A reply to certain observations of John Forbes, M.D / [George Macilwain].

  • George Macilwain
Date:
1846
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A reply to certain observations of John Forbes, M.D / [George Macilwain]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    14/20 page 12
    riority of knowledge of the organs to which they are supposed to direct their attention; and by some who have privately ridiculed the idea of study altogether: but we apprehend that it would have been dangerous to have published any thing which was ever so little constructive of indifference to the subject. The sweeping devastations of pulmonary disease attest, with far too melancholy a force, the humiliating measure of our therapeutic resources, to render attempts to investigate the real relations of the respiratory organs either a safe, a happy, or, as we think, even a proper sub¬ ject for a joke. Our views were plainly enunciated: if they were feasible, our arguments should have been examined ; if they were true, they should have commanded respect; if they were false, they must be dangerous, and therefore should have been overthrown. As Dr. Forbes’ review was of course voluntary, we can assure him that, in our view, the foregoing would have been modes of proceeding equally becoming to his position as a Reviewer, and his policy as a Physician. The Doctor finds fault with our style, of course; and, we fear, with too much reason. We generally write as we speak, are only ambitious to be plain and intelligible, and nothing would give u.s more real pleasure than to correct or explain any thing which ap¬ peared obscure or erroneous. We are nevertheless amused by the sensitiveness of a Reviewer on this point, who writes thus— (e We formerly shewed that the changes which characterize living beings, and which in their totality constitute their life—[he might <c have added their death also, just as truly]—are capable of being “ referred to certain general laws, expressive of their uniform con- “ ditions.” How profound and instructive ! We dare not aspire to the true Forbesian; but we might try, in saying, that the quar¬ terly collection of heterogeneous matter which, in its totality, con¬ stitutes the Foreign and British Medical Review, was chiefly de¬ fective, in that it failed to impress the sensorium with any integral idea, which philosophy had recognized, or of which the expression had not been prohibited by Lord Chesterfield and similar writers. But we must hasten through our ungrateful task. The Review of our work on Tumours has a sort of c< Quern Deus vult perdere prius dementat” character. The Reviewer madly exposes himself at every step, more than we have heart to particularize ; a few in-
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3