Canine & Spontaneous Hydrophobia. 459 
vious to its attack. Aretzus* affirms, that the 
breath of a mad animal being taken into the 
lungs of any perfon by infpiration, will produce 
. the difeafe. This may be confidered, however, 
as a bare affertion, unfupported by any demon- 
ftration. Palmeriusf has related the hiftory of 
a whole family, who were infected from kiffing 
their father, in compliance with his requeft, 
when juft expiring of canine madnefs. § 
| Hf. 
* © Quinetiam et a rabido cane, qui in faciem dum 
“ fpiritus adducitur tantummodo infpiraverit, et nullo 
“ _patto momorderit, in rabiem homo agitur,” 
De caufis et fignis Morbor, Lib, i. 
+ De Morbis contagiofis. p. 266. 
§ I conceive this extraordinary hiftory (and one related 
by Salmuth) deferving of little credit, Palmerius and. 
Salmuth are the only writers (that.I am acquainted with), 
who have ftated, from their own knowledge, that a bite from 
any perfon afflicted with canine madnefs, has been capable 
of communicating that difeafe to any of the human {fpe- 
cies :— An abundance of negative faéts might be brought to 
contradi& this ftatement. But, as no abfolute conclufion 
can be derived from them, | would fuggeft the following 
reafons for rejeting the teftimony of the above-mentioned 
writers, Firft—If the faliva of an infe€ted human-being 
were capable of producing canine madnefs in another of the 
fame fpecies, furely many inftances of this kind mutt 
have occurred to the numerous writers on this fubje&; 
efpecially, when the chance of perfons being expofed to 
the danger of fuch an accident is fo great, that, from twe 
cafes only, which I have feen, four people were fubjefted 
Lile te 
