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.

    11/32 (page 11)
    In quoting Louis’s results, he says, “ Those which Mons. Louis has given in his learned work upon the subject ” (p. 76). Again he says— “ Also in the ten cases of this kind which were collected and published by M. Louis, this able observer,” he. (p. 128). And finally, as if it were written especially to refute Dr. Paine, we find the following— « If we judge of them from more numerous cases observed by M. Louis, in our service [or wards] at La Charite,” &c. We perhaps have spent more time than was necessary upon this, but as our author thought it necessary to devote two pages to the subject we were unwilling to pass it by unnoticed. Moreover, there is one assertion which is wholly untrue, and as it bears upon the point, we quote it. “ It is also of constant recurrence, ‘ I prescribed ’ ”—meaning thereby to state definitely that Louis prescribed. Now there is no such expression in the work on typhoid fever—and we challenge Dr. P. to cite it. Dr. Paine thinking (we know not why) this point a very important one to be settled, returns to it at the latter part of his chapter, and gives another spe- cimen of his unfairness. We quote from page 800—“Although it is everywhere apparent that he [Louis] is alone responsible, we will now state his direct affirmation to this effect. * We abstained from blood- letting, he. ’ ” Now we have always thought that common honesty of heart would tell a man that he should look at the original text, and not trust to any translation. Dr. Paine attempts to prove Louis a liar (we are aware of the meaning of the wrord), 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. “ On abstint ” are the two words in the original French. Now we appeal to any one who has the merest smattering of that language, and ask whether Dr. Paine has done rightly. It is, however, quite in accordance with the greater part of the whole chapter. But enough of this. These are mere trifles in comparison with the false statements that follow. Having premised thus much about Chomel, our author continues, and finds an inconsistency between the motto from Emile and the ad- vertisement (page 686 Com.). Louis says (quoting from Jean Jacques Rousseau), “ I know that truth lies in facts, and not in the mind that judges of them,” he. “The reader” (thus remarks Dr. P.) “will ultimately feel the whole import and intended force of the foregoing paragraph ; and whilst our author is everywhere engaged in drawing the most unqualified generalizations from these limited observations, the reader is as constantly drawn into the belief that our author is only con-