Other medical writers of the time perhaps, as the result of reading Professor Vogel's book, made the same mistake {72} in their appreciation of Auenbrugger's work. Vogel himself insisted that Auenbrugger did wrong to claim any originality for his invention, since it had been used so long before by Hippocrates. He adds that what is original with Auenbrugger is of very little value, the older ideas being the only ones worth while considering with regard to the application of this so-called new method of diagnosis. Vogel was an authority in medicine at the time and other commentators took the key note from him in this matter, and in many parts of Germany it was generally accepted that Auenbrugger's method of percussion was only an elaborated method of the so-called succussion of Hippocrates. Under these circumstances it is perhaps not surprising that Auenbrugger's work attracted very little attention in the German-speaking countries. In Vienna itself, as we have already said, Van Swieten and De Haen failed utterly to recognize its value. Outside of Vienna their example was naturally followed, for the Vienna school was considered authoritative, and surely, if any one, the professors of the University of Vienna might be expected to know whether Auenbrugger's new discovery was really of any value or not. It is interesting to compare Auenbrugger's state of mind, with regard to the neglect of his discovery, with Laennec's remark in the preface of his book. Laennec said: "For our generation is not inquisitive as to what is being accomplished by its own sons. Claims of new discoveries made by contemporaries are apt for the most part to be met by smiles and mocking remarks. It is always easier to condemn than to test by actual experience." Auenbrugger seems to have suffered from more than the neglect of which Laennec complains. When he speaks of envy and calumny in no uncertain terms, the only conclusion possible is that his representations as to his discoveries must have been set {73} down as pretensions that his contemporaries considered unjustified by what they knew of his work. It is interesting also to note that both men found their prospects of reward, not in the good will of their contemporaries, nor even the prospect of fame, but in the hope that their work would be useful in lessening the sum of human suffering. Laennec said: "It suffices for me if I can only feel sure that this method will commend itself to a few worthy and learned men who will make it of use to many patients. I shall consider it ample, yea more than sufficient reward for my labor, if it should prove the means by which a single human being is snatched from untimely death."