Hysteria in children was first described by Ranvlin, in 1748. Before him, in 1681, Lepois had ventured to combat Hipprocrates' view that it was a uterine disorder, and heretofore only a female complaint, but he had not gone beyond this. Nor did Ranvlin treat of the subject in a clear manner. It remained for Briquet, in 1855, to show that it did occur in children, and as frequently as in adults. At that time Carter and Brodie had already published their admirable articles on hysteria in adults, but they had ignored its presence in childhood. Since Briquet's time, Bourneville, Baginsky, Tourette, Casaubon, Ollivier, Clopault, Richer, Charcot, etc., have enriched the literature on the subject. Today it is generally accepted that hysteria is not rare among children, and that as a children's disease it dates from antiquity, as witness the children's crusades, the epidemics of chorea magna, the tale of the Pied Piper of Hamlin, etc. But this acceptance has come slowly. In the early 80's, through the work of Seeligmueller, Henoeh and Schaefer, Ger¬ many, and; in the last decade America and England, have followed France. Briquet claims that one-fifth of all the cases of hys¬ teria occur in childhood. Jolly confirms this state¬ ment for Germany. Putnam, Mills and Taylor agree that it is frequent in America, while Sachs, Burr and Jacobi seem to think its frequency is exaggerated. In this, however, they are in the minority. It is a fact that the physician of today , in this country, is woefully ignorant of such subjects; that in

To facilitate the removal of the cases from the docket and at the urgent solicitation of our attorney and with the con¬ currence of the court we paid the nominal fine in each case, which later on was refunded to us by the customer. At the same time we notified these two patrons that we insisted on their withdrawing the three products from the market until every package was redressed with new labels and cir¬ culars in the wording of which none but true statements were to appear. It is to the credit of both men to say that both cheerfully acquiesced and both had every package redressed properly before a single package was offered for sale. Our reason for inflicting this lengthy communication on your readers is that through the publication in Volume 72 of The Journal (see page 60, Jan. 4, 1919) Sharp & Dohme is by inference held out as being particeps criminis and as the originators and promoters of these three undoubtedly "Misbranded Nostrums." The injustice of that inference must appeal-at once to all fair-minded men who through reading the foregoing statement of absolute facts must concede that we were and are innocent of any intentional cooperation with this "misbranding." Therefore it is with a keen appreciation of your fairness to all houses of good repute that we ask that you give this communication a place in the widely read Journal, thereby affording us an opportunity of putting ourselves in the right light before the large group of ethical physicians whom we have honestly served for so many years and whose respect and confidence we feel that we can justly expect to retain. Sharp & Dohme.

No abstract

EMONIACAL possession as a church question was formerly accepted literally, being based upon the passage in John x. 20: "He hath a demon and is mad." In the middle ages epidemics of demon possession occurred, as those of St. Brigitta, Loudon, Pledran, Aix, etc., which showed various phases of mental dissociation upon this basis. Nor is exorcism or the casting out of demons any longer indulged in by modern churchmen, though we still find some orthodox adherents who subscribe to this belief. In medical literature can be found two examples of demon possession which resemble the history of the patient which I depict -the case of Achilles described by Janet 1 and the account of Father Surin. 2 As a type of obsession not often found to-day, the following recital should therefore be of interest. I shall first give the patient's account of the possession given to me in running association after Freud's method and in letters which I requested him to write. This material is of course much condensed:"In regard to the voice I hear talking to me all the time, it was through my investigating spiritualism and watching and listening for what I could hear in the evenings after reading the newspaper that it commenced. One evening it began to talk to me, telling me some funny stories, and it kept that up for a week, when one Saturday evening it hypnotized me as I sat in my chair, and I went to bed that night and was in bed until Monday, hypnotized, I suppose, for I was seeing pictures of all kinds all the time until I got up to go to work Monday morning. He has been talking 'Janet, Nevroses et idees fixes, i, ' I disposition du pere Surin, d'Apres Berillon-Dualite. Cerebrate, 102.

Case 2.-B. Paresis. History obscure. Reaction positive at 0.4. Case 3.-T. G. Tertiary syphilis. History negative. Reaction negative. Case 4.-G. II. Suspected syphilis. No symptoms. Reaction positive. Case 5.-T. S. Nocturnal epilepsy. Arteriosclerosis. Reaction negative. Case 0.-Mrs. G. R. Suspected syphilis. No symptoms. Husband syphilitic. Reaction positive. Case 7.-Secondary syphilis. Under mercurial treatment. Reaction negative. Case 8.-J. B. Paresis. Suspected syphilis. Reaction positive. Case 9.-J. F. Tabes dorsalis. No history of syphilis. Reaction positive. Case 10.-D. O. Tuberculosis. No history of syphilis. Reaction negative. Case 11.-J. R. R. Paresis. No history of syphilis. Reaction positive. Case 12.-J. P. Me. Paresis. History of syphilis. Reaction positive. Case 13.-E. G. S. Paresis. No history of syphilis. Reaction negative.