John Hunter / [J. Menzies Campbell].

  • John Menzies Campbell
Date:
[1952]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: John Hunter / [J. Menzies Campbell]. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    11/20 page 11
    11 ing the papers, the circumstances were recounted to the Board of Trustees. Their efforts, likewise, proved futile. Practically all Hunter’s papers and manuscripts—the labours of forty years —had ended in smoke! It is a tragic co¬ incidence, that,y in 1941, his museum was eSS^SPoeSfoyed by bombs from enemy aircraft! # Now to refer to the vandal, Everard Home, whose outrageous conduct it is, today, surprisingly fashionable to at¬ tempt to vindicate! In 1808, doubtless in recognition of the role, which he had played in the acquisition by the nation of Hunter’s museum, and of his own scientific writings, he was appointed Sergeant- Surgeon to George III. Further, in 1813, he was not only elected Master of the Royal College of Surgeons, but also created a baronet. Why, therefore, should he have destroyed John Hun¬ ter’s papers? The view, generally, accepted by his¬ torians is that Everard Home, having pirated John Hunter’s priceless, un¬ published records, decided to burn the damning evidence. Be that as it may, it is significant that, within the period 1799 to 1823, Everard Home, who likewise was keenly in¬ terested in comparative anatomy, pub¬ lished a wide range of articles (of a similar type to John Hunter’s) under his own name in various scientific journals. In fact, he contributed more papers to the Royal Society than any other person, since its foundation in 1645! Jesse Foot, with an extensive surgical practice in Dean Street, Soho, pub¬ lished, in 1794, a hostile—in very many respects, distorted—life of John Hun¬ ter. For this, he may justifiably be stigmatized as an unworthy Foot-man! Nevertheless, Home’s ruthless conduct far eclipsed Foot’s effort. Further, Foot (who is credited with writing sixteen works) described Home as both conceited and insolent. Wil¬ liam Clift’s opinion of him, viewed from more intimate angles, was also uncomplimentary. Having now briefly traced John Hun¬ ter’s career, and thereby afforded read¬ ers an opportunity better to appreciate his background, let us consider, in necessarily restricted detail, his dental works of 1771 and 1778. Before doing so, it should be empha¬ sized that, when these were published, dentistry in England was on a much lower plane than any other branch of the healing art. This is not surprising, when it is realized that its practice was controlled almost exclusively by em¬ pirics and blacksmiths, whose knowl¬ edge was derived chiefly from a process of trial and error. Treatment was con¬ fined to the non-too-skilful extraction of teeth, the inexpert construction of bone or ivory substitutes and crude at¬ tempts to fill carious cavities. The inquiring mind was, more or less, non-existent. Comparatively few practitioners considered the underlying causes of dental disease. They were con¬ tent merely to accept such conditions as inevitable, and themselves as benefac¬ tors to humanity! The purpose of John Hunter’s books was, undoubtedly, to enlighten such persons. His efforts would, however, have proved even more beneficial, had he riveted attention (as Berdmore did in 1768) on the far-reaching dangers re¬ sulting from unskilled interference; and
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3