dical encyclopedia of biography,
published in the seventeenth century, and at that time there was no
doubt at all expressed as to its truth. How much older than this it may
be I do not know, though it is probable that it comes from the sixteenth
century, when the _kakoethes scribendi_ attacked many people because of
the facility of printing, and when most of the good stories that have so
worried the modern dry-as-dust historian in his researches for their
correction became a part of the body of supposed historical tradition.
It is probably French in origin because in that language _antimoine_ is
a tempting bait for that pseudo-philology which has so often led to
false derivations.]

[Footnote 31: There is in the New York Academy of Medicine a thick 24mo
volume in which three of the classics of older medicine are bound
together. They are Kerckringius's "Commentary on the Triumphal Chariot
of Antimony," published at Amsterdam, 1671; Steno's "Dissertation on the
Anatomy of the Brain," published in Leyden in 1671, and Father Kircher's
"Scrutinium Physico Contagiosae Luis quae dicitur Pestis"
(Physico-medical Discussions of the Contagious Disease which is called
Pest). This was published at Leipzig in 1659. Just how the three works
came to be bound together is hard to say. Very probably they belonged to
some old-time scholar, though there is nothing about the books to tell
anything of the story. The fact that all three of the authors were
ecclesiastics of the Catholic Church, Valentine a Monk, Steno a Bishop,
and Kircher a Jesuit, would seem to be one common bond and perhaps a
reason for the binding of these rather disparate treatises together. In
that case it is probable that the book came from an old monastic library
dispersed after the suppression of the order by some government. It
seems not unlikely that the volume belonged at some time to an old
Jesuit library, for they have suffered the most in that way. That these
three classics of medicine should have been republished in handy volume
editions within practically ten years shows an interest in medical
literature that has not existed again until our own time, for during the
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries there was almost utter neglect
of them.]

[Footnote 32: Paper read before the first meeting of the American Guild
of St. Luke.]

[Footnote 33: Published by Putnams, New York, 1909.]

[Footnote 34: Dublin, 1882.]

[Footnote 35: The material for this cha