Page 115 - Ethel D. Hume - Bešam ili Paster: Izgubljeno poglavlje u istoriji biologije

112 BfiGHAMP OR PASTEUR?
far back as the 4th July, 1867, a member of the silk-worm
industry, M. Raibaud FAnge, had written to ask to be
allowed to visit him at Montpellier to study the disease.
Pasteur responded by calling M. Raibaud PAnge to his
help, only for the latter to confess that he had visited Mont-
pellier for the desired object. Yet, such was the fear of
offending the Government representative, the man
honoured by Imperial patronage, that M. Raibaud PAnge,
all the same, championed Pasteur with flattery and
ridiculed the microzymas. 1
Bechamp replied to M. Raibaud PAnge on the 17th
August, 1868, reminding him of the table of designs that
2
had accompanied his note of the 8th June, 1867.
No one replied.
As Bechamp afterwards said, 3 the Academy might
submit to the plagiarism, but no one could deny it.
No doubt, it was the total inability to set aside
Bechamp' s just claims that made Pasteur so hate his bril-
liant rival from this time henceforward. Bechamp's extra-
ordinary success in dealing with the silk-worm diseases
was all the more remarkable because he had no help,
pecuniary or otherwise, from the Government and no
time to expend on the problem except what he could snatch
from a professorial career that was filled with work quite
apart from any of his scientific researches.
Pasteur, on the other hand, had governmental help at
his instant disposal, every expense defrayed and scientific
assistants. Moreover, he was given complete leisure to
carry out his researches. That another should have so
signally succeeded where he had failed must have been a
source of bitterness to him, and his jealousy led him into
a veritable persecution of Bechamp. He was sure of his
own position, which had the highest influence to back it,
and we may be certain that he did not allow himself to
pass from the memory of his Imperial patrons. He com-
1
Comptes Rendus 67, p. 301.
2
C R. 67, p. 443.
3
Les Grands Problemes Midicanx, p. 29.