Moning of Benjamin Harrison, treasurer of Guy’s Hospital. Harrison had not witnessed the operation and had no medical knowledge to speak of, but it was through him that Wakley sought to illuminate the wider, systemic dimensions of the case. Questioned as to the details of Bransby’s appointment, Harrison testified that he had been elected assistant surgeon on the very same day in 1825 that his uncle had been elected consulting surgeon and that no public notice was given of the vacancy.85 Wakley then sought to paint a more get Olmutinib general picture of institutional nepotism. Listing the names of all of Guy’s surgical incumbents, he asked Harrison to confirm their relationship to Sir Astley Cooper. Harrison in turn confirmed that Mr Key, Mr Morgan and Mr Callaway were either the nephews or the apprentices of Sir Astley Cooper, or in Mr Key’s case, both.86 In marked contrast to Wakley’s emphasis on the objective, the political and the systemic, Scarlett sought to return the case to the level of the subjective and the personal. Thus in his opening address on the second day of the trial he claimed that Cooper was a respectable and honest man whose reputation had been grossly impugned by Wakley, `a literary raven’, as `ignorant of his own profession as he is of good taste, or the principles of social order exhibited in his writings’.87 He positioned himself in direct opposition to the interests of the press, to which he claimed he was `no enemy . . . though I have never flattered it, and will never court it’.88 Like Wakley, then, Scarlett located The Lancet within the wider political and stylistic cultures of radical journalism. However, where Wakley saw forceful critique, Scarlett saw a populist pandering to the baser sentiments of human nature: What do you think now of the feelings, what do you think of the taste . . . of the humanity of a man who could have witnessed this operation . . . and yet could have turned it into the form I shall now read to you, and printed it, accompanied with ludicrous remarks, and in dramatic appearance, for the purpose of amusing the public ear?89 In contrast to Wakley’s witnesses, most of those summoned by Scarlett were medical and surgical luminaries who had not been present at the operation in question but who were there to provide a subjective estimation of Cooper’s character. Undoubtedly the most order GSK2256098 significant of these was his uncle and patron, Sir Astley Cooper. Originally subpoenaed by Wakley, Sir Astley gave an account of Bransby’s education and career. However, when it came to the question of his nephew’s abilities as a surgeon, he was oddly equivocal: I think him a good anatomist, and that he is a very, very, very good surgeon. But let me say this, that a man, when he first enters upon hospital practice, however clever he may suppose himself, he may necessarily have yet experience to acquire . . . but give him time, do not crush him at the outset of his career.ibid., 61. 62. 87ibid.,86ibid.,ibid., 68. 80. 90ibid., 120.89ibid.,Social HistoryVOL.39 :NO.Needless to say, Wakley seized upon this extraordinary admission in his crossexamination, asking Sir Astley: But do you not think the public interest would be best promoted by placing in the hospitals experienced men, and not men who are to wade through blood to their necks, like great generals to gain experience? To which Sir Astley replied: I think it’s foreign to the subject.91 Cooper’s response could hardly have provided a clearer expression of the cultural gulf.Moning of Benjamin Harrison, treasurer of Guy’s Hospital. Harrison had not witnessed the operation and had no medical knowledge to speak of, but it was through him that Wakley sought to illuminate the wider, systemic dimensions of the case. Questioned as to the details of Bransby’s appointment, Harrison testified that he had been elected assistant surgeon on the very same day in 1825 that his uncle had been elected consulting surgeon and that no public notice was given of the vacancy.85 Wakley then sought to paint a more general picture of institutional nepotism. Listing the names of all of Guy’s surgical incumbents, he asked Harrison to confirm their relationship to Sir Astley Cooper. Harrison in turn confirmed that Mr Key, Mr Morgan and Mr Callaway were either the nephews or the apprentices of Sir Astley Cooper, or in Mr Key’s case, both.86 In marked contrast to Wakley’s emphasis on the objective, the political and the systemic, Scarlett sought to return the case to the level of the subjective and the personal. Thus in his opening address on the second day of the trial he claimed that Cooper was a respectable and honest man whose reputation had been grossly impugned by Wakley, `a literary raven’, as `ignorant of his own profession as he is of good taste, or the principles of social order exhibited in his writings’.87 He positioned himself in direct opposition to the interests of the press, to which he claimed he was `no enemy . . . though I have never flattered it, and will never court it’.88 Like Wakley, then, Scarlett located The Lancet within the wider political and stylistic cultures of radical journalism. However, where Wakley saw forceful critique, Scarlett saw a populist pandering to the baser sentiments of human nature: What do you think now of the feelings, what do you think of the taste . . . of the humanity of a man who could have witnessed this operation . . . and yet could have turned it into the form I shall now read to you, and printed it, accompanied with ludicrous remarks, and in dramatic appearance, for the purpose of amusing the public ear?89 In contrast to Wakley’s witnesses, most of those summoned by Scarlett were medical and surgical luminaries who had not been present at the operation in question but who were there to provide a subjective estimation of Cooper’s character. Undoubtedly the most significant of these was his uncle and patron, Sir Astley Cooper. Originally subpoenaed by Wakley, Sir Astley gave an account of Bransby’s education and career. However, when it came to the question of his nephew’s abilities as a surgeon, he was oddly equivocal: I think him a good anatomist, and that he is a very, very, very good surgeon. But let me say this, that a man, when he first enters upon hospital practice, however clever he may suppose himself, he may necessarily have yet experience to acquire . . . but give him time, do not crush him at the outset of his career.ibid., 61. 62. 87ibid.,86ibid.,ibid., 68. 80. 90ibid., 120.89ibid.,Social HistoryVOL.39 :NO.Needless to say, Wakley seized upon this extraordinary admission in his crossexamination, asking Sir Astley: But do you not think the public interest would be best promoted by placing in the hospitals experienced men, and not men who are to wade through blood to their necks, like great generals to gain experience? To which Sir Astley replied: I think it’s foreign to the subject.91 Cooper’s response could hardly have provided a clearer expression of the cultural gulf.
