Remarks relative to Dr. Paine's commentaries upon the writings of M. Louis / by H. I. B.

  • Bowditch, Henry I. (Henry Ingersoll), 1808-1892.
Date:
1840
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Remarks relative to Dr. Paine's commentaries upon the writings of M. Louis / by H. I. B. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by Royal College of Physicians, London. The original may be consulted at Royal College of Physicians, London.

    10/32 (page 10)
    first made their appearance, and to draw the conclusion that an affec- tion wholly local in its appearance may be preceded by general symp- toms which can neither be explained nor referred entirely to the local disease, even when they arise at the same moment.”—(Ibid. p. 154.J It would seem, then, that our commentator raised up nothing but a spirit ; and we find him fighting as a fundamental point of the numerical method, a chimera of his own brain. This two-fold error of supposing the numerical and “ anatomical ” schools identical, and that the former trusts to pathological anatomy as the ground work of its system, runs through the whole of the hundred pages of criticisms. Alas! that there should be so slight a foundation for the following pathetic excla- mation, when speaking of the present reputation of Louis’s method, &tc. “ When after ages shall look back upon this dark spot on the brightest escutcheon of the world, it must be regarded without sympathy and as an act of voluntary humiliation.” But let us come to details. Dr. Paine seems to think himself called upon to defend the reputation of Chomel, and assures the reader that Chomel acted a very subordinate part, and should be in no respect as- sociated with our author’s performance in his work on fever, or typhoid affection. We presume that there are scarcely two men in Paris more in- timate, and more mutually respectful, than Louis and Chomel. They are very near friends. But it remains for Dr. Paine to find out that Chomel ought to be ashamed of his co-laborer ; at any rate he endeavors much to persuade his readers that Louis was the acting man and Chomel had nothing to do with the matter. Now, the facts are these. Louis, dis- gusted with the uncertainty prevailing in all branches of medicine, re- turns from the foreign country where he was settled, resigns his profes- sional duties, enters the wards of the hospital which are under the care of his friend Chomel, determined, like a sincere seeker for truth, to re- cord the facts he sees there with perfect indifference as to the results to which a future investigation would lead him. Chomel bids him enter and pursue his studies freely ; but Chomel (notwithstanding Dr. Paine takes it upon himself to declare to the contrary) is always the chief physician. In order to prove how much ashamed Chomel is of his friend, and of the work which originated in his own wards, we quote the following from his Lemons de Clinique Medicale, Vol. 1, which treats of typhoid fever. “ In speaking of the history of this disease, upon which the labors of Messrs. Prost, Petit, Serres, Bretonneau, and especially the model worlc by Mons. Louis, have thrown much light,” &c. (p. 2).