1 Works of Hippocrates, trans. by Adams, vol. i. p. 377.
2 Pitha und Billroth, Handbuch der Chirurgie, 1 Band, 2 Abth., 1 Heft, 1 Liefg., S. 6.
"Aretæus lived during the middle of the second century of the Christian era. In his remarks on pneumonia he observes that the subjects of this disease die mostly on the seventh day. 'In certain cases,' he says, 'much pus is formed in the lungs, or there is a metastasis from the side if a greater symptom of convalescence be at hand. But if, indeed, the matter be translated from the side to the intestine or bladder, the patients immediately recover from the peripneumony.' He speaks of a metastasis to the kidneys and bladder being peculiarly favorable in empyema. He ascribes suppuration of the liver to intemperance and protracted disease, especially dysentery and colliquative wasting. The symptoms described by him resemble those of chronic pyæmia."3
3 Braidwood on Pyæmia, p. 2.
Galen and some of the other ancient physicians recognized the existence of septic poisoning, as is shown by the opinions expressed on the subject of putrid fevers. According to Galen, putrid fevers may either arise from the conversion of ephemerals, or originally from putrefaction of the fluids within the vessels.
Aetius states that they arise from constriction of the skin or viscidity of the humors, whereby the perspiration is stopped, and the quantity of vital heat so altered as to give rise to putrefaction, first of the fluids, and afterward of the fat and solid parts. When these corrupted fluids are contained within the vessels they occasion synochous fevers, but when distributed over the body they give rise to intermittents. Synesius and Constantinus Africanus give a similar account. Alexander gives an interesting and ingenious disquisition on the origin and nature of putrid fevers, one of the most common causes of which he holds to be the conversion of ephemeral fevers, and the inseparable symptoms being want of concoction in the urine and quickness of the pulse with systoles. This is the account of them given by most of the other authorities, both Greek and Arabian, so that we need not enter into any circumstantial exposition of their views. We shall merely give the brief account of those furnished by Palladius. There are, he says, two kinds of synochous fevers, the one being occasioned by effervescence, and the other by putrefaction of the blood; of these the latter are the more protracted and dangerous. In them the pulse is contracted, the heat pungent, and the urine white and putrid.4
4 Paulus Ægineta, trans. by Adams, vol. i. p. 236 (Sydenham Soc., 1844).
A new era in the literature of this subject dawned during the sixteenth century. Ambrose Paré and Bartholomew Maggi each published a work in which they pointed out the old errors and announced new truths. Paré's Treatise on Gunshot Wounds was published in Paris in 1551, while Maggi's treatise appeared a year later at Bologna. Paré gained his first experience in the treatment of gunshot wounds in 1536, which is described as follows: "The storming of the small mountain-fortress Villane, near Susa, probably gave him for the first time full occupation, and he followed in all things the example of older colleagues. Like them, although hesitatingly, he poured into the gunshot wounds boiling oil of elder to destroy the poison, but the oil fell short, and then he was compelled to dress the other wounded men with an ointment of oil of roses and turpentine. Fearing that the latter would soon become victims of the wound-poison, he passed a sleepless night, got up early to see the ill consequences, but was greatly surprised to find those that he had half given up free from pain and without inflammation or swelling, while those who had been treated with boiling oil lay in a state of fever, with great pain and much swelling. He therefore determined, as he tells us, never again to burn the poor subjects of gunshot wounds so cruelly."5 It will be seen that Paré's treatise on gunshot wounds was published fifteen years after this impressive experience at the fortress of Villane. In this work he sought to correct the prevailing idea that gunshot wounds were poisonous, and was ably supported in his effort by Bartholomew Maggi; but it required all the respect which Paré enjoyed in riper years to gradually obtain consideration for the new view. The idea that gunshot wounds were poisonous is supposed to have originated in the fact that in every war there are cases of acute sepsis, developed after the infliction of these injuries, which agree in all their essential points with the results of the bites of poisonous snakes. We are even informed that during the late Franco-Prussian War there were cases which even excited suspicion among the laymen that the enemy had used poisoned missiles.
5 German Clinical Lectures, 2d series (New Sydenham Soc., 1877), p. 65 et seq.
The nature of the error which Paré and Maggi endeavored to correct is shown by the declaration made by Johannes de Vigo at the commencement of the sixteenth century, who expressed in dogmatic form the views then firmly held by physicians. "A gunshot wound is a contused wound, he says, for the bullet is round; it is burnt, for the bullet is heated; it is poisoned, for the powder is poisonous. The poisoning is the essential condition; therefore the treatment must be directed above all to counteract this."