Claim of Priority in the Reformation of the Treatment of the Insane
In the last January number of this Journal, p. 72, wc had occasion to refer to our previously strongly expressed conviction that to Pincl is due all the glory of having transformed the abode of the lunatic from a dungeon to a drawing- room or library. (January, 1854, p. 152.) We then alluded to our sentiments upon this well known fact in the nistory of Psychological Science, in cousc- quence of a counter-claim recently advanced by M. Bricrrc de Boismont, on behalf of a comparatively obscurc psychologist, M. Daquin, of Chambery. To that claim we gave the respect and attention to which wc deemed it entitled from the high reputation of its advocate. A descendant, however, of the great Pincl has come forward to challenge the statements of M. Brierre de Boismont. Dr C. Pincl vindicates the title of his illustrious ancestor to the exalted and glorious position liitherto accorded to him by his contemporaries and by posterity.
Justicc to the memory of 1 mcl, and to the filial vindication thereof by his » ” Dc la Rofonno do Traitement des Alidncs.” Tar Dr C. Pinel, Novcu. pp. 16. Paris : 1855. nephew, as well as the consideration of the great importance of this ques- tion in the history of psychological medicine, require that we should fully give the refutation of a statement to which we had, it seems, leut some weight by the space we devoted thereto on the occasion above-mentioned. Daquin, says M. Brierrc de Boismont, published his ” Mcdico-Philosophical Treatise upon Insanity” at Chambery in 1791, and at Paris in 1792. Pinel’s treatise, having a similar title, was published in 1S01. The interval of ten years was surely enough to have established the claim to priority, it may plausibly be urged.
Two essential elements of the controversy have, however, to be borne in mind in determining the dispute. First, the matter of fact: second, the nature of the views propounded by the respective authors. By the help of Dr C. Pinel we shall enlighten our readers on these two primary branches of the inquiry.
1. Pinel, in 1783, was in charge of the inmates of the liaison de Saute of Dr Belhomme, where he had already, on a small scalc, put in practice those reforms which lie subsequently carried out more extensively in the Bicetre; lie was at the same time chief editor of the Gazette de Saute, in which he had inserted numerous articles upon the treatment of the insane; in 1789, he published therein an article more especially inculcating the moral treatment of insanity. Before the first revolution, he had communicatcd to the Societe Rot/ale de Medecine an essay on the classification and moral treatment of luna- tics ; in 1790, Pinel suceessfidly competed for a prize offered by the same learned body for an essay upon similar subjects; in 1790, he also inserted in the Journal Gratuit dc Saute the history of a case of erotic melancholia cured by gardening, bathing, &c.; in 1791, he published in the journal, La Medecine eel a tree par les Sciences Physiques, observations upon suicidal melancholy and its treatment by moral means. Towards the end of 1792, Pinel’s celebrity in the department of psychological medicine obtained for him the appointment of Chief Physician to the Bicetre, where one of his first acts was to liberate fifty of its manacled inmates. Verily this was the fait accompli! in the very same year that Daquin was publishing his ideas in a book that has scarcely survived its author, who would himself, probably, be amazed at the weight of honour now sought to be thrust upon him.
So much, then, for the matter-of-fact—the chronology of the writings of Daquin, and the writings and doings of Pinel.
2. The second division of our inquiry need not occupy us very long. We have seen that Pinel practically carried out ideas to which he laid not the claim of originality, but which lie traced in the works of preceding authors as far back as Celsus and Coelius Aureliauus. Daquin pretended to originality of the same ideas which he did not carry out, even on the small scalc within’ his reach. M. Daquin’s treatise, so far, then, in its advocacy of the moral treat- ment of insanity, differed not greatly from most of its predecessors. Pinel showed that chains could be dispensed with. Daquin was silent on the matter of chains. Pinel, liberal and just, did not hesitate or fear to direct attention to all writers of works possessing sufficient merit to have attracted his notice; his silence, therefore, with regard to Daquin’s work, which is dwelt upon by M. Brierrc as evidence of disingenuous plagiarism oil the part of Pinel, tells rather in another direction, viz., as his nephew infers, that Daquin’s work was among those ol which lie ” pris le parti sar/e de les passer sous silence.” Pinel was too nobly engaged in the practical enforcement of his enlightened views to have condescended to such petty jealousy as is here insinuated. We have thus, following Dr C. Pinei’s defence, discussed the essential elements of the controversy, and have, we trust, done strict justice to the memory of the great Pinel. o o 2
Disclaimer
The historical material in this project falls into one of three categories for clearances and permissions:
Material currently under copyright, made available with a Creative Commons license chosen by the publisher.
Material that is in the public domain
Material identified by the Welcome Trust as an Orphan Work, made available with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
While we are in the process of adding metadata to the articles, please check the article at its original source for specific copyrights.