Eminent doctors: Their lives and their work; Vol. 1 of 2

by G. T. Bettany

It is somewhat surprising that anatomy, the necessary basis of a sound treatment of the human body in disease, should have so long remained comparatively uncultivated in this country as a practical art, after Harvey had led the way and shown how brilliant discoveries might be made by dissection. Continental schools certainly put to shame early English efforts in anatomy: and it would appear not easy to establish in England any new study, unless the subject is one from which large pecuniary profits may immediately be anticipated—in which enterprise there can be no sort of merit. When a man has attained some reputation as an anatomist or physiologist, all the efforts of British society seem to be directed towards taking him away from that pursuit of which he has proved himself an ornament, and converting him into a man whose business it is to cure private ailments, thereby preventing him but too successfully, in most instances, from pursuing that for which he has shown conspicuous talent. Thus we find Cheselden, whose publication of an Anatomy of the Human Body, in 1713, and Osteography in 1733, had shown great anatomical ability, was carried into a large private practice. And William Hunter, the founder of the first great anatomical museum, was diverted from his proper studies to become an obstetrician, in order to obtain money for his special objects.

William Hunter, whose name has been previously mentioned in our account of Cullen, was born on May 23, 1718, at Kilbride, Lanarkshire, being the seventh of ten children of John and Agnes Hunter. At fourteen he was sent to Glasgow for his education, remaining there five years, it being his father’s wish that he should enter the Church. Imbibing liberal opinions, he soon became averse to this proposal, and his intimacy with Dr. Cullen determined his thoughts towards medicine. In 1737 he became Cullen’s resident pupil at Hamilton, and remained with him three years. It was then agreed that he should go and study medicine at Edinburgh and London, and afterwards return to Hamilton to a partnership with his master. Their mutual attachment was lifelong.

The winter of 1740-1 was spent by William Hunter at Edinburgh, where Monro primus was then teaching anatomy. The following summer he went to London, and obtained the position of assistant to Dr. Douglas, who was then engaged on a great book on osteology, which he did not live to complete, the education of Dr. Douglas’s son being also placed in his charge. He considered this offer so inviting that he remained in London, although it was contrary to the wishes of his now aged father, who thought the arrangement with Dr. Cullen preferable. The father died on the 30th October following, aged 78.

The young man soon became expert in dissection, and he entered as a surgeon’s pupil at St. George’s Hospital. His prospects were soon after clouded by the death of Dr. Douglas, but his residence in the family was not interrupted. As early as 1743 he communicated to the Royal Society a paper on the Structure and Diseases of Articulating Cartilages; and thereafter was occupied in preparing to commence teaching anatomy. His opportunity came in 1746, when Mr. Samuel Sharpe gave up a course of lectures on surgery, which he had been delivering to a society of navy surgeons in Covent Garden, and recommended William Hunter in his place. His lectures were found so satisfactory that they asked him to extend his course to anatomy. He had great timidity in lecturing at first, but soon gained confidence. One of his pupils who accompanied him home after his introductory lecture, relates that he carried his fees for the course, amounting to seventy guineas, in a bag under his cloak, and that he remarked that it was a larger sum than he had ever been master of before. The profits of these courses he expended in no niggardly spirit, to a large extent in befriending others, and he was consequently unable to begin his next season’s lectures at the proper time, owing to lack of means to advertise their commencement. He learnt a salutary lesson by this delay, for he found that by so far straining his resources he had only encouraged the idleness of his friends. This made him for the future cautious of lending money, and more economical than before, and may be said to have laid the foundation of his fortune.

In 1747 William Hunter was admitted a member of the College of Surgeons, and in the spring took a continental journey, in which he met Albinus at Leyden. Although he commenced practice as a surgeon, he gradually discontinued it when he began to succeed as an accoucheur, being appointed surgeon-accoucheur to both the Middlesex Hospital and the British Lying-in Hospital. His conciliating manners and pleasing address contributed to make him popular in this branch of practice. In 1750 he obtained the degree of M.D. from the University of Glasgow, and about the same time ceased to reside with Mrs. Douglas, and went to Jermyn Street, so long associated with the Hunters. In 1751 he visited his home at Long Calderwood, Kilbride, and gratified his affection for Dr. Cullen, who had now become established at Glasgow. As Cullen was one day riding with him, he pointed out to Hunter how conspicuous Long Calderwood was from a distance, when the latter replied with energy, “Well, if I live, I shall make it still more conspicuous.” This, however, was his only visit to his native place after his settling in London.

William Hunter joined the College of Physicians in 1755, and the Medical Society about the same time. His “History of an Aneurism of the Aorta,” appears in the first volume published by that Society, in 1757. In regard to aneurisms he had made many original observations, such as to place the subject in a totally new aspect. Several papers he contributed to this Society bear directly on problems of interest in midwifery and the diseases of women.

It was in 1762 that the first edition of the “Medical Commentaries” appeared, in which Monro secundus was severely attacked for having claimed as his own discoveries which William Hunter had, years before, promulgated at his lectures. It is to be regretted that in regard to these very matters, as well as others, disputes afterwards arose between William Hunter and his brother John, who it appears had made at least some of these discoveries, while engaged as assistant to his brother. In respect of a number of these, the elder brother gave credit to his junior both when lecturing and in his publications; in regard to others, the elder gave no credit at all when John conceived himself entitled to much, or all, of the praise of originality. Both brothers were strikingly sensitive as to their claims to originality, and William Hunter on several occasions seems to have regarded a new demonstration as his property because made in his dissecting-room, though not by himself. Yet we find it recorded that in the winter 1762-3, when the brothers had separated, William Hunter would frequently say in his lectures: “In this I am only my brother’s interpreter”—“I am simply the demonstrator of this discovery; it was my brother’s.” We must recur to this subject later, merely mentioning now, that John Hunter acted as his brother’s assistant and dissected for him from 1748, and that from 1755 to 1760 a certain portion of the lectures was delivered by him; in 1760 they separated.

There is no question that in general education, in manners, in delivery, in all that makes the successful lecturer and the attractive practitioner, William Hunter greatly excelled his brother. Dr. Baillie has said of him, “No one ever possessed more enthusiasm for his art, more persevering industry, more acuteness of investigation, more perspicuity of expression, or indeed, a greater share of natural eloquence. He excelled very much any lecturer whom I have ever heard in the clearness of his arrangements, the aptness of his illustrations, and the elegance of his diction.” If it were not for the tenacity with which he pursued controversial topics, and his unfortunate disagreement with his brother, there would be nothing to mar the pleasurable nature of the picture of William Hunter. The way in which he himself viewed this side of his character may be gathered from the following extract from the Supplement to his Medical Commentaries, published in 1777.

“It is remarkable, that there is scarce a considerable character in anatomy, that is not connected with some warm controversy. Anatomists have ever been engaged in contention. And indeed, if a man has not such a decree of enthusiasm, and love of the art, as will make him impatient of unreasonable opposition, and of encroachments upon his discoveries and his reputation, he will hardly become considerable in anatomy, or in any other branch of natural knowledge.

“These reflections afford some comfort to me, who unfortunately have been already engaged in two public disputes. I have imitated some of the greatest characters, in what is commonly reckoned their worst part: but I have also endeavoured to be useful; to improve and diffuse the knowledge of anatomy: and surely it will be allowed here, that if I have not been serviceable to the public in this way, it has not been for want of diligence, or love of the service.