The Hunterian Oration: The Commemoration of Great Men
Authors: W. Trotter
Journal: BMJ (1932)

I Events that recur with a regular period are apt to be taken as a matter of course, to have their significance regarded as obvious and to seem in no need of justifica tion. To resist this tendency to confuse the familiar with the self-evident is one of the most necessary efforts the mind is called upon to make. The institution whose recurrent activity we take part in to-day was set up 119 years ago and marks a birthday since which 204 years have passed. For more than a century orations have been delivered on the life and work of Hunter and they have explored their theme from every aspect and adorned it with every art. The high qualities of these orations make it im possible for a new contributor without special aptitude to hope for any freshness in the presentation of a topic already so well discussed by better men. On the other hand the imposing length of the series may perhaps have a little obscured our apprehension of the more elementary meanings that underlie these regularly returning occasions. Under the pressure of these converging indications it will be my relatively humble task to seek answers to such questions as the first giver of this oration might be supposed in his preliminary musings to have put to himself. What are the reasons, we shall want to know, why John Hunter should be regarded as a fit subject for enduring celebration, and what do we wish and what do we attain in the many activities by which in general we pursue or suppose ourselves to pursue the commemora tion of great men. II To question established beliefs is nowadays perhaps a rather old-fashioned activity. We may be sure, neverthe less, that it is one of which Hunter would thoroughly have approved even if his own greatness was to be in question. In that case, however, if we are to judge by his known methods in controversy, the discussion would go all the smoother if we hinted beforehand what the verdict was to be. For of the verdict there can be no doubt, and it will find that the makers of this recurring celebration not only chose an exceptionally sound founda tion but built perhaps a great deal better than they knew. Hunter was a successful surgeon with a large practice and a correspondingly ample income. It must not be suggested here that that is anything but highly respectable attainment. It is not, however, attainment that, under any magnification or however many ciphers may. be subtracted from the mortality of his patients and added to his income, reveals in its creator the heroic features we are seeking. Hunter made the museum which for over a century has been the very focus and palladium of this College. In this work we find the giant energy and resolution of true greatness directed * by a correspondingly clear and ample idea. It was no mere miscellaneous assemblage of odds and ends as the collections of his contemporaries tended perhaps a little to be, but a grouping of orderly series nobly illustrating the living world and the processes of disease. It is scarcely possible for the richness and order of this historic monument to be spoken of too highly, but it may be doubted whether in themselves they could have given to their creator his unique and enduring prestige. * Delivered before the Royal College of Surgeons of England, February 15th, 1932. Hunter was a consistent and expert user of the experi mental method in the study of living processes, and it is on this fact that his fame essentially and ultimately rests. It was by impressing this method on his pupils and successors that his services to science and to surgery have had their most extended and their richest effects. These experimental studies covered a very wide field and dealt with fundamental problems such as the process of repair, the survival of isolated tissues, transplantation, grafting, inflammation, the processes of growth, and the influence on them of the sexual glands. Such researches were pursued with a characteristic zeal and ability, and yielded results of importance in many directions. It is impossible, however, not to be struck by a certain dis proportion between the amount of energy and genius that was expended and the harvest of substantial knowledge that was gathered. Many of the researches were indecisive, not a few of the conclusions were incorrect, and no single advance was won which could be said to mark an epoch in the history of knowledge. Every student of Hunter is convinced that he belonged to the very small class of those who possess powers of the first order ; few can be equally convinced that he made a direct contribution to the science of his day fully commensurate with his splendid gifts. It is therefore particularly happy that his commemoration should have been formally assured and entrusted to an enduring institution. Other experi mental workers in the science of life, more fortunate but perhaps not more richly endowed, have by their labours so contributed to the very structure and substance of knowledge as to be sure of remembrance without any specific memorial. Of Harvey, of Pasteur, of Lister every student of physiology or pathology is in some sense the beneficiary and direct legatee. The influence of Hunter was more limited to the indirect and germinal ; he did not make an epoch, he founded a school.