eby acquire new and more
hopeful phases.

Directly or indirectly many similar examples have also clear
medicolegal bearings or suggestions; in fact, it must be acknowledged
that much of the importance of medical jurisprudence lies in a thorough
comprehension of the anomalous and rare cases in Medicine. Expert
medical testimony has its chief value in showing the possibilities of
the occurrence of alleged extreme cases, and extraordinary deviations
from the natural. Every expert witness should be able to maintain his
argument by a full citation of parallels to any remarkable theory or
hypothesis advanced by his clients; and it is only by an exhaustive
knowledge of extremes and anomalies that an authority on medical
jurisprudence can hope to substantiate his testimony beyond question.
In every poisoning case he is closely questioned as to the largest dose
of the drug in question that has been taken with impunity, and the
smallest dose that has killed, and he is expected to have the cases of
reported idiosyncrasies and tolerance at his immediate command. A widow
with a child of ten months' gestation may be saved the loss of
reputation by mention of the authentic cases in which pregnancy has
exceeded nine months' duration; the proof of the viability of a seven
months' child may alter the disposition of an estate; the proof of
death by a blow on the epigastrium without external marks of violence
may convict a murderer; and so it is with many other cases of a
medicolegal nature.

It is noteworthy that in old-time medical literature--sadly and
unjustly neglected in our rage for the new--should so often be found
parallels of our most wonderful and peculiar modern cases. We wish,
also, to enter a mild protest against the modern egotism that would set
aside with a sneer as myth and fancy the testimonies and reports of
philosophers and physicians, only because they lived hundreds of years
ago. We are keenly appreciative of the power exercised by the
myth-making faculty in the past, but as applied to early physicians, we
suggest that the suspicion may easily be too active. When Pare, for
example, pictures a monster, we may distrust his art, his artist, or
his engraver, and make all due allowance for his primitive knowledge of
teratology, coupled with the exaggerations and inventions of the
wonder-lover; but when he describes in his own writing what he or his
confreres have seen on the battle-field or in the dissecting room, we
t