Makers of Modern Medicine. James Joseph Walsh

little encouragement from members of the medical profession near him. It is extremely difficult to understand how his practical observations and thoroughly conservative claim failed to attract more attention than they did from really great physicians who were deeply interested in the progress of medicine. At least two distinguished writers on medicine, Van Swieten and De Haen, compiled treatises on medical subjects that included the consideration of diseases of the chest within a few years after Auenbrugger's Inventum Novum appeared, and yet neither of them devotes any space to the question of percussion nor hints at its possible value.

      Van Swieten's work consisted of commentaries upon the aphorisms of Boerhaave. The Vienna professor did not, however, limit himself to the consideration of the aphorisms alone, but made his work also a compendium of his own clinical experiences with acute and chronic diseases. As a matter of fact his commentaries on the aphorisms are each a monograph on some special disease. The two last volumes of this commentary appear after the publication of Auenbrugger's book on percussion, one volume being published in 1772, the other in 1774.

      The first of these articles contains a long article on pulmonary consumption, and the other an almost equally long chapter on pleurisy with effusion. In neither of the volumes, however, is there any mention of percussion, or of Auenbrugger's work, though if Van Swieten had given any serious attention to the subject, he must have become convinced how valuable Auenbrugger's invention was in the diagnosis of these conditions.

      This omission is all the more surprising as Auenbrugger was a pupil of Van Swieten's and practically dedicated his Inventum Novum to his master. He mentions Van Swieten's work several times in his little book. Auenbrugger's investigations were not unknown to Van Swieten then, and the only conclusion to be drawn from his neglect to mention Auenbrugger's methods is that he deliberately omitted reference to them because of his failure to recognize the value of the discovery. This constitutes one of the most serious blots on Van Swieten's medical career. He was succeeded as the head of the clinic in Vienna by De Haen, who also came from Leyden and brought with him the methods of Boerhaave's clinical school. As the time during which Auenbrugger was making his valuable observations at the Spanish military hospital coincides with the years when De Haen was professor of clinical medicine, and when he was frequently indebted to his colleague of the Spanish hospital for his cases for demonstration, it is impossible to conceive that Auenbrugger or his work should have remained unknown to the distinguished head of the clinic.

      There is not a single mention, however, to be found anywhere in De Haen's voluminous writings of Auenbrugger or his work. De Haen's principal work is his Ratio Medendi (System of Medicine), published at Vienna during the years from 1757 to 1779. It consists of eighteen volumes, in which all the important forms of disease as well as the rarer types of affections that came to the clinic are thoroughly discussed. De Haen treated of pneumonia, of consumption, of pleurisy with effusion, which he calls dropsy of the chest, but never suggests the use of percussion. On the contrary, he complains in a number of places how very obscure and difficult of diagnosis are thoracic diseases and especially dropsy of the chest, pleuritic and pericardial exudates, and insists on the ease with which errors of diagnosis may be made in these subjects. He failed completely to recognize how much light had just been thrown on this subject by Auenbrugger's work, and how much easier the differential diagnoses of these conditions were to be as the result of systematic percussion.

      Some of the commentaries on Auenbrugger's work are not entirely depreciative, however. In Ludwig's Commentaria de Rebus in Scientia Naturali et Medicina Gestis for the year 1762, published at Leipzig, there is an excellent notice of Auenbrugger's work within a year after its appearance. It is not known who the reviewer was, but he calls Auenbrugger's discovery "a torch that was designed to illumine the darkness in which diseases of the thorax had up to this time lain concealed." A brilliant future was prophesied for the new method of examination. It is evident that the writer not only thoroughly comprehended Auenbrugger's work, but had himself applied the percussion method for purposes of diagnosis.

      This is almost the only favorable and reasonably intelligent review of Auenbrugger's work to be found in the medical journals of the time. In the new Medical Library, issued by Rudolph Vogel, Professor of Medicine in Göttingen, published in six volumes in 1766, there is a short mention of Auenbrugger's book and his new discovery. This reference is, however, an extremely curious affair. The good professor completely failed to understand in what the new discovery really consists. It is clear that he had never read Auenbrugger's book. He seems to have heard of the subject from some medical friend, and to have obtained an entirely wrong notion. He talks of Auenbrugger's new diagnostic method as if it were an imitation of Hippocrates's succussion method of recognizing the presence of fluid in the chest by shaking the patient till the liquid gave the characteristic splash.

      Other medical writers of the time perhaps, as the result of reading Professor Vogel's book, made the same mistake in their appreciation of Auenbrugger's work. Vogel himself insisted that Auenbrugger did wrong to claim any originality for his invention, since it had been used so long before by Hippocrates. He adds that what is original with Auenbrugger is of very little value, the older ideas being the only ones worth while considering with regard to the application of this so-called new method of diagnosis. Vogel was an authority in medicine at the time and other commentators took the key note from him in this matter, and in many parts of Germany it was generally accepted that Auenbrugger's method of percussion was only an elaborated method of the so-called succussion of Hippocrates.

      Under these circumstances it is perhaps not surprising that Auenbrugger's work attracted very little attention in the German-speaking countries. In Vienna itself, as we have already said, Van Swieten and De Haen failed utterly to recognize its value. Outside of Vienna their example was naturally followed, for the Vienna school was considered authoritative, and surely, if any one, the professors of the University of Vienna might be expected to know whether Auenbrugger's new discovery was really of any value or not.

      It is interesting to compare Auenbrugger's state of mind, with regard to the neglect of his discovery, with Laennec's remark in the preface of his book. Laennec said: "For our generation is not inquisitive as to what is being accomplished by its own sons. Claims of new discoveries made by contemporaries are apt for the most part to be met by smiles and mocking remarks. It is always easier to condemn than to test by actual experience." Auenbrugger seems to have suffered from more than the neglect of which Laennec complains. When he speaks of envy and calumny in no uncertain terms, the only conclusion possible is that his representations as to his discoveries must have been set down as pretensions that his contemporaries considered unjustified by what they knew of his work.

      It is interesting also to note that both men found their prospects of reward, not in the good will of their contemporaries, nor even the prospect of fame, but in the hope that their work would be useful in lessening the sum of human suffering. Laennec said: "It suffices for me if I can only feel sure that this method will commend itself to a few worthy and learned men who will make it of use to many patients. I shall consider it ample, yea more than sufficient reward for my labor, if it should prove the means by which a single human being is snatched from untimely death."

      Laennec's words are almost an echo fifty years afterward of Auenbrugger's expressions, just quoted: "I console myself," he said, "with the thought that I have accomplished a work which will earn the gratitude of all true devotees of the art of medicine, since I have succeeded in making clear many things which shed not a little light on the chapter of the obscure diseases of the chest, in which our knowledge has hitherto been so very incomplete."

      As a rule it may be said that medical observers whose genius leads them to step across the narrow line that separates the known from the unknown are likely to lack the appreciation of their own generation. Long before Auenbrugger or Laennec, Harvey, the discoverer of the circulation of the blood, said to friends that he did not expect any one of his generation to accept the new doctrine, and it is well known that the great medical men of the time did not accept it. Harvey is not an isolated example, and even in our own time real medical progress sometimes waits for years for recognition, while well-advertised pretended advances are occupying the centre of the stage. Auenbrugger's discovery made its impress, however, and was never entirely lost to sight. Even before his death there was the consoling prospect of its meeting