t
water. Not until the death of Claude Bernard in 1878 left vacant the
chair of physiology in the College of France, did he find peace and
rest. He hastened to Paris, was appointed, and lived, in spite of the
most erratic of existences, to the ripe old age of 78, working up to
the last minute.

Addison's monograph stimulated Brown-Sequard, in the year after its
printing, to reproduce the fatal disease experimentally by excising
the suprarenal capsules in animals. Addison was very modest in his
monograph. He stated that the first case of the malady had been
reported by his great predecessor at Guy's Hospital, London, Richard
Bright, the describer of Bright's Disease. Then he talks about the
"curious facts" he had "stumbled upon" and refers to an "ill-defined
impression" that these suprarenal bodies, in common with the spleen
and other organs, "in some way or other minister to the elaboration of
the blood." In the preface to his work he had spoken more confidently
of the fact that Nature, as an experimenter and a vivisector, can
beat the physiologist to a frazzle. Indeed, he begins like this: "If
Pathology be to disease what Physiology is to health, it appears
reasonable to conclude that, in any given structure or organ, the laws
of the former will be as fixed and significant as those of the latter:
and that the peculiar characters of any structure or organ may be as
certainly recognized in the phenomena of disease as in the phenomena
of health. Although pathology, therefore, as a branch of medical
science, is necessarily founded on physiology, questions may
nevertheless arise regarding the true character of a structure or
organ, to which occasionally the pathologist may be able to return a
more satisfactory and decisive reply than the physiologist--these two
branches of medical knowledge being thus found mutually to advance and
illustrate each other. Indeed, as regards the functions of individual
organs, the mutual aids of these two branches of knowledge are
probably much more nearly balanced than many may be disposed to admit:
for in estimating them we are very apt to forget how large an amount
of our present physiological knowledge respecting the functions of
these organs has been the immediate result of casual observations made
on the effects of disease." William James expressed the same thought
some decades later, when he emphasized that the abnormal was but the
normal exaggerated and magnified, played upon by the l