495 
RABIES. 
[In a letter with which 1 have been lately favoured by Dr. Forster, 
of Bruxelles, are the following observations, to which I cer¬ 
tainly cannot give my assent, but which deserve to be recorded. 
I acknowledge that fits, and particularly the fits of distemper, 
are occasionally mistaken for rabies, and I have seen some 
cases of enteritis which a person not thoroughly drilled into a 
knowledge of the nature and symptoms of rabies might mistake 
for it; but, generally speaking, the characters of the disease 
can scarcely be mistaken; and there can be no doubt with 
regard to its too frequent occurrence. Who the English veteri¬ 
narian to whom he alludes is, I know not.—Y.] 
I CANNOT quit the subject of dogs without adding a note on 
canine madness, drawn from the Observations on Hydrophobia, by 
an English Veterinarian, ‘The custom of muzzlino* dog’s during 
the dog-days has long been discontinued in England, where, 
after the most careful examination, it has been found that true 
rabies in the dog is a malady exceedingly rare; and that the 
greater number of cases reported as hydrophobous, are those of 
dogs attacked by a malady of a very different nature, and which 
are perfectly harmless. The reasons for abolishing the use of 
the muzzle in dogs are, 
‘ 1st, That it prevents them from drinking, and therefore may 
[)roduce fever. 
‘ 2d, The very precaution may generate fear in the public mind, 
and consequently be favourable to the production of the disease, 
for fear is a powerful predisposing cause. For this reason the 
newspapers in certain countries are not permitted to report cases 
of rabies. 
‘3d, InTurkey, Italy, Portugal, and other hot countries, where 
the dogs run the streets in troops, hydrophobia is not heard of 
even in the summer; wdience it must be concluded, that the ap¬ 
prehension of this malady in the north of Europe is much exagge¬ 
rated by the fear and timidity natural to the human mind. If all 
the dogs suspected to be hydrophobous were chained up instead 
of being killed, we should probably find that there were very few 
that were really mad.’ ” 
As a confirmation of this opinion. Dr. Forster quotes an ob¬ 
servation made by the late Mr. Abernethy. It is characterized 
by his peculiarity of style and peremptoriness of decision—it is a 
perfect gem in tliis respect; but it is altogether erroneous. 
“ Some persons have asserted that there is no such thing as 
canine madness. This is not true. Good cases exist, but they 
are rare indeed. A hundred other di.sorders are niistaken for it. 
A dog worried, or in pain, or out of health, or merely w^anting 
