TO
                   A  PAMPHLET


                         ENTITLED



"Strictures on Mr. Pattison's Teo\y  to cex
      tain  Oral and  Written Cxiticisma,

                       BY W. GIBSON," M. D.

        Professor of Surgery in the University of Pennsylvania.
      BY GRANVILLE SHARP PATTISON, ESQ.


FELLOW OF THE UOYAL COLLEGE OF SURGEONS, AND MEMBER OF THE MEDICO-CHIRUB-
                     OICAL SOCIETY OF LONDON.

Member of the Wernerian Society of Natural History of Edinburgh. Corresponding Member of the
 Societe Philomatique and Societe Medicale d'Emulation of Paris. Member of the Faculty of Phy-
 sicians and Surgeons, and late Professor of Anatomy, Pyhsiology, and Surgery, in the Andersonian
 University, Glasgow, and

       Present Professor of Surg-ery in the University of Maryland.
1
 )
>V\ SECOND EDITION.
Baltimore;
PRINTED BY  RICHARD J. MATCHETT. 
I 
AN   ANSWER,  &c.
   "Yet all this availeth me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at
the king's gate."    -      •      ...   Estherj chapter v. ver. xiii.
     IN  the  characters sketched in the holy volume, there is an ex-
pression of truth and justness which most satisfactorily demonstrates,
that it is the composition of that omniscient Being who knoweth all
things, and to whom the secrets of all men's hearts are open.   Whe-
ther it exposes the nobler failings of humanity, or, as in the passage
from which our motto is taken, lays open to us the inward workings
of jealousy, envy, malice, and the meaner feelings of our nature, still
there is the same truth in the description, the same vigour in the con-
ception, and the  same reality in the colouring.
  We are told that Haman,  the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite,
was honoured by the king; who set his seat above all the princes that
were near unto him; and that all the king's servants bowed to him,
with the exception of Mordecai the Jew.  We are further assured,
that his riches were immense and his children many, and that, al-
though he had neither talents nor merit to entitle  him to  such gifts,
there was given to him all  that the eye could lust after, and  all that
the  heart could  desire; yet, because one man lived who  would not
humble himself before him, in the bitterness of his spirit he exclaim-
ed, " All this availeth me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew
sitting at the king's gate."
  The lesson taught in this passage is easily read: it teaches us, that
although an undeserving character may, from accidental causes, ob-
tain unmerited distinctions, that still these honours avail him nothing,
for a sense of his own unvvorthiness torments him, and makes him
look with envy and jealousy on his coteinporaries.
  It is not my intention in "answering Dr. Gibson's pamphlet, enti-
tled " Strictures'" &c. &c. to  enter into a full and  elaborate defence
ot my opinions, as they relate to the operation of lithotomy.*  Al-
though he has endeavoured to give  to his essay a learned  dress, its
masquerade  garb is so ill made, and so inartificially arranged, that
every member of the profession, can at once discover that there  is
nothing of science in its pages;—That it breathes only the vindictive
spirit which dictated the disgraceful letters of Aristides;—The same
weakness which  gave birth to the silly criticism signed W.   Had
the question therefore, rested only with the profession, I should ne-
ver have taken the trouble to answer Dr. Gibson's Strictures; but, as
these have been most widely , and sedulously circulated for the pur-
  * I am preparing for the press a volume on the subject of lithotomy, in which
I shall enter into a full detail of the surgical question. 
4
 pose of attacking my reputation, and,  through me, of injuring the
 universiry with which  I have the honour to be connected, I feel try-
 self bound  to expose the falsehood of the  charges which ha\e been
 brought against me.  It is very true that the very unhandsome, and
 unprofessional conduct of the person advancing these, remove in a
 great  measure,  all credence and force from his statements;—If  is
 evident that they are made, not from a love of truth and science,
 but from a malignant and unworthy  feeling of jealousy.  The author
 has not heretofore with openness and boldness, attempted to injure
 me;  but by the constant whispering ot malicious statements, which
 he himself knew to be without foundation, and by  newspaper anony-
 mous scribbling, he has, ever since my settlement in this country,
 endeavoured to  rob me of that which, to every man of sensibility,
 is the dearest and most cherished of his possessions;—character.—
 It is only now, when dragged from his concealment, and forced before
 the public, that he has had the manliness to affix his name to any  of
 his scurrilous attacks.  I feel too much confidence in the rectitude
 of my moral, and the justness of my  professional principles, to dread
 the puny efforts  made to hurt me by my  antagonist, but 1 remember
 (he observations of my  lord Holingbroke, that" If calumny is laid on
 boldly, even by  the most  worthless  minion of society, there is a
 risque that some of it will adhere,'* and therefore although I feel the
 most  heartfelt contempt  for the author  of the strictures, I  refute
 them.
  The accusations adduced by Dr. Gibson may all be classed under
 the following heads:
  1st.  That I have been the aggressor.
  2nd.  That 1 have been guilty of a literary piracy.
  3d. That  I have made incorrect statements.
  4th. That 1 have no  professional reputation.
  In my answer, I shall, for the sake of perspicuity, take up the con-
 sideration of each of these divisions, separately, and 1 trust I shall
 not only be  able clearly to prove that these charges are entirely un-
 founded as they relate  to myself,  but, on the contrary, that  my ac-
 cuser has himself been guilty of the very  crimes lie has  had the hard-
 ihood to impute to me.
  In following  the arrangement  I  have adopted, I am in the first
 place  led  to the refutation of the charge,  that I have been  the ag-
 gressor.  After reaoing Dr. Gibson's pamphlet with great attention,
 I have been  unable to discover one argument brought forward bv its
 author, which tends in  the slightest degree,  to substantiate this ac-
 cusation, with which he commences,  lie "hopes, by incontroverti-
ble evidence, to prove every thing he asserts against me," yet nei-
ther direct nor circumstantial proof is adduced by him in support of
this very heavy charge. The only facts, indeed, which have the most
distant bearing upon it, are:  1st.  The pitiful complaint made  by him,
that " 1 attended his  lecture without invitation, and that 1 posted on
the walls of his university, an address to  his pupils, requesting them
at a stated  period to listen to a  refutation  of what he advanced "'
2d. That I had puffed inyself.  The  first complaint thought forward 
5
by the author of the Strictures is sufficient to shew that these were
written, not for the profession,  but for the general public.   At the
time he wrote it, he must have felt conscious that his brethren, aware,
that the medical classes in the university of Pennsylvania are open
for the admission  of  every regular  bred physician, would treat it
with contempt.  Yet in despite of this knowledge he published it. in
the vain hope,  that the public would consider me guilty of ungen-
tlemanlike conduct in attending his lecture and addi essing his pupils.
The facts are as follow: for a week or ten days before this lecture uas
delivered,  a report was most sedulously circulated amongst the stu-
dents, that the professor of surgery was to deliver on a certain day,
a discourse,  which  was not only to overturn my practical doctrines,
as relating to lithotomy, but,  which was also to prove that I had no
pretentions to professional eminence.   It was certainly very natural
that I should feel anxious to learn the arguments by which the pro-
fessor proposed  to establish his proof, and that,  having ascertained
their extent, I should be desirous to refute them.  I had received at
the commencement of the  session, from Dr. Gibson, a general invi-
tation to attend  his lectures.  The one alluded to, was delivered for
the purpose of  overturning opinions advanced by me, in an open,
public,  and  professional manner.  I conceived that a love of truth
could alone have induced the professor to question the correctness of
my doctrines, and judging of him, as  I would judge of a man of hon-
our, I thought that, in  attending his lecture, I conferred on him a fa-
vour; that truth being his object, he would be desirous to allow me
an opportunity of defending my opinions.   Under these impressions,
I attended the class, in company with Dr. Eberle.  His lecture was
a very weak and ungenerous attack upon my reputation.  It  is true
that my name was not mentioned, but it was quite evident to all the
students that the single object of it was to convince them that I had
been guilty of most disingenuous conduct in relation to Mr. Colles,
and, of great ignorance as to the principles and practice of my pro-
fession.  Although the arguments advanced by the professor were so
puerile and contradictory,  as to carry along with them their own re-
futation, still, in justice to my public character, I felt it my duty to
answer to my students, who formed a part of his class, the charges
which had been made insidiously against me.  In the course of the
same day I  had therefore posted  up in the gate of the university, a
M!S. bill, which  simply stated, that I  would the following evening,
deliver a lecture on the anatomy of the prostate fascia, to which the
medical students,  and profession generally were invited.
   As the doctor appears offended at my having  attended his lec-
ture  without a more  particular invitation,  I, without hesitation,
apologise to him for doing so.  This lecture had been so long and
so well published, that I had my professional curiosity excited, and
really could  not  exercise  that  self-denial which he showed  when
under a similar excitement.  If he thinks I acted unmannerly in
coming into a public  class room without a card of invitation, he
must allow  that I took care to avoid placing him under the painful
necessity of either  being  guilty  of a  similar  unpoliteness,  or  of 
6
having a laudable curiosity remain ungratified.  T sent him a  very
civil card, inviting him to attend my lecture, delivered with the view
of refuting the opinions  he  had advanced.  He, however, did not
think fit to avail himself of it.
  My discourse was not delivered as an attack on Dr. Gibson, but
as a defence  of my own opinions :   1 did not  speak of him  dis-
respectfully,  but merely endeavoured to convince my auditors, that
nothing he had said, could  have the effect of taking from me the
claims I had  made, or of disproving the justness of my practical
doctrines.  Had 1  felt desirous to crush my invidious enemy, the
field  was  open for  me: I  might have exposed his  malevolence,  by
laying open and enlarging on the object which  had dictated his lec-
ture.—I might have demonstrated the weakness  of his mind, and
his want  of  originality, by  reading  from authors whole pages he
had got by rote, but he was  a professor, and  I felt pity for him.
  Having thus disposed  of  his first  complaint,  and proved that it
is groundless, I am next led  to the refutation of his second;—that
I puffed myself, and wished  to introduce into the American news-
papers a system of  puffing.
  I am aware that it is necessary to be a little hypothetical,  in or-
der to construe this complaint,  into an aggression  against Dr. Gib-
son.  But, allowing latitude to my argument, I may suppose, that
the offended  individual might conceive that it would be an offence
against him  in two ways ;  first, that it might  have the effect of
pushing  me  forward in  practice, to  his detriment;  and secondly,
that the indelicacy  of it hurt his feelings.
   Every person who has read the "Strictures" where this puff is so
loudly and repeatedly complained of, must have been led to suppose,
that it was one of a very offensive nature.   The best method of con-
tradicting this is, to publish  it.
                  From the Norfolk Beacon.

      THE AMERICAN MEDICAL RECORDER,
              Publislied in Philadelphia, by James Webster.

  Periodical Journals, when properly conducted, are, of all publica-
tions, the most interesting to those who live remote from tho sources
of science and information.
  Through such publications the streams of knowledge and improve-
ment flow in innumerable channels, and may  be  brought to every
door, without either much trouble or expense.
  I am led to these reflections by having just read the last number of
the above  named interesting medical journal,  which, judging from
this specimen, I regard as highly creditable to the editor, and very
worthy  of an  extensive patronage.   This number contains several
papers, possessing a very high degree of interest.  The initial article,
written  by Mr. G. S. Pattison, surgeon,  is without doubt the most 
7
important paper on the subject of lithotomy,  that has appeared in
any country, for a considerable time past.  There is another paper,
by a Dr. M'Clellan entitled to considerable praise.   It relates to the
"surgical anatomy of the arteries."  It  brings forward  some new
ideas relative to the anatomy of the pleura, and discovers generally
an acute and discriminative mind.   There are several well written
reviews in the number, and the general selections and management
of the work appears judicious.
   I have made these  remarks, influenced by  no other motives than
the desire of directing the attention of physicians to the work, which
I verily believe, to be fully entitled to their patronage.
                                                    MED1CU8.
  It is obvious to every person, who reads this letter, that its single
object and intention, is to puff the Medical Recorder, not Mr.  Pat-
tison.  I am  introduced  only incidentally  with my  friend  Dr.
M'Clellan, and the editor, who are equally puffed with myself.   I
may state, that at the  time this letter was published I had no  inte-
rest in, nor the most distant idea  of ever being  connected with, the
American Medical Recorder.
  It will be unnecessary for me, I conceive, to  employ any argu-
ments to show that there was nothing very offensive in the commu-
nication published in the Norfolk Beacon; but, allowing that it had
been  composed in a very different spirit, and had blazoned forth in
the most empirical style my merits, Dr. Gibson was not entitled to
urge  its appearance against me, as I shall, by the  publication of the
following letter, prove  that he had the most positive, and satisfactory
evidence, that I knew  nothing of it until after its appearance in the
newspaper, and that I  had then,  in the strongest terms, expressed
my disapprobation of all such publications.
                                  Philadelphia, Sept. 15, 1820.

  "Dear Sir—I observe, that Dr. Gibson in his Strictures, #c.
still persists, very disingenuously, to accuse you  of having written
the Norfolk puff.   He says, "I can only say I verily believed him to
be the author, and I have as yet no good reason to change my opinion
on the subject."   More than six months  ago, I assured Dr. Gib-
son, upon my honour, that you had nothing to do, eitheir directly or
indirectly, with the publication of that offensive article, and declar-
ed to him, that I could speak positively upon the subject, as I had a
perfect knowledge of the source from  which the puff emanated.   I
subsequently frequently repeated to  him  these assurances,  under
pledges, such as a man of honour deems  sufficient to give or to  re-
ceive upon any occasion.  The last time I thus solemnly assured the
Doctor of your innocence, of the unhandsome charge he has been
constantly urging against you, was in  the presence of Dr. Chapman. 
s
In addition to all this, Mr. Webster offered Dr. Gibson to make oath
before a magistrate, that you had  nothing to do, either directly or
indirectly, with the puffin question.   This surely was enough to re-
strain, any liberal minded man from repeating this gross and unjust
accusation; but,  however insulting it  be to the feelings of an hon-
ourable man, to have his most solemn pledges thus lightly estimated,
I refrain  from making any further remarks on the flagrant injustice
which is done you, and the insult offered me, in the present instance.
  As to Dr. Gibson's assertion, that your conduct has been empiri-
cal in the extreme, and that the profession in general in Philadelphia,
can bear  testimony to this, I can only  say, that, from what I know
of the sentiments of my professional  brethren in  this city, I have
every reason to believe, so far from considering you as  having acted
empirically, since you have come amongst us, they approve of your
conduct, as highly honourable, and strictly professional.
                           I am your friend, &c.
                                          JOHN EBERLE."
   To Granville Sharp Pattison,\Esq.
  That  puffs concerning  the  operations of American surgeons are
occasionally published in the newspapers, is a fact well known.
  If the Baltimore papers, for a few  years back, be  looked over,
it will be observed that some of the operations, of the same Dr. Gib-
son,  who felt so terrified that I should introduce a "puffing sys-
tem" into this country, are extolled in terms of the most absurd hy-
perbole: and further, if he only takes the trouble  to look into Mr.
M'Corkle's paper of May 31,  1820, and the other city  newspapers
of the same date, he will find  that there are published on his friend,
who stands as the first surgeon in the country, and  who  is not to be
benefited by any praises of mine, the following remarks, for the per-
formance of one of the most simple and trifling operations in surgery*
        From the Freeman's Journal of May 31st, 1820.

  " Restoration of eye sight.—We are gratified in being ena-
bled to communicate to the public a remarkable cure which has been
effected upon  the  eyes of Mr. Robert Lauier, a  gentleman well
known in this vicinity.
  Mr. L. for a number of years had laboured under the almost total
deprivation of the sight of his right eye, the left being entirely des-
troyed for about nineteen years past.   The most skilful surgeons had
been consulted, but no relief could be administered till within a few
weeks past, when he went to Philadelphia,  and applied to Dr. P.  S.
Physick, who, in four seconds, removed  the cateract, and restored
the defective eye almost to its original state of perfection; and this
too, without the least pain or inconvenience.   Mr.  L.  returned
home on Friday last,  and requested us to make public the cure that 
9
has been effected by Dr. P. not only as an act of justice towards that
eminent physician, but for the benefit of such of his fellow-citizens as
may labour under a distressing visitation of a loss of eyesight."

  It is not my wish that it should be thought Drs. Physick or Gib-
son were the authors of the pufts, which have repeatedly appeared
concerning their operations; I  am  satisfied that  the former gentle-
man, would not give his consent to the publication of those, which
related to him, and had  the latter individual not affirmed in his
" Strictures,"  that  such could  not appear  without the authority of
the person puffed ;  " and, that there are ways in which such an affair
can  be  managed, so as to remove the odium of it  from his own
shoulders ;"  I  should never for a moment have entertained the idea
that even he,  would have assisted in composing those which have
appeared regarding himself, in the Baltimore papers.
   I  feel satisfied from the  few observations I have  made, that my
readers give me an unanimous verdict, " not guilty," on the first
charge; and come  now,  with equal confidence, to requite of them
a verdict, of " Guilty," against  the author of the  " Strictures."
   For the purpose of obtaining this verdict, I shall  not  go beyond
the present controversy.  I might,  were I desirous, prove that from
the hour I began to lecture, Dr. Gibson, by the circulation of childish
and malicious  whispers, has done  every thing, in his power,  to in-
jure my character.   I have, however, no occasion to bring forward,
these, in support of my case.  From  the history of this controversy
I can obtain much  more evidence than is sufficient to convict him.
   I do not suppose that Dc. Gibson himself will have the hardihood
to deny, that  his lecture was a concealed, and, on his part, a most
indelicate attack upon my reputation ; granting, for  a moment, that
my  opinions were indefensible,  a*id  that I had been guilty  of a
literary piracy, from the peculiar relation  which existed  betwixt
us, had he  possessed any delicacy, he, certainly of all men/was
the last-who should have exposed me.  But one attack was not suf-
ficient, writhing under the disappointment that 1 had triumphantly
refuted the  arguments, which he hoped  would have crushed me, he
departed so far from all those principles, which are acknowledged
as guides for regulating the conduct  of gentlemen and meu of sci-
ence,  as to publish in Mr. Poulson's  newspaper the disgraceful let-
ters signed " Jiristides "   I  am  astonished  that  Dr. Gibson has
dared  to come  before the public, and  acknowledge that he was their
author ;—and  what is his apology ?  " a sort  of  quack bill or cir-
cumforaneous advertisement"  he, observes " emanating apparently
from a Ntrfolk newspaper, was published successively in most of
the Philadelphia newspapers, Src."  This sort  of quack bill—this
circumforaneous advertisement, which he has the impudence to plead,
as  the single cause, which justified  the publication  of his anony-     ,
mous attacks, was the communication already published—a commu-
                                B 
10
nication which  contained  nothing, which could have the effect of
injuring his character, and one, which he had the most satisfactory
evidence, was neither composed nor published by me.  He tells us,
that he left his name at the office of the newspaper,  making here a
virtue of necessity, for where  is the printer who. without a name,
would have  made himself responsible for such an  assassin-like at-
tempt on the reputation of any man ?
  I  can well believe  that,  had Dr.  Gibson been aware,  I  was in
possession of all the  facts  which I am about to state to my reader,
he would never have referred in his Strictures to Aristides's letters.
I may preface these by observing, that I am authorised by the gen-
tleman whose name is mentioned, to make  the following- statement.
  Having published the first of  the letters signed Aristides, so well
pleased was he, with  his production, that, on the morning on which
it appeared,  he sallied  forth  to ascertain what the public thought of
it.  Early in the day he called  on Dr. Eberle, and,  with  apparent
satisfaction, asked  him if he had read " the cutting up I had got
in the newspapers."  Being answered in the affirmative, he enquired
the Doctor's opinion  of Aristides's letter.   Dr.  Eberle, suspecting
that he was its  author, thought he  would hold  out a bait f<>r him,
and  in  reply said, '• It was very clever.'"   The  bait took, and the
professor at once declared,  " I wrote it."   Dr. Eberle, having gain-
ed his object,  assured  Dr. Gibson that he conceived he was acting
a very unhandsome part to Mr.  Pattison.   The answer made was, I
had  no business to publish the puff abnut  myself in  the Norfolk
Beacon.  The most solemn assurance was given him, that 1 had no
knowledge of that communication, that  some  of Mr. Webster's
friends had inserted it, for the purpose  of establishing the  character
of the journal, and that, if required,  Mr. Webster would give his
oath, that I never heard of the letter before it was printed,  and
that I had then expressed, in the strongest  terms, my disapproba-
tion of all such publications.   The apology he had pleaded in excuse,
being removed, he  was obliged to shift his ground, and contradict
his former statement, by declaring  he had  not  written the  letter
himself, but that it had been composed, uy one of his students,  and
that he, the Professor, had merely acted as his  pupil's amanuensis
and porter, having copied it, and carried it to the printing-office !!!
   When I saw the first of Aristides's letters, in the newspaper, I
certainly did not suspect that it was the production of a pkofessor.
I treated it with contempt.  My brother, however,  felt it otherwise,
and calling,  without my knowledge, on Dr. Eberle that day (Friday)
observed to him, that he thought some of  my professional friends
should answer it, which that gentleman readily agreed to do. When
my brother, on.Sunday, told me what  he  had done I blamed  him
very much, and immediately left home for the purpose of seeing Dr.
Eberle, and requesting him to stop the publication of the defence,
he had sent to the newspaper.   Not finding him on tny first visit, I 
11
wrote a note, requesting him  not to  take any notice of themtiful
letter, written by  vristides, but, fearful that this-might not induce
him to  comply with my wishes,  I called again  late at night, and
begged  him to withdraw from  Mr. Poulson, the letter he had writ-
ten in my vindication, as I  had  no wish that my name should  be
brought before the  public in a newspaper.  He assu<ed me he would
do'so, but observed, that it would be unnecessary to call at the of-
fice before the morning, as he  had been informed bv the gentleman
who had the charge of it, tha  <he  letter  could not appear before
Tuesday  morning's paper.  From some alteration in  the arrange-
ment  of the Monday's  paper, the letter, which it  was said could
not appear until Tuesday,  wa*, contrary to  our expectations and
wi«>hrs, printed.
   A few days after Dr. Eberle's letter signed Z. had appeared*, Dr.
Gibson called on him with a second communication which he had
prepared f >r publication.  He  thought he had now a good excuse to
vent his spleen; f.r who could be  the author of the letter which
vindicated my claims, but myself ?  This second communication  he
read to Dr. Eberle; it  contained a  very violent and abusive attack
on my character.   That gentleman begged it might not be published,
and assured him again and again, in the most solemn manner,  that
I was not the author of the reply to Aristides.   On Dr. Gibson's con-
tinuing to assert that he was convinced  that  I  was its  author, Dr.
Eberle, with the mo>t  honourable candour,  told  him that he had
himself written the letter signed Z.  and then related to him all that
had occurred, to convince him that  any defence  of that kind was
contrary to  my inclinations.  Having  received such a satisfactory
statement, what did  the author of the " Strictures" do ?  Did  he
feel ashamed of his conduct, and come and ask pardon  of the man
whose character he had mistaken, and  whose  reputation he had  at-
tempted to  destroy?   No, he  goes  home,  vexed  and disappointed,
because my character was not what he would have wished it to have
been ; he prunes his letter of some of the more odious personalities
and abuse which it  contained, and sent it to the press, that it might
represent me. as an ignorant pretending quack, to the  commercial
public of Philadelphia.   With a knowledge  of all these facts, Dr.
Gibson  asserts, in  the first  paragraph of his  " Strictures," that he
shall show, " by incontrovertible evidence,  that his conduct, from
beginning to  end, has been  upright and honourable !!!
   Were I to adduce, in support of my assertion, that Dr. Gibson
was the aggressor,  all the proof  I am possessed of, I should fill a
volume.  But I am persuaded that the few facts I have stated, are

  • Dr Eberle's  letter contained only a few temperate remarks on the im-
propriety of making any observations in a newspaper on a scientific subject;
and observed that, as  my paper  was published in the Recorder, only for the
profession, this journal was certainly the proper organ fox the publication of
criticisms upon it, &c. 8cc. 
12
sufficient  to make good my case, and to satisfy every reader, that
unprovoked  envy and  jealousy, have characterized the behaviour
of my antagonist, from the beginning of the controversy.  I shall,
therefore, now conclude the first division of my  "answer," by stat-
ing a  few facts  which.  I trust, will  prove, that,  although  aware  >f
all the injury which Dr. Gibson has attempted  against me, I have
only felt pity  for his malevolence  and weakness, and that, so far
from wishing to expose him,  I  have  only done so, as far as was ne-
cessary  for my own justification.
  In the 10th number  of the Medical Recorder, the author of the
"strictures," published a case of "tying the iliac artery,  with ob-
servations."  Never perhaps, was a paper more defective, and  more
open to just  criticism, than the one  alluded to.   Yet so far was  1
from wishing to interfere with this man, who had constantly since
my settlement in the country, been  endeavouring to injure my re-
putation, that I did  not write a criticism upon  it myself, and fur-
Cher,  employed all my influence with the editor of the Recorder,  to
prevent him from publishing  two very severe criticisms  upon   it
which were offered by very intelligent surgeons.
  If my ilR?ply to certain oral and written Criticisms, 8rc.be perus-
ed it  will  be found that, it contains only  an independent defence of
my opinions.  I no  doubt speak in terms of strong  and just repre-
hension  of the conduct  of Aristides,  but although it would have been
perfectly fair in me  to have  mentioned who this anonymous traduc-
er was,  on this I was silent.
  1 am  informed that Dr. Gibson has  been very much irritated  at
me, for illustrating the weakness of the criticism signed W. by say-
ing that it brought to my  mind an old story of a professor, who.  find-
ing it no easy matter to lecture, had apologised to his class for not
giving them  a valedictory lecture, saving, ''he had intended to have
written  them a \try fine lecture, but that really he  was so  morally
and physically exhausted, that he found it impossible  for him to  com-
pose one."  The professor has however himself to blame for allow-
ing the  joke to become public,  f.;r I can most  solemnly declare, I
never, until  after the publication of my reply, thought that he would
have been so well pleased with thi* valedictory, as to repeat, it with
considerable self satisfaction to his  friends.  Had  he only kept his
own secret, the public would never have come to the knowledge, that
my illustration meant moie than appeared.
   I shall  preface my defence on the 2d charge, "that  I have been
guilty of a literary piracy" by a  very abridged history of my first
essay.
   I was educated in the belief, that it was proper,  in operating for
lithotomy, to make large wounds into the bladder, I thought the ope-
ration correct,  and  for the first years I lectured, I taught it as such
to my students.  A fatal case  occurred, where the operation was
performed with great ease and rapidity by a large wound, and where 
IS
nothing happened to explain the death.   As I had lost a patient from
urinal * '.fusion a short time before, and, as there was a very marked
resemblance in the  svmptoms preceding dissolution, in the two «as-
e«.  I suspected, that in the lithotomy patient, urine might have been
infiltrated, and might have operated as the cause of death.  Under
this impres-,ion, 1 conducted the dissection, not as it is usually per-
formed,  but with the view of ascertaining, whether there had or had
not been  urinal infiltration.  I  discovered this had really occured,
and that my patient had died from it, there could be no doubt.
   I was satisfied, in my own mind, that the urinal infiltration in the
case mentioned above, had produced the  fatal event, but I  had at
that time no idea that the largeness of the incision had any effect in
producing the infiltration.   Dissecting afterwards, the bodies of
th.jse who had died, in the practice  of my friends, from the opera-
tion,  I invariably found pus betwiirt the. has fond of the bladder and
the rectum.   This I was aware was produced from flie effusion of
urine, but as  1  had no suspicion that this  would occur more readily
after a large,  than  a small wound, I continued still to  recommend
a large out!   A considerable time afterwards, Scarpa's Memoir on
Lithotomy was brought me.  That great surgeon asserted that urinal
infiltrationwas the  common cause  of death occuringafter the opera-
tion for stone; my experience confirmed this, but  Scarpa's went fur-
 ther than I had done, he affirmed  that his exp-Hence had proved to
 him, that this  was more apt to follow a large, than a small  wound.  As
 he, however, gave no anatomical reason, why if should be so, I was un-
 willing to credit the statement.  It  occurred  to  me at the  moment
 that if I could find a fascia, acting as a septum betwixt the cavity of
 the pelvi-, and the perinieum I  should have all my doubts resolved,
 and could then, on philosophical principles, recommend the  practice
 of operating,  advocated by Scarpa.  1 did find such a fascia, and I
 thought I had made an anatomical  discovery.  Fearing that I had
 heretofore, in my public teaching,  misled my pupils, I gave up all my
 favourite predilections, and taught, what 1 coriside«ed a more correct
 doctrine. Sometime after my  arrival  in  Philadelphia, I read  Mr.
 Colles, and discovered, that, that anatomist had  seen and described
 the prostate fascia. This I made public, and, in the 9th  number of
 the Medical  Recorder,  published an essay in which  I brought for-
 ward my opinions, for the examination and consideration of my
 brethren.  This, ''is the very head and front  of my offending-"
    Having thus in  a veiy few words stated the general facts of the
 case;  I am led to insist more fully on the fact, that I have not been
 guilty of a literary piracy.
    Dr. Gibson, in his anonymous characters of Aristides and W.  has,
 in the face of the  most direct evidence,  to the contrary, asserted,
 that I have claimed thediscovery of the prostate fascia, and, even
 after my reply, in which I adduced direct proof that I had not done
 so, he continues in his "Strictures" to make the same incorrect state- 
li
ments,and attempts by quoting garbled extracts from my first essay,
to prove them.  And although I, in my "reply"  gave a perfect ex-
planation of these expressions he has been so disingenuous, as never
to advert to it.  That the  general  reader may clearly  understand
this part of the controversy, I shall, I trust, be excused for  repeating
some of the facts which I published  in my reply."
  Conceiving that the clearest way of conveying to my reader's mind,
the progress of my experience,  I delivered it in the form of a diary
of my  thoughts, and  as the prostate fascia was really and truly, to
me a discovery, until I read Colles in Philadelphia,  in  speaking of
my experience, at the date  when I first dissected the fascia, I spoke
of it as a "new fascia, a fascia which I called the prostate fascia."
In continuing  my account,  however, I  with equal clearness  state
that I was not the discoverer of the fascia, I observe, in the plainest
language, that after reading Mr.^Colles in Philadelphia, I  was satis-
fied that Mr.^C. had seen it before me, and finally concluded my es-
say, by giving up all pretensions to the anatomical discovery, stating,
"THE ONLY CLAIM I SHALL  MAKE, AND IN THIS I  AM CONFIDENT I
SHALL BE SUPPORTED, IS, THAT, UNTIL THE PRE>ENT, N(5 RATION-
AL EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN, OF THE MANNER IN WHICH U-
RINE IS  EFFUsED,  AND CONSEQUENTLY  NO OPERATION HAS BEEN
PHILOSOPHICALLY PROPOSED TO PREVENT IT." One VVOUld Suppose
that the amount of what I claimed was sufficiently limited and de-
fined in this the concluding paragraph of my first essay, but, although
I reprinted it in Italicks, in  my reply, still, Dr. Gibson, in his "Stric-
tures," continues to abuse me, for attempting to take the credit of the
discovery of the prostate fascia to myself.  That he himself is satis-
fied that this claim has never been  made by me,  I am  persuaded,
but, aware, that he could not take from me that which I really claim-
ed, he has hoped to deceive the general public and make them believe
that  I have been guilty of a literary piracy.  In attempting to do so,
be has  unluckily quoted a passage from my former essay,  which, if
he had considered for a moment, was of itself sufficient to  prove the
fact of my  not claiming the prostate fascia as a discovery.  "I pre-
sume" observes Dr. Gibson, "that he cannot deny that he (Mr Pat-
tison) stated, I still continued to believe it was so (i. e. a discovery)
until I read Mr. Colles in Philadelphia," what is the clear inference to
be drawn from this quotation of mine? surely,  it is that until I read
Mr.  Colles in  Philadelphia, I thought I had made an anatomical dis-
covery, but, having done so, I no longer continued in that belief.  The
ingenious professsor, however, draws from this passage a very differ-
ent conclusion. He thinks I meant not to allow that Mr. C. knew
any thing of the prostate fascia, but, merely, to insinuate, that I had
never read the work before.  He triumphantly states to his  reader,
that he has discovered the secret, that I had read Colles shortly after
it was published. Now this secret,  which  he wishes it to be suppos-
ed, I had no desire to be known, I did not reveal to a single conii- 
IS
dent, but to a class of  300  students,  and to my  professional
friends generally.  I never thought, that making the acknowledg-
ment I had readthe book before, was sufficient to prove, that I must
necessarily  have been aware of all the  facts which  it contained.  I
think I can easily prove, that a person may read a book and still not
bear  in mind all  its contents.  I shall be excused I  hope in offering
two respectable illustrations in support of this position.
   1st. Every person who has been in the habit of attending Dr. Phy-
sick's lectures, must know, that annually he has been  in the habit,
of recommending the employment of animal ligatures, and of taking
very considerable credit to himself as their discoverer.   Dr. Gib-
son, last session, extolled these ligatures, and abused Mr. Astley
Cooper  of  London for  using them, without sounding the praises of
 his colleague.  We can hardly suppose  that either of these indivi-
 duals, are so  ill  informed  on  the works of their profession, as  not
 to have read "Young's Midical Literature" where we have
 the practice of animal ligatures recommended, on the  same princi-
 ples as those which regulated  Dr.  Physick,  viz. that they might be
 absorbed again.  Dr. Physick has taken great honour to himself, for
 being the discoverer of an instrument for tying arteries in deep situ-
 ations.  The author of the Strictures, speaks of it in terms of high
 commendation, in his present pamphlet, calling it "Dr. Physick's
 forceps and needle."   If "Heister's Surgery," which is one of the
 oldest text books, be opened,  there will be found  in it, not only a
 description, but an engraving of an instrument of which Dr. Phy-
 sick's is a mere  modification.   It is true, that  the needle figured by
 Heister is not recommended for tying deep seated arteries, but for
 sewing deep seated wounds!!
    These illustrations  are not brought forward as offensive, but as
 defensive arguments;  I do not wish to prove  that Dr. Physick was
 desirous to porloin these  discoveries  from those to whom they  be-
 longed.  My only wish is to show, that it is possible for an honest and
 intelligent man, to read a book and yet not be fully aware of all its
 contents.  When  I read Mr. Colles in Philadelphia, and discovered
 that he had described the prostate fascia, previously to me, I imme-
 diately proclaimed it.   This conduct  was, certainly candid and ho-
 nourable towards Mr. Colles, but, although the claims of Heister
 and Youno, have been pointed out to Dr.  Physick, I have not yet
 learnt, that he has come forward  and given up with equal candour
 his pretentions.
    As Dr. Gibson has never brought forward a new thought nor an
  original idea, on the subjects of his profession, I  have no power to
  test his discoveries.
    From the quotations brought  forward  in  the " Strictures," it
  would, at  first sight, appear that the prostate fascia was familiar to
  all  the best anatomists, and  that it indicates ignorance  in me, to
  have ever supposed 1 had made a discovery, when the same  parts 
16
 had been described by Santorini, Winslow, Fvfe, Monro, &x. &c*
 If the description given of the part by these anatomists be referred
 to, it will be observed, that what Colles describes as a fascia, they
 describe as ligaments.  Sar»torini names it the "ligamentum prostata'
 novum," Winslow speaks of it as a tendinous ligament, Munro, like-
 wise, employs the term ligament,  when he mentions it.   Fife comes
 nearer the truth: he calls it a tendinous expansion, but, in his de-
 scription,  he merely describes it as  being inserted into the arch of
 the pubis.  Sabatier divides the fascia into distinct W^aments.   In
 all the authors who have mentioned this stricture, with the excep-
 tion of Mr.  Colles, the prostate  fascia is not described  as a septum
 which separates  the cavity of the pelvis from the perinseum,  but as
 forming the ligaments of  the bladder.  The anatomists who describ-
 ed it,  considered it as forming ligaments,  they dissected it  accord-
ingly, and, as the term  ligament naturally conveys the idea of an
isolated band, they divided it into distinct  portions. From the ideas
they had  of  its  structure and use, they deceived themselves as to
its true nature  and importance,  and, from the term they employed
in its  description, I was  milled  in  the first  instance  myself,  and
 supposed  I  had  made  a discovery, when  in  fact I only saw  cor-
 rectly; what they had seen incorrectly.
  That 1 was not  solitary  will  appear  when I state,  that all the
 anatomists to whom  I  demonstrated this structure,  previously to
 my reading  Colles in Philadelphia, when  I myself ascertained that
 I was not the discoverer,  considered me as such.   Dr. Gibson  insin-
 uates  that  both  Dr. Physick and himself were perfectly familiar
 with   the prostate fascia  before  my arrival in the country.  I deny
 the insinuation.   I assert that neither the one,  nor the other, had an
 idea of such a structure, until their attention was directed to it by
 my demonstrations and essay; and I do  not believe that even Dr.

   * As it is pleasing for us to fulfil our duty to every man, we cannot allow
 the present opportunity to pass  without acknowledging that we have never
 read anv essay on  lithotomy, if we except the list of authors added to the ar-
 ticle on"this subject in the Dictionaire des Sciences Medicales, where an equal
 degree of learning, or the same number ot illustrious names are given, as in
 these Strictures.
  The following is taken  from a single paragraph of the above named pam-

   Cheselden, Douglass, Sharp,  Daunt, Dease,  sir James Earle, John Bell,
 Dr Thompson,  Allan  Burns,  Charles  Bell, Allan,  Dionis, Le Dran, De-
 champs, Sabatier, Bover, Bertrandi, Default,  Hunter,  Cline, Carlisle, Ljnn,
 Abernethy, Home, S. Cooper, Lawrence, Blick, Blizzard, Pearson, Benja-
 min Gibson, Hey, Brown, Newbigging, Russell,  Inglis, George Bell, Colles,
 Barlow, Foster, Chevalier,  Nannoni, Flyjani,  Pelletan, Percy, Richerand,
 Patrize, Lallemand, Roux, Cloquet,  Las Frank, Serrurier, Merat,  GuillS,
 Le Roux, Beclard, Delpeck,--------but this is really fatiguing, and  I  must
 relieve myself by  the exclamation of my very  learned friend Domine Samp-
 son, "prodigious  !!! " 
17
 Gibson will have the boldness to come forward and declare, that he
 really was aware that such a structure existed.  There are two facts
 which will  at  once disprove such an assertion,  supposing it  to be
 made by either of the above named professors.  Last winter, (and
 never before last winter,  was a demonstration of the prostate fascia
 given in America,) it was "demonstrated twice, first by Dr. Physick,
 and afterwards by Dr. Gibson.  That the former considered it my
 discovery,  up to the hour when he described it to  his class, is evi-
 dent, from the manner  in which  this is  noticed  by the author of
 the " Strictures," although I had  done all in my power to convince
 him that I had no claim to the anatomical discovery.   " The fact is,
 Dr. Physick attached so little importance to the fascia, that he mere-
 ly  shewed the part, and read a passage from Mr. Pattison's paper,
 without a comment."
   Dr. Gibson is so very weak  and inconsistent, in  insinuatiug his
 and Dr. Physick's  knowledge of the fascia, that I  cannot deny my
 reader the amusement  he will  derive from the absurdity of his ar-
 gument.
   He begins it by observing that, during the time he was pushing his
 canvass, for the chair of Surgery in the university of Pennsylvania,
 he  heard that  Mr.  Pattison had made a brilliant discovery! !   His
 whole mind, he tells us, was excited by the most lively interest to
 ascertain its nature.  I can believe, that a man ardent in the pur-
 suit  of professional information may  have felt, as he describes he
 did feel, but really, I cannot believe that  had he felt so, he would
 patiently have continued for five  months, until the  publication of
 the 9th number of the Recorder  which contained my essay, with-
 out satisfying his  " lively interest on the subject."   He had  an op-
 portunity of ascertaining the fact,  by attending any  of the demon-
 strations which 1 was in the habit of occasionally giving, or of dis-
 secting the parts on a subject himself;  but, no ! the inquisitive pro.
fessor, continued to keep his  mind on  the stretch, until my essay
 began to excite a  very considerable interest  amongst the  students
 and profession.  This  had the effect of putting a complete stop to
 his  patience, but he was  not then aware, although he assents that
 he  was so in his k' Strictures," " that I had only given an imperfect
 and awkward description of  a  structure about which most of the
 best anatomists had said more or  less," on the contrary, as Doctors
 Eberle and M'Clellan,  and many  others can testify, he went about
 sneering, and denying  that the prostate fascia existed.   When he
 was told by these  gentlemen that  there was  a fascia, he boldly as-
 serted, that they were deceived, observing, that any man  who could
 handle a scalpel, could easily make one, so as to deceive lookers on.
 At this period of the controversy, subjects were dissected  in  the
 rooms of the university, but, not with the view of showing the pupils
 that I had  claimed  as  a discovery what  had  not belonged  to me. 
IS
 but, for the purpose of convincing them, that the part described,
 had no existence except in my imagination.
   As the author of the " Strictures" proceeds, he continues to be
 equally absurd and contradictory.   A fortnight before he delivered
 his lecture on lithotomy he tells us, that he went into Messrs. Col-
 lins and Croft's bookstore, and purchased Colles's Surgical Anato-
 my.  He discovers  in  it «' an unusually full and well written ac-
 count of those very  parts, which  Mr.  Pattison had  claimed  as  a
 discovery of his own."  To me it appears very strange,  that Mr.
 Colles's description of them should  have received so much of his
 attention.  He has informed us, just before,  that Dr. Physick and
 himself, in a word, all the great anatomists were perfectly acquaint-
 ed with the part I had claimed as a discovery.  That his statement
 is incorrect,  will be proved of necessity, by his own account of the
 business,  for, in spite of  what  he had before said  of his own and
 his colleague's knowledge of this structure,  he proceeds to inform
 us that  they both examined  Mr. C's  unusually clear description,
 with dissections made by Dr. Physick's dissector.   When a man of
 talent  supports assertions, which he is aware  are false, we  may be
 amused by the  ingenuity and consistency which he throws around
 his argument,  but, when a weak minded individual attempts to sup-
 port that which is not tenable, we  become at once disgusted by his
 feeble  and contradictory efforts.   I shall, therefore,  no  longer fa-
tigue my reader's attention by dwelling  on this part of the " Stric-
tures,"  but shall merely in conclusion ask the question.  Ts it pro-
bable, had  either the one or other  of these  individuals known  the
 prostate fascia, that it would have been necessary, before they could
ascertain whether the one described  by Mr. Colles  was the same
 mentioned  by  me, for them to hold a consultation, and make dissec-
 tion* P
  Having thus  established  the fact, that, although I was  not  the
 discoverer  of the prostate fascia myself, still it was  a structure of
 which they had no idea, until after my arrival in America.  I come
to conclude this second division of my  answer, by making a very few
 observations on  the nature of my practical deductions, and on the
arguments  which are  brought against them, by the  author  of the
 " Strictures."
  Scarpa, one of the greatest surgeons of the present  age, has been
 from experience led to assert, that the  infiltration of  urine betwixt
the bas fond of the  bladder and the rectum, is one  of the principal
 dangers to  be dreaded, after the operation of lithotomy ;—all  intel-
 ligent  surgeons agree, that  patients often die after this operation,
 without there being  found those marks of inflamation in the abdo-
 minal viscera, necessary to account for that event;—In all the ex-
 aminations I  have had an opportunity of making, after death, from
 lithotomy,  I  have dissected the bodies,  not  as is usually done, but,
 with the view of discovering urinal effusion, and have  invariably dis- 
19
 covered that it was present, and that it had been the cause of death.
 there  is every reason to believe.  I have  demonstrated, from the
 connections of the prostrate fascia; that it forms a perfect septum
 betwixt the cavity of the  pelvis  and the  perineeum, and that, so
 long as the base  of the gland remains uncut,  it is physically impos-
 sible for one drop of urine  to infiltrate betwixt the bas fond of the
 bladder and rectum, and consequently if infiltrated urine be a prin-
 cipal  cause of death,  the  operation recommended by  me is  free
 from this danger.
   Dr.  Gibson has taken a great deal of pains to prove, what I have
 no wish to deny, viz. that many of the best surgeons, of the present
 day, advocate a  practice very different from the one I have re-
 commended.  It is  only since the publication of my essay that the
 fact, that urine may infiltrate after a  large wound, but that  t is
 impossible  to do so after a small one, where the base of the pros-
 tate glands remains undivided, has, from the demonstrations of ana-
 tomy,  been proved.  Had I not been able to do this, and upon phi-
 losophical  principles recommend my  operation, I should have con-
 tinued a disciple to the principles in which  I  was educated.   To
 say, because  the majority  of surgeons are  of a  different opinion
 from me,  it is necessary that my principles should be erroneous, is
 to reason like a child.  When Harvey published his work," Be motu
 cordis, et  sanguinis circulatione" all his professional brethren, to a
 man, declared that he was mistaken.   Did the event prove that he
 was so ? When  John  Hunter first recommended  the  tying of the
 femoral artery, in cases of popliteal aneurism, were not his views
 contrary to those  of his cotemporaries ?   The honour of a discover
 rests in his offering to the world something which is contrary to the
 general and received opinion.  If experience should prove that my
 practical conclusions are correct, I shall be entitled to very consi-
 derablecredit; should it  however demonstrate 1 am wrong, all that
 can be said will be, that I, like many others, have been mistaken.   \
   I have already stated  that it is my intention to publish a volume
 on the subject of  Lithotomy.  I had not intend d to enter on a re-
 futation of  that part of the  "Strictures"  which may, by the unin-
 formed, be considered as bearing against the justness of my practi-
 cal conclusions.   I  am however tempted, to  make one or two re-
 marks  on the author's argument on this division of his subject, mere-
 ly, to show that he is here as inconsistent and contradictory, as  in
 the other parts of his pamphlet.
   Dr. Gibson takes it for granted,  because Dr. Douglass says that
 Mr. Cheselden cut the prostate gland and shoulder of  the bladder,
 in his  last and most successful operation, that he must  have done
 so.  This assumption is not  admissible, for, if the arguments which
 I adduced in my former essay, had the effect of rendering it proba-
ble, that Mr. Cheselden  was himself deceived, aa  to the exact ex-
 tent of his  incision, surely it is not inferring  too much, to suppose 
20
that Dr. Douglass, who merely described the operation of Mr. Che-
selden, from the account which  that gentleman  gave of it himself,
might be incorrect.  The only argument  which the author  of"  the
"Strictures" brings forward to overturn the  reasoning  adduced by
me in support of my opinions, that Mr. Cheselden was deceived, is,
"that I shall find it no easy matter to make other people suppose,
that Cheselden, a great anatomist,  was mistaken."   Will the Doc-
tor allow me for  a moment, merely for the  sake of my argument, to
say, that he himself is one of the first anatomists of his a:„e.  Ta-
king this for granted, I can prove, that even  a very great man may,
in his operations, cut parts he does not intend.   Now, for  my story,
which is not made merely for  the sake of argument,  but which is a
true and well substantiated fact.  Dr. Gibson, anxious to make con-
verts, has of late taken every opportunity  to endeavour to convince
the students, that I am mistaken.  He, very candidly,  mentions in
his pamphlet, one operation, performed  with this intention, in the
Philadelphia alms-house,  but, very  delicately, considers it needless
to say any thing of the first one he performed  there  with the same
intention.
  Proceeding, with the view of convicting me of error, he cut into
the perinpeum, until he thought, he  had found the membranous part
of trie urethra, and then thrust his gorget into the wound, supposing
he had cut only a portion of the prostate gland.   After he had ex-
ecuted the operation, perfectly satisfied with himself, he walked up
and down the room,  declaring he would stake something to which
he seemed to attach great value, perhaps it might be his reputation,
if the instrument had divided the  base of the prostate.   I his  ha-
rangue was, however, soon  interrupted, the  woe-expressive counte-
nance of the dissectors denoting that all was not right.  The pro-
fessor became pale and agitated, he  thought the  gorget had not done
its  duty, and  that,  unfortunately for his opinion, the base of the
gland was cut.   But, this fear  was  groundless.   The  doctor had ne-
ver foi'nd the gland,  and had,  without being aware of it, in spite of
all his anatomical and chirurgical knowledge, carried his gorget di-
rectly into  the shoulder of the bladder
  1 am  aware,  that  there  is no parrallel  betwixt this inexcusable
blunder of Dr. Gibson's, and the opinion  advanced by me, that
Cheselden  did not, in every case,  extend  his  incision  so far as he
intended.   Experiment will prove, that the very best anatomists and
surgeons, in performing the last of Cheselden's operations, will ve-
ry often discover, by dissecting the parts afterwards, that the shoul-
der of the  bladder remains undivided; but  I readily allow that no
man, who has the slightest pretensions to anatomical knowledge or
surgical dexterity, will ever be guilty of the blunder committed by
the professor of surgery, in the University of Pennsylvania.   That
it did not  injure the dead body,  I  am willing to admit, but, that
it would equally have occurred,  had  the subject been alive must be 
21
evident;  and I will assert, that  had this been the case, the life ot
the patient, would, in  all probability have fallen a sacrifice to the
ignorance of the operator.
  Allowing for  a mament, that the author ot the "Strictures" is
correct in his assumption,  that Chesselden  did, in every instance,
cut the whole  of the prostate and shoulder of toe bladder, this does
not prove that such operation is the best which can be executed,  fie
admits that from this perfect operation, Cheselden lost 20, out of 213
patients;  and, in the very commencement of the same paragraph,
informs us,  that Rau, the* Dutch  Lithotoinist,  did not lose a single
patient, although he operated 1540 times.  It is a monstrous absurd-
ity  to assert, that an operation is perfect, and the best which can be
performed,  when it is admitted,  1st, that 20 die from it of 213, and
2dly, that another has been executed, where there was not a single
death in 1540 cases.  I would ask Dr.  Gibson, as an honest  man,
what operation was left for Rau to perform, but the one 1 have re-
commended.  That he  did not open the shoulder of the  bladder,
leaving the prostate untouched, the melancholy result of the first of
Cheselden's operations, where his practice was adopted, is sufficient
to prove; that he did not cut the shoulder of  the bladder and pros-
tate gland, is equally demonstrated, for supposing  Cheselden, in
his last operation, did so in every instance, the result is very differ-
ent, 20  patients died from the operation, out of 213.  Thi»re was
only one  operation left  for  Rau,  which  was to make  a small wouad
in the  prostate, leaving its body uncut,  and thus leader any urinal
infiltration physically impossible.
  I would not pretend to assert,  that no other cause  but that of ef-
fused  urine, can operate as the cause of death, after the operation
for stone.  Dr. Gibson  observes, that he has seen  in Europe, the
patients kept on the table for  hours, during which time, the utmost
violence was committed, and  the bladder was torn and shockingly
mangled.  This  I  never saw in Europe, but I have heard,  since
coming to Baltimore, that in the only two operations of Dr. Gibson,
of  which I can get a history,  the one patient was kept 30 minutes
on  the table, and the other above forty-five, and that they  might die
from absolute irritation a  few hours afterwards, I am  ready to
admit.
   The last  observation I shall make  on the criticism, delivered by
Dr. Gibson against the correctness of  my practical deductions, is,
that it is quite evident he does not understand the facts adduced by
me in support of them.  He  observes, "If Mr.Pattison  had filled
the bladder, and not poured the water into the pelvis, and then cut
the prostate and neck of the bladder, and fascia, his class would have
had a satisfactory demonstration of  the fallacy of his princitdes, as
the urine would  have escaped, plena rivo, and  could not possibly
have been detained by the fascia, or any similar structure." Unfor-
tunately for Dr. Gibson's assertion, I did fill the bladder with water, 
22
and not the pelvis, and the students had a most satisfactory demon-
stration, not  of the fallacy,  but  the correctness of my principles;
for, upon dividing the base of the prostate and neck of  the bladder,
the fascia  necessarily being cut, the water, when forced from  the
bladder, flowed partly from  the external wound, and was allowed
partly to infiltrate into the  cellular substance  connecting the  bas
fond of the bladder to the rectum.
  From my  professional brethren  I have  nothing  to  fear.   I  am
aware that there are some of them, who are not yet ready to assent
to my doctrines, but I fondly, and confidently hope, that there is  not
one honest and honourable man  amongst them,  who will  not con-
fess that I have inculcated  my opinions in  a modest, professional,
and gentleman-like manner.  Whether the principles  I teach are
correct or  erroneous, time and experience  alone can demonstrate.
Yet this I can solemnly declare, that in adopting them myself,  I did
so from a conviction that they were just.   That I may  be wrong is
very possible, and so soon as I am convinced that I am so, I shall
act,*precisely as I did in adopting them; come before the public, and
inform them, that I have been mistaken.
   3dly. Dr. Gibson states, in his Strictures, that I make false state-
ments, and,  to prove this, he uses  with great freedom  the name of
Dr. Physick.   That gentleman's  name  is employed by  him to con-
firm assertions, which I shall, from  the most direct and positive evi-
dence, prove  to be false.   Believing that the professor  of anatomy
was a man of honour, and one who would not allow himself to  be
made a caVs-paw by Dr. Gibson or any other professor,  the moment
I had glanced over the "Strictures" I wrote him the following letter:
  Sir,
    I have just glanced over an  essay of Dr. Gibson's, in which
your name is employed to confirm  statements, which  are  not con-
sistent with truth. As I propose to-morrow to write an answer  to
his Strictures, and as I should wish to know, before doing so, whe-
ther you have permitted him to use  your name, I would  beg answers
to the following questions.
  Did you  not allow in my dissecting room, in the presence of Mr.
Le Seour,  Dr. Eberle,  and my brother, that the fascia,  of which Le
Seour was taking a drawing, was a discovery?  Were you aware of
the existence of the prostate fascia previous to my coming to this
country?   Did  you not request Dr. M'Clellan to carry me Colles's
work? and did.you not, when I pointed out to you that the author
had described the fascia,  say that his account was so confused, that
it could not be understood? and further, that his having or not hav-
ing seen it, would militate  nothing  against the  honour which was
due to me, for the important practical conclusions, which I had  de-
duced from that structure?
       I have the honour to be, sir,  your obedient servant,
                               Granville Sharp Pattison.
Iriday Evening, September 15,  1820.             154, Walnut St. 
2.3
  P. S. A9 I am anxious to return as soon as possible, to Baltimore,
and wish to finish the MSS. to morrow, I shall expect an immediate
answer.

  Dr. Horner, delivered to me, the next day, the annexed card, with
the contents of which I must confess, I was really astonished.
  "Dr. Physick informs Mr.  Granville Sharp Pattison, that he de-
clines entering into any correspondence  with him  respecting the
controversy existing between him and Dr. Wm. Gibson."
  Granville Sharp Pattison, Esq.
  Philadelphia, 16th Sept. 1820.

  As Dr. Horner begged me to write an answer to it, although I did
not consider this necessary, I gave him for Dr. Physick the follow-
ing.
  Mr. Pattison is  at a loss to understand, why Dr. Physick refuses
to reply to the plain questions which were put to him in Mr.  Patti-
son's letter of yesterday evening.  Dr. Physick is, however, the best
judge of what is most for his own interest.
  Saturday,  \6th Sept. 1820.
  For Dr. Physick.

  From the perusal of this correspondence,  it will  appear, that  I
have  been unable to learn, whether  Dr.  Physick  does, or does not
warrant  Dr. Gibson in employing his name.   It is unfair in the ex-
treme, for him to say, that he declines entering into  "any corres-
pondence with me respecting the controversy existing  between Br.
 Wm. Gibson and myself."
   His name having been  used  by my adversary,  he has, to  all in-
tents and purposes, already entered into the controversy.  From the
conduct of Dr. Physick, we can therefore infer but one of two things.
Either he must have allowed the professor of Surgery to make use
of his name, for the purpose of giving currency to falsehoods,  know-
in<«- them to be such, and is still  willing to let him take all the advan-
tage arising from it;—that in fact, although his conscience would not
 permit him to assert a  direct falsehood, yet it has allowed him to
 give an implied confirmation of one.  Or, that his memory is so im-
paired, that it has not retained  the recollection of an affair of very
recent occurrence, and one, from the circumstances  attending it,
which was not very likely to have escaped, had it been in  a  sound
 state   1 must leave Dr. P.  to make his election in  this, rather un-
pleasant dilemma.—It is painful tb address a gentleman of Dr. P's.
 age and  respectability with so much  plainness, but his extraordinary
 conduct, on this occasion, has left me no choice.
   The truth of my assertions, however, fortunately, can be confirm-
 ed, independently of Dr. Physick's authority.  Dr. M'Clellan, a man
 whose truth is unquestioned, and who, were he to study self-interest, 
2*
 would support the opposite  party, having been present at my inter-
 vie- s with Dr. Physick,  when the subject of the prostate fascia was
 br•night on the tapis,  will confirm all I have advanced.
   The first statement of mine,  the truth of which is questioned, is,
 that Dr. Physick was  not acquainted with the structure of the pros-
 tate fascia, before I came to this  count  y.   I would ask, if Dr. Gib-
 son brings forward anv evidence that  he  was?   No, he adduces
 none !  He merely asserts that it  was well  known to him.   Now the
 circumstantial proof which  I shall present is, of itself, sufficient to
 prove the verity of my assertion.   I am  authorized by Drs. Cleaver,
 Jackson, Barnes, and' Eberle, and 1 might name all the gentlemen
 educated in the Pennsylvania school, to declare that, although they
 had attended several  of  the courses of lectures delivered  by Dr.
 P'  vsick, and likewise the anatomical lectures of  Dr. Wistar, that
 tlu  structure was not only  not demonstrated to them, but that
 previously to  my arrival  in the  country,  they  had never heard of
 such  a part.
   2d!v.  The manner  in which  Dr. Physick demonstrated last year,
 for t'ie first time, this structure,   is sufficient to prove that, in spite
 of  all my endeavours to prove to him that Colles had  described the
 r .  *.  he  -till continued to consider ine the discoverer.  Dr.  Gibson
 in  'nentionin^ this  states, " He merely showed the  part,  and read a
 pa--a^e or two from  Ml  Pattison's paper.
   My direct proof is equally satisfactory on this head.  Dr. M'Clel-
 lan proves that it was with difficulty that 1 could persuade Dr. Phy-
 sick, that Mr. Colles  hud  really described the fascia, and Dr. Eberle
 says,  that when  Dr. Physick examined  the part, in my class room,
 when it wj» fully dissected for the purpose of making the drawings,
 from  which the engravings published in the Recorder were taken,
 that, even then, he was inclined to consider me the discoverer.
   I stated in  my •' Reply" that,  when  I carried Colles to Dr. Phy-
 sick and endeavoured to convince him that the  anatomist had seen
 the prostate facia he  observed, "his  description was so confuted,
 that it was impossible to understand exactly what that author meant,
 and most unequivocally added, that his having or not having seen it,
 would,  in no reason, take from  the honour which was due to me
 for  being the first who  had the  subject before the profession in  an
 important and highly inte estiug  point of view."
   There are  two  assertions  here;  first, that Mr. Colles's descrip-
 tion  wa° said to be confused ; and second, that my credit remained
 unaffected, admitting that he had described the fascia.  Dr. Gibson,
 still  using Dr. Physick's  name, contradicts both of these assertions.
 That 1 was warranted in  making this statement, will  be most satis-
 factorily  proved by the  following extract from a letter which I re-
 ceived from Dr. M'Clellan.
   " The question you asked me  was, I believe whether  I did hear
-4)r. Physick say any thing like what you represented,  in your publi- 
25
 lei  j;    ??rdf: r,e.8Pecting the clumsiness of Mr. Colles's de-
 ZZ T'  I   '^noj taking away from your claim  to the improve-
 ™I  i    j   Fo thls,1 can mo8t P08»t>vely answer, I did.  After
 you had read  over to him again, Colles's description, he said, as
 fni7*k"* t0? T?coUect>  "his description is so clumsy and  con-
 \*».   •   .   ^n * ,9ee,.now anJ  body can make any thing out of
 it,  again, he directly afterwards said, «I don't believe he had any
 clear idea  of  what he meant himself."  That Dr. Physick may have
 lorgotten this conversation is possible,  but  it is quite certain I have
 not; and Dr. Gibson, by mistake  perhaps, omitted to annex to his
 mention of  this circumstance, the testimony I  gave  him on the
 subject.  He asked me,  when he met me one morning, shortly after
 your publication appeared, what I recollected on the subject,  and
  ™fn. told him just the same I have answered to your question."
   lhis extract not only confirms my statement, but proves that Dr.
 tuoson, in endeavouring to throw discredit upon it,  did so in the
 face ot direct evidence that I had  written only that which wa» true.
   *rom the  consideration of the above  facts it  becomes evident
 that I am not only  « not guilty" of the charges brought against me,
 but  they most satisfactorily prove, that Dr. Gibson in making them
 must have been aware that they were without foundation.  In doing
 so he was therefore guilty of the very accusation which he has adduced
 against me.
   But the  misstatements of the author of the  " Strictures," are not
 confined to these facts.  If my answer be only reconsidered, it  will
 be found,^that in every charge made by him, he must have depend-
 ed on  the  feeble hope of  deceiving the public, knowing that  the
 charges were not consistent with truth.
   I  will now prove  that  many of the most remarkable assertions
 made by Dr. Gibson are  altogether unfounded.
  It is  asserted in the " Strictures," that «the whole tenour of his
 (Mr. Pattison's) conduct,  from his  arrival in the country to  the
 present time,  has been empirical in the extreme, and such as would
justify me, or any one else, in concluding  he was at the bottom of
 the Norfolk advertisement, and all the numerous puffs which have
 appeared, at different times, in his favour."
  There are a number of charges here, but they are all equally false,
 as I  shall immediately show.
  1st. My conduct  has been empirical  in  the extreme,  since  my
 settlement  in America.
  The first week I lectured in  Philadelphia, there were published
in Mr. Poulson's newspaper, some very  flattering observations on
 my talents, as a teacher of Anatomy.  As  I felt unwilling to have
 my name brought forward, either favourably or unfavourably, in a
newspaper, I sent a letter,  of which the  following is an extract, to
the editor, in the hope that the request made in it to the genltemen
editing newspapers would have been attended to, 
26
  " The public, in general, with justice, give the credit of such com-
positions either to the individual who is praised, or  to some  of his
coadjutors.  As I should feel lower in my own estimation, could  I
suppose that this opinion was adopted in relation to  me, I have to
beg that you will assure th? public, that  the paragraph referred to,
was introduced without  my knowledge, and  contrary to my wishes.
I shall  feel grateful if >ou, and the other  gentlemen who edit  news-
pa'-^rs will, for the future,  refuse insertion to anything which may
bring my name before the public."

  Was this empirical in the extreme ?  Dr. Gibson would,  I dar«j
sav have said, had I not evidence to the  contrary, that it was, and
that  my letter was a  mere  blind to deceive the public, and induce
them to believe that 1 had nothing to do  with  that, of which I was
really the author.  Unfortunately  for this opinion, the gentleman
who  wrote the letter, (a person I have  not  the pleasure  of being
acquainted with.) mistaking the bearing of my letter, felt hurt, and
sent  another to the newspaper with his name, saying, that  "his ob-
6enaliims had been composed from friendly motives, &c. &c.
  That he knew  I was  not the author of the Norfolk puff, I have
already proved,  and the numerous puffs of which he speaks, have
no other existence than in his imagination.
  I fear I have fatigued my reader,  and shall therefore conclude this
 fart of my subject by examining the  following point.  In my reply
  stated, that  he had, in his lectures, declared  that no gorget was
made sufficiently large to divide the  whole body and base of the
piostate  gland.  This  the professor boldly  denies, by stating, "J
never  made an  assertion of the  kind. The extent  of my observ-
ation was, that the prostate gland was not so easily divided as some
imagine, that in  fact a  gorget  from three quarters of  an inch  to
an inch might be  employed, in  most full grown subjects, without
producing such an effect.  1  did  not suffer the observation to rest
upon  my assertion,  for  I performed  the  operation in presence of
my class, with a gorget upwards  of an inch,  merely to put the mat-
ter to the test, and upon examination  of the parts  after the lecture,
while several of the  gentlemen were looking on, it was distinctly
seen, that the gland was not divided by the eighth of an  inch."
  That Dr. Gibson did make the assertion delivered by me, viz. that
no gorget was made sufficiently large to cut the whole body and base
of the prostate gland, I again affirm,  and  that I am warranted  in do-
ing so will appear, when I  mention the fact, that, so struck  was I
with the absurdity of the assertion, that the moment it was  deliver-
ed, 1 took a note of it, and handed  it to Dr.  Eberle, begging him to
bea/ it in his recollection.  This he has done, and 1 am authorized
ty him to state, that he recollects perfectly that it was made.  As it
wa  quite evident that lie  professor had  g ,t the whole  of  this lec-
ture by rote, it is stran&e he should forget so important a part of it!!' 
                               27

  The letter which  follows, and which  was sent  me bv its author
merely from a siase of justice, without any appiicaMon'on  mvi-vt
will prove that his memory is equally treacherous as it relates to his
dissecting the parts  immediately after the lecture, and his affirma-
tion that the gland was not divided by the eighth of an inch.
              Philadelphia Mms-house Infirmary, Sept. 12, 1820.
Dear Sir,
         I observed this morning that Dr. Gibson, in a pamphlet, en-
titled "Strictures on Mr  Pattison's Reply to certain oral and writ-
ten Criticisms," positively denies  having said  in bis  lecture, that
"no gorget was  made  sufficiently large to cut the  whole body and
base of the prostate gland," which  so far as I know may be correct;
but I  can testify that Dr. G. did make  use of the expression,  imme-
diately after the lecture, in a conversation with myself, which I will
repeat as nearly as possible.   After Dr. G's. lecture, last winter, on
lithotomy, I went down  to the table where the subject was lying on
which he had  operated, (and  the base of whose prostate he said he
had not  cut)  in order  to satisfy myself whether  the base of the
gland was or was not divided,   While I was endeavouring to satis-
fy myself on  this  point, the Doctor observed that  he had that day
used the largest gorget he could procure in the city, to show the ab-
surdity of dividing the base of the  prostate gland.
  After  a minute  examination, however, I was inclined to believe
that the  base  of the gland was divided, and accordingly made my
opinion known to  him, who thought it impossible.  Upon tepeating
my conviction, he said, "I will risk the fate of my opinion that it is
net divided."   I then  observed, if  he had no particular use for the
subject, I would be glad to dissect it, as I had  heard both him and
Mr. Pattison  lecture  on the  subject, and  was not yet satisfied.
He answered  that, "if the gentlemen had not torn it (the gland) in
their examinations, he would dissect it himself, and show it  to the
class  to-morrow."   I  replied that, "I believed  no gentlemen  had
handled  it but myself, and was certain that I had done  no violence
to it."  The next day, of course, I  was very anxious to see the gland
dissected loose from its connections: but he did not produce it.  He
acknowledged to the class, if my memory serves me, that the base
of the gland was slightly divided,  but that the fascia was untouch-
ed !!   He did not  qualify his  assertion  by prescribing  any dimen-
sions  to  the gorget, but  said, "he  never saw," or "no gorget  was
made  sufficiently large to cut the  whole body and the base of tb/
prostate  gland."  (I am here only  speaking of the conversation •»'
ter lecture.  The lecture itself I do not distinctly remember.,.
  The Doctor refers in his pamphlet, to only one  ( two ope^j"1!
he performed in this house, on dead bodies, in presence of se rai or 
28
the house surgeons and physicians, as well as  a number of medical
gentlemen of the city.  Not being present myself, I can only say
that my colleagues, who were present, inform  me, that the beak of
the gorget did not follow the groove of the staff in either  instance.
In  the first, the gorget passed above the prostate gland, and  was
plunged into the body of the bladder.  When he  was informed of
the route the gorget  had  taken,  he replied "I thought so"—and
in the other, to use his own language, "a small portion of  the pros-
tate, adjoining  the urethra, where it opens into the  bladder,  was
found undivided." So that he cannot from either of these cases, in
my opinion,  draw fair practical inferences.
  As it has  always been a maxim  with me "to render unto Csesar
the things that are Caesar's," you are at liberty to make what use of
this communication the circumstances of your case may require.
                 I remain your friend,           G. GREEN.
  To G. S. Pattison, Esq.
Professor of Surgery, Baltimore.
  I come now to consider, in the last place, whether the insinuation,
thrown out by the author of the "Strictures," as to my being a per-
son of no eminence in my profession are, or are not just.  I am
aware that there is some appearance of indelicacy in taking up the
defence of my character, on this head, myself, and were I not con-
vinced that the interests of the university,  with  which  I have the
honor to be connected, demand from me a refutation of Dr. Gibson's
insinuations. I should treat them with  silent contempt.  When I am
told that the professor, in his valedictory lecture to the last course
he delivered in the university of Maryland, declared that his attach-
ment  to the university of his native city was such, that he would ra-
ther hold a professorship in it, with a class of 20 students, than one
in any other university in the world.  I am at a loss to explain how
this love should so soon have become converted into hate.  This is
strangely inconsistent; but  perhaps the professor was so "morally
and physically exhausted" at the time, as to be unable to prepare a
valedictory, and said any thing  that came first into his mind.
  That I have some reputation in my  profession, will  be  satisfacto-
rily proved, by referring to  the  list  of learned societies which have
honoured me by electing me a member of their bodies.  That those,
to which I belong, are the most  eminent and respectable in  Europe,
cannot be denied; and that their rolls contain the first medical names
of the age must likewise be admitted.—1 would now ask what has
ta to show his claim to professional distinction?—what has he done?
H^s he ever written any thing?  No!   Has he ever discovered  any
thing? No!  What then is he celebrated for. 
29
  KiIt gives me pleasure to allow39 that he is an excellent modeller
in wax.
  Dr. Gibson seems desirous of making the impression, that I am a
man of no experience.  In  his second letter signed Aristides,  he
observes, "It would appear  too, from Mr. Pattison's own acknow-
ledgment, that his experience in lithotomy had not been very con-
siderable, since we hear of two operations only which  he has per-
formed, and from one of them the patient died, &c. &c.  Again, in
the present pamphlet, he remarks in italics, "Mr. Pattison's  experi-
ence is confined to two cases."   In reply to these insinuations I have
only to inform the Doctor, that, in writing the essay on lithotomy,
it was not my object to publish all the operations  I had performed,
and as only two of the  cases of stone on which I  had operated, il-
lustrated my doctrines, these  alone were mentioned;  it was not,
however, to be inferred from this, that these were the only cases on
which I had operated.  Dr. Gibson, as  I  learn from the gentlemen
 who attended his lectures, has himself performed the operation four-
teen times}  and when I learn from the same source, that he has ope-
rated thirty times for hernia!! and sixty times for cataract!! I have
the satisfaction of thinking, that in going to Baltimore, I go to an
excellent field for the practice of my profession.
   As to the pitiful attempts made by Dr. Gibson,  in his anonymous
 letter and strictures, to excite a prejudiced feeling against me from
 my being a  foreigner,  they are so characteristic  of the puny soul
 that, animates him, that they cannot tail to excite the disgust of the
 public, and  my pity.   I therefore  shall conclude this statement by
 the publication of three letters, taken from  sixteen, written in the
 same spirit, and furnished me by  some of the first characters in
 Britain.
            LETTER OF SIR WILLIAM ADAMS.

                          26, Jllbermarle street, May 26, 1819.
  Mv DEAR SIR,
        I  cannot refuse myself the  pleasure of addressing  a few
lines to you, previously to your departure for America.  For me to
take pains to convince you that you  have my most friendly  wishes
for your health and prosperity,  I hope would be unnecessary.
  It would afford me sincere pleasure were  it in my  power to con-
tribute to either.  In common with the rest  of your friends, I deep-
ly regret your  departure, although selfish feelings ought not to  be
indulged, on such an occasion.  For, when a professional man, of
your zeal and knowledge, is placed in a situation to be pre-eminent-
ly useful in teaching his art to the professional men of a great and
rising nation, we  should  look to the benefits which  will, thereby, 
30
accrue to science and humanity, to the  individual,  through whose
means such good is effected.  I shall not  hurt your modesty, by
repeating in this letter, the degree of estimation  in which you  are
held in this  country.   The letters which you have obtained, from
most of our eminent surgeons, must carry much greater weight with
them than any thing I could say.  Originating, as they do, fiom
such high authority, I conceive if any further recommendation than
your own well merited reputation were requisite to ensure the attain-
ment of the honour you are solicitous to procure,  these documents
cannot fail to be successful.
  That you may live long to render yourself, as heretofore,  an  ex-
ample in your profession, an acquisition in every social circle, is
the sincere wish of
                              My dear  sir,
                                  Yours, very faithfully.
  (Signed)                                      W. ADAMS.
To Professor Patterson.
         LETTER FROM JOHN THOMPSON, M. B. F. R. S.

Professor to the Royal College of Surgeons, and Regius Professor of Military
               Surgery, in the University of Edinburgh.

                              Edinburgh, 7th January, 1819.

   MY DEAR SIR,
     I received your letter this afternoon, and do not lose a moment
it  assuring you how happy I should be, to think I could in any way
forward your views with regard to America.
   To obtain the chair of Anatomy, now vacant in the first Medical
University of the United States, is an object of ambition, worthy of
a mind ardent as yours, in the pursuit and improvement of Anato-
mical science, and  I cannot but heartily wish you success; however
:r ch I may regret our losing the benefit  of your labours,  in  the
c ) aitry where your  professional  talents, knowledge  and zeal  are
already so well known, and have been so eminently useful.
  Your knowledge  of anatomy, and the experience you have alrea-
dy acquired  in teaching it, with your extensive and valuable collec-
tion of preparations,  must give you a claim to the attention  of  the
patrons of the University of Philadelphia, which no other candidate
I  am convinced, can possibly possess.
  With this  impression of your merit I cannot but feel anxious that
you  should  succeed  in the attainment of your  wishes, confident,
as I  am, that your appointment  to the  office  you ire soliciting, 
31
must reflect as much honour on those who confer it, as you can re-
ceive by obtaining it.
                  I remain, Dear Sir,
                      With the sincerest regard,
                                     Yours, very truly,
    (Signed)                     JOHN THOMPSON, M. D.
To Granville S. Pattison, Esq.
    Lecturer on Anatomy, Glasgow.
           LETTER OF FRANCIS JEFFREY, Esq.
              EDITOR OF THE EDINBURGH REVIEW.
Dr. Chapman, &c. &c.£
    Philadelphia.     >
                              Edinburgh, 28th December, 1818.

Dear Sir,
    I am afraid it may appear very presumptuous in me to present
myself as a recommender of others, to a gentleman on  whom I have
no  other claims, than what may be,, rather  ungratefully, founded,
on the very polite attentions I have myself experienced at his hands.
  As I am very much interested,  however, in  the success of the
o-entleman  on whose account I now address you,  and very firmly
persuaded,  that it will, ultimately, be a source of satisfaction  and
comfort to yourself, I do not hesitate to risk the appearance of for-
wardness,  that may attach to this application, and to bespeak your
*ood offices in behalf of Mr. Granville Pattison, as a candidate for
the vacant chair of Anatomy in your city  of Philadelphia.
   Of his professional qualifications,  1 do not pretend to speak, but
from the report of others; but living, as I do, among the oracles of
medical science, I  may venture to say, that I do not remember an
 individual  in whose favour they have  all testified so universally?
 and, from what I know of his history,  I may add, that no person
 has for many years, appeared in this country,  who has united so
 devoted a  zeal for his science, with so much acuteness and capacity,
 and so happy a faculty of communicating, and rendering interest-
 ing the knowledge he has attained.
   Wis situation in Glasgow is extremely lucrative and respectable,
 and it may -ive you some idea of the attractions  of his manner, and
 the extent of his reputation, when I  mention, that, having been per-
 suaded, last year,  in addition to his  proper  scientific class,  to de-
 liver a course of more popular lectures on anatomy,  he immediate-
 ly assembled an audience of nearly three  hundred persons, most of
 them unconnected with the profession of  medicine.
    He has spent a considerable time, both  in Loudon and Pans, with
 a more thorough and ardent dedication of himself to those pursuits, 
32
than  I ever heard  of in lany other individual.  In short,  I verily
Believe, that a more accomplished anatomist, or a more successful
lecturer, could not be found,  and, for  the  honour of Scotland, as
well  as for the good of America, I cannot help being very much
interested in his success.
   Of course he  will lay before you the most ample testimonials from
the proper professional authorities;  without these my recommenda-
tion would be ridiculous, and with them,  I am very sensible it may
well  be regarded as idle and obtrusive.   But I could not resist add-
ing my insignificant testimony in behalf of so much merit;  and, en-
deavouring at  least, to  excite some attention to its claims, in the
mind of an individual of great influence, whose  former kindness  to
myself, encourages me to think, that he will at least pardon the  li-
berty I have now taken.
                   I have the honour to be,
                      Dear Sir,
                        With great respect and esteem,
                            Your faithful and obedient servant.
   (Signed)                                    F. JEFFREY.
                        POSTSCRIPT.


          IN this, the second edition of my "Answer to Dr. Gibson's Stric-
tures," I have made no additions.  It may be asked, what is the object of its
publication ?  My reply is, that as Dr. Gibson had published a new edition
of his Strictures, since my answer has been out of print, and as the gentlemen
who were furnished with his observations, were  desirous to read my answer
to them, a second edition became necessary.  From the following extract,
taken from a letter written by  Dr.  Gibson,  of date-the 4th November, since
the publication of my answer, to a medical gentleman of this city : I  am hap-
py to find that that individual is satisfied, and that the controversy is at end.
"My dispute with Mr. Pattison has, I hope, terminated; I regret very much
"the occasion of it, and the terms in which I have sometimes been obliged
" to speak of that gentleman.  I have  a respect  for his talents, and hope sin-
««cerely that the school to which I am indebted for my present situation, will
« be benefitted by his appointment."