[Thomas Sutton, physician and medical writer.] Three Autograph Letters, one signed and two third person, to A. J. G. Marcet, with Autograph Copy of letter from Marcet, on a misunderstanding over a paper to the Medical and Chirurgical Society.

Thomas Sutton (c.1767-1835), physician who first described delirium tremens [Alexander John Gaspard Marcet (1770-1822), Genevan-born physician to Guy's Hospital, London, and chemist]
Publication details: 
ONE:Greenwich; 11 September 1812. TWO: 17 September 1812. THREE: 26 September 1812. FOUR: Ruessell Square [London]; 25 September 1812.
SKU: 21867

See the entries for Sutton and Marcet in the Oxford DNB. A strained exchange as a result of a misunderstanding over the presentation by Marcet to the Medical and Chirurgical Society of a paper by Sutton. (The following year Sutton would publish his 'Tracts on Delirium Tremens, on Peritonitis, and on Some other Internal Inflammatory Affections, and on the Gout'.) The shift between persons in Sutton's three letters is indicative of a cooling of tone, and in the final item Marcet comes close to accusing Sutton of lying. The four items in good condition, lightly aged and worn, with thin strips of paper from mount adhering to each. ONE: Sutton to Marcet, in third person. Greenwich; 11 September 1812. 1p, 4to. Bifolium. Addressed, with postmark, to 'Doctor Marcet | Russel [sic] Square | Bloomsbury | London'. He will 'either call or send for the manuscript he left with Dr. M. and will thank Dr. M – to inclose it directed to Doctor Sutton, that it may be delivered in case Dr Marcet may not be at home'. A postscript suggests that alternatively Marcet may wish to leave the manuscript with 'Mr. Murrays Booksellers Fleet St'. TWO: Sutton to Marcet, signed 'Thos Sutton'. 17 September 1812. 2pp, 4to. Since seeing Marcet, and 'having had some leisure', he has 'been employd in bringing forward three other papers, about the same length as the one I placed in your hands'. He is now considering whether to print them together, 'or take the liberty of presenting them to your society and if thought worthy to be publish'd in the Transactions'. Marcet's 'remarks on the manuscript' have given Sutton 'the greatest satisfaction, and I shall take with consideration those which intimate the propriety of some alteration in regard of form - Whatever may be the destination of the paper I am much pleased it has on the whole met with your approbation and am glad it has been read before the Society'. After a reference to 'Dr. Roget', he ends by expressing his desire to 'avail myself of the opportunity of submitting the paper for their approbation with a view to its publication'. THREE: Sutton to Marcet, in the third person. 'Saturday Eveng. Septr. 26Th 1812'. 3pp, 4to. He is 'sorry any misunderstanding shou'd have happen'd on the subject of his manuscript. Doctor M – will probably recollect that Doctor S – said he intended to have left the paper with Doctor Saunders for his opinion of it – As Doctor Saunders was out of twon Dr S – recollecting Dr. M – lived in Russel Sqre. thought, at the moment, he wou'd take the liberty, tho' little known to Dr. M -, to ask him to undertake the same office'. Sutton was surprised when he learnt that the paper 'had been presented to the Society, after a lapse of upwards of a fortnight, without any communication with him. Dr Marcets letter from the country certainly acknowledges this omission – Dr. Sutton must however say that he had neither the right to give Dr M the trouble he did nor to ask any favor whatever from him, and therefore begs this may be consider'd as roundly an apology for the whole.' The letter concludes in similar conciliatory style. FOUR: Copy of letter from Marcet to Sutton. 'Russel Square | Sept. 25. 1812', but endorsed: 'Copy of a letter to Dr Sutton 26 Sept 1812'. 4pp, 12mo. Bifolium. Expressing regret that 'the disposal of the paper in question, should have occasioned to Dr Sutton so much surprize & uneasiness'. 'Dr. M. however is at a loss to comprehend how he could have mistaken Dr. Sutton's instruction, for he recollects distinctly Dr. S. saying, when he called upon Dr. M., that he wished the paper which he then put into his hands, to be laid before the Medical & Chirurgical Society, and that he had been induced, to sipose of it, in that way in consequenc eof a Suggestion of Mr Ashley Cooper.' Marcet continues in the same vein, concluding somewhat archly: 'With regard to the wish expressed by Dr. S., in his last note, respecting the next meeting of the Council, Dr. M. begs to suggest whether Dr. S. had not better procure the information in question from the official channel, for fear Dr. M. might forget to comply with his request.'