upon one occasion when the woman entered Mrs. X's apartment rather
unexpectedly, the latter became greatly excited, and, jumping from an
open window in her fright, broke her arm, and otherwise injured herself
so severely that she was for several weeks confined to her bed. During
this period, and for some time afterward, she was almost constantly
subject to hallucinations, in which the Indian woman played a prominent
part. Even after her recovery the mere thought of the woman would
sometimes bring on a paroxysm of trembling, and it was not till after
her confinement that the antipathy disappeared.

Millingen[1] remarks that certain antipathies, which in reality are
idiosyncrasies, appear to depend upon peculiarities of the senses.
Rather, however, they are due to peculiarities of the ideational and
emotional centers. The organ of sense, in any one case, shows no
evidence of disorder; neither does the perceptive ganglion, which simply
takes cognizance of the image brought to it. It is higher up that the
idiosyncrasy has its seat. In this way we are to explain the following
cases collected by Millingen:

[Footnote 1: _Op cit_., p. 246.]

"Amatus Lusitanus relates the case of a monk who fainted when he beheld
a rose, and never quitted his cell when that flower was blooming.
Scaliger mentions one of his relatives who experienced a similar horror
when seeing a lily. Zimmermann tells us of a lady who could not endure
the feeling of silk and satin, and shuddered when touching the velvety
skin of a peach. Boyle records the case of a man who felt a natural
abhorrence to honey; without his knowledge some honey was introduced in
a plaster applied to his foot, and the accidents that resulted compelled
his attendants to withdraw it. A young man was known to faint whenever