CORRESPONDENCE. 
183 
To the second paragraph quoted from the review I es- 
:cially object. It must be clear to every one who has fol- 
wed the history of medicine, that with the spread of intelli- 
:nce on medical subjects better days have come for both the 
actitioner of human and of canine medicine. Where is the 
terinarian best off to-day ? Is it amid ignorance or in those 
immunities of greatest intelligence? So that if my work 
nds to cause the dog to be more esteemed and attracts the 
tention of intelligent people it cannot f iil to advance the 
terests of veterinary medicine. 
It is true I did offer the work, as a whole , to the three 
isses enumerated in the preface, but my reviewer, with an 
^enuity of a kind that would do credit to a Mephistopheles, 
troduces this quotation as if it applied especially to the Sec- 
d Part, which deals with disease. Naturally, this is the 
>rtion of the book that the non-professional reader will find 
ost difficult to assimilate, but it may teach him enough to 
tow how to value the services of a really competent expert ; 
it does that and no more the profession will not suffer. 
If Newton had prefaced his Principia with the remark 
at the work was intended for mathematicians and intelligent 
:Ople, the quality of the work would not have been altered, 
•r would a reviewer have been “ relieved from the task of 
rther criticism.” 
I wish to say nothing derogatory to the works that my 
viewer puts in invidious comparison. They served a good 
irpose in a cruder period of medicine. However, I assure 
m that he need have no fears of the success of the book, as 
sale to all classes has been very large ; and I will ask the 
aders of the Review to examine the work for themselves 
d decide whether it cannot compete with those of the past, 
whether, to use the words of another journal ( Bacteriologi - 
l World) edited by a distinguished veterinarian, “ It is by 
: the best English work published on this subject up to 
te.” Truly yours, 
Wesley Mills. 
