USA > Pennsylvania > A history of the Medical department of the University of Pennsylvania, from its foundation in 1765 > Part 15
Note: The text from this book was generated using artificial intelligence so there may be some errors. The full pages can be found on Archive.org (link on the Part 1 page).
Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 | Part 5 | Part 6 | Part 7 | Part 8 | Part 9 | Part 10 | Part 11 | Part 12 | Part 13 | Part 14 | Part 15 | Part 16 | Part 17 | Part 18 | Part 19
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 sub- sequent date preliminary lectures were delivered in October. At the meeting of the National Medical Association in May,
172
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF
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 com- mencing 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 appro- priate 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 medi- cine 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.1 He gradu- ated 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
1 A Memoir of Nathaniel Chapman, M. D., by John Biddle, M. D. Lives of Eminent American Physicians and Surgeons. This Memoir con- tains fuller details of Dr. Chapman's career than any that has been pub- lished. It is partly based upon an autograph account of himself by Dr. Chapman, furnished to his relative, Dr. Biddle.
1
173
THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.
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 His- tory, or even strictly pharmacological expositions, but by lumi- nous 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 ex- perience; 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 communi- cating useful suggestions and practical directions for the employ- ment 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 rela- tion 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.771
In 1816 Dr. Chapman received his appointment as Professor of the Theory and Practice of Medicine, of Institutes, and Clini-
1 Introductory Lecture to the Course of Materia Medica, in the Univer- sity of Pennsylvania, by George B. Wood, M. D., 1840.
174
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF
cal 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. Chap- man: " 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."1
At the time of his accession to the Professorship, Dr. Chap- man 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 ordi- nary 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 inves- tigation, 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
1 Life of Dr. Chapman, by Dr. Biddle, sup. cit.
1
175
THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.
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 . cir- cumstances, 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 sys- tematic 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."1
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 be- tween the organs and systems of the body in health and dis- ease; the agency of their associated actions being due to "sym- pathy" 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 harmo- nious 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
1 A Discourse commemorative of Nathaniel Chapman, M. D., &c., de- livered before the Trustees, Medical Faculty, and Students of the Uni- versity of Pennsylvania, by Samuel Jackson, M. D., Professor of the Institutes of Medicine, Oct. 13, 1854.
1
176
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF
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 gan- glionic 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.1 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 possi- ble 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 disturb- ance 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
1 Nouveaux Elémens de la Science de l'Homme. Paris, 1806. Seconde . édition, tom. ii. p. 2.
177
THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.
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."1
At the commencement of the present century, when the pre- ceding 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 sen- sitive 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 enlight- enment 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 num- ber 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.2 In this particular he
1 Op. citat., vol. ii. p. 3.
2 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 Diocles, attributing all fevers to. 12
178
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF
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 "Ameri- can 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.1 He was fur- nished 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, man-
inflammation of the viscera. In 1789 it was taught by Dr. Francis Riollay, in his "Critical Introduction to the Study of Fevers." Dr. Edward Mil- ler, 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 pub- lished in 1814, and has been referred to by Broussais with commendation. See Medical Works of Edward Miller, M.D., and North American Medi- cal and Surgical Journal, vol. v. p. 128.
1 The readiness of Dr. Chapman in repartee may be illustrated by the following, in connection with the election of a colleague : When Dr. Dor- sey was chosen to succeed Dr. Wistar, he was much gratified and elated at the prospect presented him of distinction in the Chair of Anatomy. Ex- pressing 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 " Latissi- mus Dorsi."
179
THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.
ners 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. Chap- man, 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 conse- quence of its being made, as it should be, a demonstrative one in each science pertaining to it.1 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 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 collec- tion of medicinal plants. The lectures were thus rendered more interest- ing from the exhibition of living plants.
The works of Dr. Wood are, the "United States Dispensatory," in con- junction with Dr. Franklin Bache; "A Treatise on the Practice of Medi- cine ;" "A Treatise on Therapeutics and Pharmacology," and a volume of Essays.
180
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF
CHAPTER XV.
Death of Dr. James B. Rogers-Sketch of his life-Election of Dr. Robert E. Rogers to the Chair of Chemistry-Death of Dr. Horner-Sketch of his life-Election of Dr. Leidy to the Chair of Anatomy-Resignation of Dr. Gibson-Sketch of his Life-Election of Dr. Henry H. Smith to the Professorship of Surgery-Resignation of Dr. Wood-Election of Dr. Pepper to the Chair of Practice-Resignation of Dr. Jackson and of Dr. Hodge-Election of Dr. F. G. Smith to the Chair of Institutes, and of Dr. Penrose to that of Obstetrics-Resignation of Dr. Pepper and his decease-Sketch of his life-Election of Dr. A. Stillé to Chair of Practice-Supplementary Course of Lectures.
DURING the summer of 1852 the University sustained the loss by death of Dr. Rogers.
James B. Rogers was born in 1803, in the city of Philadel- phia; but as his father, Dr. Patrick Kerr Rogers, had been appointed to succeed Dr. Hare as Professor of Chemistry and Natural Philosophy in William and Mary College, Virginia, he received his collegiate education in that institution. He studied medicine in Baltimore, and graduated, in 1822, at the University of Maryland, at the time the reputation of that school was sustained by the names of Potter, Davidge, Baker, and De Butts. He wrote a thesis upon Epilepsy.
After graduation, Dr. Rogers commenced the practice of medicine in Harford County, Maryland, but he soon abandoned the occupation of a country practitioner, and became the super- intendent of the chemical works of Messrs. Tyson & Ellicott, in Baltimore. While engaged in this business he accepted the Chair of Chemistry in the Washington Medical College, of that city, and at the same time lectured in the Mechanics' Institute. In 1835 he accepted the position of Professor of Chemistry in the Medical Department of the Cincinnati College, where he was associated with Drs. Drake, Gross, Parker, Cobb, and Har- rison. During the four years of labor in that field, he devoted the summer season to the assistance of his brother, Professor
181
THE UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA.
William B. Rogers, in the geological survey of the State of Virginia. He had at this time the honor of being appointed by the Government melter and refiner of the Mint at New Or- leans, a post which he, however, declined.
In 1840 Dr. Rogers settled himself in his native city, and was engaged with his brother, Henry D. Rogers, upon the geological survey of the State of Pennsylvania. The following year he succeeded Professor John K. Mitchell in the Medical Institute of Philadelphia. This institution was a summer school for teach- ing the branches of medicine, and having been founded by Dr. Chapman was closely associated with the University. When Dr. Hare resigned the Professorship of Chemistry, Dr. Rogers became an applicant for this important position. The canvass was a spirited one; the candidates were numerous and promi- nent; Rogers had secured to himself the earnest wishes in his behalf and the partialities of the profession of Philadelphia, who best knew the qualifications desirable for a medical teacher, and he became the successor of the same individual to whom his father had succeeded twenty-eight years previ- ously, at William and Mary College. From this sole incident how gratifying a result!
Dr. Rogers was a popular teacher; the full store-house of his mind was drawn upon to instruct his pupils, and no pains or labor did he spare to make easy to their comprehension the important truths he taught. In one portion of his course he was especially interesting; this was organic chemistry. Of late years it has become a prominent department of medical science, and, from the success with which it has been culti- vated, will become ultimately so interwoven with medicine as to require a large share of attention from medical stu- dents. Physiology and pathology are not the only branches to which organic chemistry is essential; therapeutics is gra- dually becoming amenable to its disclosures. The develop- ment of the mode of action of medicines to which organic chemistry has led has dissipated much uncertainty, and ex- plained many phenomena which, although seen, were not un- derstood. By demonstrating the importance of researches upon the subject, and creating an interest in them, Dr. Rogers be- stowed important service, and it was apparent that, in its
-
182
MEDICAL DEPARTMENT OF
reaction upon other branches, his mode of teaching materially aided the exertions of his associates. His career was of short duration; after his fourth course of lectures it was closed, with the regrets of all who had been connected with him.1
He was succeeded by his brother, Dr. Robert E. Rogers, August, 1852.
By the decease of Dr. Horner, in the spring of 1853, the Chair of Anatomy became vacant.
Dr. William Edmonds Horner was a native of Virginia, and was educated first at the academy of Mr. Charles O'Neill, at Warrenton, and afterwards at Dumfries. Upon the comple- tion of his academic studies, in 1809, he commenced to study medicine under the direction of Dr. John Spence, a Scotch physician, educated at Edinburgh. He continued the pupil of Dr. Spence until 1812, and during this period attended two sessions of the University of Pennsylvania. Anatomy was the branch that more particularly interested him, and for which he manifested the most decided partiality.
Need help finding more records? Try our genealogical records directory which has more than 1 million sources to help you more easily locate the available records.