John Hunter / [J. Menzies Campbell].

  • John Menzies Campbell
Date:
[1952]
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

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

    4/20 (page 4)
    James, who had visited London some¬ time prior to 1745, had, on his return to Long Calderwood, recounted Wil¬ liam’s wonderful achievements. Doubt¬ less, recollections of these inspired John to write to William in 1748 suggesting that he should join him as an assistant in the dissection-room. The reply being favourable, John (then aged twenty years) did not delay departing on horseback on the four¬ teen days’ journey to London. He arrived there in September of that year, when the brothers started to work to¬ gether. One fact is crystal-clear: BUT FOR WILLIAM HUNTER, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN THE RENOWNED JOHN HUNTER. The latter, in striking contrast to the former, was uncouth, addicted to swearing, and a habitue of taverns and theatre-galleries where low life abounded, nevertheless: There’s a divinity that shapes our ends, Rough-hew them how we will. William was soon fully convinced of John’s extraordinary genius and ability. Consequently, he was not at all diffi¬ dent in approaching William Chesel- den (1688-1752), who was eminent throughout Europe as a surgeon, to per¬ mit his brother to attend Chelsea Hos¬ pital in order to become conversant with surgical practice under him. This request was readily granted. John re¬ mained there from 1749 till 1751, bandaging wounds and performing dressings: at the same time, being in¬ itiated into the rudiments of surgery. When Cheselden became paralysed in 1751, John Hunter transferred to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital to be a surgeon’s-pupil under Percivall Pott (1714-1788), who was then at his zen¬ ith. This entailed visiting the wards and being present at surgical opera¬ tions. John Hunter was thus singularly for¬ tunate in having, so early in his career, been instructed by two of the best sur¬ gical teachers of the eighteenth century. In order to gain further experience, and believing that his prospects would be brighter at St. George’s Hospital, he attended a course of lectures there in 1754 and became a surgeon’s-pupil. In 1755, William persuaded John to enter St. Mary Hall (in 1902, incor¬ porated with Oriel College), Oxford as a gentleman-commoner. Mystery sur¬ rounds this unexpected decision. Pos¬ sibly, William’s desire was for him to acquire some culture and an apprecia¬ tion of the classics. John, however, re¬ mained there for less than two months! Not improbably, his uncouth manners and coarse humour failed to meet with the ready acceptance of his associates. When he returned to London, William assumed him a partner in the anatomi¬ cal school. Cadavers for dissection were then dif¬ ficult to procure except through the “resurrectionists”, i.e. those who per¬ formed clandestine exhumations. John was not only a close associate of these disreputable persons, but also one of their best clients. To enable him fur¬ ther to pursue the study of comparative anatomy, he approached the keeper of wild animals at the Tower of London to acquire any that died. With the same object in view, he searched wide¬ ly and diligently purchasing every un¬ usual dead animal he could find, not in¬ frequently from the proprietors of cir¬ cuses.