1074 CORRESPONDENCE

in full the translation into French of the original Arabian manuscript.

It is somewhat discouraging to those who unearth rare ophthalmic literature to find invariably that the book had been previously discovered and ab­stracted by that diligent and astute stu­dent of ophthalmic literature, Hirsch-berg. He however was content to re­view only a part of this volume so that much of it has remained untranslated until this publication of Dr. Meyerhof.

It is always entertaining to read of the methods of earlier days. This book, written in the twelfth century, contains matter of real interest. A few illustra­tions are included; among them the in­strument for couching the lens and various types of scalpels. Naturally ex­ternal diseases receive a far more impor­tant part than in most textbooks of to­day. Drugs and ointments hold a prom­inent place, many of them obviously could have very little value. Their mul­tiplicity as described in this and the well known older German treatises possibly gives rise to the current expression of "eye-wash." Probably the most inter­esting chapter is the last one which con­tains a detailed description of an opera­tion for cataract. Attention to the weather is an interesting detail. The patient was advised to avoid operation when the south wind blew. This was because such a wind was hot and loaded with dust while the wind from the north was cool and clear.

The profession is indebted to the man who has taken the pains to make such a translation as this. It can be only a

labor of love as probably not many will peruse even the translation but to have it available to those who are interested in the history of ophthalmology ren­ders the contribution a valuable one.

Lawrence T. Post.

CORRESPONDENCE Correction for Dr. O'Connor's paper

on cataract extraction in the September 1934 issue of this Journal.

"In reading over the reprint of my cataract paper I found an editorial al­teration in a sentence which destroyed its meaning. The sentence was 'oph­thalmic surgery should be looked upon in the same relation that general sur­gery bears to medical practice,' by 're­lation' I meant to general ophthalmol­ogy. The alteration compared ophthal­mic surgery to general surgery and read as follows: 'ophthalmic surgery should be looked upon as having the same rela­tion to general surgery as the latter bears to medical practice.'

"My idea is that ophthalmology should be divided into surgical and non-surgical and an individual who can't operate should recognize the fact and refer operative work to one who can.

"Could you make a correction some­what as follows, 'Ophthalmic surgery should be looked upon as having the same relation to the practice of oph­thalmology as general surgery bears to medical practice.' I should have written it that way in the first place."

Very truly, (Signed) Roderic O'Connor.