fi sna, 4] 
Ir thefe difadvantages attend the ufe of the two modern inftru- 
ments, what muft have been the cafe in former days, -when the 
terebra or fcrew, the drill, the chiffel, and leaden mallet, to break 
off the uneven edges of a fracture, or to divide the {paces be- 
tween the perforations made by the terebra, were in ufe? or the 
meningophylax, which was a flat piece of filver or copper like a 
a fpatula, thruft between the fkull and the brain, to defend it - 
from receiving injury from the chiffel, when ftruck by the mallet 
of lead? Is it not charitable to conclude that many of the pa- 
tients of thofe days were permitted to clofe their exiftence with- 
out the aid of gimlets, drills, mallets or chiffels? 
* Mr. Pott, in his Obfervations on Injuries of the Head, hae 
given us a very particular account of the inftruments ufed by 
the ancient Surgeons. As his works are in the hands of every 
practitioner, I fhall only obferve, that he has rejected the trepan 
as an unmanageable inflrument, “ liable to moft of the hazard and 
“ inconvenience attending the terebre and terebellz of the an- 
“ cients.” In this opinion he coincides with Mr. Sharp, who in 
his Treatife on Operations gives the preference to the trephine in 
the following words: “ + I have ufed the word Trepan all along 
“ for the fake of being better underftood ; but the inftrument I 
“ recommend is a Trephine.” The advantages of which he de- 
f{cribes, in the reference to the plate, as deferving a preference to 
the trepan, which he fays is the inftrument ufed in all parts of 
Europe 
* Pott’s Works, Vol. I. Note in page 125. 
+ Sharp’s Surgery, page 148. 
a 
