[858] ‘The class called Sepia has the organ of hearing, though somewhat differently constructed from what it is in fishes.’ An Account of the Organ of Hearing in Fishes, in Hunter‘s Works, vol. iv. p. 294. At the bottom of the page Mr. Owen observes, in a note, ‘This is the first announcement of the existence of an organ of hearing in the Cephalopoda.’
[859] ‘Hunter discovered that the molluscous inhabitant of a shell had the power of absorbing part of its dwelling.’ Owen's Lectures on the Comparative Anatomy and Physiology of the Invertebrate Animals, London, 1855, p. 544. ‘Every shell-fish has the power of removing a part of its shell, so as to adapt the new and the old together, which is not done by any mechanical power, but by absorption.’ Anatomical Remarks on a New Marine Animal, in Hunter's Works, vol. iv. p. 469, edit. Palmer. In a note to this passage, it is said, that ‘the doctrine of the absorption of shell has been lately’ (i.e. in 1833) ‘adduced as a new discovery.’
[860] ‘His keen observation did not fail to detect several errors which preceding naturalists had fallen into, especially with regard to the formation of the wax, which he proved to be secreted, not collected, by the animal.’ Ottley's Life of Hunter, p. 122. ‘The wax is formed by the bees themselves; it may be called an external secretion of oil, and I have found that it is formed between each scale of the under side of the belly.’ Observations on Bees, in Hunter's Works, vol. iv. p. 433.
[861] ‘In the terminating part there are a number of perforations into the cochlea, and one into the semicircular canals, which afford a passage to the different divisions of the auditory nerve.’ Observations on the Structure and Œconomy of Whales, in Hunter's Works, vol. iv. pp. 383, 384. ‘The semicircular canals of the cetacea, described by Hunter in the paper on Whales, a structure which Cuvier rightly states that Camper overlooked, but incorrectly claims the discovery as his own.’ Preface to vol. iv. of Hunter's Works, p. xxi.
[862] Dr. Adams, in his somewhat hasty Life of Hunter, says (pp. 27, 28), ‘Mr. Hewson always claimed the discovery of lymphatics in birds.’ But the truth is, that Hewson never claimed it. He says, ‘It may be necessary to mention here, that the dispute between Dr. Monro and me is, who first discovered the lacteals of birds? for as to the lymphatics in their necks (mentioned in this gentleman's note), these we both allow were discovered by Mr. John Hunter, about ten years ago.’ And, again, ‘These lymphatics in the necks of fowls were first discovered by Mr. John Hunter.’ Hewson's Works, edit. Gulliver (Sydenham Soc.), pp. 102, 145.
[863] Hunter's Works, vol. iv. pp. xxi. 176.
[864] ‘See Nos. 3731, 3734, 3735, in the Physiological series of the Hunterian Museum, in which there are evidences that Mr. Hunter had anticipated most of the anatomical discoveries which have subsequently been made upon the embryo of the Kangaroo.’ Rymer Jones' Organization of the Animal Kingdom, London, 1855, pp. 829, 830.
[865] ‘The muscularity of arteries, of which John Hunter made physiological proof, is now a matter of eyesight.’ Simon's Pathology, London, 1850, p. 69. ‘To prove the muscularity of an artery, it is only necessary to compare its action with that of elastic substances.’ … ‘When the various uses of arteries are considered, such as their forming different parts of the body out of the blood, their performing the different secretions, their allowing at one time the blood to pass readily into the smaller branches, as in blushing, and at another, preventing it altogether, as in paleness from fear: and if to these we add the power of producing a diseased increase of any or every part of the body, we cannot but conclude that they are possessed of muscular powers.’ Hunter's Works, vol. iii. p. 157. See also vol. iv. p. 254. Mr. Gulliver, in his edition of Hewson's Works, London, 1846, says (p. 125), that Hunter's ‘experiments on the functions of the arteries are supported by the latest and best observations on their structure.’
[866] ‘The fact of the muscularity of the iris, which is here presumed from analogy by Mr. Hunter, has been since directly proved by the observations of Bauer and Jacob (Phil. Trans. 1822), and indirectly by Berzelius, who found that the iris possesses all the chemical properties of muscle.’ Palmer's note in Hunter's Works, vol. iii. p. 146, London, 1837.
[867] Adams' Life of Hunter, pp. 59, 60, 245. Hunter's Works, vol. i. p. 43, vol. iv. pp. 116–121. Watson's Principles of Physic, vol. ii. p. 440.
[868] ‘Hunter subjects the blood to both mechanical and chemical analysis, and endeavours to determine the characteristic properties of its different constituents.’ Owen's Preface to vol. iv. of Hunter's Works, p. xii. But this gives, perhaps, rather too high an idea of his animal chemistry; for such was then the miserable state of this extremely important branch of knowledge, that he arrived at the conclusion that ‘blood gives no analysis excepting that of common animal matter.’ Principles of Surgery, chap. iii. in Hunter's Works, vol. i. p. 229.
[869] ‘In seeking to determine the respective importance of the different constituents of the blood, by the philosophical and most difficult inquiry into their respective periods of formation in the development of the embryo, Hunter made the interesting discovery that the vessels of the embryo of a red-blooded animal circulated in the first instance colourless blood, as in the invertebrate animals. ‘The red globules,’ he observes, ‘seemed to be formed later in life than the other two constituents, for we see while the chick is in the egg the heart beating, and it then contains a transparent fluid before any red globules are formed, which fluid we may suppose to be the serum and the lymph.’ I well remember the feelings of surprise with which I listened, while at Paris in 1832, to a memoir read before the Academy of Science, by MM. Delpech and Coste, the object of which was the announcement of the same fact as a novel and important discovery. The statement of the French observers was received with all the consideration which its importance justly merited, without its being suspected that our great physiologist had, half a century before, embraced it, with all its legitimate deductions, in the extended circle of his investigations.’ Owen's Preface to vol. iv. of Hunter's Works, p. xiii.
[870] Indeed, if we may rely on the references recently given by Mr. Gulliver, which, from his great general accuracy, there seems no reason to question, the fact that the pale blood precedes the red, was known even in the time of Glisson. See Gulliver's learned edition of Hewson's Works, London, 1846, p. 222. But, to the contemporaries of Glisson, such a fact was isolated, and consequently useless. Nothing is valuable while it appears to stand alone.
[871] ‘From the above account, it appears that whatever may be their utility in the machine, the red globules certainly are not of such universal use as the coagulating lymph, since they are not to be found in all animals, nor so early in those that have them; nor are they pushed into the extreme arteries, where we must suppose the coagulating lymph reaches; neither do they appear to be so readily formed. This being the case, we must conclude them not to be the important part of the blood in contributing to growth, repair, &c. Their use would seem to be connected with strength.’ A Treatise on the Blood, Inflammation, and Gunshot Wounds, in Hunter's Works, vol. iii. p. 68. In another remarkable passage, he touches on the possibility of an increase in the amount of red globules being connected with an increase in the amount of heat. ‘I will not pretend to determine how far this may assist in keeping up the animal heat.’ Observations on the Structure and Œconomy of Whales, in Hunter's Works, vol. iv. p. 364.
[872] The evidence of this is collected in the notes to Buckle's History of Civilization, vol. i. pp. 58–61.
[873] ‘According to Lecanu, temperament has an influence upon the composition of the blood. He infers from his analyses that the blood of lymphatic persons is poorer in solid constituents, and especially in blood corpuscules, than that of persons of sanguineous temperament, while the quantity of albumen is much the same in both.’ Simon's Animal Chemistry with reference to the Physiology and Pathology of Man, London, 1845, vol. i. p. 236. Compare Thomson's Chemistry of Animal Bodies, Edinburgh, 1843, p. 370.
[874] Simon's Animal Chemistry, vol. i. pp. 234, 235. Subsequent experiments have confirmed this. ‘The proportion of red globules dried to 1000 parts of blood, is in healthy males estimated at 127 parts by Andral and Gavarret; lower and higher figures have been given by other analysts, but this probably is the result of somewhat different modes of proceeding. In females the proportion of globules is lower. Becquerel and Rodier make the difference to be about 15 parts per 1000.’ Jones and Sieveking's Pathological Anatomy, London, 1854, p. 23. Hence, the greater specific gravity of male blood. See the interesting results of Dr. Davy's experiments in Davy's Physiological and Anatomical Researches, London, 1839, vol. ii. p. 32.
[875] Hunter died in 1793. The researches of Lecanu were published in 1831.
Another, and still more remarkable proof of the extent to which Hunter outstripped his own age, appears in the following passage, which has just been published in his posthumous works, and in which he anticipates the grandest and most suggestive of all the ideas belonging to the physiology of the nineteenth century. ‘If we were capable of following the progress of increase of the number of the parts of the most perfect animal, as they first formed in succession, from the very first to its state of full perfection, we should probably be able to compare it with some one of the incomplete animals themselves, of every order of animals in the Creation, being at no stage different from some of the inferior orders. Or, in other words, if we were to take a series of animals, from the more imperfect to the perfect, we should probably find an imperfect animal, corresponding with some stage of the most perfect.’ Essays and Observations by John Hunter, being his Posthumous Papers, London, 1861, vol. i. p. 203.
[876] ‘The natural salutary actions, arising from stimuli, take place both in animals and vegetables, and may be divided into three kinds. The first kind of action, or self-motion, is employed simply in the economical operations, by which means the immediate functions are carried on, and the necessary operations performed, with the materials the animal or vegetable is in possession of, such as growth, support, secretion, &c. The blood is disposed of by the actions of the vessels, according to their specific stimulus, producing all the above effects. The juices of a plant are disposed of according to the different actions of the sap-vessels, arising also from their specific stimulus, which is different from that of blood-vessels, but equally produces growth; but a vine will grow twenty feet in one summer, while a whale, probably, does not grow so much in as many years.’ Croonian Lectures on Muscular Motion, in Hunter's Works, vol. iv. p. 199.
[877] ‘The second kind of action is in pursuit of external influence, and arises from a compound of internal and external stimulus; it is excited by the state of the animal or vegetable, which gives the stimulus of want, and being completed by external stimulus, produces the proper supplies of nourishment. It produces motions of whole parts: thus we see the Hedysarum gyrans moving its lesser foliola. This is an action apparently similar to breathing in animals, though, perhaps, it does not answer the same purpose; yet there is an alternate motion in both.’ Croonian Lectures, in Hunter's Works, vol. iv. p. 200.
[878] ‘The third kind of motion is from external stimulus, and consists principally of the motion of whole parts, which is not inconsiderable in vegetables, as in the Dionæa muscipula and Mimosa pudica is very evident.’ … ‘These actions are similar to what arise in many animals from external stimulus.’ Ibid. vol. iv. p. 201.
[879] ‘I make a material difference between the power and the quantity of action. Some motions may be very small, yet act with great force; while others are of considerable extent, although very weak.’ Ibid. vol. iv. p. 204.
[880] ‘The immediate cause of motion in all vegetables is most probably the same, and it is probably the same in all animals; but how far they are the same in both classes, has not yet been determined. But I think it will appear, in the investigation of this subject, that vegetables and animals have actions evidently common to both, and that the causes of these actions are apparently the same in both; and most probably there is not an action in the vegetable, which does not correspond or belong to the animal, although the mode of action in the parts may not be the same, or muscular, in both.’ Croonian Lectures, in Hunter's Works, vol. iv. p. 196. Compare the section ‘Of Motion in Vegetables,’ in Hunter's Essays, London, 1861, vol. i. p. 24.
[881] ‘The variety of motions is greater in animals, and more purposes are answered by them.’ … ‘The first kind of action appears to be stronger in its power, although less in quantity, in vegetables than in animals; for a small vine was capable of sustaining, and even of raising, a column of sap 43 feet high, while a horse's heart was only capable of supporting a column of blood 8 feet 9 inches high; both of which columns must have been supported by the action of the internal parts, for we must suppose the heart equal, or nearly so, to the strength or action of the other parts of the vascular system; and when we consider that the sap of the tallest tree must be supported, and even raised from the root to the most distant branches, it must appear that the power of such vegetables far exceeds the power of any animal, and, indeed, it is such as the texture of a vegetable only can support. The power of supporting a leaf erect for a whole day is as great an effort of action as that of the elevator palpebrarum muscle of the eye of an animal.’ Hunter's Works, vol. iv. pp. 203, 204. See also Hunter's Essays, vol. i. p. 342: ‘It is probable that the vegetable which can the least bear a suspension of its actions, can do so more than the animal which can bear it longest.’
[882] Hunter's Works, vol. iv. p. 255.
[883] In his Principles of Surgery, he says (Hunter's Works, vol. i. p. 220), ‘The human body is what I mean chiefly to treat of; but I shall often find it necessary to illustrate some of the propositions which I shall lay down from animals of an inferior order, in whom the principles may be more distinct and less blended with others, or where the parts are differently constructed, in order to show, from many varieties of structure, and from many different considerations, what are the uses of the same parts in man; or, at least, to show that they are not for the uses which have been commonly assigned to them; and, as man is the most complicated part of the whole animal creation, it will be proper, in the first place, to point out general principles, common to all this species of matter, that I may be better understood when I come to the more complicated machine, namely, the human.’
[884] ‘Before we endeavour to give an idea of an animal, it is necessary to understand the properties of that matter of which an animal is composed; but the better to understand animal matter, it is necessary to understand the properties of common matter; else we shall be often applying our ideas of common matter, which are familiar to us, to animal matter, an error hitherto too common, but which we should carefully avoid.’ Principles of Surgery, in Hunter's Works, vol. i. p. 211. ‘In the natural history of vegetables and animals, therefore, it will be necessary to go back to the first or common matter of this globe, and give its general properties; then see how far these properties are introduced into the vegetable and animal operations; or rather, perhaps, how far they are of use or subservient to their actions.’ Hunter's Essays, vol. i. p. 4. ‘Every property in man is similar to some property, either in another animal, or probably in a vegetable, or even in inanimate matter. Thereby (man) becomes classible with those in some of his parts.’ Ibid. p. 10.
[885] He made ‘a valuable collection of crystallizations, both of regular and irregular forms, which he was accustomed to use in his lectures to exemplify the difference between the laws which regulate the growth of organic and the increase of inorganic bodies.’ Ottley's Life of Hunter, p. 138.
[886] ‘Nature is always uniform in her operations, and when she deviates is still regular in her deviations.’ Principles of Surgery, in Hunter's Works, vol. i. p. 485; see also vol. iv. pp. 44, 45.
[887] ‘It certainly may be laid down, as one of the principles or laws of nature, to deviate under certain circumstances.’ Hunter's Works, vol. iv. p. 278.
[888] Dr. Adams, who knew him personally, says that he studied ‘physiology, more particularly as connected with pathology.’ Adams' Life of Hunter, p. 77.
[889] His Principles of Surgery contain some curious evidence of his desire to establish a connexion between animal and vegetable pathology. See, for instance, his remarks on ‘local diseases’ (Works, vol. i. p. 341); on the influence of the seasons in producing diseases (vol. i. pp. 345, 346); and on the theory of inflammation exhibited in an oak-leaf (vol. i. p. 391). But even now, too little is known of the diseases of the vegetable world to enable their study to be incorporated with the science of the diseases of the animal world; and, in the time of Hunter, the attempt was still less promising. Still, the effort shows the grandeur and range of the man's mind; and though little was effected, the method was right. So, too, in one of his essays on the Power of Producing Heat, he says, ‘In the course of a variety of experiments on animals and vegetables, I have frequently observed that the result of experiments in the one has explained the economy of the other, and pointed out some principle common to both.’ Hunter's Works, vol. iv. p. 136.
[890] ‘Nature being pretty constant in the kind and number of the different parts peculiar to each species of animal, as also in the situation, formation, and construction of such parts, we call every thing that deviates from that uniformity a “monster,” whether (it occur in) crystallization, vegetation, or animalization. There must be some principle for those deviations from the regular course of nature, in the economy of such species as they occur in. In the present inquiry it is the animal creation I mean to consider. Yet, as there may be in some degree an analogy between all the three (kingdoms of nature), I shall consider the other two, so far as this analogy seems to take place.’ … ‘Monsters are not peculiar to animals: they are less so in them, perhaps, than in any species of matter. The vegetable (kingdom) abounds with monsters; and perhaps the uncommon formation of many crystals may be brought within the same species of production, and accounted for upon the same principle, viz. some influence interfering with the established law of regular formation. Monsters in crystals may arise from the same cause, as mentioned in the “Introduction;” viz. either a wrong arrangement of the parts of which the crystal is to be composed, or a defect in the formation, from the first setting out being wrong, and (the formation) going on in the same (wrong) line. The principle of crystallization is in the solution; yet it requires more to set it agoing, or into action, such, e.g., as a solid surface. The deficiency in the production of a true crystal may be in the solution itself; or, I can conceive, that a very slight circumstance might alter the form of a crystal, and even give the disposition for one (crystal) to form upon another. Quickness in the progress of crystallization produces irregularity and diminution in size.’ Hunter's Essays, London, 1861, vol. i. pp. 239–241. The reader must remember, that, when these remarks were written, the phenomena of crystallization had not been subjected to that exact mathematical treatment which subsequently revealed so many of their laws. Indeed, the goniometer was then so coarse an instrument, that it was impossible to measure the angles of crystals with accuracy.
[891] Abernethy says, ‘He appears to me as a new character in our profession; and, briefly to express his peculiar merit, I may call him the first and great physionosologist, or expositor of the nature of disease.’ Abernethy's Hunterian Oration, p. 29, London, 1819. ‘He may be regarded as the first who applied the great truths of anatomical and physiological science to these most important subjects, by tracing the processes which nature employs in the construction of organic changes, in building up new formations, and in repairing the effects of injury or disease.’ Hodgson's Hunterian Oration, 1855, p. 32.
[892] ‘The specific qualities in diseases also tend more rapidly to the skin than to the deeper-seated parts, except the cancer; although, even in this disease, the progress towards the superficies is more quick than its progress towards the centre.’ … ‘In short, this is a law of nature, and it probably is upon the same principle by which vegetables always approach the surface of the earth.’ A Treatise on the Blood, Inflammation, and Gunshot Wounds, in Hunter's Works, vol. iii. p. 285. ‘Granulations always tend to the skin, which is exactly similar to vegetation, for plants always grow from the centre of the earth towards the surface; and this principle was taken notice of when we were treating of abscesses coming towards the skin.’ Ibid. pp. 489, 490.
[893] ‘It may be admitted as an axiom, that two processes cannot go on at the same time in the same part of any substance.’ Hunter's Works, vol. iv. p. 96. Compare Hunter's Essays, vol. ii. p. 333: ‘As it appears, in general, that Nature can hardly make one part perform two actions with advantage.’
[894] ‘Thus, we hear of pocky itch and of scurvy and the venereal disease combined; but this supposition appears to me to be founded in error. I have never seen any such cases, nor do they seem to be consistent with the principles of morbid action in the animal economy. It appears to me beyond a doubt that no two actions can take place in the same constitution, or in the same part, at one and the same time.’ Hunter's Works, vol. ii. p. 132. ‘As I reckon every operation in the body an action, whether universal or partial, it appears to me beyond a doubt that no two actions can take place in the same constitution, nor in the same part, at one and the same time; the operations of the body are similar in this respect to actions or motions in common matter. It naturally results from this principle, that no two different fevers can exist in the same constitution, nor two local diseases in the same part, at the same time. There are many local diseases which have dispositions totally different, but having very similar appearances, have been supposed by some to be one sort of disease, by others to be a different kind, and by others again a compound of two diseases.’ … ‘These, therefore, are often supposed to be mixed, and to exist in the same part. Thus we hear of a pocky-scurvy, a pocky-itch, rheumatic-gout, &c. &c., which names, according to my principle, imply a union that cannot possibly exist.’ Ibid. vol. iii. pp. 3, 4.
[895] Dr. Robert Williams (Encyclopædia of the Medical Sciences, London, 1847, 4to, p. 688) says, ‘The diagnosis between gout and rheumatism is often exceedingly difficult, so much so that nosologists have given a mixed class, or rheumatic gout. Mr. Hunter warmly opposed this compound appellation, for, in his opinion, no two distinct diseases, or even distinct diatheses, can co-exist in the same constitution; a law, it must be admitted, to have many exceptions.’ Compare Watson's Principles and Practice of Physic, London, 1857, vol. i. p. 312; ‘acting upon the aphorism of John Hunter (an aphorism, however, which requires some qualification), that two diseases or actions cannot go on in a part at the same time.’ According to another authority, ‘There can be little doubt that two or more zymotic processes do often go on simultaneously in the blood and body; a fact of profound interest to the pathologist, and worthy of attentive investigation.’ Report on the Public Health for 1847, in Journal of the Statistical Society, vol. xi. p. 168, London, 1848. See also, on the co-existence of specific poisons, Erichsen's Surgery, 2nd edit., London, 1857, p. 430. Mr. Paget, in his striking and eminently suggestive Lectures on Pathology, London, 1853, vol. ii. pp. 537, 538, has made some interesting remarks on one part of the theory of co-existence; and his observations, so far as they go, tend to corroborate Hunter's view. He has put very forcibly the antagonism between cancer and other specific diseases; and especially between the cancerous diathesis and the tuberculous.
[896] ‘The most simple sympathy is perhaps to be found in vegetables, these being much more simple than the most simple animal.’ Principles of Surgery, in Hunter's Works, vol. i. p. 327.
[897] ‘This principle of action, called sympathy,’ &c. Ibid. vol. i. p. 318.
[898] ‘Sympathy may be divided into two kinds, the natural and the diseased.’ Principles of Surgery, in Hunter's Works, vol. i. p. 320; see also A Treatise on the Blood, Inflammation, &c., in Works, vol. iii. p. 6.
[899] Croonian Lectures on Muscular Motion, in Hunter's Works, vol. iv. p. 207; and exactly the same words in his Phytology, in Hunter's Essays, London, 1861, vol. i. p. 361.
[900] ‘Local or partial sympathy is found more in old than in young; whereas universal sympathy is more in young than in old. Sympathy is less determined in young persons, every part being then ready to sympathize with other parts under disease.’ … ‘As the child advances, the power of sympathy becomes partial, there not being now, in the constitution, that universal consent of parts, but some part, which has greater sympathy than the rest, falls into the whole irritation; therefore the whole disposition to sympathy is directed to some particular part. The different organs acquire more and more of their own independent actions as the child grows older.’ Hunter's Works, vol. i. pp. 322, 323.
[901] ‘Susceptibilities for dispositions and actions appear to me to be the same with what are usually understood by temperament. Temperament is the state of the body fitting it for the disposition or action it is then in.’ Hunter's Works, vol. i. p. 307.
[902] Hunter's Works, vol. iii. p. 393.
[903] ‘As every natural action of the body depends, for its perfection, on a number of circumstances, we are led to conclude, that all the various combining actions are established while the body is in health, and well disposed; but this does not take place in diseased actions, for disease, on the contrary, consists in the want of this very combination.’ Hunter's Works, vol. iii. p. 10. Compare vol. i. p. 310: ‘I have explained that a disease is a disposition for a wrong action, and that the action is the immediate effect of the disposition, and that either the actions or the effects of those actions, produce the symptoms which are generally called the disease; such as sensations, which are commonly pain of all kinds, sickness, alteration visible or invisible in the structure of the part or parts that act, and sympathy.’
[904] ‘There is no such thing, strictly speaking, as a predisposing cause. What is commonly understood by a predisposing cause is an increased susceptibility to form disposition to action. When I say I am predisposed for such and such actions, it is only that I am very susceptible of such and such impressions.’ Hunter's Works, vol. i. p. 303. See also p. 301: ‘The most simple idea I can form of an animal being capable of disease is, that every animal is endued with a power of action, and a susceptibility of impression, which impression forms a disposition, which disposition may produce action, which action becomes the immediate sign of the disease; all of which will be according to the nature of the impression and of the part impressed.’
[905] Hunter died in 1793. In 1835, Mr. Palmer writes: ‘Those who have traced the progress of modern surgery to its true source, will not fail to have discerned, in the principles which Hunter established, the germs of almost all the improvements which have been since introduced.’ Hunter's Works, vol. i. p. vii. Eighteen years later, Mr. Paget says of Hunter's views respecting the healing of injuries: ‘In these sentences, Mr. Hunter has embodied the principle on which is founded the whole practice of subcutaneous surgery; a principle of which, indeed, it seems hardly possible to exaggerate the importance.’ Paget's Lectures on Surgical Pathology, London, 1853, vol. i. p. 170. At pp. 197, 198: ‘After what I have said respecting the process of immediate union, it may appear that Mr. Hunter was more nearly right than his successors.’
[906] ‘Inflammation of the veins, originally studied by Hunter, has of late years attracted the attention of many distinguished Continental and British pathologists.’ Erichsen's Surgery, London, 1857, p. 475. ‘No subject more amply illustrates the essential services which the science and art of medicine have derived from pathological anatomy than that of phlebitis. By this study many a dark point in the phenomena of disease has been either thoroughly elucidated, or, at all events, rendered more comprehensible. We need only refer to the so-termed malignant intermittents, consequent upon wounds and surgical operations,—to certain typhoid conditions, puerperal diseases, and the like, John Hunter, the elder Meckel, and Peter Frank, were the first to commence the investigation.’ Hasse's Anatomical Description of the Diseases of the Organs of Circulation and Respiration, London, 1846, p. 10. ‘Hunter was the first to open the way, and since that period the scalpel has shown that many previously unintelligible malignant conditions are attributable to phlebitis.’ Jones and Sieveking's Pathological Anatomy, London, 1854, p. 362. On the application of this discovery to the theory of inflammation of the spleen, see Rokitansky's Pathological Anatomy, vol. ii. p. 173, London, 1849; compare vol. iv. p. 335.
[907] Sir Benjamin Brodie says: ‘It is true that the essential parts of John Hunter's doctrines as to inflammation and its consequences are now so incorporated with what is taught in the schools, that to be acquainted with them you need not seek them in his works; but I recommend you, nevertheless, to make these your especial study, for the sake of the other valuable information which they contain, and the important views in physiology and pathology which, in almost every page, are offered to your contemplation.’ Brodie's Lectures on Pathology and Surgery, London, 1846, p. 25. ‘John Hunter, whose treatise on Inflammation is a mine in which all succeeding writers have dug.’ Watson's Principles and Practice of Physic, London, 1857, vol. i. p. 146. ‘The appeal to philosophical principles in Hunter's works was, indeed, the cause of their being a closed volume to his less enlightened contemporaries; but, though the principles implied or expressed, subjected them to the scorn and neglect of those less imbued with the spirit of philosophy, the results of those principles, verified as they were by facts, have gradually and insensibly forced themselves on the conviction of the profession; and though adopted silently, and without acknowledgment, as if the authors themselves had forgotten or were ignorant from whence they were derived, they now form the very groundwork of all books, treatises, and lectures on professional subjects.’ Green's Vital Dynamics, London, 1840, p. 81. Finally, I will quote the very recent testimony of Mr. Simon, who, in his masterly, and singularly beautiful, essay on Inflammation, has not only brought together nearly every thing which is known on that interesting subject, but has shown himself to be possessed of powers of generalization rare in the medical profession, or, indeed, in any other profession. ‘Without undue partiality, an Englishman may be glad to say that the special study of Inflammation dates from the labours of John Hunter. An indefatigable observer of nature, untrammelled by educational forms, and thoroughly a sceptic in his method of study, this large-minded surgeon of ours went to work at inflammation with a full estimate of the physiological vastness of his subject. He saw that, in order to understand inflammation, he must regard it, not as one solitary fact of disease, but in connexion with kindred phenomena—some of them truly morbid in their nature, but many of them within the limits of health. He saw that, for any one who would explain inflammation, all inequalities of blood supply, all periodicities of growth, all actions of sympathy, were part of the problem to be solved.’ … ‘He cannot be understood without more reflection than average readers will give; and only they who are content to struggle through a veil of obscure language, up to the very reality of his intent, can learn with how great a master they are communing.’ … ‘Doubtless, he was a great discoverer. But it is for the spirit of his labours, even more than for the establishment of new doctrine, that English surgery is for ever indebted to him. Of facts in pathology, he may, perhaps, be no permanent teacher; but to the student of medicine he must always be a noble pattern. Emphatically, it may be said of him, that he was the physiological surgeon. Others, before him (Galen, for instance, eminently), had been at once physiologists and practitioners; but science, in their case, had come little into contact with practice. Never had physiology been so incorporated with surgery, never been so applied to the investigation of disease and the suggestion of treatment, as it was by this master-workman of ours. And to him, so far as such obligations can be personal, we assuredly owe it that, for the last half-century, the foundations of English surgery have, at least professedly, been changing from a basis of empiricism to a basis of science.’ Simon on Inflammation, in A System of Surgery, edited by T. Holmes, London, 1860, vol. i. pp. 134–136.
[908] Mr. Bowman, in his Principles of Surgery (Encyclopædia of the Medical Sciences, London, 4to, 1847) says (p. 831): ‘Before the time of Hunter, the operation was performed by cutting into the sac of the aneurism, and tying the vessel above and below. So formidable was this proceeding in its consequences, that amputation of the limb was frequently preferred, as a less dangerous and fatal measure. The genius of Hunter led him to tie the femoral artery, in a case of popliteal aneurism, leaving the tumour untouched. The safety and efficacy of this mode of operating have now been fully established, and the principle has been extended to all operations for the cure of this formidable disease.’ See also p. 873; Paget's Surgical Pathology, vol. i. pp. 36, 37; and Erichsen's Surgery, pp. 141, 142, 508, 509.
[909] ‘The majority of Hunter's contemporaries considered his pursuits to have little connexion with practice, charged him with attending to physiology more than surgery, and looked on him as little better than an innovator and an enthusiast.’ Ottley's Life of Hunter, p. 126. In a work, which was written by a surgeon only the year after Hunter died, the reader is told, in regard to his remarkable inquiries respecting animal heat, that ‘his experiments, if they be true, carry with them no manner of information:—if they be true, no effect for the benefit of man can possibly be derived from them.’ Foot's Life of Hunter, London, 1794, p. 116. At p. 225, the same practitioner reproaches the great philosopher with propounding ‘purely a piece of theory, without any practical purpose whatever.’ Foot, indeed, wrote under the influence of personal feelings, but he rightly judged that these were the sort of charges which would be most likely to prejudice the English public against Hunter. It never occurred to Foot, any more than it would occur to his readers, that the quest of truth, as truth, is a magnificent object, even if its practical benefit is imperceptible. One other testimony is worth quoting. Sir Astley Cooper writes of Cline: ‘His high opinion of Mr. Hunter shows his judgment; for almost all others of Mr. Hunter's contemporaries, although they praise him now, abused him while he lived.’ The Life of Sir Astley Cooper, by Bransby Blake Cooper, London, 1843, vol. ii. p. 337.
[910] ‘Those who far precede others, must necessarily remain alone; and their actions often appear unaccountable, nay, even extravagant, to their distant followers, who know not the causes that give rise to them, nor the effects which they are designed to produce. In such a situation stood Mr. Hunter, with relation to his contemporaries. It was a comfortless precedence, for it deprived him of sympathy and social co-operation.’ Abernathy's Hunterian Oration, p. 49.