[1] Those only are here reckoned as discoverers from whose work may be
traced not merely what might have been the beginning of the discovery,
but the continuous history of events, consequent upon the evidence of
its truth. Long, it is true, might under this rule be excluded; yet his
work cannot fairly be separated from the history. Of course, in this, as
in every similar case, there were some who maintained that there was
nothing new in it. Before 1842 there were many instances in which
persons underwent operations during insensibility. There may be very
reasonable doubts about what is told of the ancient uses of Indian hemp,
and mandragora; but most of those who saw much surgery before 1846 must
have seen operations done on patients during insensibility produced by
narcotics, dead-drunkenness, mesmerism, large losses of blood or other
uncertain and often impracticable methods. Besides, there were many
guesses and suggestions for making operations painless. But they were
all fruitless; and they fail at that which may be a fair test for most
of the claims of discoverers--the test of consequent and continuous
history. When honour is claimed for the authors of such fruitless works
as these, it may fairly be said that blame rather than praise is due to
them. Having seen, so far as they profess, they should not have rested
till they could see much further.