If a man could possess in the highest degree and in combination all of

the possible extremes of sensory appreciativeness seen in disease, in

hysteria, and in the hypnotic state, we should have a being of

extraordinary capacities for observation. Taylor, in his "Physical

Theory of Another World," a singular and half-forgotten book, has set

this forth as conceivable of the beings of a world to come, and dwelt

upon it in an ingenious and interesting way. For a long time even the

inhalation of tobacco-smoke from a friend's cigar disturbed my heart,

but one day, and it was, I fear, long before my physician, and he was

wise, thought it prudent, I suddenly fell a prey to our lady Nicotia. I

had been reading listlessly a cruel essay in the _Atlantic_ on the

wickedness of smoking, and was presently seized with a desire to look at

King James's famous "counterblast" against the weed. One is like a

spoiled child at these times, and I sent off at once for the royal

fulmination, which I found dull enough. It led to results the monarch

could not have dreamed of. I got a full-flavored cigar, and had a

half-hour of worshipful incense-product at the shrine of the

brown-cheeked lady,--a thing to remember,--and which I had leisure

enough to repent of in the sleepless night it cost me.

This new keenness of perception, of taste and touch, of smell and sound,

belongs also, in the splendid rally which the body makes toward health,

to the intellectual and imaginative sphere of activities. Something of

the lost gifts of the fairy-land of childhood returns to us in fresh

aptitude for strange, sweet castle-building, as we lie open-eyed, or in

power to see, as the child sees, what we will when the eyes are

closed,--

Pictures of love and hate,

Grim battles where no death is. Tournaments,

Tall castles fair and garden terraces,

Where the stiff peacock mocks the sunset light,

And man and maiden whisper tenderly

A shadowy love where no heart ever breaks,--

Love whose to-morrow shall be as to-day.

With the increase of intellectual clearness, within a certain range,

come, as with the brightened senses, certain drawbacks, arising out of

the fastidiousness which belongs to the changing man just at this time.

Let him, therefore, be careful what novels he chooses, for of all times

this is the one for fiction, when we are away from the contradictions of

the fierce outer world, and are in an atmosphere all sun and flowers,

and pleasant with generous service and thankful joy. Be careful what

Scheherezade you invite to your couch. By an awful rule of this world's

life, in all its phases, the sharper the zest of enjoyment, the keener

the possible disgusts may be. I recommend Dumas's books at this crisis,

but they should be read with acceptance; as stories, their value lying

largely in this, that no matter who is murdered or what horror occurs,

you somehow feel no more particular call upon your compassion than is

made when you read afresh the terrible catastrophes of Jack the

Giant-Killer.

A delightful master of style, Robert Louis Stevenson, in a recent

enumeration of the books which have influenced him in life, mentions, as

among the most charming of characterizations, the older Artagnan of the

Vicomte de Bragelonne. I feel sure that on the sick-bed, of which he

does not hesitate to speak, he must have learned, as I did, to

appreciate this charming book. I made acquaintance then, also, with what

seems to me, however, the most artistic of Dumas's works, and one so

little known that to name it is a benefit, or may be, the Chevalier

d'Harmenthal.

In the long road towards working health, I must have found, as my

note-books show, immense leisure, and equal capacity to absorb a

quantity of fiction, good and bad, and to find in some of it things

about my own art which excited amused comment, and but for that would

long ago have been forgotten. Among the stuff which I more or less

listlessly read was an astonishing book called "Norwood." It set me to

thinking, because in this book are recounted many things concerning sick

or wounded folk, and those astonishing surgeons and nurses who are

supposed to have helped them on to their feet again.

The ghastly amusement which came to me out of the young lady in this

volume, who amputates a man's leg, made me reflect a little about the

mode in which writers of fiction have dealt with sick people and

doctors. I lay half awake, and thought over this in no unkindly critical

mood,

"With now and then a merry thought,

And now and then a sad one,"

until I built myself a great literary hospital, such as would delight

Miss Nightingale. For in it I had a Scott ward, and a Dickens ward, and

a Bulwer ward, and a Thackeray ward, with a very jolly lot of doctors,

such as Drs. Goodenough and Firmin, with the Little Sister (out of

Philip) and Miss Evangeline to take care of the patients, besides cells

for Charles Reade's heroes and heroines, and the apothecary (out of

Romeo and Juliet) to mix more honest doses than he gave to luckless

Romeo.

Should you wander with a critical doctor through those ghostly wards,

you would see some queerer results of battle and fray than ever the

doctors observe nowadays,--cases I should like to report, it might be:

poisonings that would have bewildered Orfila, heart-diseases that would

have astounded Corvisart, and those wonderful instances of consumption

which render that most painful of diseases so delightful to die of--in

novels. I have no present intention to weary my readers with a clinic in

those crowded wards, but it will ease my soul a little if I may say my

say in a general fashion about the utter absurdities of most of these

pictures of disease and death-beds. In older times the sickness of a

novel was merely a feint to gain time in the story or account for a

non-appearance, and the doctor made very brief show upon the stage.

Since, however, the growth of realism in literary art, the temptation to

delineate exactly the absolute facts of disease has led authors to dwell

too freely on the details of sickness. So long as they dealt in

generalities their way was clear enough. Of old a man was poisoned and

done for. Today we deal in symptoms, and follow science closely in our

use of poisons. Mr. Trollope's "Gemma" is an instance in point, where

every one will feel that the spectacle of the heroine going seasick to

death, owing to the administration of tartar emetic, is as disgusting

and inartistic a method as fiction presents. Why not have made it croton

oil? More and worse of this hideous realism is to be found in About's

books, such, for instance, as "Germaine"; but from which censure I like

to exclude the rollicking fun of "Le Nez d'un Notaire." As to the recent

realistic atrocities of Zola, and even of Tolstoi, a more rare sinner,

if we exclude his disgusting drama of peasant life, I prefer to say

little.

As to blunders in the science of poisons I say little. The novelist is a

free lance, and chooses his own weapons; but I cannot help remarking

that, if recent investigators are to be trusted, one unlucky female, at

least, must be still alive, for a novelist relates that she was done to

death by the internal taking of a dose of rattlesnake venom. I hope when

I am to be poisoned this mode may be employed. She might as well have

drunk a glass of milk. That book was a queer one to me after this

catastrophe: the woman ought to be dead and could not be.

The difficulty of the modern novelist in giving symptoms and preserving

the entire decorum of his pages has amused me a little. Depend upon it,

he had best fight shy of these chronic illnesses: they make queer

reading to a doctor who knows what sick people are; and above all does

this advice apply to death-beds. As a rule, folks get very horrible at

such times, and are a long while in dying, with few of their wits about

them at the last. But in novels people die marvellously possessed of

their faculties; or, if they are shot, always jump into the air exactly

as men never do in fact.

Just here, concerning wounds, a question occurs to me: The heroes who

have to lose a limb--a common thing in novels since the war--always come

back with one arm, and never with a lost leg. Is it more romantic to get

rid of one than of the other?--considering also that a one-armed embrace

of the weeping waiting lady-love must be so utterly unsatisfactory.

But enough of the patients. Among them I think I like Pendennis the

best, and consider little Dombey and Nell the most delightfully absurd.

And as to the doctors. Some of them have absolutely had the high

promotion to be the heroes of a whole book. Had not one, nay, two, a

novel to themselves? There is delightful Dr. Antonio, not enough of a

doctor to call down on him my professional wrath. As to Dr. Goodenough,

he has been in our family a long while,--on the shelf (God bless

him!),--and attended, we remember, our friend Colonel Newcome in that

death-bed matchless in art since Falstaff babbled life away. Yet, after

all, he is not a doctor so much as a man charmingly drawn.

There are in novels many good portraits of lawyers, from Pleydell to

Tulkinghorn. Whether fair or unjust as pictures, I am scarce able to

judge, although I believe that some of them have been recognized by our

legal brethren as sufficiently exact. While, however, we have plenty of

characters which for his purpose the novelist labels M.D., there seems

to have been some insuperable difficulty in evolving for artistic use a

doctor who shall seem at home, as such, among the other characters of

the novel,--one, at least, who shall appear to any reasonable degree

like a doctor to those who really know the genus doctor thoroughly. Save

Lydgate, no doctor in fiction answers this critical demand, or seems

anything to me but a very stiff lay figure from the moment he is called

upon to bring his art into the story, or to figure, except as an

unprofessional personage.

Nor does this arise from poverty of types in the tribe of physicians.

The training of a doctor's life produces the most varied effects for

good or evil, as may chance, upon the human natures submitted to its

discipline, so that I think any thoughtful medical man will tell you

that there is a more notable individuality among his brethren in middle

life than among most of the people he encounters. As for the novelist's

effort--an inartistic one, it seems to me--to bring on his stage

representations of some especial kind of doctor, I have only a grim

smile to give, remembering Mr. Reade's grewsome medico in "Hard

Cash,"--a personation meant, I suppose, to present to the public a

certain irregular London doctor, but which, to the minds of most

physicians, reads like an elaborate advertisement of the man in

question.

Sir Bulwer Lytton's renderings of a homoeopath and a water-cure

specialist are open to the same charge, and could only have been

successful in the hands of a master.

There are at least two doctors in Balzac's novels. Rastignac, man of

fashion and science, is drawn with the master's usual skill, but he is

not a doctor. His art has no prominence. It is not shown how his

peculiarities influenced his work, nor how his art, and its use, altered

or modified the man. "The Country Doctor," by the same strong hand, is

far more near my ideal of what this portraiture should be than any other

known to me in French literature. The humorous aspects of a medical life

in the provinces of France are nicely handled in Jules Sandeau's "Doctor

Herbeau," but the study, however neat and pleasing, is slight.

Wander where you may, in the drama or the novel, you will still find, I

think, that the character of the physician awaits in its interesting

varieties competent portrayal.

Shakespeare has left us no finished portrait of a doctor. Molière

caricatured him. Thackeray failed to draw him, and generally in novels

he is merely a man who is labelled "Doctor." The sole exception known to

me is the marvellous delineation of Lydgate in "Middlemarch." He is all

over the physician, his manner, his sentiments, his modes of thought,

but he stands alone in fiction. How did that great mistress of her art

learn all of physicians which enabled her to leave us this amazingly

truthful picture? Her life gives us no clue, and when I asked her

husband, George Lewes, to explain the matter, he said that he did not

know, and that she knew no more of this than of how she had acquired her

strangely complete knowledge of the low turf people she has drawn in the

same book, and with an almost equal skill and truth to nature.

It were easy, I fancy, to point out how the doctor's life and training

differ from those of all the other professions, and how this must act on

peculiar individualities for the deepening of some lines and the erasure

of others; but this were too elaborate a study for my present gossiping

essay, and may await another day and a less lazy mood.

If any one should be curious to see what are the modifying circumstances

in a physician's life which strongly tend to weaken or to reinforce

character, I recommend a delightful little address, quite too brief, by

Dr. Emerson, the son of the great essayist. It is unluckily out of print

and difficult to obtain. If you would see in real lives what sturdy

forms of personal distinctness the doctor may assume, there is no better

way than to glance over some half-dozen medical biographies. Read, for

instance, delightful John Brown's sketch of Sydenham and of his own

father, or George Wilson's life of John Reid, the physiologist, whom

community of suffering must have made dear to that gentle intelligence,

and whose days ended in tragic horror such as sensational fiction may

scarcely match; or, for an individuality as well defined and more

pleasing, read Pichot's life of Sir Charles Bell, or one of the most

remarkable of biographies, Mr. Morley's life of Jerome Cardan.

I am reminded as I write how rare are the really good medical

biographies. The autobiographies are better. Ambrose Paré's sketches of

his own life, which was both eventful and varied, are scattered through

his treatise on surgery, and he does not gain added interest in the

hands of Malgaigne. Our own Sims's book about himself is worth reading,

but is too realistic for the library table, yet what a strangely

valuable story it is of the struggle of genius up to eminent success.

But these are the heroes of a not unheroic profession, and I had almost

forgotten to set among them, as a study of character, the life of the

tranquil, high-minded Jenner, the country doctor who swept the scars of

smallpox from the faces of the world of men, and beside him John Hunter,

his friend, impulsive, quick of temper, enthusiastic, an intensely

practical man of science. These are illustrations of men of the most

varied types, whose works show their characteristics, and who would, in

the end, I fancy, have been very different had fate set them other tasks

in life, for if the sculptor makes the statue, we may rest quite sure

that the statue he makes influences the man who made it.

These, I have said, are our heroes, but I still think there remains to

be written the simple, honest, dutiful story of an intelligent,

thoughtful, every-day doctor, such as will pleasantly and fitly open to

laymen some true conception of the life he leads, its cares, its trials,

its influences on himself and others and its varied rewards. John Brown

got closest to it in that sketch of his father, and in her

delicately-drawn "Country Doctor" Miss Jewett has done us gentle

service. But my doctor would differ somewhat in all lands, because

nationality and social conventions have their influence on us as on

other men, as any one may observe who compares the clergymen of the

Episcopal Church in America with those of England.

The man who deals with the physician in fiction would have to consider

this class of facts, for social conventions have assigned to the

physician in England, at least, a very different position from that

which he holds with us, where he has no social superior, and is usually

in all small communities, and in some larger ones, the most eminent

personage and the man of largest influence.

In the rage for novel characters the lady doctor has of late assumed her

place in fiction. Lots of wives have been picked up among hospital

nurses, especially since the Crimean war, and since other women than

Sisters of Charity got into the business, and so made to seem probable

this pleasing termination of an illness. There was a case well known to

me where a young officer simulated delirium tremens in order to get near

to a Sister of Charity. If ever you had seen the lady, you would not

have wondered at his madness; and should any author desire to utilize

this incident, let him comprehend that the order of Sisters of Charity

admits of its members leaving the ranks by marriage, theirs being a

secular order; so that here are the chances for a story of the freshest

kind. As for the lady doctor in fiction, her advantages would be awful

to contemplate in sickness, when we are weak and fevered, and absurdly

grateful for a newly-beaten pillow or a morsel of ice. But imagine the

awful temptation of having your heart auscultated. Let us dismiss the

subject while the vision of Béranger's Ange Gardienne flits before us as

De Grandville drew her.

I have not now beside me Howells's "Doctor Breen's Practice." It is a

remarkable attempt to do justice to a very difficult subject, for there

are two physicians to handle, male and female, not, I think, after their

kind. "Doctor Zay," by Miss Phelps, makes absurd a book which is

otherwise very attractive. This young woman doctor, a homoeopath, sets a

young man's leg, and falls in love with him after a therapeutic

courtship, in which he wooes and she prescribes.

The woman doctor is, I suspect, still available as material for the

ambitious novelist, but let him beware how he deals with her.

PAIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES.

As I look from my window, on the lawn below are girls at play,--gay,

vigorous, wholesome; they laugh, they run, and are never weary. How far

from them and their abounding health seem the possibilities of such

torment as nature somewhere in life reserves for most of us. As women,

their lives are likely, nay, certain, to bring them a variety of

physical discomforts, and perhaps pain in its gravest forms. For man,

pain is accidental, and depends much on the chances of life. Certainly,

many men go through existence here with but little pain. With women it

is incidental, and a far more probable possibility. The most healthy

will have least of it. Vigor of body is its foe. Thin blood is its ally.

Speaking now, not of the physiological pain, which few escape, but of

the torments of neuralgia and the like, Romberg says, "Pain is the

prayer of the nerves for healthy blood." As the woman is normally less

full-blooded than the man, she is relatively in more danger of becoming

thin-blooded than he.

Moreover, the disturbances which come from the nature of her

physiological processes subject her to larger risks of lessened blood

than man, and hence, for all reasons, she is more likely than he to

become anæmic, and out of this to evolve pain in some shape.

If we see that our girls are not overtasked at the age of sexual

evolution, that the brain is not overtrained at bitter cost of other

developments as essential, we escape a part of this peril. To discuss

the question here is not my intention. To secure in our artificial life

what is desirable is difficult. It involves matters of dress, exercise,

proportion of lessons, diet, and other matters, of which I shall yet say

something, and as to which I have elsewhere said a good deal.

But no matter how careful we may be, how thoughtful as to the true needs

of these young lives, we may be sure that our daughters will be more

likely to have to face at some time the grim question of pain than the

lads who grow up beside them.

For both there are always the little ailments of childhood,--the hurts,

the accidents, and the disorders or the diseases of youthful years. All

come in for a share. Let us be careful how we deal with them. I have

often watched with interest a mother beside the girl or boy in temporary

pain. As a rule, she assumes from the beginning that the hurt boy is to

be taught silent, patient endurance. What! you, a boy, to cry! Be a man!

Among his comrades he is a "cry-baby" if he whimpers, "a regular girl,"

"a girl-boy." He is taught early that from him endurance is expected;

the self-conquest of restrained emotion is his constant lesson.

If it be a girl who suffers, she is assumed to be weak, and it is felt

that for her tears are natural and not to be sternly repressed; nor are

her little aches and complaints dismissed as lightly as are her

brother's. She is trained to expect sympathy, and learns that to weep is

her prerogative. The first gush of tears after a hurt of body or mind is

in some mysterious way a relief, and not rudely to be chidden; but, on

the whole, it is wise and right to teach patience and unemotional

endurance to the sex which in life is sure to have the larger share of

suffering. To be of use, this education must begin reasonably early, and

we may leave to the mother to make sure that it is not too severe.

As a girl grows older, we ask and expect some measure of restraint in

emotional expression as regards any of the physical or moral troubles

which call out tears in the child; for the woman who is wise understands

that unrestrained emotion and outward expressions of pain or distress

are the beginnings of that loss of self-rule which leads to habitual

unrestraint, and this to more and more enfeeblement of endurance, and

this, again, to worse things, of which more in the future.

We are dealing now with pain. My simple practical thesis is that pain

comes to all soon or late, that the indirect consequences are most to be

feared, and that endurance in the adult, rational endurance, must be won

by a gradual education, which can hardly begin too early. But of what

use are these stern lessonings in the bearing of what none can quite

escape? Do they enable us to diminish pain or to feel it less?

Indirectly, yes. One woman cries out for instant easement if in pain or

distress, unschooled to endure. She claims immediate relief. Another,

more resolute, submits with patience, does not give way, as we put it,

tries to distract her attention, knowing that even as distinct suffering

as toothache may be less felt in the presence of something which

interests the mind and secures the attention. Nothing, indeed, is more

instructive than to watch how women bear pain,--the tremendous calamity

it is to one, the far slighter thing in life it is to another. I speak

now of transient torments. When we come to consider those years of

torture which cruel nature holds in store for some, no one blames the

sight of the moral wreck it is apt to make of the sufferer. On the other

hand, there is nothing I ever see in my profession so splendid as the

way in which a few, a rare few, triumph over pain, which we know must

often rise to the grade of anguish, and from which scarce a day is ever

free.

Doctor and Patient · 第 3 / 8 段