A reply to an attack by Henry I. Bowditch, M.D. upon the essay on the principal writings of P.Ch. A. Louis, M.D. as contained in the Medical and physiological commentaries by the author.

  • Paine, Martyn, 1794-1877.
Date:
1840
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A reply to an attack by Henry I. Bowditch, M.D. upon the essay on the principal writings of P.Ch. A. Louis, M.D. as contained in the Medical and physiological commentaries by the author. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    27/56
    ' have just burst from the old system of pathology,' and who, as avowed by Travers, are unacquainted with the achievements of Hunter.—(Ibid., p. 663.) My opposition related to the excesses of the dead-house (p. 663), not to morbid anatomy as cultivated by Hunter and Bichat. But, morbid anatomists as they were, think you that either would have tolerated the numerical school ? Andral and Louis are placed, by common consent, at the head of the present anatomical school, whilst Broussais is ranked as a chief by a reviewer with whom I had the honor of an argument.—(Vol. 2, p. 645.) But, would Andral esteem it a compliment to be classed with the numeralists, and did not my critic fear that the ghost of Broussais might call upon him for atonement? Again, Dr. B. is pleased to say that there is scarcely a hundred successive pages in either volume, in which this opposition does not manifest itself,—that is to say, a violent attack upon the numerical school,— the main object of the two volumes. Now there is no allusion to the subject, unless very incidentally (and of such I have no recollection), in any one of my Essays, excepting in those upon Blood- letting and the Writings of M. Louis, in the former, a short space only is devoted to its consideration, and I only recurred to it briefly in the latter. Here, in this Essay on the Writings of M. Louis, Dr. B. gives to his reader the impression that I have dedicated a whole chapter of 134 pages to exploding the bigoted numeralists.* Now it hap- pens that I have dedicated only three pages of this Essay to that ob- ject, and these are isolated from the rest by a black line drawn at their commencement and termination, that the individuality of this part of my subject might be at once obvious to the most careless observer. These three pages begin with the following sentence. Thus:— Of the numerical method we have, perhaps, said as much as is incumbent upon us in our first volume, pages 293—309, 332. We have there exhibited an instance of its practical application in the hands of others (p. 305), and we will now present an illustration by our author.—(P. 780.) Indeed, Dr. B. has unwittingly indicated the amount of atten- tion which I have given to the numerical school. Thus :— Our author progresses in his zeal, and devotes three pages (Vol. 1, p. 293) to the improprieties of the numerical school (p. 76), and just this amount, as I have shown, is given to the subject in my article upon the Writings of M. Louis. This Essay is mainly taken up in indicating the abuses of morbid anatomy,—in showing the generalizations of my author which he founded upon them,—in pointing out the dangers of false philosophy, —in arraigning my author for a departure from his own rules in philoso- phizing,—in protecting my brethren, from Hippocrates to the present time, against his almost universal scorn and derision,—in demonstrating the fallacy of the assumption that medicine is now in its infancy. * Pp. 73, 74. Dr. B. quotes these two last words with the manifest intention of imputing the epi- thet to me. Not having had the leisure to look over my work, I will not positively affirm that such an expression may not have escaped me. I believe, however, that the word bigoted is not in the book. The use of the word strangled, in connection with bloodletting, is also imputed to me. (P. 75.) It is possible I may have committed the barbarism ; but if so, I call upon Dr. B. to publish the remark, as well, also, that in which the words bigoted numeralists are said (by marks of quo- tation) to have occurred—the volume, and pages. If I am convicted, I fully allow the justice of the criticism. If I am not,** *