Medical commentaries. Part I. Containing a plain and direct answer to Professor Monro jun. Interspersed with remarks on the structure, functions and diseases of several parts of the human body / [William Hunter].
- William Hunter
- Date:
- 1762
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: Medical commentaries. Part I. Containing a plain and direct answer to Professor Monro jun. Interspersed with remarks on the structure, functions and diseases of several parts of the human body / [William Hunter]. Source: Wellcome Collection.
158/176 page 22
![[ ^ ] SECT. IV. Refutation of abfurd Accusations. BESIDES the great points in difpute between Mr. P. and me, which it was necejfary to fettle, fome queftions have arifen, which would not deferve an anfwer upon any other occafion ; and yet may, with propriety enough, claim fome attention, now that the pen is in my hand. Mr. P. feems to exult in thinking it probable, that I was the author of the account, which was given of his pamphlet, in the Critical Review; and then (p. 159) triumphs over this fuppofed behaviour, as cowardly and treacherous. In the fame page alfo, he complains, that I attacked him openly at my ledtures, and is furprifed that I was not afhamed to do it, and afhamed to confefs it : An unmanly ?nethod, fays he, and equally unbecoming a man of candour, or a man of fpirit. Now it feems difficult to conceive, that both thofe attacks were made by the fame hand, they are fo unlike : The one was in the dark, and might be trea¬ cherous ; the other was open, and could only be impudent, if it was at all wrong. It is ridiculous enough to reckon it unbecoming a man of fpirit; for, in my mind, an attack made openly, and by name, before a number of gentlemen, and afterwards acknowleged and repeated in print, is not one of the Hrongeft and molt decifive marks of the want of a decent fhare of fpirit. I own I fhould rather fufpedt the man who, inftead of defending himfelf when he is attacked, Hands complaining of the unmanly manner, and wrangles about the juftice of the claim ; who difregards one challenge becaufe it has no name, and another becaufe it has. But, to examine thefe two inconfiftent charges a little more particu¬ larly, I muft tell the reader, that the account in the Critical Review was not mine, in any other fenfe than that it was the language I ufed at the time, both in my ledtures, and among my private acquaintance; and therefore the fubflance of it was, probably enough, delivered by myfelf to the anonymous perfon who calls himfelf Pupil, either in a ledture, or in private converfation. I made no fecret of the complaint; fo that it might eafily have been fent to the Reviewers, by any friend of mine. And it is no wonder that two little miftakes fhould have crept](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b30409196_0158.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
