The Cattle Plague of 1865 and the Reception of "The Germ Theory" in Mid-Victorian Britain

Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences

Volumn 52, Issue 1, 1997, Pages 51-79

  Romano, Terrie M ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; ARTICLE; CATTLE; CATTLE DISEASE; EPIDEMIC; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HISTORY; INFECTION; MICROBIOLOGY; PATHOLOGY; UNITED KINGDOM; VETERINARY MEDICINE;

ANIMALS; ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; CATTLE; CATTLE DISEASES; DISEASE OUTBREAKS; ENGLAND; HISTORY, 19TH CENTURY; INFECTION; PATHOLOGY; RINDERPEST; VETERINARY MEDICINE;

EID: 0030642157     PISSN: 00225045     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/jhmas/52.1.51     Document Type: Article

References (151)

1. Most of the information about the cattle plague epidemic is drawn from the First Report with Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix 1865; Second Report with Minutes of Evidence, and Appendix, 1866; Third Report with Appendix, 1866, British Parliamentary Papers, Reports from Commissioners, vol. 22, session 1866.
2. William Bulloch, The History of Bacteriology (London: Oxford University Press, 1938) provided an overview of the emergence of the field of bacteriology. See also James Trostle, "Early work in anthropology and epidemiology: from social medicine to the germ theory, 1840 to 1920," in Craig R. Jones et al., ed., Anthropology and Epidemiology (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1986), pp. 35-57. For an account of the British contest, see Keith Vernon, "Pus, sewage, beer, and milk: microbiology in Britain, 1870-1940," Hist. Sci., 1990, 28, 289-325.
3. William Bulloch, The History of Bacteriology (London: Oxford University Press, 1938) provided an overview of the emergence of the field of bacteriology. See also James Trostle, "Early work in anthropology and epidemiology: from social medicine to the germ theory, 1840 to 1920," in Craig R. Jones et al., ed., Anthropology and Epidemiology (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1986), pp. 35-57. For an account of the British contest, see Keith Vernon, "Pus, sewage, beer, and milk: microbiology in Britain, 1870-1940," Hist. Sci., 1990, 28, 289-325.
4. William Bulloch, The History of Bacteriology (London: Oxford University Press, 1938) provided an overview of the emergence of the field of bacteriology. See also James Trostle, "Early work in anthropology and epidemiology: from social medicine to the germ theory, 1840 to 1920," in Craig R. Jones et al., ed., Anthropology and Epidemiology (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1986), pp. 35-57. For an account of the British contest, see Keith Vernon, "Pus, sewage, beer, and milk: microbiology in Britain, 1870-1940," Hist. Sci., 1990, 28, 289-325.
5. Christopher Lawrence and Richard Dixey noted that, "The controversy over 'germs' made so much of by later authors, was also relatively minor." See "Practicing on principle: Joseph Lister and the germ theories of disease," in Christopher Lawrence, ed., Medical Theory, Surgical Practice (New York: Routledge, 1992), pp. 153-215.
6. The importance of the laboratory in medicine was highlighted when the historian Erwin Ackerknecht dubbed the medicine of his own era "laboratory medicine," an epoch he described as beginning in the mid-nineteenth century. Erwin H. Ackerknecht, Medicine at the Paris Hospital 1794-1848 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967). The articles in Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, eds., The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), provide a recent evaluation of the role of the laboratory in medicine. See Claude Bernard's An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, the classic articulation of an experimental program for medicine. For an overview of the literature on the relevance of science or the research ethos to medical practice, see John Harley Warner, "Science in medicine," Osiris, 1985, 2nd series, 1, 37-58, and John Harley Warner, "The history of science and the sciences of medicine," Osiris, 1995, 2nd series, 10, 164-193. See also Gerald L. Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists & clinicians in the American context," in C. Rosenberg and M.J. Vogel, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution: Essays in the Social History of American Medicine (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), 67-90. In speaking of the "persuasive power" of experimental data, I am drawing on the work of sociologists of science who have explored the nature of scientific controversies and how scientists garner support from their peers. See, for example, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), and David Gooding et al., ed., The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
7. The importance of the laboratory in medicine was highlighted when the historian Erwin Ackerknecht dubbed the medicine of his own era "laboratory medicine," an epoch he described as beginning in the mid-nineteenth century. Erwin H. Ackerknecht, Medicine at the Paris Hospital 1794-1848 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967). The articles in Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, eds., The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), provide a recent evaluation of the role of the laboratory in medicine. See Claude Bernard's An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, the classic articulation of an experimental program for medicine. For an overview of the literature on the relevance of science or the research ethos to medical practice, see John Harley Warner, "Science in medicine," Osiris, 1985, 2nd series, 1, 37-58, and John Harley Warner, "The history of science and the sciences of medicine," Osiris, 1995, 2nd series, 10, 164-193. See also Gerald L. Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists & clinicians in the American context," in C. Rosenberg and M.J. Vogel, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution: Essays in the Social History of American Medicine (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), 67-90. In speaking of the "persuasive power" of experimental data, I am drawing on the work of sociologists of science who have explored the nature of scientific controversies and how scientists garner support from their peers. See, for example, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), and David Gooding et al., ed., The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
8. The importance of the laboratory in medicine was highlighted when the historian Erwin Ackerknecht dubbed the medicine of his own era "laboratory medicine," an epoch he described as beginning in the mid-nineteenth century. Erwin H. Ackerknecht, Medicine at the Paris Hospital 1794-1848 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967). The articles in Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, eds., The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), provide a recent evaluation of the role of the laboratory in medicine. See Claude Bernard's An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, the classic articulation of an experimental program for medicine. For an overview of the literature on the relevance of science or the research ethos to medical practice, see John Harley Warner, "Science in medicine," Osiris, 1985, 2nd series, 1, 37-58, and John Harley Warner, "The history of science and the sciences of medicine," Osiris, 1995, 2nd series, 10, 164-193. See also Gerald L. Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists & clinicians in the American context," in C. Rosenberg and M.J. Vogel, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution: Essays in the Social History of American Medicine (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), 67-90. In speaking of the "persuasive power" of experimental data, I am drawing on the work of sociologists of science who have explored the nature of scientific controversies and how scientists garner support from their peers. See, for example, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), and David Gooding et al., ed., The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
9. The importance of the laboratory in medicine was highlighted when the historian Erwin Ackerknecht dubbed the medicine of his own era "laboratory medicine," an epoch he described as beginning in the mid-nineteenth century. Erwin H. Ackerknecht, Medicine at the Paris Hospital 1794-1848 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967). The articles in Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, eds., The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), provide a recent evaluation of the role of the laboratory in medicine. See Claude Bernard's An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, the classic articulation of an experimental program for medicine. For an overview of the literature on the relevance of science or the research ethos to medical practice, see John Harley Warner, "Science in medicine," Osiris, 1985, 2nd series, 1, 37-58, and John Harley Warner, "The history of science and the sciences of medicine," Osiris, 1995, 2nd series, 10, 164-193. See also Gerald L. Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists & clinicians in the American context," in C. Rosenberg and M.J. Vogel, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution: Essays in the Social History of American Medicine (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), 67-90. In speaking of the "persuasive power" of experimental data, I am drawing on the work of sociologists of science who have explored the nature of scientific controversies and how scientists garner support from their peers. See, for example, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), and David Gooding et al., ed., The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
10. The importance of the laboratory in medicine was highlighted when the historian Erwin Ackerknecht dubbed the medicine of his own era "laboratory medicine," an epoch he described as beginning in the mid-nineteenth century. Erwin H. Ackerknecht, Medicine at the Paris Hospital 1794-1848 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967). The articles in Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, eds., The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), provide a recent evaluation of the role of the laboratory in medicine. See Claude Bernard's An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, the classic articulation of an experimental program for medicine. For an overview of the literature on the relevance of science or the research ethos to medical practice, see John Harley Warner, "Science in medicine," Osiris, 1985, 2nd series, 1, 37-58, and John Harley Warner, "The history of science and the sciences of medicine," Osiris, 1995, 2nd series, 10, 164-193. See also Gerald L. Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists & clinicians in the American context," in C. Rosenberg and M.J. Vogel, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution: Essays in the Social History of American Medicine (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), 67-90. In speaking of the "persuasive power" of experimental data, I am drawing on the work of sociologists of science who have explored the nature of scientific controversies and how scientists garner support from their peers. See, for example, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), and David Gooding et al., ed., The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
11. The importance of the laboratory in medicine was highlighted when the historian Erwin Ackerknecht dubbed the medicine of his own era "laboratory medicine," an epoch he described as beginning in the mid-nineteenth century. Erwin H. Ackerknecht, Medicine at the Paris Hospital 1794-1848 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967). The articles in Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, eds., The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), provide a recent evaluation of the role of the laboratory in medicine. See Claude Bernard's An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, the classic articulation of an experimental program for medicine. For an overview of the literature on the relevance of science or the research ethos to medical practice, see John Harley Warner, "Science in medicine," Osiris, 1985, 2nd series, 1, 37-58, and John Harley Warner, "The history of science and the sciences of medicine," Osiris, 1995, 2nd series, 10, 164-193. See also Gerald L. Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists & clinicians in the American context," in C. Rosenberg and M.J. Vogel, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution: Essays in the Social History of American Medicine (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), 67-90. In speaking of the "persuasive power" of experimental data, I am drawing on the work of sociologists of science who have explored the nature of scientific controversies and how scientists garner support from their peers. See, for example, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), and David Gooding et al., ed., The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
12. The importance of the laboratory in medicine was highlighted when the historian Erwin Ackerknecht dubbed the medicine of his own era "laboratory medicine," an epoch he described as beginning in the mid-nineteenth century. Erwin H. Ackerknecht, Medicine at the Paris Hospital 1794-1848 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967). The articles in Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, eds., The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), provide a recent evaluation of the role of the laboratory in medicine. See Claude Bernard's An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, the classic articulation of an experimental program for medicine. For an overview of the literature on the relevance of science or the research ethos to medical practice, see John Harley Warner, "Science in medicine," Osiris, 1985, 2nd series, 1, 37-58, and John Harley Warner, "The history of science and the sciences of medicine," Osiris, 1995, 2nd series, 10, 164-193. See also Gerald L. Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists & clinicians in the American context," in C. Rosenberg and M.J. Vogel, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution: Essays in the Social History of American Medicine (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), 67-90. In speaking of the "persuasive power" of experimental data, I am drawing on the work of sociologists of science who have explored the nature of scientific controversies and how scientists garner support from their peers. See, for example, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), and David Gooding et al., ed., The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
13. The importance of the laboratory in medicine was highlighted when the historian Erwin Ackerknecht dubbed the medicine of his own era "laboratory medicine," an epoch he described as beginning in the mid-nineteenth century. Erwin H. Ackerknecht, Medicine at the Paris Hospital 1794-1848 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967). The articles in Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams, eds., The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), provide a recent evaluation of the role of the laboratory in medicine. See Claude Bernard's An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, the classic articulation of an experimental program for medicine. For an overview of the literature on the relevance of science or the research ethos to medical practice, see John Harley Warner, "Science in medicine," Osiris, 1985, 2nd series, 1, 37-58, and John Harley Warner, "The history of science and the sciences of medicine," Osiris, 1995, 2nd series, 10, 164-193. See also Gerald L. Geison, "Divided we stand: physiologists & clinicians in the American context," in C. Rosenberg and M.J. Vogel, eds., The Therapeutic Revolution: Essays in the Social History of American Medicine (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1979), 67-90. In speaking of the "persuasive power" of experimental data, I am drawing on the work of sociologists of science who have explored the nature of scientific controversies and how scientists garner support from their peers. See, for example, Bruno Latour and Steve Woolgar, Laboratory Life: The Construction of Scientific Facts, 2nd ed. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1986), and David Gooding et al., ed., The Uses of Experiment: Studies in the Natural Sciences, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
14. For the contemporary reconstruction of the history of the acceptance of Listerian surgery, see Lawrence and Dixey, (n. 3). They also emphasize the multiplicity of germ theories; see especially p. 156.
15. John R. Fisher, in "British physicians and the cattle plague, 1865-66," Bull. Hist. Med., 1993, 67, 651-669, noted that a minority of the commissioners represented the landed interests, p. 661. For information about the commissioners, see for (1) Henry Bence Jones (1814-1873), Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, eds., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, [OUP] reprt. of 1891-92 edition), X, 998-999; Richard Quain (1816- 1898, not to be confused with his elder cousin Richard Quain [1800-87], the anatomist), W.J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1988), p. 88; Thomas Wormald (1802-1873), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1900 ed., XXI, 945-96; Edmund Alexander Parkes (1819-1876), A Manual of Practical Hygiene, 6th ed. (New York: W. Wood, 1883); Charles Spooner (1806-1871), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1897-98 ed., XVIII, 815-16; Robert Ceely Royston Lambert, Sir John Simon 1816-1904 and English Social Administration (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1963), p. 316; Lyon Playfair (1818-1898), Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 73; John Poyntz Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer (1835-1910), DNB 2nd supplement, Sidney Lee, ed. (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1912), III, 369-372; Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil, Viscount Cranborne (1830-1903), DNB 2nd supplement, 1, 329-343; Robert Lowe, later Viscount Sherbrooke (1811-92), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1893 ed., XII, 197-201; Clare Sewell Read (1826-1905), DNB 2nd supplement, III, 168-69. I have been unable to trace any further information about John Robinson M'Clean.
16. John R. Fisher, in "British physicians and the cattle plague, 1865-66," Bull. Hist. Med., 1993, 67, 651-669, noted that a minority of the commissioners represented the landed interests, p. 661. For information about the commissioners, see for (1) Henry Bence Jones (1814-1873), Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, eds., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, [OUP] reprt. of 1891-92 edition), X, 998-999; Richard Quain (1816- 1898, not to be confused with his elder cousin Richard Quain [1800-87], the anatomist), W.J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1988), p. 88; Thomas Wormald (1802-1873), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1900 ed., XXI, 945-96; Edmund Alexander Parkes (1819-1876), A Manual of Practical Hygiene, 6th ed. (New York: W. Wood, 1883); Charles Spooner (1806-1871), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1897-98 ed., XVIII, 815-16; Robert Ceely Royston Lambert, Sir John Simon 1816-1904 and English Social Administration (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1963), p. 316; Lyon Playfair (1818-1898), Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 73; John Poyntz Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer (1835-1910), DNB 2nd supplement, Sidney Lee, ed. (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1912), III, 369-372; Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil, Viscount Cranborne (1830-1903), DNB 2nd supplement, 1, 329-343; Robert Lowe, later Viscount Sherbrooke (1811-92), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1893 ed., XII, 197-201; Clare Sewell Read (1826-1905), DNB 2nd supplement, III, 168-69. I have been unable to trace any further information about John Robinson M'Clean.
17. John R. Fisher, in "British physicians and the cattle plague, 1865-66," Bull. Hist. Med., 1993, 67, 651-669, noted that a minority of the commissioners represented the landed interests, p. 661. For information about the commissioners, see for (1) Henry Bence Jones (1814-1873), Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, eds., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, [OUP] reprt. of 1891-92 edition), X, 998-999; Richard Quain (1816-1898, not to be confused with his elder cousin Richard Quain [1800-87], the anatomist), W.J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1988), p. 88; Thomas Wormald (1802-1873), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1900 ed., XXI, 945-96; Edmund Alexander Parkes (1819-1876), A Manual of Practical Hygiene, 6th ed. (New York: W. Wood, 1883); Charles Spooner (1806-1871), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1897-98 ed., XVIII, 815-16; Robert Ceely Royston Lambert, Sir John Simon 1816-1904 and English Social Administration (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1963), p. 316; Lyon Playfair (1818-1898), Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 73; John Poyntz Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer (1835-1910), DNB 2nd supplement, Sidney Lee, ed. (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1912), III, 369-372; Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil, Viscount Cranborne (1830-1903), DNB 2nd supplement, 1, 329-343; Robert Lowe, later Viscount Sherbrooke (1811-92), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1893 ed., XII, 197-201; Clare Sewell Read (1826-1905), DNB 2nd supplement, III, 168-69. I have been unable to trace any further information about John Robinson M'Clean.
18. John R. Fisher, in "British physicians and the cattle plague, 1865-66," Bull. Hist. Med., 1993, 67, 651-669, noted that a minority of the commissioners represented the landed interests, p. 661. For information about the commissioners, see for (1) Henry Bence Jones (1814-1873), Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, eds., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, [OUP] reprt. of 1891-92 edition), X, 998-999; Richard Quain (1816- 1898, not to be confused with his elder cousin Richard Quain [1800-87], the anatomist), W.J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1988), p. 88; Thomas Wormald (1802-1873), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1900 ed., XXI, 945-96; Edmund Alexander Parkes (1819-1876), A Manual of Practical Hygiene, 6th ed. (New York: W. Wood, 1883); Charles Spooner (1806-1871), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1897-98 ed., XVIII, 815-16; Robert Ceely Royston Lambert, Sir John Simon 1816-1904 and English Social Administration (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1963), p. 316; Lyon Playfair (1818-1898), Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 73; John Poyntz Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer (1835-1910), DNB 2nd supplement, Sidney Lee, ed. (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1912), III, 369-372; Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil, Viscount Cranborne (1830-1903), DNB 2nd supplement, 1, 329-343; Robert Lowe, later Viscount Sherbrooke (1811-92), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1893 ed., XII, 197-201; Clare Sewell Read (1826-1905), DNB 2nd supplement, III, 168-69. I have been unable to trace any further information about John Robinson M'Clean.
19. John R. Fisher, in "British physicians and the cattle plague, 1865-66," Bull. Hist. Med., 1993, 67, 651-669, noted that a minority of the commissioners represented the landed interests, p. 661. For information about the commissioners, see for (1) Henry Bence Jones (1814-1873), Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, eds., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, [OUP] reprt. of 1891-92 edition), X, 998-999; Richard Quain (1816- 1898, not to be confused with his elder cousin Richard Quain [1800-87], the anatomist), W.J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1988), p. 88; Thomas Wormald (1802-1873), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1900 ed., XXI, 945-96; Edmund Alexander Parkes (1819-1876), A Manual of Practical Hygiene, 6th ed. (New York: W. Wood, 1883); Charles Spooner (1806-1871), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1897-98 ed., XVIII, 815-16; Robert Ceely Royston Lambert, Sir John Simon 1816-1904 and English Social Administration (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1963), p. 316; Lyon Playfair (1818-1898), Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 73; John Poyntz Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer (1835-1910), DNB 2nd supplement, Sidney Lee, ed. (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1912), III, 369-372; Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil, Viscount Cranborne (1830-1903), DNB 2nd supplement, 1, 329-343; Robert Lowe, later Viscount Sherbrooke (1811-92), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1893 ed., XII, 197-201; Clare Sewell Read (1826-1905), DNB 2nd supplement, III, 168-69. I have been unable to trace any further information about John Robinson M'Clean.
20. John R. Fisher, in "British physicians and the cattle plague, 1865-66," Bull. Hist. Med., 1993, 67, 651-669, noted that a minority of the commissioners represented the landed interests, p. 661. For information about the commissioners, see for (1) Henry Bence Jones (1814-1873), Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, eds., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, [OUP] reprt. of 1891-92 edition), X, 998-999; Richard Quain (1816- 1898, not to be confused with his elder cousin Richard Quain [1800-87], the anatomist), W.J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1988), p. 88; Thomas Wormald (1802-1873), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1900 ed., XXI, 945-96; Edmund Alexander Parkes (1819-1876), A Manual of Practical Hygiene, 6th ed. (New York: W. Wood, 1883); Charles Spooner (1806-1871), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1897-98 ed., XVIII, 815-16; Robert Ceely Royston Lambert, Sir John Simon 1816-1904 and English Social Administration (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1963), p. 316; Lyon Playfair (1818-1898), Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 73; John Poyntz Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer (1835-1910), DNB 2nd supplement, Sidney Lee, ed. (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1912), III, 369-372; Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil, Viscount Cranborne (1830-1903), DNB 2nd supplement, 1, 329-343; Robert Lowe, later Viscount Sherbrooke (1811-92), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1893 ed., XII, 197-201; Clare Sewell Read (1826-1905), DNB 2nd supplement, III, 168-69. I have been unable to trace any further information about John Robinson M'Clean.
21. John R. Fisher, in "British physicians and the cattle plague, 1865-66," Bull. Hist. Med., 1993, 67, 651-669, noted that a minority of the commissioners represented the landed interests, p. 661. For information about the commissioners, see for (1) Henry Bence Jones (1814-1873), Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, eds., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, [OUP] reprt. of 1891-92 edition), X, 998-999; Richard Quain (1816- 1898, not to be confused with his elder cousin Richard Quain [1800-87], the anatomist), W.J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1988), p. 88; Thomas Wormald (1802-1873), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1900 ed., XXI, 945-96; Edmund Alexander Parkes (1819-1876), A Manual of Practical Hygiene, 6th ed. (New York: W. Wood, 1883); Charles Spooner (1806-1871), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1897-98 ed., XVIII, 815-16; Robert Ceely Royston Lambert, Sir John Simon 1816-1904 and English Social Administration (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1963), p. 316; Lyon Playfair (1818-1898), Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 73; John Poyntz Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer (1835-1910), DNB 2nd supplement, Sidney Lee, ed. (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1912), III, 369-372; Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil, Viscount Cranborne (1830-1903), DNB 2nd supplement, 1, 329-343; Robert Lowe, later Viscount Sherbrooke (1811-92), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1893 ed., XII, 197-201; Clare Sewell Read (1826-1905), DNB 2nd supplement, III, 168-69. I have been unable to trace any further information about John Robinson M'Clean.
22. John R. Fisher, in "British physicians and the cattle plague, 1865-66," Bull. Hist. Med., 1993, 67, 651-669, noted that a minority of the commissioners represented the landed interests, p. 661. For information about the commissioners, see for (1) Henry Bence Jones (1814-1873), Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, eds., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, [OUP] reprt. of 1891-92 edition), X, 998-999; Richard Quain (1816- 1898, not to be confused with his elder cousin Richard Quain [1800-87], the anatomist), W.J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1988), p. 88; Thomas Wormald (1802-1873), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1900 ed., XXI, 945-96; Edmund Alexander Parkes (1819-1876), A Manual of Practical Hygiene, 6th ed. (New York: W. Wood, 1883); Charles Spooner (1806-1871), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1897-98 ed., XVIII, 815-16; Robert Ceely Royston Lambert, Sir John Simon 1816-1904 and English Social Administration (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1963), p. 316; Lyon Playfair (1818-1898), Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 73; John Poyntz Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer (1835-1910), DNB 2nd supplement, Sidney Lee, ed. (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1912), III, 369-372; Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil, Viscount Cranborne (1830-1903), DNB 2nd supplement, 1, 329-343; Robert Lowe, later Viscount Sherbrooke (1811-92), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1893 ed., XII, 197-201; Clare Sewell Read (1826-1905), DNB 2nd supplement, III, 168-69. I have been unable to trace any further information about John Robinson M'Clean.
23. John R. Fisher, in "British physicians and the cattle plague, 1865-66," Bull. Hist. Med., 1993, 67, 651-669, noted that a minority of the commissioners represented the landed interests, p. 661. For information about the commissioners, see for (1) Henry Bence Jones (1814-1873), Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, eds., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, [OUP] reprt. of 1891-92 edition), X, 998-999; Richard Quain (1816- 1898, not to be confused with his elder cousin Richard Quain [1800-87], the anatomist), W.J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1988), p. 88; Thomas Wormald (1802-1873), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1900 ed., XXI, 945-96; Edmund Alexander Parkes (1819-1876), A Manual of Practical Hygiene, 6th ed. (New York: W. Wood, 1883); Charles Spooner (1806-1871), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1897-98 ed., XVIII, 815-16; Robert Ceely Royston Lambert, Sir John Simon 1816-1904 and English Social Administration (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1963), p. 316; Lyon Playfair (1818-1898), Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 73; John Poyntz Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer (1835-1910), DNB 2nd supplement, Sidney Lee, ed. (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1912), III, 369-372; Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil, Viscount Cranborne (1830-1903), DNB 2nd supplement, 1, 329-343; Robert Lowe, later Viscount Sherbrooke (1811-92), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1893 ed., XII, 197-201; Clare Sewell Read (1826-1905), DNB 2nd supplement, III, 168-69. I have been unable to trace any further information about John Robinson M'Clean.
24. John R. Fisher, in "British physicians and the cattle plague, 1865-66," Bull. Hist. Med., 1993, 67, 651-669, noted that a minority of the commissioners represented the landed interests, p. 661. For information about the commissioners, see for (1) Henry Bence Jones (1814-1873), Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, eds., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, [OUP] reprt. of 1891-92 edition), X, 998-999; Richard Quain (1816- 1898, not to be confused with his elder cousin Richard Quain [1800-87], the anatomist), W.J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1988), p. 88; Thomas Wormald (1802-1873), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1900 ed., XXI, 945-96; Edmund Alexander Parkes (1819-1876), A Manual of Practical Hygiene, 6th ed. (New York: W. Wood, 1883); Charles Spooner (1806-1871), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1897-98 ed., XVIII, 815-16; Robert Ceely Royston Lambert, Sir John Simon 1816-1904 and English Social Administration (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1963), p. 316; Lyon Playfair (1818-1898), Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 73; John Poyntz Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer (1835-1910), DNB 2nd supplement, Sidney Lee, ed. (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1912), III, 369-372; Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil, Viscount Cranborne (1830-1903), DNB 2nd supplement, 1, 329-343; Robert Lowe, later Viscount Sherbrooke (1811-92), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1893 ed., XII, 197-201; Clare Sewell Read (1826-1905), DNB 2nd supplement, III, 168-69. I have been unable to trace any further information about John Robinson M'Clean.
25. John R. Fisher, in "British physicians and the cattle plague, 1865-66," Bull. Hist. Med., 1993, 67, 651-669, noted that a minority of the commissioners represented the landed interests, p. 661. For information about the commissioners, see for (1) Henry Bence Jones (1814-1873), Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, eds., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, [OUP] reprt. of 1891-92 edition), X, 998-999; Richard Quain (1816- 1898, not to be confused with his elder cousin Richard Quain [1800-87], the anatomist), W.J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1988), p. 88; Thomas Wormald (1802-1873), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1900 ed., XXI, 945-96; Edmund Alexander Parkes (1819-1876), A Manual of Practical Hygiene, 6th ed. (New York: W. Wood, 1883); Charles Spooner (1806-1871), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1897-98 ed., XVIII, 815-16; Robert Ceely Royston Lambert, Sir John Simon 1816-1904 and English Social Administration (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1963), p. 316; Lyon Playfair (1818-1898), Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 73; John Poyntz Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer (1835-1910), DNB 2nd supplement, Sidney Lee, ed. (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1912), III, 369-372; Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil, Viscount Cranborne (1830-1903), DNB 2nd supplement, 1, 329-343; Robert Lowe, later Viscount Sherbrooke (1811-92), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1893 ed., XII, 197-201; Clare Sewell Read (1826-1905), DNB 2nd supplement, III, 168-69. I have been unable to trace any further information about John Robinson M'Clean.
26. John R. Fisher, in "British physicians and the cattle plague, 1865-66," Bull. Hist. Med., 1993, 67, 651-669, noted that a minority of the commissioners represented the landed interests, p. 661. For information about the commissioners, see for (1) Henry Bence Jones (1814-1873), Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee, eds., (Oxford: Oxford University Press, [OUP] reprt. of 1891-92 edition), X, 998-999; Richard Quain (1816- 1898, not to be confused with his elder cousin Richard Quain [1800-87], the anatomist), W.J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885 (New York: Manchester University Press, 1988), p. 88; Thomas Wormald (1802-1873), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1900 ed., XXI, 945-96; Edmund Alexander Parkes (1819-1876), A Manual of Practical Hygiene, 6th ed. (New York: W. Wood, 1883); Charles Spooner (1806-1871), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1897-98 ed., XVIII, 815-16; Robert Ceely Royston Lambert, Sir John Simon 1816-1904 and English Social Administration (London: MacGibbon & Kee, 1963), p. 316; Lyon Playfair (1818-1898), Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), p. 73; John Poyntz Spencer, 5th Earl Spencer (1835-1910), DNB 2nd supplement, Sidney Lee, ed. (London: Smith, Elder, & Co., 1912), III, 369-372; Robert Arthur Talbot Gascoyne Cecil, Viscount Cranborne (1830-1903), DNB 2nd supplement, 1, 329-343; Robert Lowe, later Viscount Sherbrooke (1811-92), DNB, OUP reprt. of 1893 ed., XII, 197-201; Clare Sewell Read (1826-1905), DNB 2nd supplement, III, 168-69. I have been unable to trace any further information about John Robinson M'Clean.
27. Fisher, (n. 7), pp. 660-661 and Lambert, (n. 7), Sir John Simon, p. 296.
28. Fisher, (n. 7), pp. 660-661 and Lambert, (n. 7), Sir John Simon, p. 296.
29. An introduction to the history of veterinary medicine and its relationship to medicine generally is provided by Lise Wilkinson, Animals and Disease: An Introduction to the History of Comparative Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). For contemporary medical coverage of the cattle plague epidemic, see, for example, the letters in Lancet, 6 January 1866, 21-22, of Charles Murchison, John Burdon Sanderson, and E.A. Parkes under the title "The points of resemblance between rinderpest and smallpox," and C.B. Redcliffe's letter on "The treatment of the cattle plague," pp. 22-23. For more letters, see Lancet, 20 January 1866, 79-80. The British Medical Journal summarized "The Appendix to the Third Report of the Cattle-Plague Commission," 14 July 1866, 42-43. The appendix contained the reports of the scientific investigations. In its regular section "Specimens from the lower animals," the Transactions of the Pathological Society of London, 1866, 17, 441-465, presented a series of reports on the cattle plague. These included Dr. Crisp's report that "the poison of the 'cattle-plague' (with the exception of a papular or vesicular eruption of the skin) produces no injurious effects when introduced into the human system," p. 448. This conclusion was derived from Dr. Crisp's own consumption of parts of diseased oxen.
30. An introduction to the history of veterinary medicine and its relationship to medicine generally is provided by Lise Wilkinson, Animals and Disease: An Introduction to the History of Comparative Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). For contemporary medical coverage of the cattle plague epidemic, see, for example, the letters in Lancet, 6 January 1866, 21-22, of Charles Murchison, John Burdon Sanderson, and E.A. Parkes under the title "The points of resemblance between rinderpest and smallpox," and C.B. Redcliffe's letter on "The treatment of the cattle plague," pp. 22-23. For more letters, see Lancet, 20 January 1866, 79-80. The British Medical Journal summarized "The Appendix to the Third Report of the Cattle-Plague Commission," 14 July 1866, 42-43. The appendix contained the reports of the scientific investigations. In its regular section "Specimens from the lower animals," the Transactions of the Pathological Society of London, 1866, 17, 441-465, presented a series of reports on the cattle plague. These included Dr. Crisp's report that "the poison of the 'cattle-plague' (with the exception of a papular or vesicular eruption of the skin) produces no injurious effects when introduced into the human system," p. 448. This conclusion was derived from Dr. Crisp's own consumption of parts of diseased oxen.
31. An introduction to the history of veterinary medicine and its relationship to medicine generally is provided by Lise Wilkinson, Animals and Disease: An Introduction to the History of Comparative Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). For contemporary medical coverage of the cattle plague epidemic, see, for example, the letters in Lancet, 6 January 1866, 21-22, of Charles Murchison, John Burdon Sanderson, and E.A. Parkes under the title "The points of resemblance between rinderpest and smallpox," and C.B. Redcliffe's letter on "The treatment of the cattle plague," pp. 22-23. For more letters, see Lancet, 20 January 1866, 79-80. The British Medical Journal summarized "The Appendix to the Third Report of the Cattle-Plague Commission," 14 July 1866, 42-43. The appendix contained the reports of the scientific investigations. In its regular section "Specimens from the lower animals," the Transactions of the Pathological Society of London, 1866, 17, 441-465, presented a series of reports on the cattle plague. These included Dr. Crisp's report that "the poison of the 'cattle-plague' (with the exception of a papular or vesicular eruption of the skin) produces no injurious effects when introduced into the human system," p. 448. This conclusion was derived from Dr. Crisp's own consumption of parts of diseased oxen.
32. An introduction to the history of veterinary medicine and its relationship to medicine generally is provided by Lise Wilkinson, Animals and Disease: An Introduction to the History of Comparative Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). For contemporary medical coverage of the cattle plague epidemic, see, for example, the letters in Lancet, 6 January 1866, 21-22, of Charles Murchison, John Burdon Sanderson, and E.A. Parkes under the title "The points of resemblance between rinderpest and smallpox," and C.B. Redcliffe's letter on "The treatment of the cattle plague," pp. 22-23. For more letters, see Lancet, 20 January 1866, 79-80. The British Medical Journal summarized "The Appendix to the Third Report of the Cattle-Plague Commission," 14 July 1866, 42-43. The appendix contained the reports of the scientific investigations. In its regular section "Specimens from the lower animals," the Transactions of the Pathological Society of London, 1866, 17, 441-465, presented a series of reports on the cattle plague. These included Dr. Crisp's report that "the poison of the 'cattle-plague' (with the exception of a papular or vesicular eruption of the skin) produces no injurious effects when introduced into the human system," p. 448. This conclusion was derived from Dr. Crisp's own consumption of parts of diseased oxen.
33. An introduction to the history of veterinary medicine and its relationship to medicine generally is provided by Lise Wilkinson, Animals and Disease: An Introduction to the History of Comparative Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). For contemporary medical coverage of the cattle plague epidemic, see, for example, the letters in Lancet, 6 January 1866, 21-22, of Charles Murchison, John Burdon Sanderson, and E.A. Parkes under the title "The points of resemblance between rinderpest and smallpox," and C.B. Redcliffe's letter on "The treatment of the cattle plague," pp. 22-23. For more letters, see Lancet, 20 January 1866, 79-80. The British Medical Journal summarized "The Appendix to the Third Report of the Cattle-Plague Commission," 14 July 1866, 42-43. The appendix contained the reports of the scientific investigations. In its regular section "Specimens from the lower animals," the Transactions of the Pathological Society of London, 1866, 17, 441-465, presented a series of reports on the cattle plague. These included Dr. Crisp's report that "the poison of the 'cattle-plague' (with the exception of a papular or vesicular eruption of the skin) produces no injurious effects when introduced into the human system," p. 448. This conclusion was derived from Dr. Crisp's own consumption of parts of diseased oxen.
34. An introduction to the history of veterinary medicine and its relationship to medicine generally is provided by Lise Wilkinson, Animals and Disease: An Introduction to the History of Comparative Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). For contemporary medical coverage of the cattle plague epidemic, see, for example, the letters in Lancet, 6 January 1866, 21-22, of Charles Murchison, John Burdon Sanderson, and E.A. Parkes under the title "The points of resemblance between rinderpest and smallpox," and C.B. Redcliffe's letter on "The treatment of the cattle plague," pp. 22-23. For more letters, see Lancet, 20 January 1866, 79-80. The British Medical Journal summarized "The Appendix to the Third Report of the Cattle-Plague Commission," 14 July 1866, 42-43. The appendix contained the reports of the scientific investigations. In its regular section "Specimens from the lower animals," the Transactions of the Pathological Society of London, 1866, 17, 441-465, presented a series of reports on the cattle plague. These included Dr. Crisp's report that "the poison of the 'cattle-plague' (with the exception of a papular or vesicular eruption of the skin) produces no injurious effects when introduced into the human system," p. 448. This conclusion was derived from Dr. Crisp's own consumption of parts of diseased oxen.
35. This question is another instance where the germ theory issue overlapped with the debate over spontaneous generation, which I briefly discuss below. Addressing this question, Simon testified that the zymotic diseases were unlikely to originate through "spontaneous generation," though historically there must have been a first case of any given disease. The evidence was against such creations being common, since there were several examples of isolated regions that remained free of a specific disease. First Report, (n. 1), pp. 41-42. See also Michael Worboys, "Germ theories of disease and British veterinary medicine, 1860-1890," Med. Hist., 1991, 35, 308-327. He discussed how livestock diseases in Britain were viewed as foreign, pp. 309-310, and see also pp. 318-319.
36. This question is another instance where the germ theory issue overlapped with the debate over spontaneous generation, which I briefly discuss below. Addressing this question, Simon testified that the zymotic diseases were unlikely to originate through "spontaneous generation," though historically there must have been a first case of any given disease. The evidence was against such creations being common, since there were several examples of isolated regions that remained free of a specific disease. First Report, (n. 1), pp. 41-42. See also Michael Worboys, "Germ theories of disease and British veterinary medicine, 1860-1890," Med. Hist., 1991, 35, 308-327. He discussed how livestock diseases in Britain were viewed as foreign, pp. 309-310, and see also pp. 318-319.
37. First Report, (n. 1), p. vii.
38. Ibid., p. xxiii.
39. Ibid., p. xi.
40. As Margaret Pelling has pointed out, it is not possible to characterize any person or theory as simply contagionist or anticontagionist. There were never two poles, but rather a continuum of contagiousness with smallpox (definitely contagious) at one end and intermittent fever (definitely not contagious) at the other. In between were many intermediate and thus controversial diseases like yellow fever, typhus, and cholera. The middle of the nineteenth century was not, as once was believed, the height of anticontagionism, but a period of general adherence to a newer concept of contagion. Margaret Pelling, Cholera, Fever and English Medicine, 1825-1865 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978), pp. 16-19, 298-29, 302.
41. Pelling was in part challenging the E.H. Ackerknecht's classic account connecting anticontagionists to the ideology of free trade; in his formulation anticontagionists opposed contagious theories of disease because they resulted in restraints on trade. See E.H. Ackerknecht, "Anticontagionism between 1821 and 1887," Bull. Hist. Med., 1948, 22, 562-593. See also Roger Cooter, "Anticontagionism and history's medical record," in Peter Wright and Andrew Treacher, eds., The problem of medical knowledge: examining the social construction of medicine (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1982), 87-108.
42. Pelling was in part challenging the E.H. Ackerknecht's classic account connecting anticontagionists to the ideology of free trade; in his formulation anticontagionists opposed contagious theories of disease because they resulted in restraints on trade. See E.H. Ackerknecht, "Anticontagionism between 1821 and 1887," Bull. Hist. Med., 1948, 22, 562-593. See also Roger Cooter, "Anticontagionism and history's medical record," in Peter Wright and Andrew Treacher, eds., The problem of medical knowledge: examining the social construction of medicine (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1982), 87-108.
43. First Report, (n. 1), p. xiv.
44. The historian John Fisher suggested that perhaps Bence Jones voted with the landed interests because of his own family connections to the gentry. Fisher, (n. 7), n. 42, p. 661.
45. First Report, (n. 1), p. 40, emphasis in original.
46. Ibid., pp. 42-42.
47. Ibid., pp. 41-42.
48. Ibid., p. 44.
49. Ibid., p. 44.
50. For a summary of Justus von Liebig's theory and its influence in Britain, see Pelling, (n. 14) Cholera, Fever, pp. 120-121, and Christopher Hamlin, A Science of Impurity: Water Analysis in Nineteenth Century Britain (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), p. 130. See also Justus von Liebig, Agricultural Chemistry, or Organic Chemistry in its Application to Agriculture and Physiology, Lyon Playfair, ed. (Philadelphia: T. B. Peterson, 1841).
51. For a summary of Justus von Liebig's theory and its influence in Britain, see Pelling, (n. 14) Cholera, Fever, pp. 120-121, and Christopher Hamlin, A Science of Impurity: Water Analysis in Nineteenth Century Britain (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), p. 130. See also Justus von Liebig, Agricultural Chemistry, or Organic Chemistry in its Application to Agriculture and Physiology, Lyon Playfair, ed. (Philadelphia: T. B. Peterson, 1841).
52. For a summary of Justus von Liebig's theory and its influence in Britain, see Pelling, (n. 14) Cholera, Fever, pp. 120-121, and Christopher Hamlin, A Science of Impurity: Water Analysis in Nineteenth Century Britain (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), p. 130. See also Justus von Liebig, Agricultural Chemistry, or Organic Chemistry in its Application to Agriculture and Physiology, Lyon Playfair, ed. (Philadelphia: T. B. Peterson, 1841).
53. Third Report, (n. 1), p. vii.
54. John M. Eyler, Victorian Social Medicine: The Ideas and Methods of William Farr (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), pp. 101-3.
55. First Report, (n. 1), p. 42. Royston Lambert discussed Simon's views on government support of scientific research into disease processes. Lambert, (n. 7) Sir John Simon, pp. 400-401.
56. First Report, (n. 1), p. 42. Royston Lambert discussed Simon's views on government support of scientific research into disease processes. Lambert, (n. 7) Sir John Simon, pp. 400-401.
57. Third Report, (n. 1), p. iii. See also Worboys, (n. 10), for a discussion of these investigations, pp. 314-15.
58. Third Report, (n. 1), p. iii. See also Worboys, (n. 10), for a discussion of these investigations, pp. 314-15.
59. Third Report, (n. 1), p. xiv. In fact, the epidemic continued, although without such devastating effects, into the next year. See, for example, reports of cases and suspected cases in Lancet, 20 July 1867, 72, 86; 17 August 1867, 206; 2 November, 569. The cattle plague also returned to Britain in the mid-1870s and in the 1890s.
60. Third Report, (n. 1), p. xiv. In fact, the epidemic continued, although without such devastating effects, into the next year. See, for example, reports of cases and suspected cases in Lancet, 20 July 1867, 72, 86; 17 August 1867, 206; 2 November, 569. The cattle plague also returned to Britain in the mid-1870s and in the 1890s.
61. Third Report, (n. 1), p. xiv. In fact, the epidemic continued, although without such devastating effects, into the next year. See, for example, reports of cases and suspected cases in Lancet, 20 July 1867, 72, 86; 17 August 1867, 206; 2 November, 569. The cattle plague also returned to Britain in the mid-1870s and in the 1890s.
62. Third Report, (n. 1), p. xiv. In fact, the epidemic continued, although without such devastating effects, into the next year. See, for example, reports of cases and suspected cases in Lancet, 20 July 1867, 72, 86; 17 August 1867, 206; 2 November, 569. The cattle plague also returned to Britain in the mid-1870s and in the 1890s.
63. John Burdon Sanderson to Jane Burdon Sanderson, 7 November 1865, MS. ADD. 179/97, fols. 41-42, Burdon Sanderson Papers, The Library, University College London. I thank the Librarian, University College London, for permission to quote from the Burdon Sanderson Papers.
64. Later, of course, vaccine (and vaccination) were used to refer to any disease. See, for example, R.W. Allen, Practical Vaccine Treatment for the General Practitioner (London: H.K. Lewis & Co., Ltd., 1919), pp. 1-2, where a vaccine is defined as any bacterial suspension in an inert fluid.
65. Third Report, (n. 1), p. iv. This is slightly misleading. It had long been known that some diseases like syphilis and smallpox could be transmitted by inoculation of the matter from sores or pustules. The distinction must be that there had never before been a successful inoculation with the blood of an infected organism.
66. Lionel S. Beale, "Microscopical researches on the cattle plague," in Third Report, (n. 1), p. 129.
67. Third Report, (n. 1), pp. v-vi.
68. Beale, (n. 31), p. 133.
69. Ibid., p. 151.
70. Ibid., p. 150.
71. "The Appendix to the Third Report of the Cattle-Plague Commission," Br. Med. J., 14 July 1866, 42-44, p. 42.
72. Ibid., see pp. 42-43 for the discussion of Burdon Sanderson's research and p. 43 for the comments on Beale's conclusions.
73. Semantic disputes were common. For example, Gerald L. Geison noted that Burdon Sanderson in 1877 had argued that Pasteur's "organized corpuscles" were not "germs," (that is, seeds), but adult microorganisms. Gerald L. Geison, "Louis Pasteur," in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Charles Gillespie, ed. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1974), 10, 350-416, p. 383. See also the article by John Burdon Sanderson, "Bacteria," Nature, 29 November 1877, 84-87, p. 84.
74. Semantic disputes were common. For example, Gerald L. Geison noted that Burdon Sanderson in 1877 had argued that Pasteur's "organized corpuscles" were not "germs," (that is, seeds), but adult microorganisms. Gerald L. Geison, "Louis Pasteur," in Dictionary of Scientific Biography, Charles Gillespie, ed. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1974), 10, 350-416, p. 383. See also the article by John Burdon Sanderson, "Bacteria," Nature, 29 November 1877, 84-87, p. 84.
75. Oxford English Dictionary, compact ed., 2. (Oxford, 1971), p. 243.
76. "Inquirer," "The germ theory and spontaneous generation," The Contemporary Review, April 1877, 901-924, p. 911.
77. Third Report, (n. 1), p. vi.
78. Fisher, (n. 7), pp. 663, 665.
79. For example, the talk of poisons was rooted in an earlier theory - articulated by Robert Christison in 1839 - that connected the action of poisons to so-called morbid poisons that produced febrile diseases. Pelling, (n. 14) Cholera, Fever, p. 116. Pelling also pointed out that between 1830 and 1860, theories of epidemic disease were based on a pathology of the body fluids, and in particular of blood, pp. 14-16.
80. The historian Margaret Pelling has emphasized, in contrast, the continuity in sanitary practice between the years before 1865 and the years afterward. Pelling, (n. 14) Cholera, Fever, p. 294. Here I am emphasizing the emerging discontinuity in medical theory.
81. For a critical appraisal of the reception of Listerian theory and practice, see Lawrence and Dixey, (n. 3).
82. H. Charlton Bastian, "An address on the germ theory of disease; being a discussion of the relation of bacteria and allied organisms to virulent inflammations and specific contagious fevers," Lancet, 10 April 1875, 501-509, p. 501.
83. Ibid. See also "Discussion on the germ theory of disease, April 6th 1875," Transactions of the Pathological Society of London, 1875, 26, 255-345, and the account of the debate in Lancet, "Medical societies: Pathological Society of London," 10 April 1875, 511-513, p. 511.
84. Ibid. See also "Discussion on the germ theory of disease, April 6th 1875," Transactions of the Pathological Society of London, 1875, 26, 255-345, and the account of the debate in Lancet, "Medical societies: Pathological Society of London," 10 April 1875, 511-513, p. 511.
85. Ibid. See also "Discussion on the germ theory of disease, April 6th 1875," Transactions of the Pathological Society of London, 1875, 26, 255-345, and the account of the debate in Lancet, "Medical societies: Pathological Society of London," 10 April 1875, 511-513, p. 511.
86. John Drysdale, The Germ Theories of Infectious Disease (London: Bailliere, Tindall & Cox, 1878);
87. Drysdale was identified on the title page as president of the Literary
88. John Burdon Sanderson quoted in (n. 47) "Medical societies: Pathological Society of London," p. 512.
89. These remarks summarizing Burdon Sanderson's position in 1875 are drawn from John Burdon Sanderson, "Lectures on the occurrence of organic forms in connection with contagious and infective diseases," Br. Med. J., 16 January 1875, 69-71; 13 February, 199-201; 27 March, 403-405; 3 April, 435-437.
90. These remarks summarizing Burdon Sanderson's position in 1875 are drawn from John Burdon Sanderson, "Lectures on the occurrence of organic forms in connection with contagious and infective diseases," Br. Med. J., 16 January 1875, 69-71; 13 February, 199-201; 27 March, 403-405; 3 April, 435-437.
91. These remarks summarizing Burdon Sanderson's position in 1875 are drawn from John Burdon Sanderson, "Lectures on the occurrence of organic forms in connection with contagious and infective diseases," Br. Med. J., 16 January 1875, 69-71; 13 February, 199-201; 27 March, 403-405; 3 April, 435-437.
92. These remarks summarizing Burdon Sanderson's position in 1875 are drawn from John Burdon Sanderson, "Lectures on the occurrence of organic forms in connection with contagious and infective diseases," Br. Med. J., 16 January 1875, 69-71; 13 February, 199-201; 27 March, 403-405; 3 April, 435-437.
93. Ibid., p. 71.
94. See also Gerald L. Geison, "John Burdon Sanderson," Dictionary of Scientific Biography, (n. 38), 1970, 2, 598-99.
95. John Burdon Sanderson and John Tyndall had a cordial correspondence over the issue of the germ theory and upcoming debates in the Royal Society. See the drafts of letters from Burdon Sanderson to Tyndall, MS. ADD. 179/3: 20 May 1877, fols. 1-2 and 21 May 1877, fols. 3-4 and Tyndall's reply of 21 May 1877, fols. 5-6, Burdon Sanderson Papers, The Library, University College London. See also John Tyndall, "Note on Dr. Burdon Sanderson's latest views of ferments and germs," Proc. R. Soc. Lond., 21 June 1877, 353-357 and John Burdon Sanderson, "Remarks on the attributes of the germinal particles of Bacteria, in reply to Prof. Tyndall," Proc. R. Soc. Lond., 22 November 1877, 416-426.
96. John Burdon Sanderson and John Tyndall had a cordial correspondence over the issue of the germ theory and upcoming debates in the Royal Society. See the drafts of letters from Burdon Sanderson to Tyndall, MS. ADD. 179/3: 20 May 1877, fols. 1-2 and 21 May 1877, fols. 3-4 and Tyndall's reply of 21 May 1877, fols. 5-6, Burdon Sanderson Papers, The Library, University College London. See also John Tyndall, "Note on Dr. Burdon Sanderson's latest views of ferments and germs," Proc. R. Soc. Lond., 21 June 1877, 353-357 and John Burdon Sanderson, "Remarks on the attributes of the germinal particles of Bacteria, in reply to Prof. Tyndall," Proc. R. Soc. Lond., 22 November 1877, 416-426.
97. Gerald L. Geison, "Lionel Smith Beale," Dictionary of Scientific Biography, (n. 38), 1970, 1, 539-541, p. 540. See also the obituaries of Beale: Br. Med. J., 7 April 1906, 836-837 and Lancet, 7 April 1906, 1004-7.
98. Gerald L. Geison, "Lionel Smith Beale," Dictionary of Scientific Biography, (n. 38), 1970, 1, 539-541, p. 540. See also the obituaries of Beale: Br. Med. J., 7 April 1906, 836-837 and Lancet, 7 April 1906, 1004-7.
99. Gerald L. Geison, "Lionel Smith Beale," Dictionary of Scientific Biography, (n. 38), 1970, 1, 539-541, p. 540. See also the obituaries of Beale: Br. Med. J., 7 April 1906, 836-837 and Lancet, 7 April 1906, 1004-7.
100. Pelling noted that the history of the emergence of a new concept of contagion resembled that of spontaneous generation. Pelling, (n. 14) Cholera, Fever, pp. 77-78. The two controversies were intimately connected. J.K. Crellin, "The problem of heat resistance of micro-organisms in the British spontaneous generation controversies of 1860-1880," Med. Hist., 1966, 10, 50-59, made this point as well, p. 50. For details of the spontaneous generation controversy in this era see, John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), chapters 5 and 7; Gerald L. Geison, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), chapter 5, especially pp. 128-29; John Farley and Gerald L. Geison, "Science, politics and spontaneous generation in 19th-century France: the Pasteur - Pouchet debate," Bull. Hist. Med., 1974, 48, 161-198. The spontaneous generation controversy was also related to discussions of Darwin's theory of evolution. See W.F. Bynum, "Darwin and the doctors: evolution, diathesis, and germs in nineteenth-century Britain," Gesnerus, 1983, 40, 43-53, and J.K. Crellin, "The dawn of the germ theory: particles, infection and biology," in Medicine and Science in the 1860s, ed. F.N.L. Poynter (London: Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, 1968), pp. 57-76.
101. Pelling noted that the history of the emergence of a new concept of contagion resembled that of spontaneous generation. Pelling, (n. 14) Cholera, Fever, pp. 77-78. The two controversies were intimately connected. J.K. Crellin, "The problem of heat resistance of micro-organisms in the British spontaneous generation controversies of 1860-1880," Med. Hist., 1966, 10, 50-59, made this point as well, p. 50. For details of the spontaneous generation controversy in this era see, John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), chapters 5 and 7; Gerald L. Geison, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), chapter 5, especially pp. 128-29; John Farley and Gerald L. Geison, "Science, politics and spontaneous generation in 19th-century France: the Pasteur - Pouchet debate," Bull. Hist. Med., 1974, 48, 161-198. The spontaneous generation controversy was also related to discussions of Darwin's theory of evolution. See W.F. Bynum, "Darwin and the doctors: evolution, diathesis, and germs in nineteenth-century Britain," Gesnerus, 1983, 40, 43-53, and J.K. Crellin, "The dawn of the germ theory: particles, infection and biology," in Medicine and Science in the 1860s, ed. F.N.L. Poynter (London: Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, 1968), pp. 57-76.
102. Pelling noted that the history of the emergence of a new concept of contagion resembled that of spontaneous generation. Pelling, (n. 14) Cholera, Fever, pp. 77-78. The two controversies were intimately connected. J.K. Crellin, "The problem of heat resistance of micro-organisms in the British spontaneous generation controversies of 1860-1880," Med. Hist., 1966, 10, 50-59, made this point as well, p. 50. For details of the spontaneous generation controversy in this era see, John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), chapters 5 and 7; Gerald L. Geison, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), chapter 5, especially pp. 128-29; John Farley and Gerald L. Geison, "Science, politics and spontaneous generation in 19th-century France: the Pasteur - Pouchet debate," Bull. Hist. Med., 1974, 48, 161-198. The spontaneous generation controversy was also related to discussions of Darwin's theory of evolution. See W.F. Bynum, "Darwin and the doctors: evolution, diathesis, and germs in nineteenth-century Britain," Gesnerus, 1983, 40, 43-53, and J.K. Crellin, "The dawn of the germ theory: particles, infection and biology," in Medicine and Science in the 1860s, ed. F.N.L. Poynter (London: Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, 1968), pp. 57-76.
103. Pelling noted that the history of the emergence of a new concept of contagion resembled that of spontaneous generation. Pelling, (n. 14) Cholera, Fever, pp. 77-78. The two controversies were intimately connected. J.K. Crellin, "The problem of heat resistance of micro-organisms in the British spontaneous generation controversies of 1860-1880," Med. Hist., 1966, 10, 50-59, made this point as well, p. 50. For details of the spontaneous generation controversy in this era see, John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), chapters 5 and 7; Gerald L. Geison, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), chapter 5, especially pp. 128-29; John Farley and Gerald L. Geison, "Science, politics and spontaneous generation in 19th-century France: the Pasteur - Pouchet debate," Bull. Hist. Med., 1974, 48, 161-198. The spontaneous generation controversy was also related to discussions of Darwin's theory of evolution. See W.F. Bynum, "Darwin and the doctors: evolution, diathesis, and germs in nineteenth-century Britain," Gesnerus, 1983, 40, 43-53, and J.K. Crellin, "The dawn of the germ theory: particles, infection and biology," in Medicine and Science in the 1860s, ed. F.N.L. Poynter (London: Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, 1968), pp. 57-76.
104. Pelling noted that the history of the emergence of a new concept of contagion resembled that of spontaneous generation. Pelling, (n. 14) Cholera, Fever, pp. 77-78. The two controversies were intimately connected. J.K. Crellin, "The problem of heat resistance of micro-organisms in the British spontaneous generation controversies of 1860-1880," Med. Hist., 1966, 10, 50-59, made this point as well, p. 50. For details of the spontaneous generation controversy in this era see, John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), chapters 5 and 7; Gerald L. Geison, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), chapter 5, especially pp. 128-29; John Farley and Gerald L. Geison, "Science, politics and spontaneous generation in 19th-century France: the Pasteur - Pouchet debate," Bull. Hist. Med., 1974, 48, 161-198. The spontaneous generation controversy was also related to discussions of Darwin's theory of evolution. See W.F. Bynum, "Darwin and the doctors: evolution, diathesis, and germs in nineteenth-century Britain," Gesnerus, 1983, 40, 43-53, and J.K. Crellin, "The dawn of the germ theory: particles, infection and biology," in Medicine and Science in the 1860s, ed. F.N.L. Poynter (London: Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, 1968), pp. 57-76.
105. Pelling noted that the history of the emergence of a new concept of contagion resembled that of spontaneous generation. Pelling, (n. 14) Cholera, Fever, pp. 77-78. The two controversies were intimately connected. J.K. Crellin, "The problem of heat resistance of micro-organisms in the British spontaneous generation controversies of 1860-1880," Med. Hist., 1966, 10, 50-59, made this point as well, p. 50. For details of the spontaneous generation controversy in this era see, John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), chapters 5 and 7; Gerald L. Geison, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), chapter 5, especially pp. 128-29; John Farley and Gerald L. Geison, "Science, politics and spontaneous generation in 19th-century France: the Pasteur - Pouchet debate," Bull. Hist. Med., 1974, 48, 161-198. The spontaneous generation controversy was also related to discussions of Darwin's theory of evolution. See W.F. Bynum, "Darwin and the doctors: evolution, diathesis, and germs in nineteenth-century Britain," Gesnerus, 1983, 40, 43-53, and J.K. Crellin, "The dawn of the germ theory: particles, infection and biology," in Medicine and Science in the 1860s, ed. F.N.L. Poynter (London: Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, 1968), pp. 57-76.
106. Pelling noted that the history of the emergence of a new concept of contagion resembled that of spontaneous generation. Pelling, (n. 14) Cholera, Fever, pp. 77-78. The two controversies were intimately connected. J.K. Crellin, "The problem of heat resistance of micro-organisms in the British spontaneous generation controversies of 1860-1880," Med. Hist., 1966, 10, 50-59, made this point as well, p. 50. For details of the spontaneous generation controversy in this era see, John Farley, The Spontaneous Generation Controversy from Descartes to Oparin (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), chapters 5 and 7; Gerald L. Geison, The Private Science of Louis Pasteur (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1995), chapter 5, especially pp. 128-29; John Farley and Gerald L. Geison, "Science, politics and spontaneous generation in 19th-century France: the Pasteur - Pouchet debate," Bull. Hist. Med., 1974, 48, 161-198. The spontaneous generation controversy was also related to discussions of Darwin's theory of evolution. See W.F. Bynum, "Darwin and the doctors: evolution, diathesis, and germs in nineteenth-century Britain," Gesnerus, 1983, 40, 43-53, and J.K. Crellin, "The dawn of the germ theory: particles, infection and biology," in Medicine and Science in the 1860s, ed. F.N.L. Poynter (London: Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, 1968), pp. 57-76.
107. "Inquirer," (n. 40), p. 902. The description of Burdon Sanderson is on p. 916.
108. John Simon to John Burdon Sanderson, 22 July 1877, MS. ADD. 179/3, fols. 15-16, Burdon Sanderson Papers, The Library, University College London.
109. John Burdon Sanderson, "Lectures on the infective processes of disease." Br. Med. J., 22 December 1877, 879-88, p. 880. The lectures continued on 29 December 1877, 913-15; 5 January 1878, 1-2; 12 January, 45-47; 26 January, 119-120; 9 February, 179-83.
110. John Burdon Sanderson, "Lectures on the infective processes of disease." Br. Med. J., 22 December 1877, 879-88, p. 880. The lectures continued on 29 December 1877, 913-15; 5 January 1878, 1-2; 12 January, 45-47; 26 January, 119-120; 9 February, 179-83.
111. John Burdon Sanderson, "Lectures on the infective processes of disease." Br. Med. J., 22 December 1877, 879-88, p. 880. The lectures continued on 29 December 1877, 913-15; 5 January 1878, 1-2; 12 January, 45-47; 26 January, 119-120; 9 February, 179-83.
112. John Burdon Sanderson, "Lectures on the infective processes of disease." Br. Med. J., 22 December 1877, 879-88, p. 880. The lectures continued on 29 December 1877, 913-15; 5 January 1878, 1-2; 12 January, 45-47; 26 January, 119-120; 9 February, 179-83.
113. John Burdon Sanderson, "Lectures on the infective processes of disease." Br. Med. J., 22 December 1877, 879-88, p. 880. The lectures continued on 29 December 1877, 913-15; 5 January 1878, 1-2; 12 January, 45-47; 26 January, 119-120; 9 February, 179-83.
114. John Burdon Sanderson, "Lectures on the infective processes of disease." Br. Med. J., 22 December 1877, 879-88, p. 880. The lectures continued on 29 December 1877, 913-15; 5 January 1878, 1-2; 12 January, 45-47; 26 January, 119-120; 9 February, 179-83.
115. John Dougall quoted in (n. 47) "Discussion on the germ theory," p. 297.
116. Drysdale, Germ Theories, (n. 47), pp. 8-9.
117. John Burdon Sanderson, "Introductory report on the intimate pathology of contagion" in Twelfth Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, 1869, 229-256, p. 232.
118. Lionel S. Beale to John Burdon Sanderson, 16 November 1870, MS. ADD. 179/1, fols 24-25, Burdon Sanderson Papers, The Library, University College London.
119. See John Tyndall's letters to T.H. Huxley, vol. 8: Nov. 18, 1876, fol. 197, Dec. 14, 1877, fols. 198-199, Jan. 14, 1877, fol. 200, Dec. 8, 1880, p. 227, T.H. Huxley Papers, College Archives, Imperial College, London. For an account of Tyndall's career, see H. Helmholtz, "Scientific worthies, IV. John Tyndall," Nature, 20 August 1874, 299-302.
120. Lionel S. Beale to John Burdon Sanderson, 14? November 1870, MS. ADD. 179/1, fols. 22-23, Burdon Sanderson Papers, The Library, University College London.
121. In a pioneering study, Burdon Sanderson established experimentally that water and moist substances contained microzymes. He challenged the assertion of contemporaries that bacteria floated freely in the air; he contended that bacteria were only found in the air's moisture. John Burdon Sanderson, "Further report of researches concerning the intimate pathology of contagion," in Thirteenth Report of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council, 1870, pp. 48-69.
122. T.H. Huxley to John Tyndall, 18 November 1876, T.H. Huxley Papers, College Archives, Imperial College London. I thank Imperial College, London, for permission to quote from the Huxley Papers.
123. Dr. John Dougall quoted in (n. 47) "Discussion on the germ theory of disease," p. 296; my emphasis.
124. Lionel S. Beale, "Dr. Sanderson's speech on the germ theory of disease," Lancet, 17 April 1875, 558-559.
125. James Lambert, The Germ Theory of Disease, a Paper Read before the Irish Central Veterinary Medical Society, April 5, 1883 (London: Bailliere, Tindall & Cox, 1883), p. 4.
126. T. Maclagan, M.D., The Germ Theory Applied to the Explanation of the Phenomena of Disease: The Specific Fevers (London: MacMillan and Co., 1876), p. 32. The booklet was dedicated to John Tyndall.
127. Ibid., p. 21
128. Bastian, (n. 46) "An address on the germ theory of disease," p. 502.
129. H. Charlton Bastian, The Beginnings of Life (New York: Appleton, 1872), 2, appendix E, cxx, quoted in Crellin, (n. 54), p. 72. Crellin also noted "the attractive simplicity" of the germ theory.
130. H. Charlton Bastian, The Beginnings of Life (New York: Appleton, 1872), 2, appendix E, cxx, quoted in Crellin, (n. 54), p. 72. Crellin also noted "the attractive simplicity" of the germ theory.
131. Burdon Sanderson, "Lectures on the infective processes," (n. 57), especially pp. 181-82. For a traditional account of Koch's researches, see Thomas D. Brock, Robert Koch: a Life in Medicine and Bacteriology (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988), chapter 5.
132. Burdon Sanderson, "Lectures on the infective processes," (n. 57), especially pp. 181-82. For a traditional account of Koch's researches, see Thomas D. Brock, Robert Koch: a Life in Medicine and Bacteriology (New York: Springer-Verlag, 1988), chapter 5.
133. See also Lawrence and Dixey, (n. 3) and A.J. Youngson's discussions of the debate about Listerism and "the germ theory," in his The Scientific Revolution in Victorian Medicine (New York: Holmes and Meier, 1979), pp. 194-199.
134. John Burdon Sanderson, "Croonian lectures on the progress of discovery relating to the origin and nature of infectious diseases," Lancet, 7 November 1891, 1027-1032; 14 November, 1083-1088; 21 November, 1150-1154; 28 November, 1208-1211.
135. John Burdon Sanderson, "Croonian lectures on the progress of discovery relating to the origin and nature of infectious diseases," Lancet, 7 November 1891, 1027-1032; 14 November, 1083-1088; 21 November, 1150-1154; 28 November, 1208-1211.
136. John Burdon Sanderson, "Croonian lectures on the progress of discovery relating to the origin and nature of infectious diseases," Lancet, 7 November 1891, 1027-1032; 14 November, 1083-1088; 21 November, 1150-1154; 28 November, 1208-1211.
137. John Burdon Sanderson, "Croonian lectures on the progress of discovery relating to the origin and nature of infectious diseases," Lancet, 7 November 1891, 1027-1032; 14 November, 1083-1088; 21 November, 1150-1154; 28 November, 1208-1211.
138. Ibid., p. 1208.
139. Ibid., p. 1208.
140. Ibid., p. 1029.
141. Ibid., p. 1083. On the contrast between German and French styles of bacteriological theory and practice, see W.F. Bynum, Science and the Practice of Medicine in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 160-61, and Paul Weindling, "Scientific elites and laboratory organization in fin de siècle Paris and Berlin: the Pasteur Institute and Robert Koch's Institute for Infectious Diseases compared," in The Laboratory Revolution, (n. 4), pp. 170-188.
142. Ibid., p. 1083. On the contrast between German and French styles of bacteriological theory and practice, see W.F. Bynum, Science and the Practice of Medicine in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 160-61, and Paul Weindling, "Scientific elites and laboratory organization in fin de siècle Paris and Berlin: the Pasteur Institute and Robert Koch's Institute for Infectious Diseases compared," in The Laboratory Revolution, (n. 4), pp. 170-188.
143. Ibid., p. 1083. On the contrast between German and French styles of bacteriological theory and practice, see W.F. Bynum, Science and the Practice of Medicine in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), pp. 160-61, and Paul Weindling, "Scientific elites and laboratory organization in fin de siècle Paris and Berlin: the Pasteur Institute and Robert Koch's Institute for Infectious Diseases compared," in The Laboratory Revolution, (n. 4), pp. 170-188.
144. Burdon Sanderson, (n. 75), p. 1152, my emphasis.
145. Ibid., p. 1085, my emphasis.
146. Ibid., pp. 1084-88. John Burdon Sanderson discussed this question in great detail drawing on contemporary research, particularly into the action of leucocytes, before arriving at this conclusion.
147. A.B. Griffiths, Researches on Micro-Organisms including an Account of Recent Experiments of Microbes in Certain Infectious Diseases - Phthisis, etc. (London: Baillière, Tindall and Cox, 1891); emphasis in original. Griffiths is described as Ph.D., F.R.S.E., F.C.S., membre de la Societe Chimique de Paris, member of the Physico-Chemical Society of St. Petersburg; author of the "Diseases of Crops," etc., on the title page. See also J. Rosser Matthews, "Major Greenwood versus Almroth Wright: contrasting visions of 'scientific' medicine in Edwardian Britain," Bull. Hist. Med., 1995, 69, 30-43 for a discussion of how, in Edwardian Britain, a "triangular" dispute emerged among clinicians, bacteriologists, and statisticians over who should arbitrate medical knowledge, p. 42.
148. A.B. Griffiths, Researches on Micro-Organisms including an Account of Recent Experiments of Microbes in Certain Infectious Diseases - Phthisis, etc. (London: Baillière, Tindall and Cox, 1891); emphasis in original. Griffiths is described as Ph.D., F.R.S.E., F.C.S., membre de la Societe Chimique de Paris, member of the Physico-Chemical Society of St. Petersburg; author of the "Diseases of Crops," etc., on the title page. See also J. Rosser Matthews, "Major Greenwood versus Almroth Wright: contrasting visions of 'scientific' medicine in Edwardian Britain," Bull. Hist. Med., 1995, 69, 30-43 for a discussion of how, in Edwardian Britain, a "triangular" dispute emerged among clinicians, bacteriologists, and statisticians over who should arbitrate medical knowledge, p. 42.
149. Burdon Sanderson, (n. 75), p. 1151.
150. John Burdon Sanderson had a long-standing dislike of Pasteur. He felt that Pasteur had never acknowledged his own anthrax research. See "Notes on discoveries in bacteriology," n.d. (copy), MS. 20032, fols. 118-20, Burdon Sanderson Collection, National Library of Scotland and Ghetal Burdon Sanderson to Ritchie, 15 August 1908 (copy) MS. ADD. 179/106, Burdon Sanderson Papers, The Library, University College London.
151. Richard Harding Bremridge to John Burdon Sanderson, 3 February 1894, MS. 20501, fols. 155-7, Burdon Sanderson Collection, National Library of Scotland. I thank the Trustees of the National Library of Scotland for permission to quote from material in their possession.