« AnteriorContinuar »
by injecting the vas deferens. The Doctor says, this occurred early in November, and it is natural to suppose him more attentive to the date than most of his friends or auditors. Mr. Watson of Marlborough-street, Reader of Anatomy, says, it was in the beginning of the autumn Course 1752. The five other Gentlemen are not so exact as to the month, but are all very clear, that it occurred, and that the preparation was fatisfactorily exhibited at the public Lectures fome time in that Course, which concluded in December 1752.
Dr. Donald Monro affirms, in his Letter here re-printed, " that his brother, Dr. A. Monro, injected the seminal tubes with quicksilver January 9, 1753, and that in autumn 1754, he published an account, and figures of them, which were fent to Dr. Shaw, and seen by Dr. Hunter : and as Dr. 1). Monro says, “ If Dr. Hunter can produce one well-vouched evidence of his having filled the seminal tubes of the Teftis before the gth of January 1753, Dr. A. Monro will freely give up all claim to the honour of the discovery;” and the young Profeffor himfelf having also “ desired * Dr. Hunter to produce the testimony of some few of the number who had seen the preparation in question in autumn 1752,” our Author concludes the first chapter, in which he has produced fix, by saying, “ the Doctor may observe, he has been disposed to oblige him.” Could this plain and pregnant evidence need the least corroboration, it might be observed, that Dr. D. Monro says, in his Letter to Dr. Garrow at Barnet, dated December 14, 1752. “ Dr. H's preparation is a common one; he will get the mercury no further than the Epididymis,” p. 107, because, as he afferts, 104, “ neither his father nor himself could get it further.” Indeed Professor Monro, fen. has expressly admitted this, saying t, “ he never could make it pass above half the body of the Epididymis:” having previously “ supposed the fibres I of which the Teftis is compofed, to be vesels, but he could not determine of what kind, never having made a coloured liquor (nor any Auid of which we are informed] to enter them.” Supposing our medical Readers a Court and Jury of Anatomists, on this point of the cause, we think the evidence concerning it, may properly be refted here.
The evidence, with regard to the discovery of the Lymphatics being absorbing vessels, stands briefly this. In a Letter,
Observations anatomical and physiological, page 16. + Medical Essays, vol. V. page 217. Ibid. p. 216.
which must have been dated sometime in 1757, and which Dr. A. Monro, junior, acknowleges to have been wrote by his father, this last Gentleman affirms, ' “ that more than four years ago [suppose it the year 1752) he and many others saw the preparations which led him to the general doćtı ine of the Lymphatics being a system of absorbents. On the other hand, in page 101 of the present work, we are informed, that ever since the year 1746, when Dr. Hunter first read anatomical Lectures here, he, Dr. Hunter, has advanced the same doctrine. For this he appeals to the MS. Syllabus of his Lectures, used in public from the beginning, and to several MSS. of his Lectures in the poffeffion of his Pupils. But what is closer, and has an appearance of being conclusive, is, that he appeals to the testimony of two living, or lately living, public Professors of Anatomy; to the three Readers of Anatothy at London, Glascow, and Dublin; and to the anatomical Demonstrator or Diffe&tor for the Professor at Cambridge, for his having taught this physiological doctrine for a number of years, and supported it by several arguments at his public Lectures. Besides strong and clear extracts from these Gentlemens letters on this head, he has added the concurring testimonies of five others, some of whom were his Pupils as early as 1746. Now if Professor Monro's affertion already cited, of his having been led to this doctrine more than four years before 57, were extended to seven years, it would still manifestly conclude the discovery to have been previously made by Dr. Hunter.
The third chapter, the History of the Dispute, enforces all this circumstantially, and contains two Letters from Dr. Black, Professor of Medicine at Glascow, to Dr. Hunter, They were occasioned by this anatomical Controversy, are very well written, and seem extorted from the Professor, through his prevalent attachment to truth rather than from friendship. The facts unavoidably bear hard upon one of these Competitors, while the expressions attempt to apologize for his temerity, and impress a favourable idea of his abilities.
The fourth chapter (which Dr. Hunter also employs in remarks on some extraordinary paragraphs, as he calls them, in Dr. Monro's pamphlet) relates to an appearance near the Epididymis, which Dr. Monro supposed to be a velel coming from it; but which Dr. Hunter, and his brother Mr. John Hunter (who avers, he unravelled a great part of the preparation by dislection before proper wit
nesses) affirm, to have been a very small process, or minute projection, from the Epididymis itself, from one part of which it came out, and returned again into another. However, as Dr. Monro took it for some remarkable vefsel or duct, going off from the Epididymis, and says, Dr. Hunter has since demonstrated it to be such, without naming him as the Discoverer, he considers it as a great want of candour in him. Dr. Hunter affirms in fact, that he never demonstrated any such detached vessel (except Lymphatics) really thinking none such exist. If he may be credited in this, it was certainly sufficient to prevent his demonstrating it; and, at all events, his Antagonist, who is left in the sole poffeffion of it, has sufficiently obviated his demonstrating it hereafter. For a confirmation that he afterwards spoke thus of this imaginary duct of Dr. Monro's, for which he supposes this Gentleman might mistake some common Lymphatic, he appeals to the Auditors of his autumn Course in 1758, (when Dr. Monro was gone to Berlin) and who then attested, that Dr. Hunter had always mentioned such supposed tube or vessel, in the same
The second anatomical topic in this chapter, relates to the filling the lymphatic Glands, and the Lymphatics issuing from their cells, by inflating them, or by pouring mercury into their cavities, which Dr. Hunter affirms his brother had difcovered a method of doing in 1753, or —54, by pushing a blow-pipe into their substance. On this account Dr. Monro has termed Dr. Hunter the Eccho of Nuck and Cowper ; but very unfortunately, as the Author of these Commentaries positively affirms, that neither of these Anatomists had filled them in that manner, but by injecting some lyrnphatic vessel communicating with their cavity. Now we verily think, that no Reader who has a competent notion of Dr. Hunter's
great afliduity and accuracy, and of his remarkable caution, will ever fuppose, he would have asserted this of these two Anatomilts, without having assured himself of its certainty.
In the chapter Of Absorption by the Veins--of which faculty of the red veins Dr. Hunter entertains some doubt, we are presented with several experiments on five living animals, in order to discover whether they absorb or not: a' question not fully determined by Physiologists ; tho' their abforption is the opinion more generally received. Nevertheless, it must be acknowleged, that the several experiments made here, in presence of many competent spectators, incline confiderably to the negative of their absorption; while they a
bundantly establish the absorption of the Lacteals, if that needed any proof. Previous, however, to these experiments, Dr. Hunter modestly and diffidently says, “ Authors of the best credit had given such arguments and experiments in favour of absorption by veins, that I dared not, even in my own mind, determine the question.” The triumph assumed by Dr. Monro, on his ascribing to Dr. Hunter, a printed, public, and positive denial of absorption by the veins, is entirely dislipated, by the latter's disavowing the writing such a printed paper, or knowing of it directly or indirectly, before it was printed, and his being authorized to disclaim it by the real Writers.
The short chapter concerning the Vessels of the Cartilages, and of the Duct of the lachrymal Gland, affords Dr. Hunter an opportunity of correcting a mistake he was led into, when a young Anatomist, from fome appearances with respect to those vessels. It also gives him an opportunity of convincing his Readers, that he had demonstrated the fame ducts of the lachrymal gland in 1747, which Dr. Monro discovered in 1753. For the truth of this, he appeals to two Gentlemen, whom he names; and that he had demonstrated them many years before 1753, we are satisfied he might safely appeal to a few hundred.
The chapter containing-An Examination of what Profeffor Monro senior, published as a Defence of his Son-is fenfible and expoftulatory, without acrimony. Great allowances should undoubtedly be made for any fallies of paternal zeal for the reputation of a son ; who, possibly, if he had collected any information of the points in contest, might not have acknowleged such circumstances to his nearest friends. It recites, by the way, a remarkable case in proof and illustration of the doctrine of Absorption by the Lymphatics; which evinces, that Time will subscribe to a prognostic, founded upon an intimate acquaintance with the interior animal structure and economy:
The chapter--Of the Discovery of the Membrana pupillaris, and of the Insensibility of the Tendons, &c.—is composed, in a great measure, from Dr. Hunter's anatomical Lecturs. It has been partly occafioned by Dr. Monro, senior, having reproached him “ with quarrelling with other great Anatomists, which, he ventured to predict, would redound little to his honour.” This has induced Dr. Hunter to print these passages, in order to specify the subjects and particulars on which he might diffent a little from Baron Haller ; with the terms in which he might express that diffent: and in neither of these can we discern any thing either illiberal or acrimoni
If such philosophical liberties were not allowable, it would be difficult to establish any new discovery in any branch of physics : and if this diversity of opinion should be deemed a dishonourable dispute, Anatomists, as our Author justly observes. must be very cautious in their improvements and communications. But there was so little reason to apprehend, from the real merit and abilities of the illustrious Haller, that he would be disgusted with a decent freedom in this way, that we are not surprized to find Dr. Hunter conclude this chapter, by referring to a passage in a treatise * of Haller's on the very fubject about which they differed, and in which he has spoken by no means dishonourably of our Author; whose delicacy chuses rather to refer to the passage, than to cite the words of it.
The ninth andòlast chapter, concerning Ruptures, &c. is the only dispute Dr. Hunter admits he ever had with Mr. Pott. To submit what dishonour may redound to him from this, to the decision of the public, he avers his differing with Mr. Pott in regard to the situation of the testes of a fætus in the abdomen, till the birth. He also supposes he has some right to complain of Mr. Pott's publishing his treatise on the congenial Hernia, in which the testis and intestine are contiguous, without mentioning either his name, or his brother's in it; this last Gentleman having shewn Mr. Pott a preparation, that perfectly illustrated this curious, unborn, or prenatalitial Rupture, as it may be called ; and which this chapter intimates, Mr. Pott did not fully comprehend before. Though there is some little asperity in this discussion, yet it does not degenerate into scurrility, but avows “ a disposition to make Mr. Pòtt all just redress, if he shall candidly convince the Doctor, of his having misunderstood or misinterpreted any part of his conduct.”
We must not omit, that this chapter includes_Observations on the State of the Teftis in the Foetus, and on the Hernia Congenita, by Mr. John Hunter_They employ about fourteen pages, and contain a very full and elaborate account of the state of those parts in the Foetus; and of their various site and circumstances in some of its different months. It certainly required an experienced Anatomist, and very expert * Mem. sur les Part. sensib, et insensib. tom. IV.