Mr. Jeffreys's reply to a pamphlet presented to the public by Doctor Calvert Holland, of Sheffield, entitled "Plagiarisms of Julius Jeffreys, F.R.S.".

  • Jeffreys, Julius, 1801-1877.
Date:
[1844]
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Mr. Jeffreys's reply to a pamphlet presented to the public by Doctor Calvert Holland, of Sheffield, entitled "Plagiarisms of Julius Jeffreys, F.R.S.". Source: Wellcome Collection.

    2/8 (page 2)
    First—as to the charge of plagiarism. It would appear that in the first of the three parts, the statics of the human chest— animal heat-—and determination of blood to the head, of which my work consists, there are views more or less similar to certain entertained by him, and previously published, for which I find he refers to two works, the title of neither of which is such as could be expected to attract my attention amidst the over¬ powering mass of modern medical literature. The fact is, having never engaged in the practice of my profession since my return from India, and being much attached to general and political science, my reading of late years has been of the latter character: excepting when, as in the instance before us, I have been writing from observations made in former years, upon subjects connected with medical science. On these two or three occasions I have by no means neglected the duty of endeavouring to ascertain what others may have written on my subjects. In the present, instance I examined all works I could meet with, on “ The Chest,” The Lungs,” <<r Respiration,” “ Animal Heat,” The Head,” “ The Brain,” &c. And, for the greater caution, after having consulted various systematic treatises on Physiology, I waited for the appearance of Doctor Carpenter’s “ Human Physiology,” just then an¬ nounced, presuming that a work of that nature, from the pen of an author of so great research, would contain all views of importance which had attracted his notice. In that full and able work, not only were no such views to be found, but, from more than one passage, it was to be inferred that the attention of the author had not been drawn to that particular subject at all. Moreover, out of many letter’s I have received, some from men of great research, in which the various views in my work are favourably noticed, in not one are Doctor Calvert Holland’s writings referred to. Only one has since named them in conversation, and that briefly. It was, no doubt, evident to them that any similarity of some of my views with his was no other than a coincidence, since the whole of my work manifests connexion and original observation throughout. To conclude, then, with the charge of plagiarism: What is the fact ?—Why, that I have never in my life seen Doctor Calvert Holland's works;—have never seen a review of them ;—nor, to the