BIBLIOGRAPHICAL NOTICES.
Letters on Syphilis. By Pji. Ricord, Chirurgien de l’Hopital
du Midi, &c., &c. With an Introduction by Am^dee Latour
Translated by W. P. Lattimore, M. D. Philadelphia: A.
Hart, 1852. pp. 270.
These Letters appeared originally in the Union Medicale of
Paris, during the years 1850,1851. They have found their way,
through various channels, to the English reader, and have, since
the completion of the series in the Paris Journal, been collected
and translated by Dr. Lattimore. They present a resume of
M. Ricord’s peculiar views on the subject of syphilis, and are
more particularly occupied with the defence and illustration of
those “ new doctrines ” which, he complains, have failed, in the
twenty years of his teachings and writings, to penetrate the
minds of all his contemporaries. The Letters, however, de-
spite the popularity with which they have been received, will,
we think, fail to silence the dissenters from some of M. Ricord’s
dogmata. He has, indeed, repeated his old views in a very lively
and attractive form ; but we doubt whether the style and tone of
the Letters will add anything to his reputation or give new force
to his opinions.
M. Ricord’s researches have certainly identified his name with
the subject of syphilis. His experiments upon inoculation, his
admirable scheme of syphilitic therapeutics, and his application
of the speculum to the diagnosis of venereal ulcers, are among
the most valuable contributions to modern medicine. But M.
Ricord is a man of one idea—and that idea is inoculation. He
has found it to be a positive test of the specific character of the
chancrous virus, and he attempts to pervert it into a negative
test of the non-specific nature of gonorrhoea or, as he denomi-
nates it, blennorrhagia. The latter is scarcely less a point with
him than the former; and, in fact, more than one-third of the
Letters are devoted to it. It is not our purpose to follow M.
Ricord’s argument on this question. Its weakness strikes us as
apparent in the postulate, upon which his facts are brought to
bear. “If blenorrhagia,” he assumes, “recognizes a specific
cause, the muco-pus which it secretes will, undoubtedly, when in-
oculated, produce phenomena similar to those produced by the
inoculation of chancrous pus.” (p. 44.) That is, it is enough for
M. Ricord to establish that inoculation with the matter of blen-
norrhagia is not followed by the phenomena which result from
inoculation with chancrous pus, to warrant him in inferring the
non-specific character of the former secretion!
It has not been our good fortune to read the Letters in the
original. The translation is, we dare say, faithful and accurate,
but it is evidently the work of an unpractised pen.
Proceedings of the Medical Association of the State of Alabama,
at its Sixth Annual Meeting, held December, 1852. pp. 168.
We have already had occasion to notice the spirit and zeal
evinced in the annual Proceedings of the Alabama State Medical
Association. The volume just issued maintains the high rank
which the profession of Alabama had previously assumed among
our State organizations.