Contemporaneous with the school of Broussais, and its antagonist in all respects, was the Paris School of Pathological Anatomy and Diagnosis, which has given tone to all medical art. It made it the duty of the physician to search for changes in the human body, to investigate the local products of disease, and assigned to medicine the duty of removing these products. The tendency of its teaching was to treat the patient rather as a living cadaver than as a sentient being endowed with vital forces, and the charge which Asclepiades once falsely made against Hippocrates was revived upon new grounds. Kratzmann wrote some years ago: "In France every one experiments on the sick, less to attain the best method of cure than to enrich science with an interesting discovery and to advance the accuracy of diagnosis by some new physical sign." The seductiveness of this system promoted still more onesidedness, which finally almost attained the belief that the science{ 245} of medicine really originated in the Anatomical School of Paris.
The forerunners of this school were Bichat and Pinel, and its proper founders were Corvisart, Dupuytren, and Laënnec. There was also Bayle, who was first to apply the ear to the thorax in disease of the heart, and thus became the predecessor of Laënnec and Chomel. He was the godfather of typhoid fever, and from being a famous clinician became later a great pathologist. The most celebrated adherent of the method, however, was Cruveilhier (1791-1873), professor first in Montpellier and then in Paris, who revived the Anatomical Society founded by Bichat, and wrote his first essays as the result of Dupuytren's advice; finally, there came from his pen the famous treatise on _Pathological Anatomy_, with its magnificent plates,--a work begun in 1830 and not fully completed until 1864. Like Morgagni, he associated general and pathological anatomy with bedside observations; also established a class of inflammations to which belong gangrene and atony, and a certain class of neuroses and fevers, and endeavored to investigate the different steps in the development of lesions, not simply their final products. His teachings concerning pyæmia and phlebitis, which had been first studied by John Hunter, excited great attention, and he even came to the one-sided conclusion that "phlebitis rules the whole of pathology." He was the first to observe that its suppurative form does not occur primarily, but is secondary to coagulation of the blood.