Page 95 - My FlipBook

HISTOKY OF DENTAL SURGERY 65

barbers after tbeir divorce is not so clear; some of tliem, no doubt, continued
to extract teetli, to clean theiii and occasionally to replace a lost tootli.
Their calling being especially devoted to the beautifying of their fellow
men, what could be more natural for them than to continue rendering sucli
Fervices as are conducive to the preservation of the teeth? But, as has been
shown in all history, the progressive minds and leaders in development of
dental srience and art, witl^ only rare exceptions, were men who had broad-
ened their knowledge in the study of the underlying sciences.

JOHN HUNTER.
The great development in dental art and science in England undoubtedly
had its origin with John Hunter, who was born in Scotland, in 1728, and
became a student of his brother. Dr. William Hunter, who had at that time
a very distinguished reputation as an anatomist. Jolm Hunter's early pre-
dilections toward mechanics, and his manual dexterity, had led his parents
to place him with a cabinet maker in Glasgow to learn that trade, l)ut owing
to the failure of his master he was obliged to return home. Having taken
pride and satisfaction in his brother's distinguished career, he apjilied to
him to become an assistant, and, accordingly, went to Ijondon and joined
his brother, who immediately put him to work on a dissection of tlie arm.
It is said that John Hunter became the best practical anatomist of the age
while continuing in attendance uj)on his brother's labors and being a pupil
of St. Bartholomew's and St. George's hospitals. He was also admitted to
Chelsea hospital to the lectures of t'heselden.
Dr. Hunter had a superb anatomical collection and an extensive library.
To him students came from all countries and scientific men sought his ac-
quaintance. Tliis afforded Jolm Hunter great advantages in the knowledge
of the most advanced physiology and pathology, and revealed to his mind
the direction in which original research was most desirable. It is said he
never became very fluent in his delivery, or clear in his expression as a lec-
turer, and that lecturing was a painful task to liim. In his lectures he usually
stated that it was his purpose to give only the results of his own operations
and experience, because the opinions of others might be found in their
works, and that he hoped to give such useful observations as to put the art
in many respects in a new point of view. Many ideas he advanced and the
arrangement of his subjects were new, and consequentlv his terms became
in part new. He impressed it upon the students that a knowledge of the