Letter of the Day: June 16 (1 of 3) - Paget on Medical Museums

1 Harewood Place
Hanover Square, W.

London, June 16, 1888

My dear Dr. Billings

I enclose some more of the answers to your questions and a few more, probably, will come in and shall be sent to you at once.

I will gladly write what I think on the subjects mentioned in your last letter / May 20th / but it must be admitted that on nearly all points that which may be deemed best for London may not be so for Washington. This is, certainly, try in reference to your first question. Here, we have our British Museum, which, in its Natural History Departments, corresponds with your National Museum, and we have our Museum of the College of Surgeons which, although it may be classed as a Medical Museum, yet has illustrations of Comparative Anatomy & Physiology in their widest range in the collections combining them both would doubtless have the glory of being more nearly perfect than either alone can be; and there would be some utility in this; but I think it is, on the whole, much more useful to have the two; for they are two miles apart; they are chiefly studied by two different classes of persons; their mutual friendly rivalry is generally beneficial; and, the College’s Museum being independent of Government support, insures a larger total expenditure for scientific purposes than the Government might be disposed to grant. Similarly, there are, I think, great advantages in our having for the promotion of Botany not only the collections of the British Museum but those of the Linnaean Society in which are included those of Linnaeus himself.

I should not think thus if our two museums were, like yours, only 150 yards apart and if both were wholly or in any considerable degree dependent on the Government. I should think that in your Medical Museum it would suffice if Comparative Anatomy were illustrated to the fullest range of what may reasonably be deemed its near relations with human anatomy, physiology and morphology. The Museums of our universities and chief medical schools have their sections in Comparative Anatomy and Physiology on this plan; but yours would, of course be larger; and in estimating for it what might be deemed the reasonable range of Comparative Anatomy I would exceed rather than fall short. There is no harm in the overlapping of museums or of the several divisions of any one; duplicates are far less troublesome than defects are; students should not be obliged to go from one museum to another for the illustrations of any but the most difficult subjects.

For these reasons I think that though your Medical Museum should have by far the larger number of specimens of Vertebrate Embryology, yet the Natural History Museum should have many (?); and if they were duplicates of your ones it would not do harm.

About Anthropometry – except in so far as it is concerned with specimens that may be put in a museum, I cannot express an opinion. I have never considered it or seen it tried; but it would be admirable it if led to the abolition of measurements by the sizes of eggs, oranges, nuts, horse-beans etc, which abound in what out to be accurate descriptions.

As to “what a Medical Museum should show to the unprofessional public” I think as might safely be determined by the range of the best popular lectures given from time to time; - excluding all things genital or relating to them and all, or nearly all, things pathological of which the chief interest is personal; but not excluding “wonders,” such as skeletons of giants, dwarfs, + the life, or the effects of an accident, for thinking of wonders often leads to more useful thinking about common things.

Then, lastly, as to Instruments with the names of those to whom they belonged, I am very glad that you mention them for you thus give me an opportunity of offering something to your Museum and which I take with even more pleasure, an opportunity of giving some evidence of my great regard for yourself. I will send you a lancet which belonged to John Hunter [815 Misc. Sect.]. It was given to me by Mr. Clift who was his secretary and the first conservator of his Museum and who marked his name on it. And with it will be an Assalini’s artery-forceps [816 Misc. Sect.] , said to be the first ever made in England. It was given to me by Mr. Wardrop, whose works on the Eye and other subjects will be known to you as he was, probably, the first who used the instrument in England, and I never knew it to fail; and even now, when it is more than 70 years old, it is perfectly fit for use.

Pray accept them, and with them my sincere wishes that you and all your work may enjoy complete prosperity.

Always truly yours,
James Paget.

Let me also be remembered very kindly to Mrs. Billings [over]
I do not know when Assalini’s forceps was first described but in his Annals di Chirgia, ? 1812 he speaks at p. 69 of “suis finzetta a doppi usaini?” and a form of it is figured in pl. viii figs 10, described at p. 173.

[Instruments received July 2, 1888. A.M.M. Nos. 815 & 816 Miscellaneous Section]