696 THE POPULAR SCIENCE MONTHLY. 



er's graphic power of imparting information which came with 

 extraordinary force, even upon those who had lingered with 

 delight upon the pages of Watson or Trousseau. In Char- 

 cot's case it was not merely that we descried an astonishing 

 facility of picturing by the pen, but above and beyond this was 

 the evidence of the influence of a fresh and powerful mind 

 pervading every paragraph. Lesions of the nervous system for- 

 merly huddled together and massed under some name which, pre- 

 tending to describe, had only obscured, began to emerge with a 

 sharp outline and clearly differentiated form. . . . The written 

 works of Charcot naturally fall into two great divisions those 

 dealing with nervous diseases generally, and those concerned with 

 the more recondite and abstruse phenomena of hysteria and hyp- 

 notism. Probably his most notable works are* his Lectures on 

 Nervous Diseases and his volume on Cerebral Localization, both 

 of which are accessible to English readers in the Sydenham So- 

 ciety's translations. In these are chronicled the great advances 

 in our knowledge of nervous symptoms and nervous pathology 

 with which Charcot's name will always be associated." A com- 

 munication published in the Archives de Physiologie in 1868, on 

 the condition known as "Charcot's joint," is also mentioned as 

 one of his most interesting and important contributions. 



Charcot's manner is described as having been short, " but in 

 his way he was kind to his incurables," and " he felt remorse for 

 having treated unfortunate patients as if they had no more feel- 

 ing than subjects for dissection." He " was truth itself, but he 

 wanted imagination, and was for that reason unable to look with 

 any eyes but his own upon effects and their various causes." In pri- 

 vate conversation he had none of the impatient vivacity frequently 

 associated with the French manner. " He was anything rather 

 than loquacious. An attentive, respectful, and sympathetic lis- 

 tener, he ever avoided any dogmatic expressions of opinion, even 

 when dealing with subjects upon which his thought and experi- 

 ence had given him more than ordinary qualification for pro- 

 nouncing judgment. He would listen with interest to a sugges- 

 tion, conflicting perhaps with some published opinion of his own, 

 and then, lifting his hands and shoulders with a little expressive 

 gesture, would quietly say, ( It may be so.' He was fair and just 

 in his references to the work of others." A resemblance has been 

 remarked in his face and figure to the conventional type of an 

 abbe*. 



