Doctor Mead's Short discourse explain'd : $b Being a clearer account of pestilential contagion, and preventing.
History
Doctor Mead's Short discourse explain'd : $b Being a clearer account of pestilential contagion, and preventing.
Communicable diseases -- Early works to 1800; Mead, Richard, 1673-1754. Short discourse concerning pestilential contagion; Plague -- Early works to 1800
Nay, how can he answer it to himself, who in his Manifesto, in the very
next Paragraph, is under an unavoidable Want of a Fever he formerly
neglected. Here he tells us a Tale, That, _the next_ (Step towards
Contagion, and it is not safe to go too near it) _as it seems to me,
proceeds after this Manner_. This kind of introductory Humility has been
very fashionable, of late, among dignify’d Authors; for in advancing a
Proposition, whereof they can bring no Proof, it is not to be thought
how humble, how self-deny’d they are in that Instant; but they _rant_,
_swagger_, and _bully_, if they get their Reader but Three Lines
further. So this celebrated Author, after this humble Cringe, tells us,
_The Blood in all malignant Fevers, especially pestilential ones_ (to be
sure) _at the latter End of the Disease, does, like fermenting Liquors,
throw off a great Quantity of active Particles upon the several Glands
of the Body, particularly upon those of the Mouth and Skin, from which
the Secretions are naturally the most constant and large. These, in
pestilential Cases, although the Air be in a right State, will generally
infect those who are very near to the sick Person; otherwise are soon
dispersed and lost._
The first Part of this Declaration, if my Memory fails me not, is taken
from the Doctor’s elaborate Essay on Poisons; and is brought forth with
all its primitive Elegance, for the present Purpose; but by no means
answers his Want of it: For it does not appear, by _any manner of
Observation_, that the Blood throws off any active Particles at the
latter End of _malignant_ Fevers, _so there is no need to have Recourse
to this_ Supposition. But why upon any Glands? This Expression does not
favour of understanding _Anatomy_. Why upon the Glands of the Mouth?
Surely this Supposition is not of any Use in this Place, however
serviceable it might prove in the mentioned Book, when the _Slabbering_
of a mad Dog was upon the Anvil. Moreover, Is Secretion most constantly
performed at the Glands of the Mouth and of the Skin? Surely not, as
_Sanctorius_ evinces, and is evident from the Doctrine of Secretions,
perfectly well explain’d many Years ago.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account