Under the vague term “articulorum passio” or “arthritis” the physicians of antiquity handed down to posterity the clinical description of a disease in the varied symptomatology of which we may descry at one time the features of gout and anon those of rheumatism. But centuries had to elapse before gout became differentiated from rheumatism. For there is no doubt that not only the Greek and Roman physicians, but those also of the Græco-Arabian school, confounded these two disorders, or more accurately failed to differentiate rheumatism.
So it is that Charcot, reviewing the antiquity of gout, while he pays a graceful tribute to the ancient physicians for their masterly disquisitions thereon, at the same time deplored their silence on the subject of articular rheumatism.
This absence of allusion thereto is the more remarkable in that the term “rheumatism” or “rheumes” dates from a very remote period. Both words, in truth, were indifferently enlisted to denote all those diseases deemed attributable to the defluxion of some acrid humour upon one or other part of the body. Used by the ancients more in accordance with its etymological sense, the term “rheumes” or “rheumatism,” finds a place even in the writings of Pliny and Ovid. But our modern conception of the disorder differs widely from “the flux of humours” which the Greeks named rheumatism, or “the sharpe and eager flux of fleam” which for them characterised an attack of the “rheumes.”
The early English authors, too, invoked the word as a general term descriptive of various forms of disease. Sir Thomas Elyot, in his “Castel of Health,” so scoffed at by the faculty in his day, inculcates abstemiousness in those afflicted with the “rheumes,” and in “Julius Caesar,” Brutus is warned by Portia not to tempt “the rheumy unpurged ayre of night,” a clear indication that the term was used as a synonym for fluxions, humours and catarrhs of all sorts. But as to the malign articular forms of the affection, never a word; and this almost inexplicable silence led Sydenham, Haecker and Leupoldt to surmise that articular rheumatism was a modern disease unknown amongst the ancients.
Hallowed by tradition, this erroneous conception of the identity of gout and rheumatism endured until 1642, when Baillon, in his treatise “De Rheumatismo et Pleuritide,” effected a cleavage, at any rate between the acute varieties of these two diseases.
Dissociating the term “rheumatism” from its primitive interpretation, Baillon restricted its usage to that particular group of symptoms we now call acute articular rheumatism. In the same century Sydenham, in his “Classical Observations,” materially clarified the existing clinical confusion, defining with his customary lucidity the essential differences between the two disorders.
Bearing in mind the centuries that elapsed before the acute articular forms of gout and rheumatism were dissociated, one ceases to marvel that the task, incomparably more difficult, of discriminating between the chronic forms of these diseases is even now barely accomplished.
“Rheumatissimus agnatus podagræ” said our forefathers, the axiom postulating not the actual identity of the two affections, but a near relationship, and in this non-committal phrase we may, I think, descry the birth of that modern term “L’arthritisme,” so beloved of the French physicians. Even as late as the beginning of the nineteenth century Chomel at the Saltpetrière taught his pupils that gout and rheumatism were but clinical variants of an underlying “arthritic diathesis,” his successor Pidoux being still more insistent that the two disorders sprang from one common root. Even Charcot and Trousseau, convinced as they were of the essential distinctness of the two disorders, nevertheless admitted that at the bedside their chronic manifestations were with difficulty dissociated, the former pointing to the terms “rhumatisme goutteux” and “rheumatic gout” as tacit acknowledgments of our impotence.
Nor did this view that gout and alike rheumatism are the outcome of a basic arthritic diathesis fail of doughty supporters in this country. Thus Hutchinson, in his “Pedigree of Disease,” observes “gout is but rarely of pure breed, and often a complication of rheumatism. It so often mixes itself up with rheumatism, and the two, in hereditary transmission, become so intimately united, that it is a matter of considerable difficulty to ascertain how far rheumatism pure can go ... when this complication exists. It shows its power, we may suspect, by inducing a permanent modification of tissue, and it is to this modification that the peculiarities in the processes (transitory rheumatic pains in joints, fasciæ, and muscles, chronic crippling arthritis, destructive arthritis with eburnation, lumbago, sciatica) are due. Hence the impossibility under many conditions of discriminating between gout and rheumatism.”
Laycock also subscribed to Charcot’s view, and Sir Dyce Duckworth confesses that the conception of “a basic diathetic habit of body called arthritic has well commended itself to my mind,” while as to the clinical commingling of the two disorders Sir Charles Scudamore spoke with no uncertain voice. That an individual may in youth suffer from acute articular rheumatism, and later in life develop gout, is undeniable, as also the reverse, that a gouty subject may be harassed by manifestations of chronic rheumatism or fibrositis. But this mutual trenching of the one upon the clinical territory of the other must not be allowed to impair our views as to the essential distinctness of gout and rheumatism. It is undeniable that the difficulty of differentiating between the chronic forms of these two disorders is great, for not even the revelations of skiagraphy, in the absence of a clinical history, will suffice to effect a discrimination. But to a further consideration of this vexed matter we refer the reader to the coming chapters on Diagnosis.
But to resume our thread, one great step forward we owe to Cullen, who not only differentiated acute from chronic articular rheumatism, but also clearly portrayed the clinical distinctness from both of muscular rheumatism. In so doing, he materially assisted in the differentiation of these same disorders from gout. But at the same time, owing to his immoderate advocacy of “chill” as the one great cause of rheumatism in all its forms, he undoubtedly retarded progress. For immediately there arose a cloud of witnesses who claimed a “rheumatic kinship” for a myriad visceral disorders, the victims of which had suffered exposure. Thus throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries many of the conditions now assigned to irregular gout were affiliated instead to rheumatism.
Apart from Cullen’s contribution the eighteenth century was unmarked by any further advance in differentiating the mass of heterogenous joint affections, indifferently classed as gout and rheumatism. The physicians of this period, indeed, appear not only to have done little themselves, but had omitted to utilise the useful indications furnished by their predecessors.
Thus how much more swiftly would the clinical distinctness of chronic articular gout from rheumatoid arthritis have been realised had Sydenham’s dicta in the seventeenth century regarding this intricate problem been duly appreciated. Up to his time, the clinical descriptions of rheumatoid arthritis appeared now under gout, now under rheumatism. As for Sydenham himself, he placed the disorder, nosologically speaking, under chronic rheumatism, of which he believed it to be an apyretic variety. But the importance of his researches resides in this—he pointed out that it differed essentially from gout, but that, in resemblance thereof, it might endure throughout life, its course diversified by remissions and exacerbations. Also he tells us that its excruciating pains, even when of prolonged standing, sometimes cease spontaneously, noting also that the joints are, so to speak, turned over, and that there are nodosities, especially on the inside of the fingers.
Nevertheless, if we except Musgrave’s work (1703), “Arthritis ex Chlorosi,” which included some undoubted examples of rheumatoid or atrophic arthritis, no note was taken of Sydenham’s contention until a century afterwards. True, John Hunter in 1759 described the morbid anatomy of osteoarthritis or the hypertrophic forms of arthritis deformans, but not until 1868 was the true significance of Sydenham’s work appreciated, a most generous tribute being then accorded him by the great French physician Trousseau.
In 1800 Landre Beauvais published his clinical description of rheumatoid arthritis under the title “goutte asthenique primitif.” That Beauvais, as Sir Archibald Garrod contends, included under this title some cases of true gout is beyond doubt. But the words “Doit admettre une nouvelle espèce de goutte,” go far to justify Charcot in his claim that Beauvais, despite the title of his brochure, fully realised that the disease differed from gout.
A few years later (1804-1816), Heberden, in his Commentaries, insisted on the essential distinctness of rheumatoid arthritis from gout. Thus he wrote, “The disease called chronical rheumatism, which often passes under the general name of rheumatism and is sometimes supposed to be gout, is in reality a very different distemper from the genuine gout, and from the acute rheumatism, and ought to be carefully distinguished from both.” As to its salient features he noted its afebrile nature, the lack of redness in the skin over the affected joints, the relative absence of pain, and that it displayed no special tendency to begin in the feet. It was further marked by a protracted course involving severe crippling, while the peculiar nodosities on the fingers are still associated with his name.
In 1805 Haygarth published his classical essay, “A Clinical History of the Nodosity of the Joints,” the opening sentence of which shows that, comparably with his successors, he lamented the laxity with which the term “rheumatism” was invoked and applied “to a great variety of disorders which beside pain, have but few symptoms that connect them together.” A purist in nosology, he equally deplored the term “rheumatick gout” as tending to perpetuate its confusion with gout and rheumatism, and suggested the term “Nodosities,” in the hope that “as a distinct genus it will become a more direct object of medical attention.”
Alas, even as late as 1868 Trousseau deplored the retention of the term “rheumatic gout” by Garrod and Fuller and his own countryman Trastour. But, in common justice to Garrod, it must be allowed that in the third edition of his work he definitely applied the term rheumatoid arthritis to the disorder in question. Nor can we refrain from recording Fuller’s words that “the natural history of rheumatic gout accords but little with that of acute rheumatism, and is equally inconsistent with that of true gout.”
In reviewing the researches of the foregoing writers it will be clearly seen that though they did yeoman service in differentiating broadly gout from the disorders grouped under Arthritis Deformans, there is little doubt that not for many years afterwards was their distinctiveness sufficiently realised. This may be in large part attributed to the fact that they still awaited the next great process of fission as applied to chronic joint disorders.
I allude in the first place to Charcot’s momentous discovery of the nerve arthropathies, and secondly, to the cleavage of arthritis deformans into the rheumatoid or atrophic, and the osteoarthritic or hypertrophic varieties.
It is to Vidal that we are indebted for the first clinical description of the atrophic type. Charcot in his lectures refers to it as the “Atrophic form of Vidal,” noting that in this variety “induration of the skin, a sort of scleroderma develops, the cutaneous covering is cold, pale, smooth, polished, and will not wrinkle, adding also that in such cases atrophy of the bones and muscles accompanies the wasting of the soft tissues.”
Notwithstanding this, Charcot, to our mind, unquestionably refers to the category of chronic articular gout certain of these examples of Vidal’s atrophic type of arthritis deformans. The reasons he adduces for their gouty nature are, to say the least of it, both conflicting and unconvincing. On the one hand, he admits that they are clinically indistinguishable from Vidal’s type, in respect of their pronounced atrophic changes; on the other, he postulates them as gouty even though the uratic deposits “either do not exist at all, or only mere traces of them, or when only the articular cartilages are invaded by the urate of soda.” It must be conceded that chronic articular gout and rheumatoid or atrophic arthritis are totally distinct affections.
Now as to the hypertrophic variety, or osteoarthritis, which, of the twain, more closely resembles gout, and whose confusion therewith is far from infrequent even at the present time. Sir Dyce Duckworth, while he recognises with Charcot a tophaceous form of chronic articular gout, postulates the existence of another type, arthritis deformans uratica. Unlike Charcot, however, he seems only to have included under this term instances of the osteoarthritic or hypertrophic variety. But like Charcot, his claim that this particular variety is of gouty nature seems to rest on equally frail foundations, as witness his statement that they “may be complicated with visible or invisible tophaceous deposits!”
That osteoarthritis and gout may coexist in the same individual is certain, and equally sure is it that uratic deposits may supervene in joints the seat of osteoarthritis. But it is now, I think, generally conceded that, despite these coincidences, gouty arthritis and osteoarthritis are wholly distinct disorders, of wholly different origin.
At this period of our historical résumé we see that by the withdrawal of these three great groups—rheumatism, the nerve arthropathies and arthritis deformans—the domain of gout has, through these several allotments, undergone substantial shrinkage.
Yet again was the territory of gout destined to undergo further restriction, and this largely owing to the rise of the science of bacteriology. For in light of recent improvements in diagnostic methods, who can escape the conviction that under the term “gout” had been wrongfully included many forms of arthritis, now known to be due to specific infections. What, for example, of Hippocrates’ aphorism that gout was unknown in youths—ante usum veneris—who can doubt that some of his reputed cases of gout were examples of gonococcal or syphilitic arthritis?
What, too, of all the other infective arthritides—influenzal, pneumoccocal, scarlatinal, typhoidal, meningococcal—to mention only those actually affiliated to some specific organism. For gout, be it noted, confers no exemption from other arthritic diseases, but how in time past were such to be differentiated therefrom?
Again, gouty subjects, as has been recently emphasised, are notoriously prone to pyorrhœa alveolaris, and how difficult, given the supervention of an arthritis in such to define the causal agent—gout or sepsis, which? Small wonder then, that the clinical content of gout, not only to ancient, but also to latter day physicians, loomed large, swollen as it undoubtedly was by the inclusion of infective arthritides, not to mention those of traumatic or static origin.
That more of these alien joint disorders—les pseudo-rheumatismes infectieux, as M. Bouchard terms them, were relegated to the “rheumatic” than to the “gouty” category, may perhaps be allowed, but still gout was undoubtedly allotted its full share and to boot. Moreover, if to “rheumatism” was wrongly affiliated the lion’s share of the infective arthritides, on the other hand to “gout” accrued a host of unrelated visceral disorders, not to mention affections of the nervous and vascular structures, etc.
In endeavouring to summarise the results of our brief retrospect, the somewhat chastening fact emerges, viz., that the isolation of articular gout has been achieved not so much by an increase in our knowledge as to what is gout, but through our growing perception of what is not gout. For of the causa causans of gout we are still as ignorant as in the days of Sydenham. But, in contrast, our enlightenment as to the clinical and pathological features of other forms of arthritis has steadily progressed. In this way, shorn of many alien joint disorders, gouty arthritis has slowly but surely asserted itself as a specific joint affection, distinct both from rheumatism and arthritis deformans.
In the course of our sketch, too, we have traced the evolution of the modern opinion that at least two separate conditions, “rheumatoid arthritis” and “osteoarthritis,” are comprised under arthritis deformans. This most tardily arrived at differentiation has done more than any other to clarify our conceptions as to what constitutes true “gouty arthritis.”
If to this be added the further differentiation, not only of the nerve arthropathies, but also of the infective arthridites—both specific and undifferentiated forms—it will be seen that the term “gouty arthritis,” once the most comprehensive perhaps in all medical nomenclature, has now been brought within, at any rate, reasonable distance of more or less exact definition.