As someone who decided to write a book in my science fiction space opera The Cluster Cycle inspired by Golden Age detective stories, it's probably safe to say that I do enjoy them. Picky I am, but I also am willing to try new things. One of the series that I drew on was the Campion novels written by Margery Allingham, one of which sent me on a small rabbit hole of research. The 1937 novel Dancers in Mourning has enigmatic detective Albert Campion investigating the harassment of west end musical star Jimmy Sutane, and later the death of faded actress Chloe Pye staying with him and other friends at his country house. The key point of her death is that while she was attacked by someone, her death was caused by "Status Lymphaticus", described as a condition which left her fatally vulnerable to stress or shocks or sudden frights.
I had never once heard of "Status Lymphaticus". There's no Wikipedia entry on it, no surprises there, and some research found only academic and medical papers. In the December 1917 paper "The Cause of Sudden Death" by Douglas Symmers M.D., the condition is described as:
...a constitutional hereditary anomaly characterized anatomically by certain external peculiarities of configuration, by hypoplasia of the cardiovascular apparatus, by hyperplasia of the thymus gland and of the lymphoid tissues in other localities, and, incidentally, by congenital structural defects in different viscera. Clinically, the condition is not infrequently terminated by sudden death on apparently trivial provocation, oftenest in children, but occasionally in adults.
This description, translated into more average language, is how Chloe Pye's cause of death is explained to Campion and others in Sutane's household. The key point is that anything could have caused her death at any moment, but someone triggered it by attacking her, then attempted to cover it up. The paper quoted above says the condition was recognised by two different doctors in New York and Vienna. This, and other acknowledgements of the condition such as Sidney Elisabeth Croskery's medical degree thesis which made reference prominent reference to it, shows it was clearly taken as medical fact at the time.
However, medical science moves on. Just as Freud's theories have become generally discounted or outright proven wrong over time, so some concepts in medical knowledge have been refined, redefined, and corrected.
Symmers appears to have been the originator of this, since he wrote another article on the condition for The American Journal of Surgery in 1934, and was also entered into The Principles and Practice of Medicine using a similar definition. Both of these would make easily-accessible sources for Allingham to reference for Dancers in Mourning. By the 1950s and 60s, the condition seems to have been in the final stages of complete debunking. Indeed in 1954, English doctor H. C. Dodwell published a three-page article in the BMJ on the condition subtitled "Growth of a Myth", in part as the refutation of another doctor's work. Dodwell cites multiple textual real-world reports between the 1870s and the 1940s, attributing the creation of "Status Lymphaticus" to a combination of selective quotation in reference books and misunderstandings/misinterpretations of findings relating to the lymphatic system. He further notes the popularity of Symmers's description, but notes a lack of detail for corroboration in the face of other medical findings, ultimately concluding that while sudden deaths did indeed happen, the attributed cause didn't exist. In reflection of recent advances in medicine and psychology, Claire Hilton, Royal College of Psychiatrists's historian in residence, described "Status Lymphaticus" in a 2019 article as having been "‘invented’ to fulfill social needs" and having "crept into the culture of the lunatic asylums."
So today, and indeed technically for as long as it was supposed to exist, "Status Lymphaticus" doesn't exist. It's an outdated medical concept intended to explain sudden and otherwise difficult to explain deaths, and according to Hilton forms one of socially constructed medical conditions.
In relation to Dancers in Mourning, there is also the legal angle to consider. My sister did studies in law earlier in her life, so we talked it over from that angle, as she had to write an essay on the laws surrounding death resulting from assault, even if death wasn't the intent. People can die from shock or fright, but typically it takes several hours. The thing about that is when she applied it to Allingham's story, holes appeared in parts outside "Status Lymphaticus" existing. In the text, Campion says that the actress's death wasn't murder, although further deaths occur as the culprit tries to cover their tracks. But in such cases legally, given the result of the assault on Chloe Pye, it would be treated as a possible murder charge. Likely leading to a manslaughter conviction, or even a murder conviction, which in the 1930s was a literal death sentence. No matter the intent, the result was Chloe Pye's untimely death.
So looking at the novel from the modern medical perspective, "Status Lymphaticus" is as outlandish as Arsenical immunisation is in Sayers' Strong Poison. Chloe Pye could have died instantly from shock or fright, but not specifically from that named condition. It would be more a combination of elements acting on a pre-existing heart weakness, such as the brain freezing up and effectively killing the heart. One of the better summations of this is the definition from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:
hyperplasia of the lymphatic tissue formerly believed to be a cause of sudden death in infancy and childhood but now no longer recognized as a genuine pathological entity
called also lymphatism
So, is there a point to this long look at a pseudo-medical condition now debunked and refuted? Well, when one looks at the things people believe from singular powerful individuals in a field today, one can draw a parallel with Douglas Symmers and his grand diagnosis of "Status Lymphaticus". Doesn't matter how clever you are, how high up you are, how much evidence you seem to have. You can still get things wrong.
