On the discovery of leucocythemia, (being a reply to a letter on that subject by Professor Kölliker, in the Monthly journal of medical science for October 1854) / by John Hughes Bennett, M.D.
- Bennett, John Hughes, 1812-1875.
- Date:
- [1854]
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: On the discovery of leucocythemia, (being a reply to a letter on that subject by Professor Kölliker, in the Monthly journal of medical science for October 1854) / by John Hughes Bennett, M.D. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by The University of Glasgow Library. The original may be consulted at The University of Glasgow Library.
2/20 (page 2)
![flaramation, and especially unconnected with inflammation of tlie veins. I'his will appear from the following extracts from my paper :— In the j)resent state of our knowledge, then, as regards this subject, the following case seems to me particularly valuable, as it will serve to demonstrate the existence of true pus formed universally within the vascular system, independent of any local puru- lent collection from which itcould he derived. (Pp. 413,414). And again, Pus has long been considered as one, if not the most characteristic, proof of pro- ceeding acute inflammation. But in the case before us, what part was re- cently inflamed ? There was none. Piorry and others have sjioken of an inflammation of the blood, a true hematitis; and certainly if we can imagine such a lesion, the present must be an instance of it. But It would require no laboured argument to show, that such a view is entirely opposed to all toe know of the phenomena of inflammation. (P. 421). From these passages it must be clear that 1 then separated the state of the l)lood from pre-existing inflammation in any of the tissues, which liad not been done by any preceding author. Thereby I established a new blood disease—one of a primary nature. I care- fully described all the facts, which Virchow has only subsequently confirmed. I spent three entire days investigating the histological character of all the tis- sues in the body, and in demonstrating the important fact, that the colourless corpuscles in the blood were imconneeted with inflammation. Notwithstanding all this, Professor Virchow has wilfully and pertinaciously endeavoured to per- suade his countrymen that 1 regarded the case as one of ordinary pysemia or purulent absorption; and Professor Kolliker, in his })resent communication, says of these laborious researches, that nothing further was elucidated be- yond what had previously been determined by Craigie and Reid. Here, it should be observed, that Dr Craigie was the editor of the Edinbui-gh Medical and Surgical Journal in 1845—that he read my paper before his own was written, and placed his own case first in the October number. Further, Pi'o- fessor Kolliker should be made aware that Dr Craigie was no histologist, and had never em])loyed the microscope in the investigation of disease. To argue, then, that the discovery of this condition of the blood—a discovery altogether depend- ent on histological research—was made by him, seems absurd in the extreme. But it may be maintained that this part of the inquiry was carried out by Dr John Reid, because he stated in the register, kept by him as pathologist of the Infirmary, that the blood contained globules of purulent matter and lymph.'' The few words now quoted constitute literally the whole of DrReid's observa- tions on the matter. They would have been buried in oblivion, if 1 myself had not found them in the register of dissections, pointed them out to Dr Craigie, and indicated their importance. I have frequently conversed with Dr Reid himself on the subject, who had forgotten the circumstance of having examined tlie blood niicroscopically in Dr Craigie's case, or of having made a note of it. Cer- tainly he paid no more attention to it, or in any way thought it more import- ant than a host of other notes he made, which still exist in the pathological register, and in which some future controversialist may doubtless find many similar discoveries, as yet unknown. At all events, it is certain that neither Dr Craigie nor Dr Reid ever imagined to themselves that the globules of puru- lent matter and lymph seen by the latter originated independent of purulent absorption, or ever dieamed of claiming for themselves the discovery of leuco- cythemia. ' Who then did make it ? Certainly not Virchow, who with Kolli- ker, in order to depreciate the value of my observations, claim it for these gentlemen. And if none of the three made it, the inference undoubtedly is, that the discovery belongs to me. What, then, it may be asked, does Professor Kolhkcr claim for his colleague? It cannot be the discovery of the facts, or of the existence in large numbers of colourless corpuscles in the blood, independent of inflammation. All the his- tological facts—the white appearance of the blood (white blood), its nidepcnd- ence of inflammation, and its separation from all previously known patholo- gical conditions—were described by nie in the paper of the 1st of October 1845 ; whereas it is certain that Virchow's short and comparatively imperfect I'istolo- gical description of a case of white blnod (the white appearance of the blood](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21477607_0002.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
