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.)

    6/56
    the paradoxes of human nature, which could not be inferred a priori, but which is revealed through daily experience. However unhappy this system of morals, the broad limits exist as I have represented them ; though it be certainly true that the barrier is easily passed, and the dis- tinction obliterated. What I have said of M. Louis's ambition as a public man, of his di- plomatic expedients, of the rights he has invaded, of the characters he has assailed, of the degradation to which he would reduce the profession, is predicated of premises which are before the world, in the language of my author. That world, and not an interested partizan, must be my judge. And now, to do the fullest justice to all, I may say that one of my author's judicious friends and defenders, in a late notice of my Essay, does not intimate that I had questioned his veracity, and allows my general fairness and candor.* But, what is most extraordinary, is the affirmation, that, Dr. Paine attempts to prove Louis a liar by quoting a translation; whereas, if he had taken the trouble to look at the original, he would have found that he by no means could prove what he wished.—(P. 80.) Now Dr. Bowditch being the author of that translation must certainly take the imputed blame to himself. Least of all should he put forth his own version as the ground of his author's error, and by thus repudiating it, endeavor to show that through his own inaccuracy he had led a confid- ing man to do an act of the highest injustice to another, and then turn upon him as a calumniator. It will be seen, also, that this matter re- lates to a question in which M. Louis has taken no part, and is one with which his veracity has not the slightest connection. That nothing, therefore, is found by Dr. B. to justify his imputation is manifest from its guarded manner, the nature of the premises, and the subject matter which will be soon set forth. I had certainly some suspicion that Dr. B. would complain of any version I might have attempted of the writings of M. Louis,—^specially those on Phthisis and the Typhoid Fever. I therefore took tire precau- tion of adopting his own translations ; and this more especially as we are assured by Dr. Bowditch in his Preface to the latter,that he believed he had translated truly the meaning of the author in every respect, whilst that on Phthisis had been revised and altered by the same hand, and duly registered in the archives of the nation. Having thus determined upon the safest course, and stated the fact at page 686, and no objection having been raised against the translation in Europe or America, till now made by the translator himself, it is clearly absurd to suppose that it was incumbent on me to have compared it with the original work, since this would have involved the necessity (on account of the multiplicity of my extracts), of comparing the whole of the four volumes on the typhoid affection. My objector says, If he had taken the trouble, he. The task is more difficult than the requisition to perform it, since the principle exacts not one, but an universal compari- son. And suppose that others, as Midler, for instance, whom I have quoted largely and critically, should start the same objection ; will it be * New York Journal of Medicine and Surgery, No. 6, Oct. 1840, p. 423.