The first cases affording autopsies in which the spinal cord was thoroughly investigated, belonged, however, precisely to this class of extremely chronic lesions, which should be regarded as showing rather the results of the morbid process than that process itself. Omission to observe this distinction has been the occasion of several misinterpretations of the pathological appearances.
Premature Theories.—In the entire absence of evidence it is a little remarkable that such high authorities as Rilliet and Barthez,71 West,72 Vogel,73 Eulenburg,74 should have pronounced dogmatically that the disease was essential—i.e. unaccompanied by any structural lesion whatever; and that Bouchut,75 on the strength of most incomplete examination, should have built up a theory of myogenic paralysis. It is still more remarkable, after the published autopsies of Rinecker,76 Laborde,77 Cornil,78 Prévost,79 Charcot and Joffroy,80 Parrot and Joffroy,81 Vulpian,82 Roger and Damaschino,83 that Politzer in 1866,84 Brown in 1871,85 Barwell in 1872,86 Kétli,87 Adams in 1873,88 should still adhere to this doctrine. They are, however, entirely in the minority, and all recent monographs and works published with a view to presenting the state of science assume the spinal nature of infantile paralysis to be established beyond possibility of controversy.89
71 Traité des Maladies des Enfants.
72 Diseases of Children, Am. ed., 1860.
73 Diseases of Children, trans. from 4th ed., 1870.
74 Arch. Virchow, Bd. xvii. 1859.
75 Deutsche Klinik, 1863.
76 Gaz. méd., 1864, Soc. de Biol., 1864.
77 De la Paralysie de l'Enfance.
78 Gaz. méd., 1866, Soc. de Biol., 1866.