TIIE HISTORY OF GLANDERS. 
71G 
frequently the results of one and the same specific cause that cause 
being u the tuberculous affection.” — “ Glanders itself,” he adds, 
“is a specific disease , and not a termination of strangles, bastard- 
strangles, cynanche maligna, farcy, watery farcy, catarrh, & c. 
When the lungs are affected, it is a sequel of the tuberculous dis- 
position, and not a termination of pneumonia. On the contrary, 
pneumonic affections are very often consequences of the tuberculous 
affection.” And in another place — “ observation has shewn that 
punform matter coming from the bronchise, which is discharged 
» by the nose, does not cause glanders in passing over the nasal 
membrane, as veterinarians have imagined.” 
Dupuy informs us that glanders may exist in that “latent” form, 
that it may not by the most acute observation be discoverable 
during life. “Tubercles will exist not merely in the first, but 
even in the second degree of development in the internal viscera, 
without deranging their functions, and particularly in the lungs.” 
Or the disease may, after having made its appearance, subside for 
a time, and afterwards re-appear, without any ostensible reasons. 
Speaking of what in France is called acute glanders, Dupuy 
tells us “ it is a disease of another order. It must not be con- 
founded with the tuberculous affection ; rather, it has analogies 
with the typhus of cattle or with the great epizootics which at 
different periods have ravaged France and Europe.” — “ All I am 
desirous,” adds Dupuy, “ of impressing, is, that this disease cannot 
be considered as glanders .” It is consequently one concerning 
which, for the present at least, we need take no account*. 
Morel, 1823, denies the specificity of glanders, regarding the 
disease as no more than the natural consequence of chronic inflam- 
mation of the mucous lining of the aerial passagest. 
Gerard, 1827, asserts the identity of glanders and farcy. 
“ Glanders,” he says, “ is no more than farcy in the nose. And 
the farcy-buds and pimples observable upon the pituitary mem- 
brane constitute lesions of the same description, in both instances 
succeeded by ulceration;};.” 
Rodet, 1830, the Veterinary Professor at Toulouse, adopted the 
Dupuy theory, but with such important modifications as gave it a 
more regular and systematic form. Admitting tubercles to con- 
stitute the especial and proximate cause of glanders, he — not 
leaving us, as Dupuy has, in doubt — ascribes their origin to a con- 
stitutional influence, dependent upon a lymphatic temperament, 
vicious conformation, hereditary disposition, or upon accidental 
* De 1’ Affection Tuberculeuse, vulgairement appelee, Morve , &c. &c. 1817. 
f Traite Raisonnee de la Morve, 1813. 
j Remarqucs et Observations sur lTdentite de la Morve et du Farcin. 
Recueil de Med. Vet., tom. iv, p. 269. 1827. 
