Jurine, in his prize essay of 1807, denies the gangrenous nature of angina maligna and emphasizes the frequent complication of membranous croup with membranous pharyngitis. It was reserved for Bretonneau to enforce attention to the ideas of Bard by asserting (though he did not mention either his monograph or its French translation of 1810) the identity of angina maligna, or by whatever other title it may be known, with membranous laryngitis, and by inaugurating his theory with a new name for the disease to perpetuate the views expressed therein. First and foremost, he called attention to the continuity of the membrane (according to him, composed of coagulated mucus and fibrin) of the nose, pharynx, and respiratory tract, its identity with certain morbid conditions of the skin, and promulgated the theory that "diphtherite"—the name dates from that time—is a specific disease, an affection sui generis, and differs both from a catarrhal and a scarlatinous inflammation.
The modern history of diphtheria may be dated from June 26, 1821, when Bretonneau read his first essay on that subject before the French Academy of Medicine, and gave to the disease the name it now bears. His second and third (Nov. 25th) papers belong to the same year; his fourth was read in March, 1826; his fifth appeared in the Archives gén. of January and September, 1855. It was only in 1826 that the material, previously gathered, was summed up in his celebrated monograph.4 Before this time, however, the separate essays had received prominence from the reports and commentaries of Guersant, who laid particular stress on the statement that diphtheria was a non-gangrenous affection, identical, and even synchronous, with croup in the majority of epidemics. Since that epoch the literature on the subject has assumed enormous proportions. It is a matter of regret that the limited space allotted to this subject should exclude much historical detail of the etiology, pathology, and therapeutics of diphtheria. If the history of any disease is interesting, and the neglect of its study has ever punished itself, it is diphtheria. Particularly would the treatment have been more successful if the knowledge of former times had been available and more heeded. As long ago as in the seventeenth century depletion in diphtheria was condemned, and in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the local treatment with muriatic acid and the internal administration of cinchona, camphor, and roborant diet were held to be the only admissible ones. Bretonneau urged the same principles, and still in our own times, for want of historical knowledge, we had to learn the old lesson over again.5
4 P. Bretonneau, Des Inflammations spéciales du tissu muqueux, et en particulier de la Diphthérite, etc., Paris, 1826.
5 See history and bibliography of diphtheria in Chatto; Sanné, Traité de la Diphthérie, Paris, 1874; Jacobi, in Gerhardt's Handb. d. Kinderk., vol. ii., 1877; Seitz, Diphtheric und Croup gesch. u. Klin. dargest, Berlin, 1879; Index-Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-General's Office, U.S.A., vol. iii., Washington, 1882.
The following is a brief review of the main points of discussion upon subjects connected with the symptomatology and pathology of diphtheria since Bretonneau's first paper:
Bourquoise and Brunet express their belief (1823) in the contagious character of this disease. Desruelles (1824) sees a diagnostic difference between the sporadic and the epidemic forms in the participation of the brain in the latter. Louis referred a number of cases of croup in adults to pharyngeal diphtheria as their source. Mackenzie considers that croup has its origin in the fauces, and urges the employment of lunar caustic. Billard (1826) denies the specific character of diphtheritic inflammation. Hamilton describes cases that terminated in suppuration, and which he therefore distinguishes from Bretonneau's cases. He describes two modes of termination of the disease—one in croup, the other in a state of debility arising from the effect of the absorbed secretion on the respiratory nerves. Pretty looks upon those cases of croup that have their original seat in the tonsils as contagious. Bland (1827) explains the difference between croup and diphtheria. Deslandes declares them to be identical. Bretonneau publishes a work in which he compares diphtheria with scarlatina anginosa, and recommends the use of alum. Emmangard is the first one of the physiological school who, likening diphtheria to typhoid and claiming its origin in a malarial infection, calls it angina gastro-enterica. Abercrombie is in favor of distinguishing diphtheria from croup, but reports a number of cases of diphtheria of the pharynx that terminated fatally by stenosis of the larynx. Ribes, who encountered the disease in nine members of a single family, asserts that croup rarely occurred without a preceding diphtheria in his experience; he advises an examination of the throats of apparently healthy individuals. Fuchs relates the history of epidemics of angina maligna, and declares croup to be a genuine angina maligna trachealis, which only does not run through all the stages. Broussais opposes the identity of croup and diphtheria (1829), and gives a report of cures by means of antiphlogistic regimen and laryngotomy. Diphtheria and gangrenous angina are synonymous with him. Gendron expresses a belief in the identity of diphtheria and gangrenous angina. Roche considers the membrane rather of hemorrhagic than of inflammatory origin, and consisting of discolored fibrin. About the same time Trousseau is endeavoring to clearly establish the diagnosis between diphtheria and scarlatinous angina. Shortly after (1830), he reports cases of diphtheria which originated in blistering wounds, and of diphtheria of the skin giving rise to throat affections, and diphtheria of the throat followed by skin disease. T. F. Hoffmann cites a severe case, that ultimately recovered, with consecutive paralysis of certain cranial nerves. Cheyne (1833) makes a stand against the "confounding of croup and cynanche maligna under the name of diphtheritis." Bourgeois witnessed an epidemic succeeding mumps.
Fricout and Burley (1836) declare their belief in the contagiousness of the disease. Bouillaud attacks the theory of its specific character on the ground that abstraction of blood produced favorable results. Stokes makes a distinction between primary and secondary croup according to the original seat of the affection (1837). Kessler advocates (1841) the view of its contagious nature, and Rilliet and Barthez adduce evidence of the occurrence of ulceration and gangrene in the course of the disease. Taupin, like Ribes, enjoins a methodical examination of the throat of every patient during the prevalence of an epidemic of diphtheria, whatsoever be the disease from which the child suffers. Boudet (1842) opposes Bretonneau's hypothesis that croup is a descending diphtheria, and holds to the identity of diphtheria and gangrenous angina. In this contest Durand (1843) also takes sides against Bretonneau, and lays particular stress on the point that the diphtheritic patient succumbs rather from the severity of the constitutional symptoms than from suffocation. Rilliet and Barthez, on the other hand, rally to the support of the attacked master, asserting that the usual form of croup and that resulting from a descending diphtheritis are one and the same, while they claim that diphtheritis and gangrenous angina are distinct affections.
Meanwhile, the strife regarding the nature of the disease continued. Guersant and Blache (1844) describe the stomatite couenneuse (noma, stomacace, according to them, the rarest kind of gangrenous angina) as a form of Bretonneau's diphtheritis, and Landsberg raises the question whether a nerve-inflammation, present in a certain case, was to be looked upon as an accidental or an essential feature of the disease, and finally comes to the conclusion, with Schönlein, that it was a neurophlogosis dependent on the disease. Bouisson (1847) reports a case of diphtheritic conjunctivitis resulting in loss of the eye. Robert publishes his observations on diphtheria of the skin and of wounds, which he attributes to an atmospheric contamination in crowded wards of hospitals, and looks upon it, with Delpech and Eisenmann, as a form of hospital gangrene. Virchow, in the same year, distinguished the catarrhal, croupous, and diphtheritic varieties of the disease. Meanwhile, reports of paralysis of the soft palate after diphtheria came from Morisseau, from Trousseau and Lasegue, and lastly (1854-59) from Maingault. The subject of diphtheritic conjunctivitis was studied by A. v. Graefe (1854), who encountered the disease as a complication of diphtheria of the pharynx, nose, and skin, and hence considered it a part of the general disease rather than an independent local affection. Diphtheria, in its effects on the system, had at the same time been investigated by Trousseau, who sums up with the statement that the principal source of danger lies in the invasion of the larynx, and that the large majority of cases of croup began as a diphtheria of the pharynx, but that, even without the occurrence of a laryngeal localization, many cases terminate fatally owing to adynamia.
Outside of France, too, the subject had attracted attention. West, who had never seen the disease occur primarily, describes diphtheria as a complication of measles. Bamberger (1855) divides the inflammations of the mouth and pharynx into the catarrhal and croupous forms, and considers croup and diphtheria to be subdivisions of the latter form, differing only in degree. The paralysis of the muscles of deglutition is discussed by Dehænne (1857) who had contracted the disease, and the paralysis of other muscles by Faure. A case of diphtheria of the tonsils, nipples, and vagina in a woman recently confined, followed by infection of the new-born and the death of both, is reported by Mathieux; and cases of diphtheritic conjunctivitis by Grichard, Warlomont, and Testelin. The same year Isambert published a work in which he divided the diphtheritic affections into three forms—viz. angine couenneuse, scarlatinous angina, and diphtheritic angina. The last-mentioned is further subdivided into a croupous-diphtheritic angina, in which croup of the larynx plays an important part, and into that form in which death results from adynamia; in the latter form there is a marked swelling of the lymphatic glands. Apparently, at this time the epidemic in Paris underwent a considerable change, for the croupous form does not occur by far so frequently as Bretonneau had asserted, and croup of the larynx without a preceding diphtheria of the pharynx was observed more frequently than he would lead us to believe.
The various changes in the symptoms of the epidemics of diphtheria which were observed in different places and countries, and at different times, explain many of the differences of opinions in regard to the nature of the disease. The literature of that subject is in the last twenty-five years simply stupendous, and a few more notes must suffice for the elucidation of the drift of theories and observations. Beale was the first to look for organic beings as the cause of the disease, without finding any. Laycock sees it in the bacilli and spores of oidium albicans; Wilks, however, found the same parasite in other affections. Cammack declares the diphtheritic membrane to be herpetic. Feron also calls Bretonneau's mild form of the disease a herpetic angina with pseudo-membrane; so does Gubler. Bouchut writes against the identity of diphtheria, croup, and gangrene. Condie describes the disease as occurring with scarlatina. Litchfield claims that it is a concealed scarlatina, and Hillier that it has some connection with it. Millard cites one case in the course of which gangrene occurred, and another in which skin, mouth, pharynx, respiratory passages, oesophagus, and vulva were affected at the same time. Harley vainly endeavored to inoculate the disease in animals. Stephens declares the disease to be infectious. Sanderson looks upon it as identical with the angina maligna of the aged. Farr considered the exhalations from sewers an important etiological factor. Sellerier, Kingsford, and Harley (1859) report paralyses as sequelæ. Maugin speaks of a specific eruption; Ward, of an accompanying purpura. Bouchut and Empis remarked the frequent presence of and danger from albuminuria; so did Wade. Maugin calls attention to the fact that, when present in diphtheria, it occurs early, whereas in scarlatina it is seen during the period of desquamation, and is not of frequent occurrence even then. Gull gives an account of cases in which death resulted from asthenia, and speaks of a nerve-lesion which he attributes to the severity of the local inflammation. Hildige describes diphtheritic conjunctivitis as seen in Graefe's practice, and looks upon it as contagious. Magne denies its contagious or infectious character. Mackenzie, while probably having seen false membrane appear on the conjunctiva when in a state of inflammation, yet refuses to recognize diphtheritic conjunctivitis as a distinct disease.