366 THE LIFE OF PASTEUR 



one hand, and M. Chauveau on the other, that contagion is the 

 function of a living element. " It is especially," said Bouley, 

 "on the question of the prophylaxis of virulent diseases that 

 the microbian doctrine has given the most marvellous results. 

 To seize upon the most deadly virus, to submit them to a 

 methodical culture, to cause modifying agents to act upon them 

 in a measured proportion, and thus to succeed in attenuating 

 them in divers degrees, so as to utilize their strength, reduced 

 but still efficacious, in transmitting a benignant malady by 

 means of which immunity is acquired against the deadly 

 disease : what a beautiful dream ! ! And M. Pasteur has made 

 that dream into a reality ! ! ! . . ." 



The debate widened, typhoid fever became a mere incident. 

 The pathogenic action of the infinitesimally small entered into 

 the discussion ; traditional medicine faced microbian medicine. 

 M, Peter rushed once more to the front rank for the fight. He 

 declared that he did not apply the term chymiaster to Pasteur ; 

 he recognized that it was but ' ' fair to proclaim that we owe 

 to M. Pasteur's researches the most useful practical applica- 

 tions in surgery and in obstetrics." But considering that 

 medicine might claim more independence, he repeated that 

 the discovery of the material elements of virulent diseases did 

 not throw so much light as had been said, either on pathological 

 anatomy, on the evolution, on the treatment or especially on 

 the prophylaxis of virulent diseases. " Those are but natural 

 history curiosities," he added, "interesting no doubt, but of 

 very little profit to medicine, and not worth either the time 

 given to them or the noise made about them. After so many 

 laborious researches, nothing will be changed in medicine, 

 there will only be a few more microbes." 



A newspaper having repeated this last sentence, a professor 

 of the Faculty of Medicine, M. Cornil, simply recalled how, 

 at the time when the acarus of itch had been discovered, many 

 partisans of old doctrines had probably exclaimed, " What is 

 your acarus to me? Will it teach me more than I know 

 already? " " But," added M. Cornil, " the physician who had 

 understood the value of that discovery no longer inflicted 

 internal medication upon his patients to cure them of what 

 seemed an inveterate disease, but merely cured them by means 

 of a brush and a little ointment." 



M. Peter, continuing his violent speech, quoted certain vac- 

 cination failures, and incompletely reported experiments, say- 



