DR. PAINE’S ANSWER 
TO 
CIRCULAR LETTERS 
BY 
DRS. CARPENTER AND FORBES. 
Prom the “Boston Medical and Surgical Journal.” 
BOSTON: 
D. CLAPP, JR. PRINTER 184 WASHINGTON STREET. 
1842. ANSWER TO CIRCULAR LETTERS. 
Sm,—Will you oblige me with a place in your Journal, for the purpose 
of noticing a circular letter, addressed by Wm. B. Carpenter, M.D., to 
Professor Dunglison of Philadelphia, dated Bristol (Eng.), Nov. 16,1841. 
That circular refers to an imputation of plagiarisms, which I considered 
myself warranted in bringing against Dr. Carpenter, in a pamphlet enti- 
tled “ Examination of Reviews,” &c. Having exposed the remarkable 
tissue of misrepresentations which composes the review of ray “ Medi- 
ical and Physiological Commentaries ” (as appeared in the April No. 
(1841), of the British and Foreign Medical Review), and having, for 
very obvious reasons, drawn the offender from his obscurity, I then pro- 
ceeded to inflict upon him, yet farther, what I regarded as a proper chas- 
tisement for the cowardly and wanton injury which he had attempted to 
perpetrate towards myself, and upon Dr. Forbes for admitting so mali- 
cious an article into his Journal, by exposing the plagiarism to which 
Dr. Carpenter’s letter refers. The plagiarism was fully substantiated as 
it respects the Journal; and circumstantial evidence was submitted, going 
forcibly to show the probability that Dr. Carpenter was the author. 
That evidence was conclusive in my own mind, till it should be rebutted 
by contradictory proof; and, of course, 1 had no doubt whatever that the 
public would sustain my conclusion on examining the nature of my pre- 
mises. The repeated plagiarisms occur in the elaborate reviews of John 
Hunter’s works, and of works by Carswell, Macartney and Rasori, con- 
tained in the April and July Nos. of the British and Foreign Medical 
Review, 1839, and occupying sixty-one (61) pages of the Journal. 
These authors, too, being pretty much used up by the reviewed, 1 con- 
sidered it but an act of justice to the brightest ornaments of our profes- 
sion to remove this slur upon their fame. 
It is the object of the circular letter addressed to Professor Dunglison, 
to disclaim the authorship of those reviews, and this statement is accom- 
panied by a letter from Dr. Forbes to Dr. Carpenter, in which Dr. 
Forbes remarks that,—“ I shall take no notice whatever of his [Dr. 
Paine’s] attack, farther than relates to the charge of plagiarism. This 
is true, so far as the writer of the review on Hunter is concerned, but 
false as concerns you—since you did not write that review. This lam 
To the Editor of the Boston Medical and Surgical Journal. DR. PAlNe’s ANSWER. 
3 
ready to state to all persons, at all times, as the truth, without any reser- 
vation or equivocation.” 
I have also received a curious letter from Dr. Carpenter, stating that 
he is not the author of the reviews of Hunter’s, Carswell’s, Macartney’s, 
and Rasori’s works, accompanied by copies of certificates from two gen- 
tlemen to Dr. Carpenter, expressing their belief that he is incapable of 
an act of plagiarism. The letter also contains a reference to an article 
in the Lancet of Nov. 27th, from which it appears that it is the ten- 
dency of that article to exonerate Dr. Carpenter from the imputed 
plagiarisms,—but which ] have not seen. With the package came, also, 
the certificates of character supplied to Dr. Carpenter on the occasion 
of the review of his “ Principles,” &tc., by the Edinburgh Medical 
and Surgical Journal. 
This is all the proof with which I have been supplied in opposition to 
the various and forcible internal evidence of the imputed plagiarisms. 
This evidence I know to have been generally considered ample in this 
country, as it appears to have been also in London. Indeed, this fact is 
prominent upon the very face of the circular letter. Such proof, there- 
fore, can only be set aside by producing some other name as that of the 
author in question. If my proof be insufficient, it would seem to be ob- 
vious that the name of the plagiarist should be given to the world. This 
is alike due to Dr. Carpenter, to men of letters, and certainly to the dig- 
nity of Dr. Forbes himself. Indeed, till then, such as are disposed to 
exonerate Dr. Carpenter, must hold J)r. Forbes responsible. Indigna- 
tion at so great a fraud upon himself should prompt a disinterested editor 
to expose the offender. Why does not Dr. Carpenter call for a disclo- 
sure of the author? This is certainly a most natural, as it would be a 
summary, mode of disposing of the whole subject. But again, I say, 
where is the editor's self-respect, that he does not expose the individual 
who perpetrated the indignity towards him ? “ The conduct of the wri- 
ter of that review,” says Dr. Forbes, “in palming upon the Editors 
portion of the writings of another for his own, cannot be sufficiently re- 
probated,” Then. 1 reiterate, give us his name, and “ let justice prevail, 
though the heavens fall.” Present us another name ; and then we shall 
have another phenomenon added to those extraordinary combinations of 
coincidences which Cotton Mather arranged under the denomination of 
“ Unaccountables.” 
And yet mark the sophistry,—the effort to disguise, or palliate, the 
most flagrant plagiarisms to be found on record ;—“ if really done inten- 
tionally,” says Dr. Forbes, “ and with a view to deceive,—I would fain 
hope that the fact may admit of some other interpretation,” &c. ! And 
now let the intelligent reader consider the motives for this undisguised 
attempt to entrap him into the conclusion that this most degrading pla- 
giarism may have been accidental! Let the reader then, also, interrogate 
himself as to the degree of credibility which should be ascribed to the man 
who can make such a compromise with the plainest facts, and with his 
own understanding of them. 
And, why speak I of self-respect in relation to a man who professes 
the ‘Truth without equivocation,” and yet contradicts the principle in 4 
DB. PAlNe’s ANSWER TO 
nearly every line of his letter? Does not the whole of his letter—l re- 
peat it—bear an aspect from which truth recoils, as much as common de- 
corum is startled at its low-born insolence? Take any passage in the 
solitary letter-page, and every unprejudiced mind will allow the justice of 
my criticism. What can be more wilfully false than the whole of the 
following ? Thus:— 
“In looking at the vast accumulation of words in Dr. Paine’s pamph- 
let, I confess that I feel regret that the review of his book (just and ac- 
curate as I still hold it to be) was not more favorable; as it is melancholy 
to think that so much time and pains should have been stolen from tasks of 
usefulness, and expended in elaborating a work, which, of course, no hu- 
man being will read, except the author himself, perhaps the writer of the 
inculpated article, and, alas, the Editor of the Review.” 
Here it is an obvious falsehood in affirming that he holds the review of 
my “ Commentaries ”to be “just and accurate,” notwithstanding I have 
shown that the review is, throughout, a tissue of deliberate misrepresen- 
tations. Again, the opinion is not less falsely expressed, that “no hu- 
man being will, of course, read the work except the author himself, per- 
haps the writer of the inculpated article, and, alas, the Editor of the Re- 
view.” And what shall be said of Dr. Carpenter for appending this 
abusive letter to his circular, after the unatoned offence of misrepresent- 
ing my labors, and my character ? 
Again, Dr. Forbes states that rny imputation of articles in his Journal 
to Dr. Carpenter is founded upon the editorial pronoun “we whereas, 
the most important are directly claimed by Dr. Carpenter, in his oivn 
works, as his productions; and where he refers to others in his review of 
my “ Commentaries,” 1 have shown that it is not in the ordinary way of 
editorial reference, but that he sets up a claim to the articles in question, 
of which the review of Hunter’s works is one. Or take the following 
prevarication, by which Dr. Forbes would insinuate that Dr. Carpenter 
is not the author of the review of my “ Commentaries,” instead of a 
manly disavowal. “ Perhaps,” says Dr. Forbes, “ when Dr. Paine dis- 
covers that he is mistaken in the affiliation of this portion of the Review, 
he may feel somewhat less confident of the evidence by which he 
thinks he has traced the authorship of other articles in it to you. 1 cer- 
tainly shall not gratify his curiosity on this point, by either affirm- 
ing or denying the accuracy of his conclusions; and I do not see any 
reason why you shoued.” (My capitals.) 
And why this wily advice not to admit or deny the authorship of the 
review of the “Commentaries”? Was it supposed that either might 
possibly invalidate the statement as to the plagiarism? Nevertheless, the 
cunning of this advice is worthy its well-disciplined author, however it is 
a palpable admission of the very fact which he aims at concealing. But, 
I will soon add the paragraph upon which I had just commented, in con- 
nection with another from Dr. Carpenter’s letter, to exhibit more fully 
this lame attempt to insinuate the belief that Dr. Carpenter was not the 
author of the gross Injustice which had been done to my labors, and of 
which Dr. Forbes still appears insensible. 
That the author of the plagiarisms, whoever he be, should broadly de- DRS. CARPENTER AND FORBES. 
5 
ny it, seems almost a matter of course. It would be absurd to suppose 
him restrained by principle ; and it is equally important that Dr. Forbes, 
even with his sensitive conscience, should make it appear that Dr. Car- 
penter is not the author of the reviews which embrace the plagiarisms; 
since Dr. Carpenter having avowed himself, in the Preface to his “ Princi- 
ples of Physiology,” the author of elaborate articles in the British and 
Foreign Medical Review, the proof of the plagiarism standing uncon- 
tradicted would be fttal to the existence of that Journal. But mark; 
as it respects the articles in question, Dr. Forbes affirms that these exten- 
sive reviews of four most eminent cultivators of medical science were “ the 
first specimen he had had of this person’s writing, and, with one trifling 
exception, the only one he had ever had ” ! Credat Judceus! 
It will be recollected that the plagiarisms consist of thefts from the 
Rev. Dr. Channing’s works, and that the Imputation reaches to Dr. Car- 
penter’s “ Principles of General and Comparative Physiology.” I refer 
to this, for the purpose of introducing the following coincidence from Dr. 
Carpenter’s circular letter. “ The ideas which I have expressed,” he 
says, “ have been so long familiar to my mind, that I cannot imagine that 
they involve anything peculiarly Channing-ian. If any correspondence 
do exist [!] it is easily accounted for by the fact, that I received my edu- 
cation from one, who was for many years the respected and attached 
friend of that illustrious man, and WHOSE mind, cast in the same mould 
with ms, impressed MINE with those hahits of thought, which had led 
to whatever similarity may present itself between our published opin- 
ions ” !!—(My capitals and Italics.) 
Now, then, this remarkable fact never would have been laid before the 
world, but for two obvious reasons ; namely, Ist, because the parallel read- 
ings which occur in my “ Examination ” are convincing; and, therefore, 
we have here, under Dr. Carpenter’s own signature, in his very letter of 
denial, a full admission that I had ample ground for the imputation of 
plagiarism, even had I not been prompted by the wanton attempt of this 
individual to falsify the hard labors of my professional life. 2nd, the 
foregoing remarkable fact is stated, also, because it is more or less known 
that Dr. Carpenter was educated by one who was “ for many years the 
respected and attached friend of that illustrious man,”—but a fact which 
was wholly unknown to me till I saw it stated in Dr. Carpenter’s circular !! 
Again, when such fluttering occurs among the most callou-s critics of 
this or any other age, can there be a more substantial proof that my im- 
putation of plagiarism is powerfully sustained ? Do such critics tremble 
but under a well-merited lash, and this, too, when applied by one whom 
they affect to hold in that indiffeience which is the never-failing resource 
of defeat ? Does not the whole world believe that my proof is clear, and 
does not the trepidation of the redoubtable critics evince their conscious- 
ness of the fact ? And why does the world believe ? Surely upon my 
proof, not my dictum. Dr. Carpenter says to me, “ your charges [not 
charges] have been very generally believed among those who do not 
know me.” And who are they that thus surrender their belief to an un- 
known foreigner against one of their own cherished and much-honored 
countrymen? Who are they that thus forego an indomitable and ever- DR. RAINERS ANSWER TO 
glorious national pride, to do a mortifying homage at the shrine of truth ? 
They are illustrious Englishmen—the most illustrious men of the age— 
such as believe only upon proof when character is impugned. Nor—l 
repeat it—was a humble republican of America at all likely to gain in- 
dulgence but upon the abstract merits of his cause. Let it then be 
known, that I distributed eight hundred copies of my £< Examination ” 
amongst the sgavans of Europe, and in every instance, but one or two, 
their names are publicly enrolled as employed in the cause of science. 
To those same gentlemen 1 shall transmit these remarks. 
And yet it is possible that I may be in error, and, what is very un- 
usual, upon such a question, the intellectual world may be in error also. 
Let us then inquire, which is the greater offence—an act of plagiarism 
by a critic, or a systematic tissue of misrepresentations, by the same critic, 
of one of the most laborious works that has ever come from the medical 
press ? To prove this falsification was the main object of my ££ Exami- 
nation.” Why, then, so much solicitude about the plagiarisms, and none 
at all about the falsehoods! Dr. Carpenter complains, in his letter to 
me, of the injury which will result to him from my imputation ; and had 
there been one word of regret in that letter at the furious assault which 
had been made upon ray labors, and even my character, it would have 
paralyzed my arm forever. But, he seems utterly insensible to the injury 
which would have resulted to myself from his libellous attack, had 1 not 
published that “ Examination ” under which he is now doing a bitter 
penance. There is, however, no parallel in our cases. I was marked 
as an innocent victim by the unprincipled editor; and his ever-ready scribe 
rejoiced in the opportunity. The dispensations of justice were against 
them. The guilty have fallen; and now they come before the world 
with a selfishness which is truly characteristic of the trade they follow. 
I trust that the public will not be led away by the wailings of wound- 
ed pride from the main object of my £t Examination of Reviews,” 
which was to expose the scandalous system of reviewing by a part of the 
London medical press, which is mostly conducted by young aspirants 
who endeavor to sacrifice all but their own cliques, or, at most, lavish 
their praises upon the works of others which they know to have fallen 
££ dead-born from the press.” If our par nohile fratrum have been 
caught at last, shall they be permitted to effect their escape under a cry 
that is foreign to the great object of my ££ Examination ” ? I certainly 
feel but very little interest in the affair of the plagiarisms, beyond the 
fullest disposition to be just to others, and to sustain the truth. And, 
while adverting to the leading medical presses of London, as well, also, 
to show with what consideration the imputed plagiarisms were received in 
Europe, I will take the liberty of quoting a paragraph from a letter 
which I have just received from as distinguished a philosopher as adorns 
the present age—premising, also, that I have not the honor of knowing 
him personally, or of ever having before received a communication from 
him. Thus;— 
££ Dear Sir,—I beg to thank you for the copy of your £ Examina- 
tion ’ which you were so kind as to send, me, and which I had, the plea- 
sure of receiving a few days ago. The exposure of Dr. Carpenter’s DRS. CARPENTER AND FORBES. 
7 
plagiarism will do good. The ivhole system of anonymous medical re- 
viewing in this country is disgraceful, conducted as it is almost entirely 
by the hands of a set of pert boys, at most hut just emerged from their 
medical studies.” 
Finally ; it is unnecessary to say that there Is no other attempt to es- 
cape from the proof by which I so variously identified Dr. Carpenter as 
the author of the review of my “ Commentaries,” than the following 
prevaricating passage with which Dr. Carpenter’s circular letter com- 
mences, and which, of course, is equivalent to an admission of the au- 
thorship, however he may be disposed to screen himself behind his ac- 
commodating friend. Thus;— 
“ Having just received from Dr. Paine a copy of his £ Examination ’ 
of the Critique on his Medical and Physiological Commentaries, which 
appeared in the April number of the British and Foreign Medical Re- 
view, I find, to my great surprise, that Dr. P. has thought himself justi- 
fied—not only in singling me out as the Author of it, and in animadverting 
upon what he considers to be its misrepresentations, as if they were mine, 
thereby attempting to make that a matter of personal discussion between 
us, for which the editor of the Review holds himself responsible,” c. 
This is all the atonement 1 receive for the wrong attempted by Dr. 
Carpenter; whilst he holds himself up as an injured man because he was 
unfortunate at the game he had undertaken. As to his “surprise at be- 
ing singled out as the Author,” he should have considered more maturely 
the spirit of the following passage which occurs in my “ Examination.” 
Thus:—“ That great and dignified critic, Samuel Johnson, advises au- 
thors—' to consider how they whom publication lays open to the insults 
of such as their obscurity secures against reprisals, may extricate them- 
selves from unexpected encounters.’ It is obvious that one of the impor- 
tant expedients, in cases of this nature, lies in raising the veil, and sur- 
prising the offender.” That 1 was correct in this opinion, 1 presume that 
even Dr. Carpenter will most readily allow. 
But, take a passage to which I have already referred for another pur- 
pose, from Dr. Forbes’s letter, in which, with a view to protecting Dr. 
Carpenter against the charge of being the author of the review of Hun- 
ter’s, Macartney’s, Carswell’s and Rasori’s, works, he unwittingly avows 
that Dr. Carpenter is the author of the Review of Paine’s Commentaries. 
Indeed, he even founds an argument upon the avowal. The authorship 
being admitted, Dr. Forbes then proceeds to show that Dr. Carpenter 
must not be held responsible for other articles because he employed the 
editorial we in his reference to others, in his review of Paine’s Com- 
mentaries. 
“It is singular that Dr. Paine should have been so ignorant of the ordi- 
nary mode of conducting a Review, as not to know that the reference 
from one article to another is no proof whatever of the identity of the 
authorship of the two—even when this reference is made by the writer of 
the latter article. But, most commonly, such references are made by the 
Editor, without any communication with the original writer, in the exer- 
cise of the privileges inherent in the office of the great editorial WE.” 
The foregoing is the shuffling to which 1 have before referred as misre- 8 
DR. PAINE’S ANSWER. 
presenting the means by which I have connected Dr. Carpenter with va- 
rious articles in the British and Foreign Medical Review. The impotent 
attempt which is made in the circular letters to imply that Dr. Carpenter 
is not the author of the review of my “Commentaries,” in opposition 
to the various and overwhelming proof contained in my “ Examination,” 
and the simultaneous betrayal of this attempt at deception, as well as the 
other exposures which I have now made, divest the letters of all claim 
to credibility, even were not the parties arraigned for an offence which 
demands other proof of innocence than the mere negative of the inculpated. 
But, I also repeat it, these two letters not only establish the guilt of Dr. 
Carpenter as it respects his misrepresentation of my labors, and of my 
character, but go far to fix upon him the stain of plagiarism. In his fu- 
ture attempt to wipe away this stain, it will be well to express some con- 
trition at the magnitude of the offence which was perpetrated in relation 
to myself. 
I have always been sensible that I had but little to hope, at present, 
from the medical press of Europe; nor have I been mistaken in the esti- 
mate I had formed of a portion of the press in that part of the world. 
I have never apprehended, however, that full justice would not ultimately 
come, when this “ age of pamphlets ” shall have passed, and therefore 1 have 
looked with comparative indifference upon the treatment which I hjave re- 
ceived, though with a stern determination to protect myself against every 
act of injustice from sources entitled to consideration. That tears of edi- 
torial sympathy will now deluge the European hemisphere, cannot be 
doubted ; but, whether the flood will be increased from this side of the 
Atlantic, time can only disclose. In the meanwhile, I shall prepare my- 
self for the coming of the waters, and be ready with my Ark for a “ nine 
days’ ” storm. I am, Mr. Editor, most respectfully yours, 
New York, 446 Broome street. 
December 24, 1841. 
Martyn Paine. 
P. S.—l shall esteem it a favor, as well as an act of justice, if those 
journals which may publish Dr. Carpenter’s circular letter to Professor 
Dunglison, or other communications from Dr. Forbes relative to the im- 
puted plagiarisms, will give the foregoing comments an insertion. 
M. Paine.