier modern writers on surgery. See Brunus (Chirurg. Magna. ii, 17); and Guido de Cauliaco (Chir. vi, 2.) They direct us to introduce a finger into the rectum and push the stone outwards; then to make an incision down upon it on the left side of the raphe. Brunus recommends a longitudinal incision. It appears that the ancient operation of lithotomy is still practised with great success by the native doctors of Hindostan. See ‘Transactions of the Medical and Physical Society of Calcutta,’ vol. iv. An interesting case in point, related in the ‘Medical Gazette’ for Feb. 7, 1845, forms a valuable commentary on the Celsian description of lithotomy. In the year 1827 Mr. Madden the traveller saw it performed in Tyre by an old pilot on a boy of thirteen years of age. The case did well. SECT. LXI.—ON THE PARTS ABOUT THE TESTICLES.