That Gout confers Immunity from other Disorders
The fallacy that longevity and freedom from other maladies was ensured by gout was prevalent among our forefathers. In satire of this, one Philander Misaurus issued a brochure entitled “The Honour of the Gout,” and purporting to be writ, “Right in the Heat of a violent Paroxysm; and now publish’d for the common Good” (1735). “Bless us,” says he, “that any man should wish to be rid of the Gout; for want of which he may become obnoxious to fevers and headache, be blinded in his understanding, loose the best of his Health and the Security of his Life”; and forthwith in his zeal for the common good gives us the following invocation:—
“Blessed Gout, most desirable Gout, Sovereign Antidote
Of murdering Maladies; powerful corrector of Intemperance;
Deign to visit me with thy purging Fires, and throw off the
Tophous Injury which I may have suffer’d by Wine and Wit,
Too hard for the Virtue of a Devotee upon a Holy Festival.
But fail not thy humble Supplicant, who needs thy
Friendly Help, to keep his tottering Tenement in
Order: Fail him not, every Vernal and Autumnal
Æquinox.”
He quaintly suggests that Paracelsus, if he would ensure men against death, had but to inoculate them with gout. Gout, indeed, was held to be a jealous disorder, intolerant of usurpation by any other disease, recalling the remark of Posthumus to his gaolers:—
“Yet am I better
Than one that’s sick o’ the Gout: since he had rather
Groan so in perpetuity, than be cur’d
By the sure physician, death: who is the key
To unbar these locks.”
Cymbeline.
Still the fallacy that gout was salutary died hard, and although it seems incredible, yet, Archbishop Sheldon is said not only to have longed for gout but actually to have offered £1,000 to any one who would procure him this blessing; for he regarded gout as “the only remedy for the distress in his head.” How ingrained the notion may be gathered from the fact that in the early part of the last century, M. Coste in his “Traité Pratique de la Goutte,” observed: “A popular error, which I wish to expose in a few words, is this prejudice, which has already lasted more than two thousand years, and which has reached even the thrones of princes, where the disease commonly shows itself, viz., that gout prolongs life (que la goutte prolonge la vie). This error,” says he, “has taken the surest method of introducing itself, by making flattering promises, by persuading its victims that there is a singular advantage in having gout, and that the malady drives away all other evils, and that it ensures long life to those whom it attacks.”
In like refrain, our own countryman Heberden deplores that people “are neither ashamed nor afraid of it; but solace themselves with the hope that they shall one day have the gout; or, if they have already suffered it, impute all their other ails, not to having had too much of that disease, but to wanting more. The gout, far from being blamed as the cause, is looked up to as the expected deliverer from these evils.” Such deluded views being prevalent, it is hardly a matter for surprise that misguided persons deliberately courted a “fit of the gout” by resorting to excess and intemperance.
But alas, while the initial visitations of gout, after their passing, may leave behind them a renewed sense of well-being, it is no less certain that, when once installed, the intervals of respite grow shorter and shorter. Crippledom grows apace, the general health breaks and untimely senescence overtakes the worn-out victim, and, as Heberden puts it, “that gout causes premature death, when all the comforts of life ...
‘Multæ formæ infortunatorum,
Meditatio pœnæ, et consuetudo,
Podagros miseros consolentur.’
Lucian.
are destroyed, and the physical powers either insensibly undermined or suddenly crushed by an attack of paralysis or apoplexy, should hardly be reckoned among the misfortunes attending the disease.”
But for our encouragement it may be observed that not always does gout carry with it such a terrible Nemesis. “Gout is the disease of those who will have it,” said a wise physician, and though the inbred gouty tendency may be so strong as to cast defiance at abstinence, yet it is by no means always so. A man may inherit gout, but he need not foster it by self-indulgence. Much less need he, as so often happens, acquire it by depraved habits of life. In no disease do sobriety and virtuous living ensure so great a reward. As Sir Thomas Watson long since said to those inheriting this unwelcome legacy: “Let the son of a rich and gouty nobleman change places with the son of a farm servant, and earn his temperate meal by the daily sweat of his brow, and the chance of his being visited with gout will be very small.”
“O fortunatos nimium, sua si bona norint
Agricolas!”
Georg., ii., 458.