Open main menu

A History of the Medical Department of the University of Pennsylvania/Chapter XIV

< A History of the Medical Department of the University of Pennsylvania

Resignation of Dr. Hare—Sketch of his life—Election of Dr. James B. Rogers to the Chair of Chemistry—Change in the lecture term—Resignation of Dr. Chapman—Sketch of his life—Election of Dr. Wood to the Chair of Practice, and of Dr. Carson to that of Materia Medica and Pharmacy.

From the period last mentioned until the year 1847, no change took place in the Faculty. Dr. Hare then resigned the Professorship of Chemistry, to which he had been appointed in 1819. He had been in possession of the Chair twenty-seven years.

Dr. Robert Hare was born in the city of Philadelphia in 1781. After finishing his academic education, he devoted some time to the occupation of a brewer, in the establishment of his father, in which his active mind was engaged upon the chemistry of the manufacture of malt liquors, and of their preservation. While engaged in this business, a barrel was invented by him, partly of iron, for the purpose of resisting the pressure from an extra accumulation of carbonic acid gas. At the age of twenty he entered the Chemical School of the University of Pennsylvania, where, in association with Dr. Benjamin Silliman, he pursued his studies under the direction of Woodhouse.

With reference to that period, Dr. Silliman writes thus in 1809: "When I was appointed to the Chymical Chair of this College (Yale) I was allowed time and opportunities to qualify myself for a station, for which those who appointed me knew I was not at the time prepared. I went to Philadelphia, and was so fortunate as to board in the same house with Mr. Hare. My pursuits and his tastes led us to form a small laboratory, where we pursued Chymistry with much ardour. It is with pleasure that I say that I am greatly indebted to the able assistance and instruction which I received from Mr. Hare at that time, for any progress I made in the Science.

"He had already become, from a great deal of private search, an experienced and able experimenter, and it is no disrespect to the memory of Dr. Woodhouse (whose opinion of Mr. Hare as a chymist and a man of science I know to have been extremely favourable) for me to add that I often derived from the conversation of Mr. Hare, at home, views of chymical science and explanations of chymical phenomena, which greatly aided my comprehension of the lectures, and even supplied deficiencies which may occur occasionally in the public philosophical discourses of the ablest men.”[1]

In 1801 Dr. Hare contrived the Oxy-hydrogen Blowpipe, and was awarded the Rumford Medal of the “American Academy of Arts and Sciences.” With respect to the discovery of the “Compound Blowpipe,” it is well known that a claim has been set up in England, and upon this point the following testimony of Prof. Silliman is conclusive in placing the credit where it is deserved: “In December of the year 1801, Mr. Hare communicated to the Chymical Society of Philadelphia his discovery of a method of burning oxygen and hydrogen gases in a united stream, so as to produce a very intense heat.

“In 1802 he published a memoir upon the subject, with an engraving of his apparatus, and he recited the effects of his instrument, some of which, in the degree of heat produced, surpassed anything before known. In 1802 and 1803 I was occupied with him in Philadelphia in prosecuting similar experiments on a more extended scale, and a communication was made to the Philosophical Society of Philadelphia. The Memoir was printed in the ‘Transactions,’[2] and Mr. Hare’s original Memoir was reprinted in the ‘Annals of Chymistry’ of Paris, and in the ‘Philosophical Magazine’ of London. Mr. Murray, in his ‘System of Chemistry,’ has mentioned Mr. Hare’s results in the fusion of the several earths, &c., and has given him credit for his discovery.[3]

“In one instance, while in Europe in 1806, at a public lecture I saw some of them exhibited by a celebrated Professor who mentioned Mr. Hare as the reputed author of the invention.

“In December, 1811, I instituted a course of experiments with Mr. Hare’s Blowpipe, in which I melted lime and magnesia, and a long list of the most refractory minerals, gems, and others, the greater part of which had never been melted before; and I supposed that I had decomposed lime, barytes, strontites, and magnesia, evolving their metallic bases, which burn in the air as fast as produced. I communicated a detailed account of my experiments to the Connecticut Academy of Arts and Sciences, who published it in their ‘Transactions’ in 1812. With their leave it was communicated to Dr. Bruce’s ‘Mineralogical Journal,’ and was printed in the 4th number of that work. Hundreds of my pupils can testify that Mr. Hare’s splendid experiments, and many others performed by his Blowpipe, fed by oxygen and hydrogen gases, have been for years past annually exhibited in my public courses of Chymistry in Yale College, and that the fusion of the earths, of rock crystals, gun flint, of the corundum gems, and many other very refractory substances, and the production of light beyond the brightness of the sun, have been familiar experiments in my laboratory. I have uniformly given Mr. Hare the credit of his invention, although my researches with his instrument had been pushed further than his own, and a good many new results added.

“It is therefore with no small surprise that, in the ‘Annales de Chimie et de Physique’ for September, 1816, I found a translation of a very elaborate Memoir from a scientific journal published at the Royal Institution in London, in which a full account is given of a very interesting series of experiments performed by means of Mr. Hare’s instrument, or one on the same principle, but without any notice being taken of Mr. Hare’s invention, or experiments, or mine; and that the whole is exhibited as original. On a comparison of the Memoir in question with Mr. Hare’s and my own, I find that very many of the results are identical, and all the new ones are derived from Mr. Hare’s instrument with the following difference: In Mr. Hare’s the two gases were in distinct reservoirs, to prevent explosion. They were propelled by the pressure of a column of water, and were made to mingle just before the exit at a common orifice. In the English apparatus, the gases are both in one reservoir, and they are propelled by their own elasticity, after a condensation by a syringe. Professor Clarke, of Cambridge University, the celebrated traveller, is the author of the Memoir in question, and we must presume that he was ignorant of what had been done by Mr. Hare and myself, or he would candidly have adverted to the facts.

“Measures have been taken to set the matter right in Europe, but in the mean time whatever treatment the subject may receive there, it is proper that the American public should know that Mr. Hare was the inventor of the instrument with which in Europe they are now performing the most brilliant experiments, and that there are very few of the results hitherto obtained there by the use of it (and the publication of which has there excited great interest) which were not several years ago anticipated here, either by Mr. Hare or myself.”[4]

It appears that, in consequence of no recognition being made of Dr. Hare’s claims by Dr. Clarke, although a spirited protest was communicated to him, Dr. Hare entered into a full exposition of his discovery and a complete vindication of his rights before the scientific world, in “Silliman’s Journal,” vol. 2, 1820.

The injustice above referred to was not, however, universal in Europe. On the part of many gentlemen of high scientific character, the merit of the discovery was given to its rightful possessor. In 1813 the merit of the discovery was acknowledged by Dr. Hope, of Edinburgh, in the following language: “For the invention of this very ingenious machine we are indebted to Dr. Robert Hare, of Philadelphia, a gentleman whose merits claim a distinguished rank among the most successful promoters of Chemistry in the United States of America.”[5] When it is recollected that this was spoken at a time that a bitter war existed between Great Britain and this country, we cannot but admire the spirit of scientific candor manifested, elevated as it was above party feeling, or the causes of national animosity.

The account of this great discovery from the pen of Dr. Chapman may not be superfluous in this connection: “Means of producing a sufficient degree of temperature to melt some of the metals and other refractory substances had long been desired by artists, and hitherto had fruitlessly engaged the attention of chymists. At the suggestion of Mr. Hare, the Chymical Society selected this subject as worthy of examination, and he was appointed to manage the investigation of it. The result of his labors was a discovery which has emphatically been pronounced by a great chymist of Europe to be one of the most important of the eighteenth century.”[6]

From the foregoing exposition of the discoveries of Dr. Hare and Professor Silliman, made with the instrument of the former, we may judge of the originality of the “Drummond Light,” which is only an application of lime to the flame of the compound blowpipe, the intensity of the light under these circumstances being perfectly familiar to these distinguished chemists, and annually shown to their classes before any practical application was made of it.

On the death of Dr. Woodhouse in 1809, Dr. Hare presented himself as a candidate for the Chair of Chemistry, but was unsuccessful in his application. Soon after he was chosen “Professor of Natural Philosophy for the Medical Department but as that position gave no status in the Faculty, he soon accepted the appointment of Chemical Professor in William and Mary College, at Williamsburgh, Virginia, where he continued until his election to the University of Pennsylvania. In 1816 the honorary degree of Doctor of Medicine was conferred upon him by Harvard University.

As a lecturer Dr. Hare was remarkable for the scale of his experiments, which were uniformly successful, and impressed the mind by their grandeur. His apparatus was elaborate, and perfect so far as mechanical skill and ingenuity could accomplish its completion. In galvanism and electricity he invented instruments which far exceeded those familiar to the scientific world, and produced results before unknown. His Calorimotor, so named from the facility of generating an immense amount of heat, was described in “Silliman’s Journal” in 1820.[7]

Two years later he promulgated, through the medium of the “Philadelphia Journal of Medical and Physical Sciences,” a new theory of galvanism, accompanied by descriptions of some new modifications of galvanic apparatus. A modification of his apparatus was termed Dr. Hare’s Deflagrator.[8] With respect to it we quote the statement of Dr. Silliman: “It is not less a proof of the merits of Dr. Hare’s apparatus that Professor Faraday, in 1835, after having exhausted his ingenuity and experience in perfecting the voltaic battery, found that Dr. Hare had already, nearly twenty years before, accomplished all that he had attempted, and with a noble frankness, worthy of all praise, he at once adopted Dr. Hare’s instrument, as embodying the best results then possible.” Its power was sufficient to fuse platinum, with the production of a brilliant light.

He also contrived an improved Gasometer, a Eudiometer, a Litrometer, a Hydrostatic Blowpipe, an apparatus for freezing water by the use of sulphuric acid, a single leaf Electroscope, and numerous smaller improvements in chemical instruments. The description of his working apparatus, employed in his lectures, was given in his “Compendium,” a book which, originating in a mere outline or syllabus, was, at the time he left the University, enlarged to a bulky volume.

Dr. Hare was exceedingly fond of discussing the philosophical bearings of the branch of science which occupied the attention of his lifetime, and occasionally promulgated his views in a controversial way in the journals. He thought for himself, and was not unfrequently in disagreement with Berzelius and other prominent chemists of Europe of the time. One subject which much occupied his attention, and gave rise to discussion on his part, was the “Salt Radical Theory.” A number of his papers were contributed to the pages of the “American Journal of Pharmacy.” Some of these refer to the especial subjects to which that journal is devoted, and others were upon nomenclature and more general topics. Although Dr. Hare was not regularly bred to the medical profession, and belonged more especially to that class which may be termed philosophical chemists, yet his mind was directed by his associations to improvements in medicine and its several branches; hence it will be found that he endeavored by his experiments to promote the advance of medical science. The preparations of opium, the ethers, and other medicinal articles, were the subjects of investigation and of suggestions in their formation which were eminently useful. Pharmacy is indebted to him for the method of denarcotizing laudanum; and to Toxicology he gave the method of determining minute quantities of opium in solution. In the latter years of his life Meteorology occupied much of his attention.

The apparatus which Dr. Hare had collected, the greater part of which had been invented by himself, was given to the Smithsonian Institution, at Washington, when he resigned his professorship, and it is deeply to be regretted that the entire collection was destroyed by the fire which laid a portion of that noble structure in ruins.

Dr. Hare died on May 15, 1858, at the age of seventy-seven years. He was succeeded by Dr. James B. Rogers.

The session of 1847–48 was marked by an alteration in the lecture term. Until 1836, it had for a long period in the annals of the school been limited to four months; from that time it was gradually lengthened by the voluntary labors of a portion of the professors. The University is entitled to the credit of having taken the initiative step in this matter. At a meeting of the Faculty, December 31, 1835, it was “resolved that it was expedient to add another month to the Lectures of the Medical Department.” In 1836, at the commencement of the session, the proposition of the Faculty was acceded to by the class, and the lectures for a time were continued into March. At a subsequent date preliminary lectures were delivered in October. At the meeting of the National Medical Association in May, 1847, a strong and decided recommendation to lengthen the term of lectures in the schools was adopted by that body. To this the University heartily responded by an extension of the term to six months, and this was maintained for a number of years, when the modifications subsequently made were rendered necessary by the refusal of concurrence on the part of other leading schools. In 1853, the College term was fixed by commencing the course on the second Monday of October, and continuing it to the first of March. The recent introduction of a Supplementary Faculty supplies the defect, which was legislated upon by the Association, and extends the teaching period in the Medical Department to nearly eight months, without additional expense to the student. This provision for additional instruction will again be presented in its appropriate place.

In 1850, Dr. Chapman resigned the Chair of Practice, which he had so eminently filled during the long period of thirty-four years.

He was born in Fairfax County, Virginia, in 1778. His father was George Chapman, of English ancestry, while his mother’s descent was Scotch. He was educated at the Classical Academy of Alexandria, and commenced the study of medicine with Dr. Weems, of Georgetown, from whom he was transferred to Dr. Dick, of Alexandria, whose name has been handed down in connection with the last hours of Washington. In 1797 he came to Philadelphia to attend the lectures in the University, and entered the office of Dr. Rush.[9] He graduated in 1800; his thesis was upon Hydrophobia.

Upon the completion of his studies at the University Dr. Chapman went abroad, and in London attended the teachings, among others, of the celebrated surgeon, Mr. Abernethy. He afterwards spent some time in Edinburgh, and returning to the United States settled himself in Philadelphia, in 1804. Very soon after his return from Europe he gave a private course on Obstetrics, and his success in this line led to the association with Dr. James, which ultimately brought them under the wing of the medical school.

Having succeeded Dr. Barton in the Chair of Materia Medica, in 1813, Dr. Chapman was fortunate in maintaining the interest that had attached to that important branch; not by Natural History, or even strictly pharmacological expositions, but by luminous explanations of the scope and purposes of the Materia Medica—of its proper application to the cure of disease. In his prelections upon this subject he was especially happy, pointing out in detail the appropriate use of each particular article, and illustrating his remarks by sound appeals to his abundant experience; indeed, his instruction partook so much of a clinical nature, and placed so much valuable practical information at the command of the student, that it could not but fix the attention of the latter, if solicitous to prepare himself for the responsible duties of his profession. In this Chair he laid the foundation of that eminence he attained when called upon again to succeed Dr. Barton, and assume the responsibilities of the Chair of Practical Medicine. His “Elements of the Materia Medica,” published in 1817, contain the exemplification of his manner of communicating useful suggestions and practical directions for the employment of medicinal articles. With reference to this work we may appropriately quote the comment of one qualified to express an opinion. In the account of the contributions to this branch of medicine by American physicians, Dr. Wood uses the following language: “Hitherto we had done little more than add to the products of the European press our peculiar knowledge in relation to indigenous medicines. Dr. Chapman took a bolder flight, and by the publication of a systematic and original treatise, containing elaborate doctrine, interesting practical views, and highly important therapeutical facts of a general character, placed us at once upon a footing with English authorship in this department of medicine.”[10]

In 1816 Dr. Chapman received his appointment as Professor of the Theory and Practice of Medicine, of Institutes, and Clinical Medicine in the University. A part of the course of 1815-16 had devolved upon him. His first efforts to teach the Practice of Medicine were decidedly successful; to this, testimony is given by Dr. Coxe, in a letter to Dr. Norcum, of North Carolina, dated May 29, 1818, wherein he says, referring to Dr. Chapman: “His lectures now for three successive courses have been well received, and have each year been improved by his more immediate interest in their perfection.” With respect to the performance of the duties of this Chair as it reflected upon his position in the profession, we must agree with the language of one of his biographers, “that he filled it for more than the third of a century with distinguished success, and left it with a national reputation.”[11]

At the time of his accession to the Professorship, Dr. Chapman had not attained his thirty-seventh year, and had not been settled in Philadelphia as a practitioner more than twelve years. In allusion to the transfer to the “highest position of honor and trust then known to the medical profession,” Dr. Jackson remarks: “In undertaking the duties of this Chair, difficulties were to be encountered that do not beset it in ordinary circumstances. His abilities as a teacher, his knowledge and acquirements as a sound and practical physician, were now to be severely tested.”

“The first duty devolving on Dr. Chapman on assuming his new Chair was to settle the plan of his course. A large body of our physicians had been educated in the doctrines of Rush, and they were popular. The old fabric of methodic medicine had been razed to the ground by the assaults of Brown and Rush, while the views and doctrines they had attempted to establish Dr. Chapman had been compelled to abandon as unreal, from the results of his own experience and researches. Medicine, at that time, was at a halt. All the facts that could be known, by the then available means of research and investigation, were exhausted. Nothing new could be expected from them, and all the attempts to work them into a consistent theory had proved miserable abortions.”

“Dr. Chapman had no pretensions to be a reformer, that he could change the character of Medicine, or that, by the means at his command as a practising physician, he could elevate it from its position as a highly cultivated art, to a lofty science. At this time General Anatomy was unknown. Pathological Anatomy had revealed only the grosser alterations of the organs. Physiology shed no illuminating ray on Pathology and Practice. Pathology was almost entirely conjectural; Chemistry was incapable of solving the actions of living beings, and the attempts made were deceptions; while the microscope had not poured forth its revelations of minute and elementary structure. What could be done, under these circumstances, but to collect together the most perfect portions of the wreck of the methodical system, which, in reality, were the embodied experience and tested facts of centuries of practical observation, and to rearrange and reconstruct them into systematic order. By this plan he could, in the most effective manner, accomplish the main object of his Chair, the teaching of the best practical methods of treating and curing diseases, and of educating for society sound medical practitioners.”[12]

There were two prominent features in the medical teaching of Dr. Chapman, who was a thorough solidist and vitalist. The first was his advocacy of the doctrine of association between the organs and systems of the body in health and disease; the agency of their associated actions being due to “sympathy” or consent of parts. This doctrine will be found to be recognized in some form or other through the writings of the most celebrated physicians of all time; but the details of its expression were indefinite and vague, and it was not even admitted that the nervous system was necessary for the harmonious operations of the organs and tissues, for the performance of uniform functional acts; and hence sympathies were spoken of, for want of a more appropriate term, beyond the limits of those now admitted.

Cullen, in his speculations with respect to the agency of the nervous system, had recognized the controlling influence of it upon the operations of the several organs of the body, and was disposed to attribute the effects of medicines to the operation of sympathy. In the elaborate exposition of his doctrines by his biographer, Dr. Thomson, we are informed that he was aware of the consensual operation of organs through the medium of the nervous system. It was known that sensation and motor power belonged to the nerves, and through them the brain issued its mandates. It was supposed that the ganglionic system controlled the functions of organs, and presided over nutrition; but with all the exercise of ingenuity of Robert Whytt, of Unzer and of Prochaska, of John Hunter and Bichat, nothing had been accomplished towards the development of the true doctrine of sympathy, the determination of the specific functions of the individual nerves, and the agency which special portions of the brain and spinal system exert over them.

The advocacy of pure vitalism, and of the predominance of sympathetic association in the vital operations of the economy, with a dependence for their activity upon the nervous system, characterized the school of Montpellier, first in the teachings of Bordeu, and more particularly in the writings of Barthez. The latter author separated the sympathies into general and particular. To the general were referred associations which exist between the organs to maintain their functions (synergies), as well as mechanical and functional relations.[13] A particular sympathy, he conceived, is shown to exist between two organs “whenever an affection of one occasions sensibly and frequently a corresponding affection of the other, without its being possible to refer the succession of affections to casual coincidence, to the mechanical action of one organ upon another, or to the synergy or co-operation of several organs in the performance of some particular function, or in the production of some disturbance of the living body. Such sympathy ought not less to be recognized, although it cannot be submitted to constant and general laws; and we are unable to state in what way the modification of an organ primarily affected is necessary for the production of such sympathetic effect; why the sympathy of two organs is not always reciprocal; why the sympathetic effect is not perpetual, as it ought to be, if the causes of sympathy were mechanical; and why an organ is not affected directly by an irritant cause, in the same way that it is by sympathy from the impression made by this cause upon another organ.”[14]

At the commencement of the present century, when the preceding indefinite propositions were written, the functions of particular nerves and of the different portions of the nervous centres were unknown. The discovery of the motor and sensitive columns of the spinal marrow first lifted the veil which concealed the secret machinery of nervous action, and led to the only philosophical method of experimenting—the study of the nerves separately in their functional relations.

It is to be inferred that Dr. Chapman derived his ideas of sympathy from the writings of Cullen, and of the professors of the French school who have been mentioned, and he adhered to them to the termination of his career, during which revelation upon revelation was made in this line of research. By the investigations of Sir Charles Bell, Magendie, Flourens Müller, Hall, Bernard, Brown-Séquard, and others, sympathy from a mythical condition has assumed a tangible form for the enlightenment and guidance of practitioners of medicine and surgery. The error committed by Dr. Chapman was the rejection of the proof of an introduction into the circulation of medicinal or noxious substances, which has now become irrefragable, and constitutes, in great measure, the foundation of modern medicine.

The second peculiarity of Dr. Chapman’s teaching was the prominent part attributed to the stomach in connection with numerous diseases; indeed, the “fons et origo” of a large number of them. He, however, was not a maintainer of the opinion that gastric derangement was uniformly inflammatory; and in this he differed from Broussais, but he fully recognized the stomach as a ruling power in the maintenance of disease, and in directing the means for its removal.[15] In this particular he most probably, while in London, was seriously impressed by the opinions and practice of Abernethy, which are as worthy of commendation at the present time as they were when first urged upon the profession by that wise and skilful surgeon. Therapeutics were essentially Dr. Chapman’s forte, and in this line, from his ready and abundant resources, he was a master.

In 1820 Dr. Chapman became the proprietor and editor of the “Philadelphia Journal of the Medical and Physical Sciences.” In 1825 he was assisted in conducting it by Dr. Dewees and Dr. John D. Godman. This periodical, in 1827, became the “American Journal of the Medical Sciences,” and has been continued to the present time under the able editorship of Dr. Isaac Hays.

During his lifetime Dr. Chapman furnished some lectures to the “Medical Examiner,” and a few others were printed in book form.

The truth of the following character of Dr. Chapman, as a lecturer, in the eulogy of his colleague, Dr. Jackson, must be accepted by all who have listened to his public efforts: “He was self-possessed, deliberate, and emphatic. Whenever warmed with his subject, his animation became oratorical. Often the tedium of dry matter would be enlivened by some stroke of wit, or happy pun, an anecdote, or quotation.[16] He was furnished with stores of facts and cases, drawn from his own large experience and observation, illustrating principles, diseases, or treatment under discussion. His bearing was dignified, manners easy, and gestures graceful. He had a thorough command over the attention of his class, with whom he always possessed unbounded popularity. His voice had a peculiar intonation, depending upon some defect in the conformation of the palate, and rendered the articulation of some words an effort. The first time he was heard the ear experienced some difficulty in distinguishing his words. This was of short duration; for one accustomed to the tone, his enunciation was remarkable for its distinctness. Students would often take notes of his lectures nearly verbatim.”

Dr. Chapman died July 1st, 1853, and was buried on the 4th, the birth day of American Independence.

The resignation of the Professorship of Practice by Dr. Chapman, in 1850, was followed in May by the transfer to it of Dr. Wood. His election to the Chair of Materia Medica, in 1835, had been productive of new interest in that branch, in consequence of its being made, as it should be, a demonstrative one in each science pertaining to it.[17] In his hands the Chair of Practice became as eminently demonstrative; he richly endowed it with the materials for teaching, and into every department of this varied subject introduced appropriate illustrations in the form of drawings of pathological lesions of the organs, casts and models of disease, apparatus, and an extensive range of pathological preparations.

In June, 1850, the vacant Professorship of Materia Medica and Pharmacy was filled by the appointment of Dr. Joseph Carson.

  1. Letter from Professor Silliman to E. Bronson, Esq., New Haven, June 15, 1809.
  2. Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, vol. vi. p. 99.
  3. Dr. Hare repeated his experiments in the presence of Dr. Priestley (the discoverer of oxygen), and of Woodhouse, Silliman, and others.—Silliman’s Journal, July, 1858.
  4. Eclectic Repertory, vol. vi., July, 1819.
  5. A letter from Henry Brevoort, Esq., to John Hare Powell, Esq., dated New York, 1816. Mr. Brevoort was present at the lecture in which the above statement was made by Dr. Hope.
  6. Letter from Dr. Chapman to Joseph Hopkinson, Esq. Testimonials submitted to the Trustees of the University, in 1809, by Dr. Hare.
  7. Vol. 1, pp. 274.
  8. The voltaic pile of numerous pairs produces electrical and but little or no calorific effect. Large surfaces in one to four pairs produce great calorific and but little electrical effect.
  9. A Memoir of Nathaniel Chapman, M. D., by John Biddle, M. D. Lives of Eminent American Physicians and Surgeons. This Memoir contains fuller details of Dr. Chapman’s career than any that has been published. It is partly based upon an autograph account of himself by Dr. Chapman, furnished to his relative, Dr. Biddle.
  10. Introductory Lecture to the Course of Materia Medica, in the University of Pennsylvania, by George B. Wood, M. D., 1840.
  11. Life of Dr. Chapman, by Dr. Biddle, sup. cit.
  12. A Discourse commemorative of Nathaniel Chapman, M. D., &c., delivered before the Trustees, Medical Faculty, and Students of the University of Pennsylvania, by Samuel Jackson, M. D., Professor of the Institutes of Medicine, Oct. 13, 1854.
  13. Nouveaux Elémens de la Science de l’Homme. Paris, 1806. Seconde édition, tom. ii. p. 2.
  14. Op. citat., vol. ii. p. 3.
  15. The gastric origin of fever was especially insisted on by Dr. Chapman, the fever itself being sympathetic. This doctrine is an old one. In the work of Dr. Currie reference is made to Henry Screta, who early in the eighteenth century revived the opinion of Diodes, attributing all fevers to inflammation of the viscera. In 1789 it was taught by Dr. Francis Riollay, in his “Critical Introduction to the Study of Fevers.” Dr. Edward Miller, who in 1807 was elected the Professor of Practice in the University of New York, embraced the doctrine of the sympathetic nature of febrile disease. It forms a prominent peculiarity of his works, which were published in 1814, and has been referred to by Broussais with commendation. See Medical Works of Edward Miller, M. D., and North American Medical and Surgical Journal, vol. v. p. 128.
  16. The readiness of Dr. Chapman in repartee may be illustrated by the following, in connection with the election of a colleague: When Dr. Dorsey was chosen to succeed Dr. Wistar, he was much gratified and elated at the prospect presented him of distinction in the Chair of Anatomy. Expressing himself enthusiastically with reference to his hope of acquiring reputation in that branch, Dr. Chapman remarked that this had already been accomplished, as a muscle had been named after him, the “Latissimus Dorsi.”
  17. In addition to the creation of an admirable cabinet of drawings and specimens illustrative of the Materia Medica, Dr. Wood erected a spacious greenhouse, in connection with a garden, for the preservation and collection of medicinal plants. The lectures were thus rendered more interesting from the exhibition of living plants.

    The works of Dr. Wood are, the “United States Dispensatory,” in conjunction with Dr. Franklin Bache; “A Treatise on the Practice of Medicine;” “A Treatise on Therapeutics and Pharmacology,” and a volume of Essays.