The microbiology of syphilis / by Elie Metchnikoff ; translated by J. Keogh Murphy.

  • Mechnikov, I. I.
Date:
1908
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: The microbiology of syphilis / by Elie Metchnikoff ; translated by J. Keogh Murphy. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    6/106 page 46
    spirit and ingenious technique, as well as by the reserve with which he expressed his opinion. By the aid of a method of staining closely resembling that used for the bacillus of Koch, Lustgarten succeeded in showing, both in indurated chancres and in syphilitic gummata, the presence of small bacilli, very fine and slender, closely resembling the tubercle bacillus. It was impossible to confuse these bacilli, however, with that of tubercle, as Lustgarten’s organism could not be cultivated in any known medium. This discovery was received in a very favourable way by the scientific world. It was confirmed by several observers, amongst whom Doutrepont and Schutz ^ should be particularly mentioned, and it appeared to be definitely established in science. Although in the laboratory of the celebrated syphilologist, A. Neisser, no definite final pronouncement was made, the research of Marcuse,^ proceeding from this scientific centre, confirmed Lustgarten’s work and considered his bacillus as most probably the real cause of syphilis. It is quite true that soon after the appearance of the work of the last-named Viennese s3rphilologist, Alvarez and Tavel ^ threw out the suggestion that the so-called bacillus of S3q>hilis was nothing more than the microbe of preputial smegma, or of vulvar secretions which are to be found in healthy people ; for the general appear- ance, as well as the staining properties, were exactly the same in both kinds of bacilli. After this statement the microbiology of syphilis was reduced to a study of the differential characters of Lustgarten’s bacillus and that of smegma. Many workers, amongst whom we may quote G. Klemperer and Baumgarten, denied the identity of these two microbes, whilst others, notably Bitter, took an entirely opposite line. Even if it were admitted that Lustgarten’s bacillus, which was found in syphilitic products of the genital organs, was nothing but the ordinary microbe of smegma occurring in the same situation, there still remain those bacilli found by Lustgarten in S3rphilitic lesions of internal organs, where they could not be confounded with those of smegma as the latter could not have got into the depths of the diseased tissues.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3