563 
MR. A. CHERRY IN REPLY TO MR. WRIGHT, 
ON CORONITIS. 
In reply to Mr. Wright’s “few remarks” on my paper on 
coronitis, I have but little to say. 
For many years I believed and described that disease to arise 
from irritation ; but more extended observation and reflection led 
to the conclusion that the true state was one of inflammation. The 
reason for this is obvious — when it is taken into consideration that 
irritation is not a state of disease of itself, but of simple derange- 
ment, preceding active or positive disease ; for, however prac- 
tically useful it may be to speak of irritation, yet it is only tran- 
sitory in itself — it either passes on to positive disease, or sub- 
sides on the cessation of the cause which produces it. As an 
illustration, that generally excited condition of the system which 
invariably precedes an attack of fever is a state of irritation ; and, 
though it may be of such short duration as to escape the notice of 
a casual observer, still, where the opportunity occurs of noticing 
the onset of fever, it will be found to exist. This will continue 
until the accession of the positive and defined disease. Every dis- 
ease of an inflammatory type, whether general or local, will afford 
equally an illustration of this fact; and it was the observance 
of this law of phlegmonous disease which principally led me to 
consider “coronitis” as a true phlegmasia: Thus, farther to carry out 
my views, analyse Mr. W.’s supposed case, and it is sufficiently 
apparent that the period of lameness existing during the time of 
the shoe continuing tightly nailed on is a period of irritation ; but 
the continuance of the lameness, after the removal of the exciting 
cause, must arise from some other condition of the parts, which has 
been produced from the previous injurious agent. This state, or 
condition, I cannot but Consider as an inflammatory one. 
r It may be, and perhaps really is, an oversight on my part 
not to have so stated this transition from a state of irritation to 
that of inflammation; but at the time of writing that paper I stu- 
diously avoided every thing but the description of the disease 
when once established, and the more full consideration of the 
causes which produced it. General observations I deferred until 
another opportunity. 
Had I thought it necessary to give cases in illustration, I had a 
field so ample, and extending through so many years, that I could 
have culled too large a number to have been obliged to “ suppose 
cases” in the closet, which, bad at all times, under the above cir- 
cumstances, would have been a work of supererogation. 
