A reply to an attack by Henry I. Bowditch, M.D. upon the essay on the principal writings of P.Ch. A. Louis, M.D. as contained in the Medical and physiological commentaries by the author.

  • Paine, Martyn, 1794-1877.
Date:
1840
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: A reply to an attack by Henry I. Bowditch, M.D. upon the essay on the principal writings of P.Ch. A. Louis, M.D. as contained in the Medical and physiological commentaries by the author. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the National Library of Medicine (U.S.), through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the National Library of Medicine (U.S.)

    18/56
    substituted for 1 collected. This was designed, also, to make it ap- pear that the 900 cases should be considered as having been examined and recorded by M. Louis, just as the 138 cases of typhoid fever had been, and that the whole, therefore, should be allowed to form equally the basis of his work. To carry this effect more fully, my critic has placed the words all the 'patients'''' in Italics in the new transla- tion,—the same being in the Roman letter both in the old translation and in the original work. The other Italics are mine. By this process, also, he strengthens the charge as to my having falsely represented my author as to the foundation of the anatomical doctrine, specifically, and in a general sense as to the common basis of the work. It is also worthy of remark, that the translation of the words fai re- cueilli I examined and recorded in one instance, and I carefully recorded in the other, and the connections in which they stand, show forcibly the quo animo of the writer; whilst, if any charity could be extended to the translation of fai recucilli I carefully recorded, it is dissipated by the translation of the same words 1 examined and re- corded, and the farther fabrication of the words ivhen examining. But, the only meaning which fai recueilli can possibly bear is that as artlessly rendered by Dr. B. in his original version ; and that such is truly his opinion is shown by its translation, in one instance, I col- lected, and in the other, 1 learned,—both occurring in one para- graph, and relating to the same subject. This affair being destined to occupy a conspicuous place amongst literary curiosities, I will indicate one aspect more in which my critic has fixed the matter for my discomfiture and for the benefit of copyright. This will appear by taking together the whole paragraph which imme- diately follows the quotation which I have been employed in unfixing. The reader will then have the whole before him, from the beginning of the mutilated extract from my work, to the end of the subject in its direct aspect. The following words which I have placed in Italics are intended by Dr. B. to confirm M. Louis's extreme and equal accuracy of observation in respect to the 900 cases, and to carry more conclu- sively the imputed offence of suppression or misrepresentation. Thus:— One would think that these facts were sufficient to enable one to come to some definite (we will not use 'conclusive,' as it offends our com- mentator so much) results. ' In my analysis,' continues Louis, ' J have wholly left out any facts ivhich were not sufficiently exact—and when I have deduced any consequences, I have always kept before me this idea by the author of Emile, I know that truth resides in things, &c.' In a note to this paragraph Louis informs us that he threw aside as incom- plete all the ' observations ' made during his first eight months of devo- tion to these studies. One would think that the accurate examination of about 1000 cases ['nearly 900'], and the autopsies of 1-10 of them, would have enabled any accurate observer to decide whether a le- sion was unimportant or not. So much for Louis's data and accuracy of observation of nature.1' Here the strong intent of Dr. B. to misrepresent me, and to make it appear that M. Louis bestowed as much personal care upon the whole