104 GLANDERS AND FARCY. 



Chabert, that the non-contagious nature of glanders was so 

 strenuously upheld at the end of last century. While the 

 school and teachers at Alford were mainly instrumental in 

 upholding the non-contagious theory of the disease, the veteri- 

 nary teaching at Lyons never ceased to be directed in the 

 opposite direction. 



The same diversity and opposition of opinion has been ex- 

 hibited in the views entertained in respect of the nature of the 



Its relation, connection, or similarity to tuberculosis, or 

 scrofula, have been entertained and written upon by Dupuy 

 (1817), Dettrich (1851), Baron, Philippe, Roll, Falke, Spinola, 

 Yillemin, and others. Not satisfied with this relationship, 

 some of these veterinarians, with others equally industrious 

 and learned, endeavoured to establish a connection and simi- 

 larity between glanders and diphtheria, or pytemia. Amongst 

 the supporters of the former idea are to be ranked Dettrich, 

 Kreutzer, Roll; amongst the latter, Ercolani, Bassi, Bruk- 

 miiller. 



From 1855-1863, by the investigations of Virchow and the 

 researches of Leisering, much was done to improve our know- 

 ledge of the nature of glanders and to inculcate correct ideas 

 regarding it. 



The question of the birth or origin of glanders has, with 

 that relating to its nature, been warmly debated, and opposing 

 views regarding it have been registered. From the experi- 

 mental investigations of Renault and Bouley (1840), it seemed 

 tolerably well established that the disease might be developed 

 autochthonously as well as by inoculation. These and other 

 investigators, both on the Continent and in our own country, 

 claimed to have produced glanders in horses, not only by the 

 injection into the circulation of puriform fluids, but also of 

 various dissimilar noxious, irritant, organic and inorganic 

 agents, in this way tending to invalidate the idea of the 

 specific nature of the disease, and to establish that at most it 

 was but a form of septic poisoning of the blood. 



Until a very recent period — indeed, until our OAvn day— I 

 am not aware of any veterinarian of note, here or on the Con- 

 tment, with the exception of Gerlach, who has not accepted 

 and adopted, it may be with some slight modification, the 



