Produced by Chris Curnow, Joseph Cooper and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net.









  SMITHSONIAN STUDIES IN HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY/NUMBER 41


  BLOODLETTING INSTRUMENTS
  IN THE
  NATIONAL MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY


  Audrey Davis and Toby Appel


  Smithsonian Institution Press
  City of Washington
  1979




ABSTRACT

Davis, Audrey, and Toby Appel. Bloodletting Instruments in the National
Museum of History and Technology. _Smithsonian Studies in History and
Technology_, number 41, 103 pages, 124 figures, 1979.--Supported by a
variety of instruments, bloodletting became a recommended practice in
antiquity and remained an accepted treatment for millenia. Punctuated by
controversies over the amount of blood to take, the time to abstract it,
and the areas from which to remove it, bloodletters employed a wide range
of instruments. All the major types of equipment and many variations are
represented in this study of the collection in the National Museum of
History and Technology.


OFFICIAL PUBLICATION DATE is handstamped in a limited number of initial
copies and is recorded in the Institution's annual report, _Smithsonian
Year_. COVER DESIGN: "Phlebotomy, 1520" (from Seitz, 1520, as illustrated
in Hermann Peter, _Der Arzt und die Heilkunst_, Leipzig, 1900; photo
courtesy of NLM).



  Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data

  Davis, Audrey B
  Bloodletting instruments in the National Museum of History and
  Technology. (Smithsonian studies in history and technology; no. 41)
  Bibliography: p.
  Supt. of Docs, no.: SI 1.28:41

  1. Bloodletting--Instruments--Catalogs. 2. Bloodletting--History. 3.
  National Museum of History and Technology. I. Appel, Toby, 1945--joint
  author. II. Title. III. Series: Smithsonian Institution. Smithsonian
  studies in history and technology; no. 41 [DNLM: 1. Bloodletting--
  History. 2. Bloodletting--Instrumentation--Catalogs. 3. Bloodletting--
  Exhibitions--Catalogs.

  RM182.D38    617'.9178    78-606043




CONTENTS


                                                                 Page

  Preface                                                           v

  Introduction                                                      1

  Sources                                                           2

  Bleeding: The History                                             3
    How Much Blood to Take                                          5
    When to Bleed                                                   7
    Barber-Surgeons                                                 8
    Bloodletting and the Scientific Revolution                      9
    Instrumentation and Techniques                                 10
    Spring Lancets                                                 12
    The Decline of Bleeding                                        15

  Cupping                                                          17
    Early Cupping Instruments                                      17
    Instruments of the Professional Cupper                         21
    Cupping Procedure                                              24
    Nineteenth Century Attempts to Improve Cupping Technology      25
    Dry Cupping                                                    31
    Breast Cupping                                                 32
    The Decline of Cupping                                         34

  Leeching                                                         34
    Leeches                                                        34
    Artificial Leeches                                             36

  Veterinary Bloodletting                                          40

  Physical Analysis of Artifacts                                   41

  Catalog of Bloodletting Instruments                              42
    Phlebotomy                                                     44
      Flint and Thumb Lancets                                      44
      Spring Lancets                                               44
      Bleeding Bowls                                               47
      Extra Blades and Cases                                       47
    Cupping                                                        48
      Scarificators                                                48
      Cups                                                         50
      Cupping Sets                                                 50
      Cupping Apparatus                                            52
      Breast Pumps                                                 52
    Leeching                                                       53
    Veterinary Bloodletting                                        53
      Fleams                                                       53
      Spring Lancets                                               54
    Related Artifacts                                              55

  Notes                                                            57

  List of Trade Catalogs Consulted                                 63

  Figures 26-124                                                   64




PREFACE


Among the many catalogs of museum collections, few describe objects
related to the practice of medicine. This catalog is the first of a series
on the medical sciences collections in the National Museum of History and
Technology (NMHT). Bloodletting objects vary from ancient sharp-edged
instruments to the spring action and automatic devices of the last few
centuries. These instruments were used in a variety of treatments
supporting many theories of disease and therefore reflect many varied
aspects of the history of medicine. Beginning with an essay sketching the
long history of bloodletting, this catalog provides a survey of the
various kinds of instruments, both natural and man-made, that have been
used throughout the centuries.

It is a pleasure to thank the Smithsonian Research Foundation, the
Commonwealth Foundation, and the Houston Endowment for their financial
support of this project.

Miss Doris Leckie, who did much of the preliminary research and organized
part of the collection that led to a draft of this catalog with special
emphasis on the cupping apparatus, receives our highest gratitude. Her
public lectures on the topic drew much praise. The usefulness of this
catalog is due in no small part to her devoted efforts.

For photographing the Smithsonian objects so well we thank Richard
Hofmeister, John Wooten, and Alfred Harrell of the Smithsonian Office of
Printing and Photographic Services. For analyzing selected objects and
answering our requests promptly we thank Dr. Robert Organ, chief; Barbara
Miller, conservation director; and Martha Goodway, metallurgist, of the
Conservation Analytical Laboratory.

To those who helped us to solve specific problems we extend appreciation
to Dr. Arthur Nunes; Dr. Uta C. Merzbach, curator of mathematics, NMHT
(especially for finding the poem by Dr. Snodgrass); and Silvio Bedini,
deputy director, NMHT, whose enthusiasm and unmatched ability for studying
objects has sustained us throughout the period of preparation.

While it is traditional to add a reminder that various unnamed people
contributed to a publication, it is imperative to state here that numerous
people are essential to the collection, conservation, preservation, and
exhibition of museum objects. Without them no collection would survive and
be made available to those who come to study, admire or just enjoy these
objects. We hope this catalog brings out some of the joy as well as the
difficulties of maintaining a national historical medical collection.




  BLOODLETTING INSTRUMENTS
  IN THE
  NATIONAL MUSEUM OF HISTORY AND TECHNOLOGY

  AUDREY DAVIS and TOBY APPEL[A]




Introduction


Bloodletting, the removal of blood from the body, has been practiced in
some form by almost all societies and cultures. At various times,
bloodletting was considered part of the medical treatment for nearly every
ailment known to man. It was also performed as punishment or as a form of
worship to a Superior Power or Being. It still retains therapeutic value
today, although only for an extremely limited range of conditions. In
early attempts to extract blood from the body, the skin was penetrated in
various places with a sharp instrument made of stone, wood, metal,
bristle, or any other rigid material. When it was recognized that a vein
visible on the surface of the skin as a blue-green stripe contained blood,
the vein was incised directly. To facilitate "breathing a vein" and to
provide greater safety, more refined and sharper instruments were devised.
As theories supporting bloodletting grew more complex, so too did the
instruments.

Spontaneous forms of bleeding, including nosebleed, menstruation, and
those instances produced by a blow to any part of the body, apparently
inspired the earliest human bloodletters. The Egyptians claimed that the
hippopotamus rubbed its leg against a sharp reed until it bled to remove
excess blood from its body.[1] The Peruvians noted that a bat would take
blood from the toe of a sleeping person when the opportunity presented
itself. A deer, and goat, would pick a place near its diseased eye for
relief.[2] The methods employed by animals increased interest in using
artificial methods for letting blood in man.

The devices man has employed to remove blood from the body fall into two
major categories: (1) those instruments used for general bloodletting,
that is, the opening of an artery, or more commonly a vein, and (2) those
instruments used in local bloodletting. Instruments in the first category
include lancets, spring lancets, fleams, and phlebotomes. Associated with
these are the containers to collect and measure the blood spurting from
the patient. In the second category are those instruments associated with
leeching and cupping. In both of these methods of local bloodletting, only
the capillaries are severed and the blood is drawn from the body by some
means of suction, either by a leech or by an air exhausted vessel.
Instruments in this category include scarificators, cupping glasses,
cupping devices, and many artificial leeches invented to replace the
living leech.

Much effort and ingenuity was expanded, especially in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, to improve the techniques of bloodletting. In the
eighteenth century, delicate mechanical spring lancets and scarificators
were invented to replace the simpler thumb lancets and fleams. In the
nineteenth century, as surgical supply companies began to advertise and
market their wares, many enterprising inventors turned their hand to
developing new designs for lancets and scarificators, pumps, fancy cupping
sets, rubber cups, and all manner of cupping devices and artificial
leeches. If we also consider treatments related to bloodletting, in which
blood is transferred from one part of the body to another, without actual
removal from the body, then we can add the many inventions devoted to dry
cupping, irritating the body, and exhausting the air around limbs or even
the entire body. Although many physicians continued to use the traditional
instruments that had been used for centuries, many others turned eagerly
to the latest gadget on the market.

Bloodletting instruments, perhaps the most common type of surgical
instrument little more than a century ago, are now unfamiliar to the
average person. When one sees them for the first time, one is often amazed
at their petite size, careful construction, beautiful materials, and
elegant design. One marvels at spring lancets made of silver, thumb
lancets with delicate tortoise shell handles, and sets of hand-blown cups
in the compartments of a mahogany container with brass and ivory latches
and a red plush lining. Those finding such instruments in their attic or
in a collection of antiques, even if they can determine that the
instruments were used for bloodletting, often have no idea when the
instruments were made or how they were used. Frequently a veterinary
spring lancet or fleam is mistaken for a human lancet, or a scarificator
for an instrument of venesection. Almost nothing has been written to
describe these once common instruments and to place them in historical
context. Historians who study the history of medical theory usually ignore
medical practice, and they rarely make reference to the material means by
which a medical diagnosis or treatment was carried out. It is hoped that
this publication will fill a need for a general history of these
instruments. This history is pieced together from old textbooks of
surgery, medical encyclopedias, compilations of surgical instruments,
trade catalogs, and the instruments themselves.

The collection of instruments at the National Museum of History and
Technology of the Smithsonian Institution contains several hundred pieces
representing most of the major types of instruments. Begun in the late
nineteenth century when medical sciences were still part of the Department
of Anthropology, the collection has grown steadily through donations and
purchases. As might be expected, it is richest in bloodletting instruments
manufactured in America in the nineteenth century. One of its earliest
acquisitions was a set of four flint lancets used by Alaskan natives in
the 1880s. A major source for nineteenth-century instruments is the
collection of instruments used by the members of the Medical and
Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland, a medical society founded in 1799. The
Smithsonian collection also includes patent models of bloodletting
instruments submitted to the U.S. Patent Office by nineteenth-century
inventors and transferred to the Smithsonian in 1926.

Because we have made an effort to survey every major type of instrument
related to bloodletting, it is hoped that this publication will serve as a
general introduction to bloodletting instruments, and not merely a guide
to the Smithsonian collection. With this goal in mind, the catalog of
bloodletting instruments has been preceded by chapters surveying the
history of bloodletting and describing, in general terms, the procedures
and instruments that have been used since antiquity for venesection,
cupping, leeching, and veterinary bloodletting. In the course of our
research we have consulted several other collections of bloodletting
instruments, notably the collections of the Wellcome Museum of London, the
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, the College of Physicians in
Philadelphia, the Institute of the History of Medicine at the Johns
Hopkins University, the Howard Dittrick Medical Museum in Cleveland, and
the University of Toronto. Illustrations from these collections and
references to them have been included in the cases where the Smithsonian
collection lacks a particular type of instrument.




Sources


While primary sources describing the procedures and presenting theoretical
arguments for and against bloodletting are plentiful, descriptions of the
instruments and their manufacture are often difficult to find. Before the
nineteenth century, one may find illustrations of bloodletting instruments
in the major textbooks on surgery, in encyclopedias such as that of
Diderot, and in compendia of surgical instruments written by surgeons. The
descriptions following the drawings are often meager and give little
indication of where, when, and how the instruments were produced. Until
well into the nineteenth century, the tools used by barber-surgeons,
surgeons, and dentists were made by blacksmiths, silversmiths, and
cutlers. These craftsmen generally left little record of their work. As
the demand for surgical instruments increased, specialized surgical
instrument makers began to appear, and the cutler began to advertise
himself as "Cutler and Surgical Instrument Maker" rather than simply
"Cutler and Scissor Grinder." A few advertising cards dating from the
eighteenth century may be found, but the illustrated trade catalog is a
product of the nineteenth century. Among the earliest compendia/catalogs
of surgical instruments written by an instrument maker, rather than by a
surgeon, was John Savigny's _A Collection of Engravings Representing the
Most Modern and Approved Instruments Used in the Practice of Surgery_
(London, 1799). This was followed a few decades later by the brochures and
catalog (1831) of the famous London instrument maker, John Weiss. By the
1840s John Weiss, Charrière of Paris, and a few other instrument makers
had begun to form surgical supply companies that attempted to market
instruments over a wide area. While there are a handful of company trade
catalogs dating from the 1840s, 1850s, and 1860s, the great influx of such
catalogs came after 1870. Trade catalogs, a major source of information on
the new instruments of the nineteenth century, provide the historian with
line drawings, short descriptions indicating the mechanism and the
material of which the instrument was composed, prices, and patent status.
For more details on nineteenth-century instruments one must turn to
brochures and articles in medical journals introducing the instruments to
the medical profession. These sources provide the most detailed
descriptions of how the instruments were constructed, how they were used,
and why they were invented. For many American instruments, the
descriptions available at the U.S. Patent Office offer illustrations of
the mechanism and a discussion of why the instrument was considered novel.
One finds specifications for many bizarre instruments that never appear in
trade catalogs and may never have been actually sold.

A final source of information is the instruments themselves. Some are
engraved with the name of the manufacturer, and a few are even engraved
with the date of manufacture. Some have been taken apart to study the
spring mechanisms and others examined in the Conservation Analytical
Laboratory of the Smithsonian Institution to determine their material
content. The documentation accompanying the instruments, while sometimes
in error, may serve to identify the individual artifact by name, place and
date of manufacture, and to augment our knowledge of the historical
setting in which these instruments were used.




Bleeding: The History


The history of bloodletting has been marked by controversy. The extensive
literature on bloodletting contains numerous polemical treatises that both
extol and condemn the practice. Bloodletting was no sooner criticized as
ineffective and dangerous than it was rescued from complete abandonment by
a new group of zealous supporters.

From the time of Hippocrates (5th century B.C.)--and probably before,
although no written record is available--bloodletting had its vocal
advocates and heated opponents. In the 5th century B.C. Aegimious of Eris
(470 B.C.), author of the first treatise on the pulse, opposed
venesection, while Diogenes of Appolonia (430 B.C.), who described the
vena cava with its main branches, was a proponent of the practice.
Hippocrates, to whom no specific text on bloodletting is attributed, both
approved and recommended venesection.[3]

The anatomist and physician Erasistratus (300-260 B.C.), was one of the
earliest physicians to leave a record of why he opposed venesection, the
letting of blood from a vein. Erasistratus, who practiced at the court of
the King of Syria and later at Alexandria, a celebrated center of ancient
medicine, recognized that the difficulty in estimating the amount of blood
to be withdrawn and the possibility of mistakenly cutting an artery,
tendon, or nerve might cause permanent damage or even death. Since
Erasistratus believed that only the veins carried blood while the arteries
contained air, he also feared the possibility of transferring air from the
arteries into the veins as a result of venesection. Erasistratus was led
to question how excessive venesection differed from committing murder.[4]

Through the writings of Aulus Cornelius Celsus (25 B.C.-?), the Roman
encyclopedist, and Galen (ca. A.D. 130-200) venesection was restored as a
form of orthodox medical treatment and remained so for the next fifteen
hundred years. By the time of Celsus, bloodletting had become a common
treatment. Celsus remarked in his well-known account of early medicine:
"To let blood by incising a vein is no novelty; what is novel is that
there should be scarcely any malady in which blood may not be let."[5] Yet
criticism of bloodletting continued, for when Galen went to Rome in A.D.
164 he found the followers of Erasistratus opposing venesection. Galen
opened up discussion with these physicians in two books, _Against
Erasistratus_ and _Against the Erasistrateans Dwelling in Rome_. These
argumentative dialectical treatises, together with his _Therapeutics of
Venesection_, in which he presented his theory and practice of
venesection, established Galen's views on bloodletting, which were not
effectively challenged until the seventeenth century.[6]

The fundamental theory upon which explanations of health and disease were
based, which had its inception in ancient Greek thought and lasted up to
the eighteenth century, was the humoral theory. Based on the scientific
thought of the Pre-Socratics, the Pythagoreans, and the Sicilians, this
theory posited that when the humors, consisting of blood, phlegm, yellow
bile, and black bile, were in balance within the body, good health ensued.
Conversely, when one or more of these humors was overabundant or in less
than adequate supply, disease resulted. The humors were paired off with
specific qualities representing each season of the year and the four
elements according to the well-accepted doctrine of Empedocles, in which
all things were composed of earth, air, fire, and water. Thus, yellow
bile, fire, and summer were contrasted to phlegm, water, and winter, while
blood, air, and spring were contrasted to black bile, earth, and autumn.
When arranged diagrammatically, the system incorporating the humors,
elements, seasons, and qualities appears as shown in Figure 1. The
earliest formulation of humoralism was to be found in the physiological
and pathological theory of the Hippocratic treatise, _On the Nature of
Man_.[7]

Plethora, an overabundance of body humors, including blood, which
characterized fevers and inflammations, was properly treated by
encouraging evacuation. This could be done through drugs that purged or
brought on vomiting, by starvation, or by letting blood. During starvation
the veins became empty of food and then readily absorbed blood that
escaped into the arteries. As this occurred, inflammation decreased. Galen
suggested that instead of starvation, which required some time and
evacuated the system with much discomfort to the patient, venesection
should be substituted to remove the blood directly.[8]

Peter Niebyl, who has traced the rationale for bloodletting from the time
of Hippocrates to the seventeenth century, concluded that bloodletting was
practiced more to remove excess good blood rather than to eliminate
inherently bad blood or foreign matter. Generally, venesection was
regarded as an equivalent to a reduction of food, since according to
ancient physiological theory, food was converted to blood.[9]


[Illustration: FIGURE 1.--Chart of elements, seasons, and humors.]


Galen defined the criteria for bloodletting in terms of extent, intensity,
and severity of the disease, whether the disease was "incipient,"
"present," or "prospective," and on the maturity and strength of the
patient.[10] Only a skilled physician would thus know when it was proper
to bleed a patient. Venesection could be extremely dangerous if not
correctly administered, but in the hands of a good physician, venesection
was regarded by Galen as a more accurate treatment than drugs. While one
could measure with great accuracy the dosages of such drugs as emetics,
diuretics, and purgatives, Galen argued that their action on the body was
directed by chance and could not easily be observed by the physician.[11]
However, the effects of bloodletting were readily observed. One could note
the change in the color of the blood removed, the complexion of the
patient, and the point at which the patient was about to become
unconscious, and know precisely when to stop the bleeding.

Galen discussed in great detail the selection of veins to open and the
number of times blood might be withdrawn.[12] In choosing the vein to
open, its location in respect to the disease was important. Galen
recommended that bleeding be done from a blood vessel on the same side of
the body as the disease. For example, he explained that blood from the
right elbow be removed to stop a nosebleed from the right nostril.[13]
Celsus had argued for withdrawing blood near the site of the disease for
"bloodletting draws blood out of the nearest place first, and thereupon
blood from more distant parts follows so long as the letting out of blood
is continued."[14]

Controversy over the location of the veins to be opened erupted in the
sixteenth century. Many publications appeared arguing the positive and
negative aspects of bleeding from a vein on the same side
(derivative--from the Latin _derivatio_ from the verb _derivare_, "to draw
away," "to divert") or the opposite side (revulsion--from the Latin
_revulsio_, "drawing in a contrary direction") of the disordered part of
the body. This debate mirrored a broader struggle over whether to practice
medicine on principles growing out of medieval medical views or out of
classical Greek doctrines that had recently been revived and brought into
prominence. The medieval practice was based on the Moslem medical writers
who emphasized revulsion (bleeding from a site located as far from the
ailment as possible).[15] This position was attacked in 1514 by Pierre
Brissot (1478-1522), a Paris physician, who stressed the importance of
bleeding near the locus of the disease (derivative bleeding). He was
declared a medical heretic by the Paris Faculty of Medicine and derivative
bleeding was forbidden by an act of the French parliament. In 1518,
Brissot was exiled to Spain and Portugal. In 1539, the celebrated
anatomist, Andreas Vesalius, continued the controversy with his famous
_Venesection Letter_, which came to the support of Brissot.[16]

Only with the gradual awareness of the implications of the circulation of
the blood (discovered in 1628) did discussion of the distinction between
derivative and revulsive bloodletting become passé.[17] Long after the
circulation of the blood was established, surgical treatises such as those
of Lorenz Heister (1719) recommended removing blood from specific parts of
the body--such as particular veins in the arm, hand, foot, forehead,
temples, inner corners of the eye, neck, and under the tongue. In the
nineteenth century this practice was still challenged in the literature as
a meaningless procedure.[18] (Figure 2.)


_How Much Blood to Take_

According to Galen, safety dictated that the first bloodletting be kept to
a minimum, if possible. Second, third, or further bleedings could be taken
if the condition and the patient's progress seemed to indicate they would
be of value. The amount of blood to be taken at one time varied
widely.[19]

Galen appears to have been the first to note the amount of blood that
could be withdrawn: the greatest quantity he mentions is one pound and a
half and the smallest is seven ounces. Avicenna (980-1037) believed that
ordinarily there were 25 pounds of blood in a man and that a man could
bleed at the nose 20 pounds and not die.[20]

The standard advice to bloodletters, especially in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, was "bleed to syncope." "Generally speaking," wrote
the English physician and medical researcher, Marshall Hall, in 1836, "as
long as bloodletting is required, it can be borne; and as long as it can
be borne, it is required."[21] The American physician, Robley Dunglison,
defined "syncope" in his 1848 medical dictionary as a "complete and,
commonly, sudden loss of sensation and motion, with considerable
diminution, or entire suspension of the pulsations of the heart and the
respiratory movements."[22] Today little distinction is made between shock
and collapse, or syncope, except to recognize that if collapse or syncope
persists, shock will result.

We know today that blood volume is about one-fifteenth to one-seventeenth
the body weight of an adult. Thus an adult weighing 150 pounds has 9 or 10
pounds of blood in his body. Blood volume may increase at great heights,
under tropical conditions, and in the rare disease polycythemia (excess
red blood cells). After a pint of blood is withdrawn from a healthy
individual, the organism replaces it to some degree within an hour or so.
However, it takes weeks for the hemoglobin (the oxygen-bearing substance
in the red blood cells) to be brought up to normal.

If blood loss is great (more than 10 percent of the total blood volume)
there occurs a sudden, systemic fall in blood pressure. This is a
well-known protective mechanism to aid blood clotting. If the volume of
blood lost does not exceed 30 to 40 percent, systolic, disastolic, and
pulse pressures rise again after approximately 30 minutes as a result of
various compensatory mechanisms.[23]


[Illustration: FIGURE 2.--Venesection manikin, 16th century. Numbers
indicate locations where in certain diseases venesection should be
undertaken. (From Stoeffler, 1518, as illustrated in Heinrich Stern,
_Theory and Practice of Bloodletting_, New York, 1915. Photo courtesy of
NLM.)]


If larger volumes than this are removed, the organism is usually unable to
survive unless the loss is promptly replaced. Repeated smaller bleedings
may produce a state of chronic anemia when the total amount of blood and
hemoglobin removed is in excess of the natural recuperative powers.


_When to Bleed_

Selecting a time for bleeding usually depended on the nature of the
disease and the patient's ability to withstand the process. Galen's
scheme, in contrast to the Hippocratic doctrine, recommended no specific
days.[24] Hippocrates worked out an elaborate schedule, based on the onset
and type of disease, to which the physician was instructed to adhere
regardless of the patient's condition.

Natural events outside the body served as indicators for selecting the
time, site, and frequency of bloodletting during the Middle Ages when
astrological influences dominated diagnostic and therapeutic thought. This
is illustrated by the fact that the earliest printed document relating to
medicine was the "Calendar for Bloodletting" issued in Mainz in 1457. This
type of calendar, also used for purgation, was known as an
_Aderlasskalender_, and was printed in other German cities such as
Augsburg, Nuremberg, Strassburg, and Leipzig. During the fifteenth century
these calendars and _Pestblatter_, or plague warnings, were the most
popular medical literature. Sir William Osler and Karl Sudhoff studied
hundreds of these calendars.[25] They consisted of a single sheet with
some astronomical figures and a diagram of a man (_Aderlassmann_)
depicting the influence of the stars and the signs of the zodiac on each
part of the body, as well as the parts of the anatomy suitable for
bleeding. These charts illustrated the veins and arteries that should be
incised to let blood for specific ailments and usually included brief
instructions in the margin. The annotated bloodletting figure was one of
the earliest subjects of woodcuts. One early and well known _Aderlassmann_
was prepared by Johann Regiomontanus (Johannes Müller) in 1473. It
contained a dozen proper bleeding points, each suited for use under a
sign of the zodiac. Other _Aderlassmanner_ illustrated specific veins to
be bled. The woodcut produced by the sixteenth-century mathematician,
Johannes Stoeffer, illustrated 53 points where the lancet might be
inserted.[26]

"Medicina astrologica" exerted a great influence on bloodletting.
Determining the best time to bleed reached a high degree of perfection in
the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries with the use of volvella or
calculating devices adopted from astronomy and navigation. These were
carried on a belt worn around the waist for easy consultation. Used in
conjunction with a table and a vein-man drawing, the volvella contained
movable circular calculators for determining the accuracy, time, amount,
and site to bleed for an illness. The dangers of bloodletting elicited
both civic and national concern and control. Statutes were enacted that
required every physician to consult these tables before opening a vein to
minimize the chance of bleeding improperly and unnecessarily. Consultation
of the volvella and vein-man was more important than an examination of the
patient.[27] (Figure 3.)

For several centuries, almanacs were consulted to determine the propitious
time for bleeding. The "woodcut anatomy" became a characteristic
illustration of the colonial American almanac. John Foster introduced the
"Man of Signs," as it was called, into the American almanac tradition in
his almanac for 1678, printed in Boston. Other examples of early American
almanacs featuring illustrations of bleeding include Daniel Leed's almanac
for 1693, printed in Philadelphia, and John Clapp's almanac for 1697,
printed in New York.

As in many of the medieval illustrations, the woodcut anatomy in the
American almanac consisted of a naked man surrounded by the twelve signs
of the zodiac, each associated with a particular part of the body (the
head and face with Aries, the neck with Taurus, the arms with Gemini,
etc.). The directions that often accompanied the figure instructed the
user to find the day of the month in the almanac chart, note the sign or
place of the moon associated with that day, and then look for the sign in
the woodcut anatomy to discover what part of the body is governed by that
sign. Bloodletting was usually not specifically mentioned, but it is
likely that some colonials still used the "Man of Signs" or "Moon's Man"
to determine where to open a vein on a given day.[28]


[Illustration: FIGURE 3.--Lunar dial, Germany, 1604. Concentric scales
mark hours of the day, days, months, and special astrological numbers. In
conjunction with other dials, it enables the user to determine the phases
of the moon. (NMHT 30121; SI photo P-63426.)]


The eighteenth-century family Bible might contain a list of the favorable
and unfavorable days in each month for bleeding, as in the case of the
Bible of the Degge family of Virginia.[29]


_Barber-Surgeons_

Even though it was recognized that bleeding was a delicate operation that
could be fatal if not done properly, it was, from the medieval period on,
often left in the hands of the barber-surgeons, charlatans, and women
healers. In the early Middle Ages the barber-surgeons flourished as their
services grew in demand. Barber-surgeons had additional opportunities to
practice medicine after priests were instructed to abandon the practice of
medicine and concentrate on their religious duties. Clerics were cautioned
repeatedly by Pope Innocent II through the Council at Rheims in 1131, the
Lateran Council in 1139, and five subsequent councils, not to devote time
to duties related to the body if they must neglect matters related to the
soul.[30]

By 1210, the barber-surgeons in England had gathered together and formed a
Guild of Barber-Surgeons whose members were divided into Surgeons of the
Long Robe and Lay-Barbers or Surgeons of the Short Robe. The latter were
gradually forbidden by law to do any surgery except bloodletting, wound
surgery, cupping, leeching, shaving, extraction of teeth, and giving
enemas.[31] The major operations were in the hands of specialists, often
hereditary in certain families, who, if they were members of the Guild,
would have been Surgeons of the Long Robe.


[Illustration: FIGURE 4.--Bleeding bowl with gradations to measure the
amount of blood. Made by John Foster of London after 1740. (Held by the
Division of Cultural History, Greenwood Collection, Smithsonian
Institution; SI photo 61166-C.)]


To distinguish his profession from that of a surgeon, the barber-surgeon
placed a striped pole or a signboard outside his door, from which was
suspended a basin for receiving the blood (Figure 4). Cervantes used this
type of bowl as the "Helmet of Mambrino" in Don Quixote.[32] Special
bowls to catch the blood from a vein were beginning to come into fashion
in the fourteenth century. They were shaped from clay or thin brass and
later were made of pewter or handsomely decorated pottery. Some pewter
bowls were graduated from 2 to 20 ounces by a series of lines incised
around the inside to indicate the number of ounces of fluid when filled to
that level. Ceramic bleeding bowls, which often doubled as shaving bowls,
usually had a semicircular indentation on one side to facilitate slipping
the bowl under the chin. Bowls to be used only for bleeding usually had a
handle on one side. Italian families had a tradition of passing special
glass bleeding vessels from generation to generation. The great variety in
style, color, and size of bleeding and shaving bowls is demonstrated by
the beautiful collection of over 500 pieces of Dr. A. Lawrence Abel of
London and by the collection of the Wellcome Historical Museum, which has
been cataloged in John Crellin's _Medical Ceramics_.[33] These collections
illustrate the stylistic differences between countries and periods.

The barber-surgeons' pole represented the stick gripped by the patient's
hand to promote bleeding from his arm. The white stripe on the pole
corresponded to the tourniquet applied above the vein to be opened in the
arm or leg. Red or blue stripes appeared on early barber poles, but later
poles contained both colors.[34]

The dangers posed by untutored and unskilled bleeders were noted
periodically. In antiquity Galen complained about non-professional
bleeders, and in the Middle Ages, Lanfranc (1315), an outstanding surgeon,
lamented the tendency of surgeons of his time to abandon bloodletting to
barbers and women.[35] Barber-surgeons continued to let blood through the
seventeenth century. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, the
better educated surgeon, and sometimes even the physician, took charge of
bleeding.


_Bloodletting and the Scientific Revolution_

The discovery of the blood's circulation did not result in immediate
changes in the methods or forms of bloodletting. William Harvey, who
published his discovery of circulation in 1628, recognized the value of
investigating the implications of his theory. Harvey could not explain the
causes and uses of the circulation but he believed that it did not rule
out the practice of bloodletting. He claimed that

     daily experience satisfies us that bloodletting has a most salutary
     effect in many diseases, and is indeed the foremost among all the
     general remedial means: vitiated states and plethora of blood, are
     causes of a whole host of disease; and the timely evacuation of a
     certain quantity of the fluid frequently delivers patients from very
     dangerous diseases, and even from imminent death.[36]

The English scientist Henry Stubbe brought to the surface what would
appear to be an obvious dilemma: How could one bleed to produce local
effect if the blood circulated? Stubbe commented in 1671:

     I do say, that no experienced Physician ever denied the operation of
     bloodletting though since the tenet of the Circulation of the Blood
     the manner how such an effect doth succeed admits of some dispute,
     and is obscure. We the silly followers of Galen and the Ancients do
     think it an imbecility of judgement, for any to desert an experienced
     practice, because he doth not comprehend in what manner it is
     effected.[37]

In the early nineteenth century the physiologist François Magendie
(1783-1855), who argued against bloodletting, showed that the
physiological effects of opening different veins was exactly the same, and
therefore the choice of which vein to bleed did not affect the
procedure.[38]

The first serious modern challenges to bloodletting were made in the
sixteenth and seventeenth centuries under the leadership of the German
alchemist Paracelsus and his Belgian follower, Van Helmont. The medical
chemists or iatrochemists espoused explanations for and treatments of
diseases based on chemical theories and practices. They believed that the
state of the blood could best be regulated by administering the proper
chemicals and drugs rather than by simply removing a portion of the blood.
Iatrochemistry provided a substitution in the form of medicinals to quell
the flow of blood for therapeutic purposes.[39]

The revival of Hippocratic medicine in the late seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries also led to questioning the efficacy of bloodletting. The
Hippocratic treatises, while they occasionally mentioned bloodletting,
generally stressed nature's power of cure. This school of medicine
advocated a return to clinical observation and a reduction of activist
intervention. Treatments such as bloodletting, it was felt by the
neo-Hippocratists, might merely serve to weaken the patient's strength
and hinder the healing processes of nature.[40]

A rival group of medical theorists also flourished in this period. The
iatrophysicists, who concentrated on mechanical explanations of
physiological events, remained adherents of bloodletting. Their support of
the practice ensured its use at a time when the first substantial
criticism of it arose.


_Instrumentation and Techniques_

Sharp thorns, roots, fish teeth, and sharpened stones were among the early
implements used to let blood.[41] Venesection, one of the most frequently
mentioned procedures in ancient medicine, and related procedures such as
lancing abcesses, puncturing cavities containing fluids, and dissecting
tissues, were all accomplished in the classical period and later with an
instrument called the phlebotome. _Phlebos_ is Greek for "vein," while
"tome" derives from _temnein_, meaning "to cut." In Latin, "phlebotome"
becomes "flebotome," and in an Anglo-Saxon manuscript dating from A.D.
1000, the word "fleam" appears. The phlebotome, a type of lancet, was not
described in any of the ancient literature, but its uses make it apparent
that it was a sharp-pointed, double-edged, and straight-bladed cutting
implement or scalpel similar to the type later used for splitting larger
veins.[42]

Several early Roman examples of phlebotomes have been collected in
European museums. One, now in the Cologne Museum, was made of steel with a
square handle and blade of myrtle leaf shape. Another specimen, made of
bronze, was uncovered in the house of the physician of _Strada del
Consulare_ of Pompeii. This specimen, now in the Naples Museum, is 8 cm
long and 9 mm at the broadest part of the blade, and its handle bears a
raised ring ornamentation.[43] A number of copies of Roman instruments
have been made and some have passed into museum collections. Some of the
copies were commissioned by Sir Henry Wellcome for the Wellcome Historical
Medical Museum collection and the Howard Dittrick Historical Medical
Museum in Cleveland. They emulate the size, color, and aged condition of
the originals and make it very difficult for the inexpert to distinguish
an original from its replica. It is, however, impossible to fully
duplicate the patina of ancient bronze.[44] Seventeenth-century and later
bloodletting instruments usually have not been copied.[45]

From the earliest examples of the fleam, such as the specimen found at
Pompeii, this instrument has been associated with the veterinarian. Since
early practitioners, particularly the Roman physician, performed the
duties of the surgeon as well as those of the veterinarian, it is possible
that they used the same instrument to open blood vessels in humans and
animals.[46]

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries a type of fleam (German
_fliete_, French _flamette_), which had a pointed edge at right angles to
the handle, was in use in Germany, Holland, and Vienna, Austria.[47] Since
the specimens found in museums vary in size, it is likely that this type
of fleam was used on both animals and humans.

In about the fifteenth century the thumb lancet, also called a
_gladiolus_, _sagitella_, _lanceola_, _lancetta_, or _olivaris_, was
introduced.[48] It soon became the preferred instrument for opening a vein
in any part of the body. The double-edged iron or steel blade was placed
between two larger covers, usually made of horn or shell, and all three
pieces were united at the base with a riveted screw. The blade could be
placed at various angles of inclination when in use. The shape of the
blade, whether broad or narrow, determined the ease with which the skin
and vein could be penetrated. A long slender blade was essential to pierce
a vein located below many layers of fatty tissue.[49] These tiny and
delicate thumb lancets were often carried in small flat cases of silver,
tortoise shell, shagreen, or leather with hinged tops and separate
compartments for each lancet. (Figure 5.)

A surgeon was advised to carry lancets of various sizes and shapes in
order to be prepared to open veins of differing sizes and in different
locations. Even Hippocrates had cautioned bloodletters not to use the
different size lancets indiscriminately, "for there are certain parts of
the body which have a swift current of blood which it is not easy to
stop."[50] For vessels that bled easily, it was essential to make narrow
openings; otherwise it would be difficult, if not impossible, to stop the
flow of the blood. For other vessels, lancets that made larger openings
were required or the blood would not flow satisfactorily.

The blood as it spurted from the vein would be collected in a container
and measured. When enough blood was removed, the bleeding would be
stopped by a bandage or compress applied to the incision.


[Illustration: FIGURE 5.--18th-19th century lancets and lancet cases. The
cases are made of mother-of-pearl, silver, shagreen, and tortoise shell.
(NMHT 308730.10. SI photo 76-9116.)]


Teaching a medical student how to bleed has had a long tradition. Before
approaching a patient, the student practiced opening a vein quickly and
accurately on plants, especially the fruits and stems.[51] The mark of a
good venesector was his ability not to let even a drop of blood be seen
after the bleeding basin was removed.[52]

It required some degree of skill to strike a vein properly. The most
common vein tapped was in the elbow, although veins in the foot were also
popular. The arm was first rubbed and the patient given a stick to grasp.
Then a tourniquet would be applied above the elbow (or, if the blood was
to be taken from the foot, above the ankle), in order to enlarge the veins
and promote a continuous flow of blood. Holding the handle between the
thumb and the first finger, the operator then jabbed the lancet into the
vein. Sometimes, especially if the vein was not close to the surface of
the skin, the instrument was given an extra impetus by striking it with a
small mallet or the fingers to insure puncturing the vein.[53] The
incisions were made diagonally or parallel to the veins in order to
minimize the danger of cutting the vein in two.[54]

For superficial veins, the vein was sometimes transfixed, that is, the
blade would be inserted underneath the vessel so that the vessel could not
move or slip out of reach. The transfixing procedure ensured that the vein
would remain semi-divided so that blood would continuously pass out of it,
and that injury to other structures would be avoided. Deep-lying veins of
the scalp, for example, could not be transfixed. They were divided by
cutting through everything overlying them since there were no important
structures to injure.[55]

The consequences of puncturing certain veins incorrectly were discussed by
many early writers including Galen, Celsus, Antyllus, and Paul of
Aegina.[56] Injury to a nearby nerve, muscle, or artery resulted in
convulsions, excessive bleeding, or paralysis.

Bloodletting was at its most fashionable in the eighteenth and early
nineteenth centuries. In this period it was considered an art to hold the
lancet properly and to support the arm of the patient with delicacy and
grace.[57] Many patients had by repeated bloodlettings become inured to
its potential danger and unpleasantness. In the mid-eighteenth century one
British physician declared: "People are so familiarized to bleeding that
they cannot easily conceive any hurt or danger to ensue, and therefore
readily submit, when constitutional fear is out of the question, to the
opening of a vein, however unskillfully advised."[58] In England in the
early nineteenth century people came to the hospital to be bled in the
spring and fall as part of the ritual for maintaining good health. At some
periods there were so many people undergoing prophylactic bloodletting
that they could be seen lying on the floor of the hospital while
recovering from the faintness induced by venesection.[59]

The lancet was perhaps the most common medical instrument. _The Lancet_
was the name of one of the oldest and most socially aware English medical
journals, founded by Thomas Wakeley in 1823.[60]

In America, Benjamin Rush (1746-1813) promoted vomits, purges, salivation,
and especially bleeding. Rush, a signer of the Declaration of
Independence, is notorious in medical history for his resorting to massive
bleedings during the epidemics of yellow fever at the end of the
eighteenth century. Rush told a crowd of people in 1793: "I treat my
patients successfully by bloodletting, and copious purging with calomel
and jalop and I advise you, my good friends, to use the same remedies."
"What?" called a voice from the crowd, "Bleed and purge everyone?" "Yes,"
said the doctor, "bleed and purge all Kensington."[61]

The alternatives to bleeding in this period included administering mercury
(calomel) to promote salivation and tartar emetic to induce vomiting.
These substitutes could be as hazardous as bleeding and offered little
choice to the patient who had to bear the unpleasant effects. Thus, the
late eighteenth and early nineteenth century has been referred to by
historians as the era of heroic medicine because of the large amounts of
strong medications given and excessive bloodletting.[62]

One of the most notable victims of heroic medicine during this period was
George Washington (1732-1799), who was bled four times in two days after
having contracted a severe inflammation of the throat. Washington's
physician, Dr. Craik, admitted that the removal of too much blood might
have been the cause of his death. Additional bleeding was prevented only
by Washington's request to be allowed to die without further medical
intervention, since he believed that his illness was incurable.[63]

Bloodletting was especially resorted to in times of crisis. One woman,
Hannah Green, had been anesthetized in 1848 by chloroform before
undergoing a minor operation on her toe. The physician bled her in a
futile attempt to revive her, but she died, becoming the first known
victim of inhalation anesthesia.[64]


_Spring Lancets_

The great vogue in phlebotomy inspired the invention of ingenious
instruments. From Vienna came the automatic or spring lancet, originally
called a _Schnepper_ or _Schnepperlein_, which permitted the operator to
inject the blade into a vein without exerting manual pressure.[65] It was
widely adopted if the variety of models now extant is a proper indication.
In the spring lancet, the blade was fixed into a small metal case with a
screw and arranged to respond to a spring that could be released by a
button or lever on the outside of the case. The blade was positioned at
right angles to the spring and case, thus adopting the basic shape of the
fleam. The case of the spring lancet was usually made of copper, silver,
brass, or an alloy. It was often decorated with engraved furbelows or
embossed with political or other symbols depending on the preference of
the owner and the fashion of the period. The mechanism of this handsome
implement has been described by a modern collector (Figures 6, 7):

     The curved projection (1) is the continuation of a heavy coiled
     spring. When pushed up it catches on a ratchet. A razor sharp blade
     (2), responding to the pressure of a light spring placed under it,
     follows the handle as it goes up. A lever (3) acting on a fulcrum (4)
     when pressed down, releases handle which in turn strikes the lancet
     down with lightning speed.[66]

The spring lancet was initially described by Lorenz Heister in 1719.[67]
Another early description appeared in 1798 in the first American edition
of the _Encyclopedia or Dictionary of Arts and Sciences_, in which the
spring lancet was called a "phleam."[68]

The spring lancet for use on humans was a rather tiny instrument. Its
casing was about 4 cm long and 1.5 to 2 cm wide. The blade added
another centimeter in length. Larger size instruments, often with a metal
guard over the blade, were made for use on animals. Eighteenth- and early
nineteenth-century spring lancets are found in a wide variety of shapes.
Mid- and late nineteenth-century spring lancets are more uniform in shape,
most having the familiar knob-shaped end. In most lancets the blade was
released by a lever, but in the late nineteenth century, the blade of a
more expensive model was released by a button.


[Illustration: FIGURE 6.--Spring lancet, 19th century. (NMHT 321636.01; SI
photo 73-4236.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 7.--Interior of spring lancet. (NMHT 308730.10; SI
photo 76-13535.)]


In general, German, American, and Dutch surgeons preferred the spring
lancet to the simple thumb lancet. In contrast, the French tended to
prefer the thumb lancet. Ristelhueber, a surgeon in Strasbourg, maintained
in 1819 that the simple lancet was preferable to the spring lancet both in
terms of simplicity of design and application. While allowing German
surgeons some credit for attempting to improve the spring lancet,
Ristelhueber remained firm in his view that the spring lancet was too
complicated and performed no better than the thumb lancet. The only
advantage of the spring lancet was that it could be used by those who were
ignorant of anatomy and the art of venesection. Untutored bleeders could
employ a spring lancet on those veins that stood out prominently and be
fairly confident that they could remove blood without harming other blood
vessels. The bagnio men (bath attendants), who routinely bled the bathers
in public baths, preferred the spring lancet.[69] It was more difficult to
sever a vein with a spring lancet and thereby cause serious hemorrhaging.
However, since the spring lancet was harder to clean because of its small
size and its enclosed parts, it was more likely to induce infection
(phlebitis).

While the French and British surgeons remained critical of the spring
lancet, it became popular in the United States. John Syng Dorsey, a noted
Philadelphia surgeon, wrote in 1813:

     The German fleam or spring lancet I prefer greatly to the common
     English lancet for phlebotomy; it is now in some parts of the United
     States almost exclusively used. In a country situated like the United
     States, where every surgeon, except those residing in our largest
     cities, is compelled to be his own cutler, at least so far as to keep
     his instruments in order, the spring-lancet has a decided preference
     over the lancet; the blade of this can with great ease be sharpened
     by any man of common dexterity, and if not very keen it does no
     mischief, whereas a dull lancet is a most dangerous instrument; and
     no one can calculate with certainty the depth to which it will
     enter. To sharpen a lancet, is regarded by the cutler as one of his
     nicest and most difficult jobs; it is one to which few surgeons are
     competent.

     The safety of using the fleam is demonstrated by daily experience;
     there is no country in which venesection is more frequently performed
     than in the United States, and perhaps none where fewer accidents
     from the operation have occurred, of those few, I beg leave to state,
     that all the aneurisms produced by bleeding, which I have seen, have
     been in cases where the lancet was used. Among the advantages of the
     spring-lancet economy is not the least. A country practitioner who is
     constantly employing English lancets, and who is particular in using
     none but the best, must necessarily consume half the emoluement
     derived from the operation, in the purchase of his instruments. One
     spring-lancet, with an occasional new blade, will serve him all his
     life.[70]

This popularity is also reflected in various medical dictionaries of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries that described the instrument and in
the wide variety of spring lancets in the Smithsonian collection.

One American user of the spring lancet, J. E. Snodgrass of Baltimore, was
inspired to compose a poem about the instrument, which appeared in the
_Baltimore Phoenix and Budget_ in 1841. He wrote:


To My Spring-Lancet

  Years have passed since first we met,
  Pliant and ever-faithful-slave!
  Nobly thou standest by me yet,
  Watchful as ever and as brave.

  O, were the power of language thine,
  To tell all thou hast seen and done,
  Methinks the curious would incline,
  Their ears to dwell they tales upon!

  I love thee, bloodstain'd, faithful friend!
  As warrior loves his sword or shield;
  For how on thee did I depend
  When foes of Life were in the field!

  Those blood spots on thy visage, tell
  That thou, thro horrid scenes, hast past.
  O, thou hast served me long and well;
  And I shall love thee to the Last!

  A thousand mem'ries cluster round thee
  In all their freshness! thou dost speak
  Of friends far distant-friends who found thee
  Aye with thy master, prompt to wreak

  Vengeance on foes who strove to kill
  With blows well aim'd at heart or head--
  Thieves that, with demon heart and will,
  Would fain have on they vials fed.

  O, They have blessed thee for thy aid,
  When grateful eyes, thy presence, spoke;
  Thou, anguish'd bosoms, glad hast made,
  And miser's tyrant sceptre broke.

  Now, when 'mong strangers, is our sphere,
  Thou, to my heart, are but the more
  Endear'd--as many a woe-wring tear
  Would plainly tell, if from me tore!

There was little change in the mechanism of the spring lancet during the
nineteenth century, despite the efforts of inventors to improve it.
Approximately five American patents on variations of the spring lancet
were granted in the nineteenth century. One patent model survives in the
Smithsonian collection. Joseph Gordon of Catonsville, Maryland, in 1857
received patent No. 16479 for a spring lancet constructed so that three
different positions of the ratchet could be set by the sliding shield. The
position of the ratchet regulated the force with which the blade entered
the vein. This also had the advantage of allowing the blade to enter the
vein at the same angle irrespective of the depth to which it
penetrated.[71]


_The Decline of Bleeding_

Throughout the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth centuries, most
physicians of note, regardless of their explanations of disease, including
Hermann Boerhaave, Gerard Van Swieten, Georg Ernst Stahl (phlogiston),
John Brown and Friedrich Hoffmann (mechanistic theories), Johann Peter
Frank, Albrecht von Haller, Percival Pott, John Pringle, William Cullen,
and Francois Broussais, recommended bloodletting and adjusted their
theories to provide an explanation for its value. At the end of the
eighteenth century and in the early nineteenth century, the practice of
bloodletting reached a high point with the theories of F.-J.-V. Broussais
(1772-1838) and others. After 1830, however, the practice gradually
declined until, by the end of the century, it had all but disappeared.

This decline occurred even though many medical theories were brought to
the defense of bleeding. A French medical observer commented in 1851 that
"l'histoire de la saignée considerée dans son ensemble, constituerait
presque à elle seule l'histoire de toutes les doctrines médicales" (the
history of bloodletting, considered in its totality, would constitute
almost by itself the history of all medical doctrines).[72] There was no
crisis of medical opinion, and no one event to account for this decline.
The French physician, Pierre Louis's statistical investigation (numerical
method) into the effect of bloodletting in the treatment of pneumonia has
often been cited as a cause for the downfall of venesection,[73] but the
results of Louis's research showed only that bloodletting was not as
useful as was previously thought. Louis's work, however, was typical of a
new and critical attitude in the nineteenth century towards all
traditional remedies. A number of investigators in France, Austria,
England, and America did clinical studies comparing the recovery rates of
those who were bled and those who were not.[74] Other physicians attempted
to measure, by new instruments and techniques, the physiological affects
of loss of blood. Once pathological anatomy had associated disease
entities with specific lesions, physicians sought to discover exactly how
remedies such as bloodletting would affect these lesions. In the case of
pneumonia, for example, those who defined the disease as "an exudation
into the vessels and tissues of the lungs" could not see how bloodletting
could remove the coagulation. John Hughes Bennett, an Edinburgh physician,
wrote in 1855: "It is doubtful whether a large bleeding from the arm can
operate upon the stagnant blood in the pulmonary capillaries--that it can
directly affect the coagulated exudation is impossible."[75] Bennett felt
that bloodletting merely reduced the strength of the patient and thus
impeded recovery.

Bloodletting was attacked not only by medical investigators, but much more
vehemently by members of such medical sects as the homeopaths and botanics
who sought to replace the harsh remedies of the regular physicians by
their own milder systems of therapeutics.[76]

As a result of all this criticism the indications for bleeding were
gradually narrowed, until at the present time bloodletting is used in only
a few very specific important instances.

In England and America, in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, a
last serious attempt was made to revive bloodletting before it died out
altogether. A number of Americans defended the limited use of bleeding,
especially in the form of venesection. The noted American physician, Henry
I. Bowditch, tried in 1872 to arouse support for venesection among his
Massachusetts Medical Society colleagues. He noted that venesection
declined more than any other medical opinion in the esteem of the
physician and the public during the previous half century. At the
beginning of his career, he had ignored the request of his patients who
wanted annual bloodlettings to "breathe a vein" to maintain good health.
He eventually found that to give up the practice entirely was as wrong as
to overdo it when severe symptoms of a violent, acute cardiac disease
presented themselves. Lung congestion and dropsy were other common
disorders that seemed to him to be relieved, at least temporarily, by
venesection.[77]

In 1875 the Englishman W. Mitchell Clarke, after reviewing the long
history of bloodletting and commenting on the abrupt cessation of the
practice in his own time, wrote:

     Experience must, indeed, as Hippocrates says in his first aphorism,
     be fallacious if we decide that a means of treatment, sanctioned by
     the use of between two and three thousand years, and upheld by the
     authority of the ablest men of past times, is finally and forever
     given up. This seems to me to be the most interesting and important
     question in connection with this subject. Is the relinquishment of
     bleeding final? or shall we see by and by, or will our successors
     see, a resumption of the practice? This, I take it, is a very
     difficult question to answer; and he would be a very bold man who,
     after looking carefully through the history of the past, would
     venture to assert that bleeding will not be profitably employed any
     more.[78]

An intern, Henri A. Lafleur of the newly founded Johns Hopkins Hospital,
reported on five patients on whom venesection was performed between 1889
and 1891. Lafleur defended his interest in the subject by calling
attention to other recent reports of successes with bleeding, such as that
of Dr. Pye-Smith of London. He concluded that at least temporary relief
from symptoms due to circulatory disorders, especially those involving the
pulmonary system, was achieved through venesection.

Pneumonia and pleurisy were the primary diseases for which venesection was
an approved remedy.[79] It had long been believed by bloodletters that
these complaints were especially amenable to an early and repeated
application of the lancet.[80] Austin Flint had explained in 1867 that
bloodletting "is perhaps more applicable to the treatment of inflammation
affecting the pulmonary organs than to the treatment of other inflammatory
affections, in consequence of the relations of the former [pulmonary
organs] to the circulation."[81] Thus, while bloodletting for other
diseases declined throughout the nineteenth century, it continued to be
advocated for treating apoplexy, pneumonia, and pulmonary edema.[82]

The merit of phlebotomy for those afflicted with congestive heart failure
was emphasized again in 1912 by H. A. Christian. This condition led to
engorgement of the lungs and liver and increased pressure in the venous
side of the circulation. Articles advocating bloodletting continued into
the 1920s and 1930s.[83]

Bloodletting is currently being tested as a treatment for those suffering
from angina or heart attacks. Blood is removed on a scheduled basis to
maintain the hematocrit (the percentage of red blood cells in the blood)
at a specified level. Keeping the hematocrit low has provided relief to
those being tested.[84] Other benefits of removing blood, including the
lowering of blood pressure, can be obtained by the use of antihypertensive
drugs. Thus the valid indications for bleeding are being supplanted by the
use of modern drugs that accomplish the same end.

By the twentieth century the lancet was replaced in some quarters by safer
devices for removing blood and injecting fluids into the bloodstream.
Heinrich Stern improved Strauss's special hyperdermic needle. In 1905
Stern designed a venepuncture or aspirating needle that was 7 cm long with
a silver cannula of 4 cm. Attached to the handle was a thumb-rest and a
tube for removing or adding fluids and a perforator within the cannula. He
recommended that the forearm be strapped above the elbow and that the
instrument be thrust into the most prominent vein. This streamlined vein
puncturing implement reduced the possibility of injecting air and bacteria
into the blood.[85] It was, and continues to be, used to withdraw blood
for study in the laboratory, to aid in diagnosis of disease, and to
collect blood for transfusing into those who need additional blood during
an operation or to replace blood lost in an accident or disease. The blood
is collected in a glass or plastic graduated container and stored under
refrigeration. The study of blood donors has, incidentally, given insights
into the physiology of bloodletting since the volume customarily removed
from a donor is about the same in volume as that taken by a bleeder (one
pint or 500 cc).[86]

The annual physical examination today includes taking a small amount of
blood from the finger or a vein in the elbow. This blood is then analyzed
for the presence of biochemical components of such diseases as diabetes,
anemia, arteriosclerosis, etc. A tiny sterile instrument called a blood
lancet may be used by the technician who draws the blood, who is still
called by the historical name, phlebotomist.




Cupping


"Cupping is an art," wrote the London cupper Samuel Bayfield in 1823, "the
value of which every one can appreciate who has had opportunities of being
made acquainted with its curative power by observing its effects on the
person of others, or by realizing them in his own."[87] The curious
operation of taking blood by means of exhausted cups had been part of
Western medicine since the time of Hippocrates, and has been found in many
other cultures as well. It is still practiced in some parts of the world
today.

Since antiquity medical authors have distinguished two forms of cupping,
dry and wet. In dry cupping, no blood was actually removed from the body.
A cup was exhausted of air and applied to the skin, causing the skin to
tumefy. In wet cupping, dry cupping was followed by the forming of several
incisions in the skin and a reapplication of the cups in order to collect
blood. It was possible to scarify parts of the body without
cupping--through the nineteenth-century physicians recommended scarifying
the lips, the nasal passages, the eyes, and the uterus. In order to remove
any sizeable amount of blood, however, it was necessary to apply some sort
of suction to the scarifications, because capillaries, unlike arteries and
veins, do not bleed freely. (Figure 8.)

Cupping was generally regarded as an auxiliary to venesection. The
indications for the operation were about the same as the indications for
phlebotomy, except that there was a tendency to prefer cupping in cases of
localized pain or inflammation, or if the patient was too young, too old,
or too weak to withstand phlebotomy. "If cutting a vein is an instant
danger, or if the mischief is still localised, recourse is to be had
rather to cupping," wrote the encyclopedist Celsus in the first century
A.D.[88]

As noted above, the ancients usually recommended cupping close to the seat
of the disease. However, there were several examples in ancient writings
of cupping a distant part in order to divert blood. The most famous of
these examples was Hippocrates' recommendation of cupping the breasts in
order to relieve excessive menstruation.[89]

As was the case for phlebotomy, the number of ills that were supposedly
relieved by cupping was enormous. Thomas Mapleson, a professional cupper,
gave the following list of "diseases in which cupping is generally
employed with advantage" in 1801:

     Apoplexy, angina pectoris, asthma, spitting blood, bruises, cough,
     catarrh, consumption, contusion, convulsions, cramps, diseases of the
     hip and knee joints, deafness, delirium, dropsy, epilepsy,
     erysipelas, eruptions, giddiness, gout, whooping cough,
     hydrocephalus, head ache, inflammation of the lungs, intoxication,
     lethargy, lunacy, lumbago, measles, numbness of the limbs,
     obstructions, ophthalmia, pleurisy, palsy, defective perspiration,
     peripneumony, rheumatism, to procure rest, sciatica, shortness of
     breath, sore throat, pains of the side and chest.[90]


_Early Cupping Instruments_

Mapleson believed that cupping was first suggested by the ancient practice
of sucking blood from poisoned wounds. In any case, the earliest cupping
instruments were hollowed horns or gourds with a small hole at the top by
which the cupper could suck out the blood from scarifications previously
made by a knife. The Arabs called these small vessels "pumpkins" to
indicate that they were frequently applied to a part of the body in which
the organs contained air or that they were vessels that had to be
evacuated before they could be applied.[91] The use of cattle horns for
cupping purposes seems to have been prevalent in all periods up to the
present. When Prosper Alpinus visited Egypt in the sixteenth century, he
found the Egyptians using horns that were provided with a small valve of
sheepskin to be maintained in place by the cupper's tongue and serving to
prevent the intake of air once the cup was exhausted.[92]

In nineteenth-century America, at least one physician still recommended
horns as superior to glass cups for rural medical practice. A Virginia
physician, Dr. W. A. Gillespie, disturbed by the high cost of cupping
instruments, suggested to his readers in _The Boston Medical and Surgical
Journal_ for 1834 that since glass cups were often broken when carried
from place to place, "an excellent substitute can be made of a small cow
horn, cornicula, which may be scraped or polished until perfectly
diaphanous or transparent."[93]

The Smithsonian collection contains a cow's horn from Madaoua, Niger
Republic (West Africa), used for drawing blood in the 1960s. The director
of the Baptist Mission, who sent the horn, noted that he had often seen
Africans sitting in the market place with such horns on their backs or
their heads. Scarifications were made with a handmade razor.[94]


[Illustration: FIGURE 8.--Scarification without cupping in Egypt in the
16th century. To obtain sufficient blood, 20 to 40 gashes were made in the
legs and the patient was made to stand in a basin of warm water. (From
Prosper Alpinus, _Medicina Aegyptorum_, Leyden, 1719. Photo courtesy of
NLM.)]


In addition to horn cups, the ancients employed bronze cups in which a
vacuum was obtained by inserting a piece of burning flax or linen into the
cup before its application to the skin. Most Greek and Roman cups were
made of metal.[95] Although Galen already preferred glass cups to metal
cups for the simple reason that one could see how much blood was being
evacuated, metal cups were used until modern times. Their main virtue was
that they did not break and thus could be easily transported. For this
reason, metal cups were especially useful to military surgeons. Brass and
pewter cups were common in the eighteenth century, and tin cups were sold
in the late nineteenth century.

Since the latter part of antiquity, cups have been made of glass. The
Smithsonian possesses two Persian opaque glass cups dating from the
twelfth century, called "spouted glasses" because of the spout protruding
from the side of the cup by which the cupper exhausted the air with his
mouth. Similar spouted glasses were illustrated by Prosper Alpinus
(sixteenth century), so designed that the blood would collect in a
reservoir instead of being sucked into the cupper's mouth. Like the horn
cups illustrated by Alpinus, the glass cups were provided with a small
valve made of animal skin. It appears that the sixteenth-century Egyptians
were not familiar with the use of fire for exhausting cups. (Figure 9.)

Cupping and leeching were less frequently practiced in the medieval
period, although general bloodletting retained its popularity.[96] When
the eastern practice of public steam baths was reintroduced into the West
in the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, cupping tended to
be left in the hands of bath attendants (Bagnio men) and ignored by
regular surgeons. Some surgeons, such as Pierre Dionis, who gave a course
of surgery in Paris in the early eighteenth century, saw little value in
the operation. He felt that the ancients had greatly exaggerated the
virtues of the remedy.[97] Another French surgeon, René de Garengeot,
argued in 1725 that those who resorted to such outdated remedies as
cupping had studied the philosophical systems of the ancients more than
they had practiced medicine. He accused the admirers of the ancients of
wishing to kill patients "with the pompous apparatus of wet cupping."[98]
(Figure 10.)


[Illustration: FIGURE 9.--Persian spouted cupping glass, 12th century.
(NMHT 224478 [M-8037]; SI photo 73-4215.)]


Nineteenth-century cuppers tended to blame the baths for the low status of
cupping among surgeons. Dionis had described the baths in Germany as great
vaulted halls with benches on two sides, one side for men and the other
for women. Members of both sexes, nude except for a piece of linen around
the waist, sat in the steamy room and were cupped, if they so desired, by
the bath attendants. The customers' vanity was satisfied by making the
scarifications (which left scars) in the form of hearts, love-knots, and
monograms.[99] Mapleson's complaint against the baths in 1813 was typical
of the reaction of the nineteenth-century professional cupper:

     The custom which appears to have become prevalent of resorting to
     these Bagnios, or Haumaums, to be bathed and cupped, appears to have
     superseded the practice of this operation by the regular surgeons.
     Falling into the hands of mere hirelings, who practiced without
     knowledge, and without any other principle than one merely mercenary,
     the operation appears to have fallen into contempt, to have been
     neglected by Physicians, because patients had recourse to it without
     previous advice, and disparaged by regular Surgeons, because, being
     performed by others, it diminished the profits of their
     profession.[100]


[Illustration: FIGURE 10.--Cupping in the bath, 16th century. (From a
woodcut held by the Bibliotheque Nationale. Photo courtesy of NLM.)]


After a period of neglect, cupping enjoyed renewed popularity in the late
eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. In that period a number of
professional cuppers practiced in the cities of Europe and America. Both
Guy's and Westminster Hospitals in London employed a professional cupper
to aid physicians and surgeons. Of these hospital cuppers, at least four,
Thomas Mapleson, Samuel Bayfield, George Frederick Knox, and Monson Hills
published treatises on the art of cupping, from which we gain the clearest
account of cupping procedure.[101] Knox, who succeeded Mapleson as Cupper
at Westminster Hospital, was petitioned by 59 medical and surgical
students to write his practical and portable text.[102]


_Instruments of the Professional Cupper_

Cupping instruments in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries were
generally simple dome-shaped glass cups provided with thick rims so that
the cups would be less painful when applied and removed. Cups were sold in
various sizes, ranging from about 45 mm to 75 mm high. Some were made with
a smaller diameter and a larger belly for cupping on parts of the body
with a limited surface area. For the same reason, cups with an oval rim
were recommended. (Figure 11.)

There were several common methods for exhausting cups, of which the
simplest and most widely used was that of throwing burning lint or tow
(the coarse part of flax, hemp, or jute) inside the glass before applying
the glass to the skin of the patient. The professional cuppers vehemently
disapproved of this clumsy practice, for the patient could easily be
scorched.[103] Various improvements were suggested to avoid burning the
patient. Dionis (1708) had recommended placing a small card with lighted
candles over the scarifications, and then applying the cup.[104] Other
methods included the brief introduction of a wire holding a bit of sponge
soaked with alcohol and ignited, or attaching a bit of sponge to the
inside of the glass by means of wax and a piece of wood. All such methods
were deemed "clumsy expedients" by professional cuppers,[105] who
preferred to employ a lamp or torch especially made for cupping.
Eighteenth-century surgical texts illustrated brass grease lamps with
covers to regulate the flame. Probably less difficult to maneuver was the
alcohol lamp first introduced in the 1790s. Alcohol lamps for cupping were
made of metal, shaped like teapots, and contained a heavy cotton wick
protruding from the spout.[106]


[Illustration: FIGURE 11.--Typical glass cupping cups, late 19th century.
(NMHT 152130 [M-4766-68]; SI Photo 61135-C.)]


Although Mapleson (1813) employed an alcohol lamp, the cuppers writing
after him preferred the more recently-introduced cupping torch. This
consisted of a piece of hollow metal tubing cut obliquely at one end and
provided with a metal bulb or ring at the other end. A cotton wick was
stuffed as compactly as possible into the tube so that a small piece of
wick protruded from the oblique end. The wick was dipped in alcohol,
ignited, and inserted briefly into the cup. The torch was more convenient
than the older teapot lamp because it was easier to insert into the cup,
and was small enough to hold in the hand at the same time as one held the
scarificator.[107]

The introduction of the scarificator represented the major change in the
art of cupping between antiquity and the nineteenth century. Unlike later
attempts at improving cupping technology, the scarificator was almost
universally adopted. Previous to its invention, the cupper, following
ancient practice, severed the capillaries by making a series of parallel
incisions with a lancet, fleam, or other surgical knife.[108] This was a
messy, time consuming, and painful procedure. Ambroise Paré (1510?-1590)
was the first to employ the word "scarificator" and the first to
illustrate a special instrument for scarification in his compendium of
surgical instruments.[109] However, a precursor to the scarificator had
been suggested by Paulus of Aegina (625-690), who described an instrument
constructed of three lancets joined together so that in one application
three incisions could be made in the skin. The instrument, recommended for
the removal of coagulated blood in the wake of a blow, was considered
difficult to use and was not generally adopted.[110] Paré's scarificator
had a circular case and eighteen blades attached to three rods projecting
from the bottom. A pin projecting from the side may have served to lift
the blades and a button on the top to release them although Paré did not
describe the spring mechanism.[111] Paré did not recommend the instrument
for cupping, but rather for the treatment of gangrene. Several sixteenth-
and seventeenth-century surgical texts made reference to Paré's
instrument, among them Jacques Delechamps (1569) and Hellkiah Crooke
(1631).[112]

It is not known who made the first square scarificator and adapted it to
cupping. The instrument was not found in Dionis (1708), but it did appear
in Heister (1719) and in Garengeot (1725). Thus it appears that the
scarificator was invented between 1708 and 1719. Garengeot disliked
cupping in general and he had little good to say of the new mechanical
scarificator. "A nasty instrument," he called it, "good only for
show."[113] The German surgeon, Lorenz Heister, was more appreciative of
the innovation. After describing the older method of making sixteen to
twenty small wounds in the skin with a knife, he announced that "The
modern surgeons have, for Conveniency for themselves and Ease to the
Patient, contrived a Scarificator ... which consists of 16 small
Lancet-blades fixed in a cubical Brass Box, with a Steel Spring."[114]
Heister noted that while Paré had used the scarificator only for incipient
mortification, it was now "used with good success by our Cuppers in many
other Diseases, as I myself have frequently seen and experienced."[115]

The earliest scarificators were simple square brass boxes, with cocking
and release levers and 16 pointed blades. By 1780, illustrations in
surgical works showed that the bottom of the scarificator was detachable.
Thus, although the illustrations do not show the screw for regulating the
height of the blade cover, provision may already have been made for
adjusting the depth of cut of the blades.[116] Square or German-style
scarificators continued to be sold in Germany throughout the nineteenth
century. The earlier models (late eighteenth, early nineteenth century)
were frequently embellished with ornate decoration, and had pointed
blades. Some were quite tall. A specimen dated 1747, in the Wellcome
Medical Museum collection, is 14.4 cm high and 4.5 cm wide at the base.
(Figure 12.)


[Illustration: FIGURE 12.--Lavishly decorated scarificator, 18th century.
(Held by the Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine, London. Photo
courtesy of the Wellcome.)]


The later models (mid- to late nineteenth century) were wider and plainer
and had arched or crescent shaped blades (which made a cleaner lesion),
but the internal mechanism remained the same. Square scarificators all had
16 steel blades that cut in the same direction and were arranged on three
rods of five, six, and five blades respectively. At one end of each rod
was a gear pinion. The cocking lever, protruding through an aperture at
the top of the scarificator, broadened out into a flat plate with as many
gear sectors as blade rods. The plate was held against the interior of the
scarificator by a heavy support rod running the width of the scarificator,
in such a way that the gear sectors of the cocking lever meshed with the
pinions on the blade rods. Pulling up on the cocking lever turned the
blades 180 degrees. A heavy flat cantilever spring, attached at one end to
the bottom of the case, was caught under a protuberance on the cocking
lever and bent as the cocking lever was pulled. As the blades were turned,
a catch slipped over a tooth on the cocking lever, and held the blades in
place. Nineteenth-century octagonal scarificators generally had two
catches, the first exposing the blades, and the second rotating them a
full 180 degrees. Pressure on the release lever pushed the catch off the
tooth on the cocking lever, thereby releasing the lever and allowing the
spring to snap the apparatus back to its original position. Releasing the
spring brought the blades around so quickly that their movement could not
be seen. (Figure 13.)


[Illustration: FIGURE 13.--Interior of square scarificator. (NMHT 152130
[M-4771]; SI photo 76-9111.)]


In the square scarificators, the top and two sides were detachable from
the bottom and the other two sides. Turning the wing-tip nut on the top of
the scarificator lowered, by means of a yoke, the bottom of the
scarificator that was fitted by grooves into the top. By raising and
lowering the bottom, one could regulate the length of blade protruding
beyond the bottom, and hence the depth of cut.

In the 1790s, the octagonal scarificator that was to become the standard
English-American model began to appear in surgical texts. The early
octagonal scarificator, as illustrated in Latta (1795) and Bell (1801),
had sixteen rounded blades arranged as in the square scarificator, an iron
triggering lever similar to that of the square scarificator, a button
release on the side, and a flat key on top for regulating depth of
cut.[117] Early in the nineteenth century the flat keys were replaced by
round screws. Only the bottom or blade cover of the octagonal scarificator
was detachable. In some of the octagonal scarificators, the round screw on
top ran the height of the scarificator and screwed directly into an
internally threaded post inside the blade cover. In other scarificators,
the screw raised and lowered a yoke whose two sides were attached by
additional screws to side projections of the blade cover.

A notable improvement was made in the early nineteenth century when John
Weiss, a London instrument maker, introduced a 12 blade octagonal
scarificator whose blades, arranged on two rods or pinions, were made to
cut in opposite directions. This advance was mentioned by Mapleson in 1813
and adopted by London professional cuppers thereafter. The advantage of
the innovations was that the skin was thereby stretched, and a smoother,
more regular cut could be made. Weiss's Improved Scarificator also
featured blades that could easily be removed for cleaning and repair. In
place of two rows of six blades, one could insert a single row of four
blades to adopt the scarificator for cupping on small areas such as the
temple.[118] The feature of inserting a pinion with clean and sharp blades
permitted the cupper to own only two scarificators. For cleansing the
blades the manufacturer supplied a thin piece of wood covered with wash
leather or the pith of the elder tree.[119]

Scarificators in which the blade rods turned in opposite directions
(called "reversible" scarificators in trade catalogs) were more
complicated to manufacture and therefore somewhat more expensive than
unidirectional scarificators. The cocking lever meshed directly with only
the first blade rod. To make the second blade rod turn in the opposite
direction, an extra geared plate (or idler lever) was necessary to act as
an intermediary between the cocking lever and the second blade pinion. The
cocking lever turned the idler lever, which then turned the second pinion.
Two support rods and two cantilever springs were needed in place of the
one in unidirectional scarificators.

The brass, octagonal scarificator with 8, 10, and particularly 12 blades
became the standard scarificator sold in England and America.[120] Both
unidirectional ("plain") and reversible scarificators were offered through
trade catalogs. Smaller octagonal scarificators with four to six blades
were sold for cupping parts of the body with limited surface area.


_Cupping Procedure_

The art of cupping, it was generally agreed, required a high degree of
dexterity that could be maintained only by constant practice. Professional
cuppers were concerned with avoiding any appearance of clumsiness, else
the patient might come to fear an operation essential to his health. In
the hands of an inexperienced physician or surgeon, cupping could be
highly painful to the patient, and yet fail to produce the requisite
amount of blood. While expert cuppers were usually available in cities,
the rural doctor was not trained in the operation. It was to these rural
practitioners that the treatises of the professional cuppers were
addressed. One cupper, George Frederick Knox, offered in addition personal
instruction in cupping procedures. His charge was a guinea for medical
students and three guineas for non-medical students for a three month
course.[121]

Physicians and surgeons took a renewed interest in cupping in the early
nineteenth century. Cupping was no longer regarded as merely a useful
substitute for bloodletting. Recent physiological research seemed to prove
to the advocates of cupping that the effects of slow withdrawal of blood
from the capillaries produced a different effect on the constitution than
the quick withdrawal of blood from a vein. Thus, Knox was convinced by the
results of this research that, while phlebotomy was indicated in cases of
high fever, "particular phlegmasiae" specifically required the
intervention of cupping.[122]

The procedure that the experts followed in wet cupping was as follows.
First, the cups were immersed in hot water. Bayfield recommended that one
glass be used for every four ounces of blood required. Thus, to abstract
18 to 20 ounces, as was common in cupping on the back or abdomen, four or
five glasses were needed. The spot chosen for placement of the cups should
be free of bone, but also not overly fatty. Cupping over the belly of a
muscle was especially recommended. After the spot was fomented with hot
water, the torch was dipped in alcohol, lit, and inserted into the cup for
about two seconds. Once the torch was removed, the cup was allowed to sink
of its own weight into the skin. During the minute that the skin was
allowed to tumefy under the cup, the scarificator was warmed in the palm
of the hand in preparation for the most difficult part of the operation.
It required great skill to manage torch, scarificator, and cups in such a
way as to lift the cup, scarify, and recup before the tumefaction had
subsided. Monson Hills (1834) described the manipulations involved thus:

     The torch is held in and across the palm of the right hand, by the
     little and ring finger, leaving the thumb, the fore and middle
     fingers free to hold the scarificator, which may be done by the thumb
     and fore finger only; the glass is then grasped by the thumb, fore
     and middle fingers of the left hand, leaving the little and ring
     fingers free; the edge of the glass is then detached from the skin by
     the middle finger of the right hand; the scarificator being set, care
     must be taken not to press upon the button with the thumb too
     quickly; directly the glass comes off, we apply the scarificator,
     spring it through the integuments, and then placing it between the
     free little and ring fingers of the left hand, we apply the torch to
     the glass, and glass to the skin over the incisions, as before
     recommended.[123]

Hills recommended practicing on a table, "taking care, of course, that the
lancets are not allowed to strike the table."

According to Bayfield, the blades of the scarificator were generally set
at 1/4". If cupping behind the ears, they should be set at 1/7", if on the
temple at 1/8", and if on the scalp at 1/6". When the cups were two-thirds
full, they were removed and reapplied if necessary. This, too, was no easy
task. One had to manipulate cup and sponge deftly in order to avoid
spillage. Cupping was to be not merely a neat operation, but an elegant
one. After cupping, the wound was dabbed with alcohol or dressed, if
necessary. Scarificator blades could be used some twenty times. After each
use, the scarificator was to be cleaned and greased by springing it
through a piece of mutton fat.[124]

A great variety of bodily parts were cupped, just about any part that had
sufficient surface area to hold a small cup in place. Knox, for example,
gave directions for cupping on the temple, back of the head, behind the
ears, throat, back of the neck, extremities, shin, chest, side, abdomen,
back and loins, back of the thighs, perineum, sacrum, and on buboes.[125]
In reply to those who wondered if cupping hurt, Knox asserted that "those
who calculate the pain incurred in cupping by comparison with a cut finger
are very much deceived." The scarificator itself produced little pain, he
claimed, but he admitted that the pressure of the rims of the glasses
could cause a degree of discomfort.[126]


_Nineteenth Century Attempts to Improve Cupping Technology_

The story of nineteenth-century attempts to improve cupping technology is
an interesting one, in that a great deal of effort was expended on
comparatively short-lived results. For those who were adept at cupping,
the cups, torch, and standard scarificator were quite adequate.
Innovations were thus aimed at making the operation more available to the
less practiced. The new gadgets could not rival the traditional
instruments in the hands of an experienced cupper, and, moreover, they
were usually much more expensive.

Most of the attempts at innovation centered in eliminating the need for an
alcohol lamp or torch to exhaust the cups. As far back as Hero of
Alexandria,[127] we find directions for the construction of "a
cupping-glass which shall attract without the aid of fire." Hero's device
combined mouth suction with a system of valves. Another famous inventor of
assorted devices, Santorio Santorii (1561-1636), described a cup that
contained a syringe in the early seventeenth century.[128] From the 1780s
on, cups with brass syringes began to appear in compendia of instruments.
A cup with brass fixings would be screwed onto a brass pump, placed on the
skin, and the air within removed by a few strokes of the piston.[129] This
sounded better in theory than it worked in practice. Expert cuppers agreed
that they thoroughly disliked using the syringe. Mapleson (1813) offered
three strong objections to the instrument. First, exhaustion could easily
be carried too far, so as to obstruct the flow of blood. Second, the
operation become tedious and fatiguing to the bloodletter because of the
repeated screwing and unscrewing of syringe and glasses. Third, the valves
were liable to malfunction.[130] Twenty-three years later Knox continued
to disapprove of the syringe for the very same reasons. Of all the new
inventions for cupping, he declared in 1836, "the worst is the syringe, as
it makes that a most complicated and bungling operation that which, with
common care and attention is one of the most simple in surgery."[131]

Despite rejection by experienced cuppers, manufacturing of an air-tight
syringe continued to challenge inventors throughout the nineteenth
century. Some attempted to substitute stopcocks for valves, and some to
place long flexible tubes between pump and glasses so that the pumping
motions would not be communicated to the patient. Pumps were gradually
improved, and, although rarely recommended by experts, were sold in great
numbers as part of fancy and expensive cupping sets. These sets, with
prices as high as fifteen dollars, consisted of a mahogany or leather box
with brass latches, lined in plush, and containing compartments for
scarificators, a brass pump, and an assortment of glasses provided with
metal attachments. Some of the most elegant of the cupping sets were those
made by Maison Charrière of Paris. Today the luxury of these cupping sets
seems rather incongruous with the bloody purposes for which the
instruments were used. Yet, the beauty of the instruments and their
containers must have added to the esteem of the physician or surgeon in
the mind of the patient.

Syringes were not only useful in cupping but also were employed in a wide
variety of medical and surgical operations. Creating an all-purpose
syringe that would extract or inject liquids into any part of the body was
yet another inventor's dream. Two of the earliest English surgical patents
were awarded to two such syringes. John Read (1760-1847), surgical
instrument maker for the British Army and the East India Company, patented
a pump in 1820 for use in "extracting poison from the stomach,
administering clysters, introducing tabacco fumes into the bowels,
transfusion of blood, draining off the urine, injecting the bladder,
female injection, anatomical injection, administration of food and
medicine, cupping, drawing the breasts ... &c."[132] John Weiss, inventor
of the improved scarificator, invented his own patent syringe in 1825,
which he claimed to be superior to all previous syringes because it
employed stopcocks in place of valves, which were subject to leakage and
clogging. Cupping was only one of many operations that could be performed
with its aid. The Truax Surgical Pump is an example of a late
nineteenth-century all-purpose patent pump outfit that included cups among
its numerous optional attachments.[133] (Figure 14.)

Those who went a step further in their efforts to improve cupping
procedure attempted to combine cup, lancet, and exhausting apparatus all
in one instrument. Bayfield described and rejected several such devices in
1823, including perhaps the earliest, that of the Frenchman, Demours.
Demours' instrument, first introduced in 1819, consisted of a cupping
glass with two protruding tubes, one containing a lancet, and the other an
exhausting syringe. The lancet, surrounded by leather to keep air out of
the cup, could be supplemented by a cross with four additional blades, if
more than one puncture was desired.[134] In 1819, Thomas Machell, a member
of the Royal College of Surgeons in London, described a similar apparatus
in which the glass cup was separated from the tin body of the apparatus by
a flexible tube. The facility and precision of the instrument, claimed
Machell, "are incalculably surpassed by the power of its application to
any part whatever of the surface, under any circumstances indicating its
propriety, and by any person untrained to the manual dexterity of a
professed cupper."[135]

Professional cuppers who took pride in their skill naturally avoided such
novelties. Bayfield found the complex instruments objectionable because
even "the most trifling degree of injury is generally sufficient to render
the whole apparatus useless."[136]

The Smithsonian collection contains two patent models of American wet
cupping devices. The first is an ingenious cupping set patented by a
Philadelphia navy surgeon, Robert J. Dodd, in 1844. It consisted of a
metal syringe provided with a plate of lancets that screwed on to a glass
tube with a protuberance for collecting blood. The most interesting
feature of the apparatus was the provision made for cupping internal parts
of the body such as the vagina, throat, or rectum. One could attach to the
pump either a curved or a straight tapering glass tube, seven to eight
inches long, and corresponding flexible metal lancet rod. The pump could
also be adapted for extracting milk from the breasts of women by attaching
a metal cap with a hole just large enough to accommodate the nipple.[137]
The second patent model is that of W. D. Hooper of Liberty, Virginia, who
invented in 1867 an apparatus combining cup, pump, and scarificator. The
novel part of the instrument was the tubular blades that were injected
into the flesh and then left in place while the blood was being removed,
"by which means the punctures are kept from being closed prematurely, as
frequently happens with the ordinary device."[138]

It is unlikely that any of these ingenious devices were marketed in
quantity. For those skilled in the art of cupping, the torch, cups, and
scarificator were more effective. For those not experienced in the art,
the new devices were simply too expensive, inconvenient to carry about,
and fragile. While doubtless some surgeons bought fancy equipment in order
to impress their patients, other surgeons, and the professional cuppers,
realized that expensive and unfamiliar gadgets could inspire more dread
than awe, especially among rural patients. The cupper Monson Hills advised
his readers:

     A person about to be cupped, is often needlessly alarmed by the
     arrival of his operator, with a capacious box of instruments; and he
     measures the severity of the pain he is about to undergo, by the
     seeming multitude of instruments required to inflect it. If, on the
     contrary, the few implements used are carried in the pocket, and
     produced when about to be used, unobserved by the patient, this evil
     is easily avoided.[139]

In seconding Hills' sentiments, W. A. Gillespie, the Virginia country
physician mentioned earlier, went a step further. Gillespie felt that the
rural physician could dispense with the glass cups, torch, and
scarificator and substitute in their place a simple thumb lancet and cow's
horn. Not only would these instruments save money, but they would also
"excite less dread in the mind of the patient than a formidable display of
numerous and complicated instruments."[140]

Some inventors concentrated on more modest improvements in cupping
technology, namely, modification of cups and scarificators. One of the
simplest improvements was that of Dr. Francis Fox, House Surgeon to the
Derbyshire General Dispensary. In 1827, Dr. Fox introduced a new glass cup
with a short, curved, wide neck and an oval belly that hung downwards.
When applied to the skin, the glass hung in the manner of a leech, and so
the glass was called "The Glass Leech." Since the burning tow could be
placed in the hanging belly of the glass, away from the skin, it was
easier to apply and remove the ordinary cup.[141] Other modifications of
the cupping cup included the addition of a stopcock to let the air back
in, graduations to measure the blood, and the attachment of a metal bar
inside the cup in order to hold the burning sponge or wick away from the
body of the patient.[142] (Figure 15.)


[Illustration: FIGURE 14.--Weiss's improved patent cupping apparatus.
Illustrated are Weiss's patent syringe applied to cupping and Weiss's
improved scarificator. (From John Weiss, _Surgical Instruments_, 2nd
edition, London, 1831. SI photo 73-5184.)]


The most significant innovation in cups came with the manufacture of cups
of vulcanized rubber in the 1840s. Rubber cups could be easily exhausted
without need of a torch, and they were far cheaper and easier to
manipulate than cups attached to a pump. Most surgical catalogs in the
late nineteenth century offered both all-rubber cups and glass cups to
which a rubber bulb was attached. In the late nineteenth century, sets of
cups were sometimes sold with rubber rims because the rubber fit more
comfortably against the skin and prevented air from entering the cup.
Museum collections contain few rubber cups because nineteenth-century
rubber tended to deteriorate in time. However, the appearance of these
cups in all surgical catalogs indicates that they were widely sold.[143]


[Illustration: FIGURE 15.--Fox's glass leech. Cupping set contains two
hanging "glass leeches," a scarificator, a bottle of alcohol, and a torch
with a ring handle such as the cupper Knox recommended. (Set held by the
Academy of Medicine, Toronto. Photo courtesy of the Academy.)]


Several inventors tried to improve upon the scarificator. The defects of
the ordinary scarificator were widely recognized. It was too bulky and
heavy, and it cost too much--the most inexpensive scarificator offered by
George Tiemann & Co. in 1889 cost $4.50.[144] A strong hand was required
to trigger the blades, and when the trigger was released, the force of the
spring was so great that the lever moved back with great force and
produced a loud, unpleasant click. The force of the lever moving against
the case of the scarificator made it impossible to use any but expensive
materials (brass and German silver) in making the scarificator casing.
Furthermore, the springs were liable to break. Finally, the scarificator
was difficult to clean.[145] Late in the century, when sterilization
became important, some cuppers went back to the lancet because the
scarificator could not be surgically cleansed. The surprising thing is,
that despite all the defects, the same scarificator was sold in 1930 as in
1830. Either the claims of the inventors of improved scarificators were
unjustified, or cuppers were unwilling to try novel instruments in what
was becoming an old-fashioned and increasingly less popular operation.
(Figure 16.)

A few British and American surgical supply companies sold special models
of scarificator, but always in addition to the common scarificator. The
special models were generally higher in price. For example, the
Englishman, James Coxeter, announced in 1845 a new scarificator with a
rotating lever on the side instead of a cocking lever on the top. The
roto-lever, according to Coxeter, could be turned to set the scarificator
by a child of six. Furthermore, the scarificator was so constructed that
when the spring was released only internal parts moved. There was no lever
that snapped back and no resounding click. This special model of
scarificator continued to be sold by Coxeter and Son (London) until late
in the nineteenth century.[146]

Coxeter did not patent the roto-lever scarificator. In fact, through 1852
there were no British patents on scarificators. In contrast, there were
eight French patents on scarificators before 1860.[147] Of these, the most
important was the 1841 patent of Joseph-Frédéric-Benoit Charrière
(1803-1973), a Swiss-born cutler who founded a major surgical supply
company in Paris. Charrière's octagonal scarificator substituted two flat
coiled springs (like watch springs) for the two cantilever springs
normally found in "reversible" scarificators. One end of each coiled
spring was attached to the scarificator casing and the other to one of the
support rods. As the cocking lever was pulled, the support rods turned and
wound the springs more tightly about the rods. According to Charrière,
these springs were more efficient and less likely to break than the
ordinary springs.[148]

Charrière's company later employed the coiled springs in the making of a
circular scarificator. The circular scarificators, associated particularly
with French manufacture, were the most elegant of nineteenth-century
scarificators and a fitting complement to the Charrière cupping sets.[149]
They were generally not sold by British and American surgical supply
companies, but a number of them appear to have reached the hands of
American physicians.

In America, there were five patents on scarificators, of which the
Smithsonian possesses three patent models. The most significant American
patent was that of George Tiemann in 1846. Tiemann's scarificator had a
flattened base and an ebony handle, which contained a coiled spring. The
blades were moved by a rack and pinion mechanism, and triggered by a knob
at the end of the handle. The advantages claimed by the inventor were ease
in handling, ease in cleaning, and the diagonal cut of the blades that
allowed the blood to flow more freely and the wounds to heal more readily.
Tiemann & Co. was still selling their patent scarificator as late as 1889
for a price of $7.00.[150] The Smithsonian possesses a marketed version in
addition to the patent model.

The two other patent scarificators in the Smithsonian collection were both
invented by Frederick M. Leypoldt of Philadelphia. The first, patented in
1847, was similar in external appearance to the common scarificator. The
novelty consisted of a new arrangement of the cocking lever and cantilever
spring that allowed use of a lighter and cheaper casing. Although the
patent model was made of brass, Leypoldt claimed that with his
improvements in the internal mechanism, the case could, with safety, be
made of tin.[151]

Leypoldt's second patent, issued in 1851, was for a scarificator with a
greatly simplified inner mechanism allowing for a substantially smaller
and lighter case. The cocking lever was placed horizontally in the casing
and engaged the blade rods through a rack and pinion mechanism. According
to Leypoldt, this scarificator was more convenient, more portable,
cheaper, safer, and more reliable than the common scarificator.[152]
Leypoldt probably marketed his scarificators, there being in the
Smithsonian collection other bloodletting instruments with his name, but
he did not form a major surgical supply company as did George Tiemann.


[Illustration: FIGURE 16.--Advertisement for phlebotomy and cupping
instruments. Note the rubber cups. (From George Tiemann & Co., _American
Armamentarium Chirurgicum_, New York, 1889. SI photo 76-13542.)]


After 1860, interest in inventing new scarificators declined as wet
cupping decreased in popularity. The improved cups and scarificators,
while they had achieved a limited success, had still failed to supplant
the common octagonal scarificator and the plain glass cup. As interest in
wet cupping declined, medical attention shifted to the therapeutic virtues
of dry cupping. Dry cupping offered even greater opportunities for
inventors, who sought means to bring the effects of the vacuum to more
areas of the body for greater lengths of time.


_Dry Cupping_

Dry cupping, in its simplest form, was said to act as a "revulsive" or
"derivant." By the nineteenth century these once hotly debated terms had
become nearly interchangeable in discussions of cupping. In cupping for
revulsive purposes, one cupped on a distant part to relieve excess of
blood in the affected part. In applying cupping as a "derivant," one
cupped closer to the affected part. In either case, the source of pain was
presumed to be somewhere below the skin, and the pain was relieved by
bringing blood away from the affected part to the surface of the body.
Thus, one nineteenth-century cupper concluded, revulsion was only
derivation at a distant point.[153]

If dry cupping was applied for ten minutes or longer so that the
capillaries burst, the action of the cups was said to be that of a
counter-irritant. According to ancient medical theory, the
counter-irritant was a means of relieving an affected part by deliberately
setting up a secondary inflammation or a running sore in another part.
Counter-irritations were traditionally produced in a number of ways, among
them, blisters, cautery, setons, moxa, and dry cupping.[154]

One of the most popular counter-irritation devices commonly associated
with cupping instruments in catalogs of surgical goods, was Baunscheidt's
_Lebenswecker_, sold by most American surgical supply houses in the second
half of the nineteenth century. The _Lebenswecker_, or "Awakener of Life,"
was the mainstay of the mystical medical system known as
_Baunscheidtismus_, after the founder of the device, Carl Baunscheidt of
Prussia (1809-1860).[155] The system apparently gained much notoriety in
Germany, England, and America, for Baunscheidt's book went through ten
German editions and several British and American editions. At least two
Americans patented improvements on the _Lebenswecker_.[156] The device was
made of ebony, about 250 mm long, and contained a coiled spring attached
to a handle. At the other end of the spring was a place about 20 mm in
diameter, with about thirty projecting needles. By pushing upon the
handle, one sent the needles into the skin. The ability of the instrument
to create blisters was enhanced by the application of Baunscheidt's
special oil to the irritation (Figure 17).


[Illustration: FIGURE 17.--Venus and Adonis with marks showing where
Baunscheidt's _Lebenswecker_ should be applied. (From Carl Baunscheidt,
_Baunscheidtismus, by the Inventor of the New Curing Method_, Bonn,
1859(?). Photo courtesy of NLM.)]


Dry cupping stimulated much theoretical debate in the nineteenth century
as well as a number of physiological experiments.[157] Although physicians
generally agreed that dry cupping had curative value if employed properly,
they disagreed widely on when to employ the remedy, and on the manner in
which the remedy operated. Did application of cups affect only the surface
vessels, or could cupping affect the entire nervous system, and through
the nerves, the action of the secretory organs? Were the effects of dry
cupping of only a temporary nature, or were they permanent? An interesting
series of investigations in Europe and America sought to ascertain the
value of dry cupping in checking the absorption of poison. An American,
Dr. Casper Wistar Pennock, replying to investigations performed by Martin
Barry, an Edinburgh physician residing in Paris, carried out an impressive
series of physiological experiments in 1827, in which he administered
strychnine and arsenic under the skin of dogs and rabbits and then cupped
over the wounds. He concluded that while dry cupping prevented almost
certain death from the poisons, once the cups were removed, death would
ensue, unless the poisons were surgically removed.[158]

Interest in dry cupping led to attempts to apply the therapeutic effects
of the operation to larger areas of the body than could be accommodated by
a cup. In France, Victor-Théodore Junod (1809-1881) adapted cupping to
entire limbs. Shortly after receiving his degree in medicine in 1833,
Junod presented at the Academy of Sciences his apparatus, known thereafter
as Junod's boot. Junod believed that actual extraction of blood was a
dangerous remedy and that the benefits of bleeding might as easily be
obtained by his "derivative method," which withdrew blood from the general
circulation but allowed it to be returned at will. Junod's boot and
Junod's arm, which sold for as much as $25.00 apiece,[159] were
constructed of metal and secured against the limb by a silk, and later a
rubber, cap. To the boot was attached a flexible tube, stopcock, pump, and
if desired, a manometer for measuring the vacuum produced. In chronic
illnesses, Junod recommended that the boot be applied for an hour. So much
blood was withdrawn from the circulation by use of the apparatus that the
patient might easily faint. To explain how his boot worked, Junod invented
a theory that he called "hemospasia," meaning the drawing of blood.[160]
This was typical of a number of attempts to introduce sophisticated
terminology into discussions of traditional remedies. Junod's arm and boot
were widely available through American surgical supply companies. As late
as 1915, Heinrich Stern, previously mentioned as a latter-day proponent of
bloodletting, had no doubt that application of the boot to the foot would
relieve congested states of the abdominal viscera.[161] (Figure 18.)

Americans patented a number of modifications of the arm and boot, and in
addition they patented a number of whole body devices called "depurators."
Junod had introduced such a device along with his boot--a metal casing in
which a patient would be placed leaving only his face showing. The air
inside would then be exhausted by means of a gigantic syringe. In America
such "depurators" may have been regarded more as quackery than as a
legitimate extension of cupping, for despite the fact that Americans
patented some twenty of these devices, surgical supply houses did not sell
them and little was written about them.

In the last decade of the nineteenth century, Dr. August Bier, professor
at the University of Bonn, developed another sophisticated theory
supporting the use of blood-suction devices, known as the theory of
hyperemia, meaning "excess of blood." According to the doctrine, lesions
are always accompanied in nature by hyperemia, "the most widespread of
auto-curative agents."[162] If we, therefore, wish to imitate nature, we
create an artificial hyperemia. Bier recommended several means of
increasing the blood supply of an affected part, including hot-air baths,
suction devices such as Junod's boot, and dry cupping. Several American
surgical suppliers sold Bier's Hyperemic Cups in the early twentieth
century. These were glass cups, of a great variety of shapes and sizes
including some with curved rims, each fitted with a rubber tube and bulb
for exhausting the air. A major function of these cups was to collect
wound secretions from boils or furuncles.[163]


[Illustration: FIGURE 18.--Junod's boot applied to a baby in the cradle.
(From Victor Theodore Junod, _A Theoretical and Practical Treatise on
Maemespasia_. London, 1879. Photo courtesy of NLM.)]


_Breast Cupping_

Related to cupping by its technology is the practice of drawing milk from
the breasts by means of breast pumps. Mothers with underdeveloped or
inflamed breasts posed a frequent problem for the nineteenth-century
physician, who treated them with either large doses of tartar emetic, a
strong purgative, or with cupping.[164] Breast pumps were small glass cups
with fluted edges made to accommodate the nipple. While some surgeons, as
the American Samuel Gross, recommended using a bottle with a long neck in
which the air had been rarified by means of hot water,[165] most breast
pumps were exhausted by mechanical means. For reasons of modesty, the
pumps were usually designed so that the woman could draw her breasts
herself. Perhaps the simplest design of a breast pump was a glass cup
having a long spout extending in such a way that the woman could perform
suction herself. Such all-glass cups were illustrated in the eighteenth
century.[166] A few, reputedly made centuries earlier, are found in the
Wellcome Historical Medical Museum. Early in the nineteenth century,
breast pumps, just as glass cups for bleeding, were attached to brass
syringes, and were often included among the variety of cups in cupping
sets provided with syringes. Read's and Weiss's patent syringe as well as
Thomas Machell's cupping device were adapted for breast pumping. With the
invention of vulcanized rubber, the breast pump was frequently attached to
a large rubber bulb. A glass protuberance was often added to pumps
exhausted by syringes or rubber bulbs, in order to collect the milk so
that it could be fed to the infant. In the 1920s some breast pumps were
attached to electric motors.[167] Breast pumps have continued to be
employed up to the present day. Of all instruments employing the principle
of the cupping device, breast pumps were the most frequently patented.
From 1834 to 1975, more than 60 breast pumps were patented, the majority
in the period from 1860 to 1920.[168]


_The Decline of Cupping_

Cupping died out in America in the early twentieth century, but its
disappearance was gradual and scarcely noticed. Some of the most complex
of cupping devices were invented in a period when most physicians regarded
cupping as ineffectual. Patents for cupping devices continued to be issued
as late as 1916 when Joel A. Maxam of Idaho Springs, Colorado, patented a
motorized pump, which by means of various sizes of cups, could subject a
part of the patient's body to either a prolonged suction or a prolonged
compression.[169] One of America's last advocates of bloodletting,
Heinrich Stern, writing in 1915, also advocated the use of an electrical
suction pump to evacuate cups. With an electric motor, he declared, one
could prolong hyperemia for 15, 30, or more minutes.

Stern also invented a theory to account for the therapeutic effects of his
inventions, namely, the theory of phlebostasis. Instead of pumping air out
of a device, Stern pumped air into a device, for the same purpose of
removing a portion of blood from the general circulation. His
"phlebostate," manufactured by Kny-Scheerer of New York, was quite similar
to a sphygmomanometer. It consisted of a set of cuffs that fit about the
thighs, rubber tubes, a manometer, and a suction bulb or an electric force
pump. For stubborn cases, such as migraine headaches, Stern recommended
using the cuffs for 30 minutes or more. To facilitate the application of
the cuffs, Stern invented a "phlebostasis chair," one of the most complex
"cupping" devices ever made. Like an electric chair, the phlebostasis
chair was supplied with cuffs for both arms and legs. Air was pumped into
the cuffs by means of an electric motor. According to Stern, compression
of the upper segment of both arms withheld 300 cc of blood from
circulation, while compression of the thighs withheld as much as 600
cc.[170]

In addition to these sophisticated devices, simple cupping, especially dry
cupping, continued well into the 1930s. Although cupping was no longer
generally recommended by physicians, most surgical companies advertised
cups, scarificators, and cupping sets in the 1920s and even the 1930s. The
last bastions of cupping in the United States were the immigrant sections
of large cities. In the lower East Side of New York, in particular,
cupping was still flourishing in the 1920s. By then cupping was no longer
performed by the physician, but had been relegated back to the lowly
barber, who advertised in his shop window, "Cups for Colds."[171]




Leeching


_Leeches_

The word "leech" derives from the Anglo-Saxon _loece_, "to heal." Thus,
the Anglo-Saxon physician was called a "leech" and his textbook of
therapeutic methods a "leechdom." The animal itself was already known to
the ancients under its Latin name _hirudino_. It appears, however, that
the introduction of leeches into Western medicine came somewhat later than
that of phlebotomy or cupping, for Hippocrates made no mention of them.
The earliest references to the use of leeches in medicine are found in
Nicander of Colophon (2nd century B.C.) and in Themison (1st century
B.C.). Thereafter they were mentioned by most Greek, Roman, and Arabic
medical writers.[172]

The leech is a fresh-water parasitic invertebrate belonging to the Phylum
Annelida. On one end of its worm-like body is a large sucker by which the
animal fastens itself to the ground, and at the other end is a smaller
sucker, in the middle of which is a chitinous mouth that makes a
triangular puncture. As items of _materia medica_, leeches were described
in dispensatories, or compilations of medicaments, and sold by
apothecaries, both to physicians and directly to patients. The species
most commonly used for bleeding was _Hirudo medicinalis_, indigenous to
the streams and swamps of Central and Northern Europe, and known in
commerce as the Swedish or German leech. It was 50-75 mm long, with a dull
olive green back and four yellow longitudinal lines, the central two
broken with black. Somewhat less popular was the Hungarian leech,
indigenous to Southern Europe. In addition, there was an American species
of leech, _Hirudo decora_, which was gathered principally from the lower
Delaware River, but, since it drew much less blood than the Swedish leech,
it was regarded as greatly inferior.[173] Most American physicians
imported their leeches. In the late nineteenth century, one could buy
Swedish leeches for $5.00 per hundred.[174]

Leeches were gathered in the spring of the year either by means of a pole
net, or, more primitively, by wading into the water and allowing the
leeches to fasten themselves onto the legs. Sometimes horses and cattle
were driven into the water to serve as bait for the leeches.[175] (Figure
19.)


[Illustration: FIGURE 19.--Lithograph published in London in 1814 showing
three women gathering leeches by a stream. (NMHT 320033.08; SI photo
76-7741.)]


Leeching, like other forms of bloodletting, enjoyed a revival in the early
nineteenth century, particularly in France, where the doctrines of heroic
medicine preached by Broussais[176] led to an increase of leech usage from
about 3 million in 1824 to 41.5 million in 1833.[177] Leechers, although
not as high in status as professional cuppers, practiced in many large
cities, and numerous tracts were written on the care and breeding of
leeches. "Leech farms" were unable to increase the leech supply to meet
the rising demand, and most leechers complained of the scarcity and great
expense of the little animals.[178]

Leeching and cupping each had their advocates. The major advantage of the
leech over the cup was that the leech could be employed on almost any part
of the anatomy, including around the eyes, in the mouth, the anus, and the
vagina. In fact, leeching the internal membranes enjoyed quite a vogue in
the early nineteenth century. Leeches were applied to the larynx and the
trachea for bronchitis and laryngitis and for relieving the cough of
phthisis. For inflammations of the conjunctiva (the membrane lining the
eyelids) they were applied to the nasal membrances of the adjacent
nostril, and for inflammations of the ear they were applied to the meatus
of the ear and behind the ear. The French popularized the practice of
leeching the anus to treat inflammations of the mucous membranes of the
bowel. To prevent leeches from getting lost in the body cavities, Jonathan
Osborne, a British physician, recommended in 1833 that a thread should be
passed through the leech's tail. In addition, he invented a device, which
he called a "polytome," specifically for introducing leeches into the
rectum.[179] In the mid-nineteenth century, special leech tubes were
widely sold for applying leeches to internal membranes.[180]

A second advantage of leeches over cupping was that leeches could extract
blood more readily. Not only was dexterity not required in order to apply
a leech, but also it was soon noticed that leech bites continued to bleed
even after the leech let go, while scarificator incisions often coagulated
before any blood was obtained. In 1884 it was shown by John Berry
Haycroft, a Birmingham chemist, that this phenomenon was due to an
anti-coagulant, now called "hirudin," that the leech injected into the
blood.[181]

To apply a leech, the animal was first dried with a bit of linen, and the
skin of the patient was prepared by washing with warm water and then
shaving. To direct it to the right spot, the leech was often placed in a
small wine glass that was inverted over the area to be bitten. Since
leeches were sometimes perversely unwilling to bite, they were enticed by
the placement of a bit of milk or blood on the patient's skin. Small
children were given one or two leeches, and adults 20 or more. Broussais
employed up to 50 leeches at one time.[182] The leech was usually allowed
to drop off of its own accord when it had satiated itself, which took
about an hour. Sometimes the tail of the leech was cut off so that it
would continue to suck. Once used, leeches could not be reused for several
months unless they were made to disgorge their meal by dropping them in
salt water or weak vinegar. A healthy leech drew one or two fluid drachms
of blood, and as much would flow after the leech had dropped off. Thus a
good Swedish leech could remove about an ounce of blood. This quantity
could be increased by employing a cupping glass over the bite.[183]

Leeches were kept in a glass container of water covered with gauze or
muslin and placed in a cool, dark room. The water had to be changed
frequently, as much as every other day in summer. Pebbles or moss were
placed in the bottom of the vessel to aid the leech in removing the slimy
epidermis that it shed every four or five days. In the nineteenth century
leeches were often sold in drug stores from large, elegant containers with
perforated caps. Actually, only the day's supply of the pharmacist's
leeches was kept in the attractive storefront jars; the rest were kept out
of sight. While most leech jars were simple white crockery pieces with
"leeches" lettered in black on the front, some leech jars were over two
feet tall and decorated with elegant floral and scroll work. Among the
most ornate leech jars were those made in Staffordshire, England.[184]
(Figure 20.)


_Artificial Leeches_

One of the characteristics of nineteenth-century technology was the
attempt to replace natural materials and processes by imitations and
mechanisms. Considering the properties of the natural leech, it is no
wonder that very early in the nineteenth century inventors began to seek a
mechanical substitute. The disadvantages of the leech were many. Wrote
one inventor of an artificial leech:

     In the first place the appearance of the animal is repulsive and
     disgusting, and delicate and sensitive persons find it difficult to
     overcome their repugnance to contact with the cold and slimy reptile.
     This is especially the case when it is a question of their
     application about or within the mouth. Then again, their disposition
     to crawl into cavities or passages results sometimes in very annoying
     accidents. Another source of annoyance is that they are often
     unwilling to bite--the patience of all concerned being exhausted in
     fruitless efforts to induce them to take hold.

     The expense, too, of a considerable number is by no means
     trifling.[185]


[Illustration: FIGURE 20.--Staffordshire leech jars, 19th century. (NMHT
263554 [M-11504]; SI photo 73-4231.)]


In addition, leeches were often difficult to obtain, and the rural
physician could not easily carry them about. Leech bites could have
unfortunate consequences, for many times the bleeding could not be
stopped. For these and other reasons, several inventors in Europe and
America sought to create a mechanical or artificial leech.[186] Such
artificial leeches are often difficult to distinguish from cupping
devices, because both sorts of instruments employed some form of
scarification and suction. Artificial leeches however, were usually
adaptable to small areas of the anatomy, and the puncture wound generally
attempted to imitate a leech bite.

Perhaps the earliest instrument offered as a substitute for leeches was
Sarlandière's "bdellometer," from the Greek _bdello_, "leech."
Sarlandière, a French manufacturer, introduced his instrument in 1819 and,
incidentally, had the prototype sent to New Orleans. The bdellometer
consisted of a glass bell with two protruding tubes, one perpendicular for
performing scarification, and the other oblique, for attaching the
aspirating pump. A plug could be removed to allow air to enter the bell
after the operation was completed, and a faucet allowed for drainage of
blood without having to remove the apparatus from the body. A curved
cannula could be attached to the bdellometer for bleeding in the nasal
passages, the mouth, the vagina, and the rectum. For internal
bloodletting, the disk, with lancets, normally used for scarification, was
replaced by a small brush of hog bristles.[187] Sarlandière's bdellometer
attracted sufficient attention in America to be included in the numerous
editions of Robley Dunglison's medical dictionary,[188] but it was
ultimately no more successful than the complicated cupping devices
discussed in the previous chapter.

A second French invention, also given a pretentious name, was Damoiseau's
"terabdella" (meaning "large leech"), or pneumatic leech. This invention,
introduced some time before 1862, met with skepticism at the outset on the
part of the reviewers at the French Academy of Medicine. It consisted of
two pistons attached to a plate to be placed on the floor and held down by
the feet of the operator. Each piston was connected by a tube to a cup,
and the whole apparatus was operated by means of a hand lever connected
with both pistons. More a cupping device than an artificial leech, the
terabdella met with little success beyond the French province where
Damoiseau practiced.[189] (Figure 21.)

Perhaps the most successful of the mechanical leeches was known as
Heurteloup's leech, after its inventor, the Frenchman, Charles Louis
Heurteloup (1793-1864). Sold in most late nineteenth-century surgical
catalogs for as much as $15.00, the device consisted of two parts, one a
spring scarificator that made a small circular incision (about 5 mm in
diameter) and the other, a suction pump, holding an ounce of blood, whose
piston was raised by means of a screw. For the treatment of eye ailments,
one of the major purposes for which the device was invented, it was
applied to the temples.[190] A similar two-part mechanical leech was sold
under the name "Luer's Leech."

One of the most interesting leech substitutes, sold by George Teimann &
Co. as its "Patent Artificial Leech," employed ether in exhausting the
glass "leeches." Patented by F. A. Stohlmann and A. H. Smith of New York
in 1870, the "leech" consisted of a glass tube, either straight or with a
mouth on the side so that the tube would hang somewhat like a living
leech. To expel air from the tube, a few drops of ether were placed in it,
after which it was immersed to its mouth in hot water until the ether
vaporized. The tube was then applied to the skin and allowed to cool, thus
sucking blood from a wound made by the scarificator, a long metal tube
that was rotated to make a circular incision. One of the patentees
explained the advantages of the device:

     In all previous attempts at an artificial leech the vacuum has been
     produced by the action of a piston. This renders the instrument too
     heavy to retain its position, and necessitates its constantly being
     held. This precludes the application of any number at once, even if
     the cost of half-a-dozen such instruments were left out of the
     account. But in the case of this leech, the tubes, being exceedingly
     light, attach themselves at once, remaining in position until filled;
     and as the cost of them is but a few cents, there is no limit to the
     number which may be applied.[191]

To take the place of leeches in the uterus, quite a number of uterine
scarificators were sold. These were generally simple puncturing
instruments without spring mechanisms. If insufficient blood flowed from
the scarification, Thomas's Dry Cupper, a widely available vulcanite
syringe, could be inserted into the vagina to cup the cervix before
puncturing.[192] At least one attempt was made to combine puncture and
suction in a device for uterine application. This was Dr. William Reese's
"Uterine Leech," introduced in 1876. It consisted of a graduated glass
cylinder 190 mm long and 12 mm in diameter containing a piston and a rod
with a spear point. The rod was surrounded by a spring that withdrew the
blade after it punctured the cervix. Several American companies, including
George Tiemann & Co., offered the device for sale.[193]


[Illustration: FIGURE 21.--Damoiseau's terabdella. (From Damoiseau, _La
Terabdelle ou machine pneumatique_, Paris, 1862. Photo courtesy of NLM.)]


Despite all the efforts to find a suitable substitute, the use of natural
leeches persisted until the practice of local bloodletting gradually
disappeared in America. By the 1920s leeches were difficult to find except
in pharmacies in immigrant sections of large cities like New York or
Boston. One of the last ailments to be regularly treated by leeches was
the common black eye. Leeches commanded rather high prices in the 1920s,
if they could be found at all. One Brooklyn pharmacist, who deliberately
kept an old-fashioned drugstore with the motto "No Cigars, No Candy, No
Ice Cream, No Soda Water, But I Do Sell Pure Medicines," wrote in 1923:

     Here in this atmosphere free from the lunch room odor my
     armamentarium consists of drugs and preparations from the vegetable,
     mineral and animal kingdoms. Among the latter are leeches,
     prominently displayed in a number of glass jars in different parts of
     the store, including one in the show window. Anything moving,
     anything odd, arouses the curiosity of the public, and my reputation
     as a "leecher" has spread far beyond the "City of Churches." Besides,
     this leech business is also profitable, as they are retailed at $1.00
     per head without any trouble; in fact patients are only too glad to
     be able to obtain them.[194]




Veterinary Bloodletting


The same theories and practices that prevailed for human medicine were
applied to the treatment of animals. Not only were horses routinely bled,
they were also cupped and leeched.[195] Manuals of veterinary medicine
gave instructions for the bleeding of horses, cows, sheep, pigs, dogs, and
cats.[196]

There was one major difference between bleeding a man and bleeding a horse
or cow, and that was the amount of strength required to open a vein. The
considerable force needed to pierce the skin and the tunic of the blood
vessel made the operation much more difficult to perform than human
phlebotomy.[197] As in the case of cupping, the simplest instruments,
those most often recommended by experts, were not easy to use by those
without experience. Although a larger version of the thumb lancet was
sometimes employed, most veterinarians opened the vein of a horse with a
fleam, that is, an instrument in which the blade (commonly double beveled)
was set at right angles to the blade stem. These are enlarged versions of
the fleam employed in human bloodletting. The fleams sold in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries consisted of one or more blades that
folded out of a fitted brass shield. In the late nineteenth century fleams
with horn shields were also sold. The largest blades were to be used to
open the deeper veins and the smaller blades to open the more superficial
veins.

To force the fleam into the vein, one employed a bloodstick, a stick 35-38
cm long and 2 cm in diameter. The blade was held against the vein and a
blow was given to the back of the blade with the stick in such a way that
the fleam penetrated but did not go through the vein. Immediately the
fleam was removed and a jet of blood came forth that was caught and
measured in a container. When enough blood had been collected, a needle
would be placed in the vein to stop the bleeding.

Horses were most frequently bled from the jugular vein in the neck, but
also from veins in the thigh, the fold at the junction of breast and
forelegs, the spur, the foreleg, the palate, and the toe.

Since applying the bloodstick required a degree of skill, the Germans
attempted to eliminate its use by adapting the spring lancet to veterinary
medicine. The common veterinary spring lancet (which sometimes was also
called a "fleam" or "phleme") was nothing but an oversized version of the
brass, nob end spring lancet used on humans. Sometimes the lancet was
provided with a blade guard that served to regulate the amount of blade
that penetrated the skin. Although the veterinary spring lancet was quite
popular in some quarters, the French preferred the simple foldout fleam as
a more convenient instrument.[198] (Figure 22.)


[Illustration: FIGURE 22.--Knob end spring lancet used on humans compared
to a knob end lancet used on horses and cattle. Note the blade guard on
the veterinary spring lancet. (NMHT 302606.09 and NMHT 218383 [M-9256]: SI
photo 76-7757.)]


In contrast to the few attempts made to modify the human spring lancet,
there were a large number of attempts to modify the veterinary spring
lancets. Veterinary spring lancets can be found with a wide assortment of
shapes and a wide variety of spring mechanisms. In the enlarged knob end
spring lancet, pushing upon the lever release simply sent the blade
forward into the skin. By a more complex mechanism, the blade could be
made to return after it was injected, or the blade could be made to sweep
out a curve as do the blades of the scarificator. Perhaps one of the
earliest attempts to introduce a more complex internal mechanism into the
veterinary spring lancets is found in John Weiss's "patent horse phlemes"
of 1828. The first model invented by Weiss was constructed on the
principle of the common fleam and bloodstick. As in the knob end spring
lancet, the spring acted as a hammer to drive the blade forward. In a
second improved "horse phleme," Weiss mounted the blade on a pivot so that
the blade swept out a semicircle when the spring was released.[199]

The Smithsonian collection contains a number of different types of
veterinary spring lancets. Perhaps this variety can best be illustrated by
looking at the two patent models in the collection. The first is an
oval-shaped lancet patented in 1849 by Joseph Ives of Bristol,
Connecticut.[200] By using a wheel and axle mechanism, Ives had the blade
sweep out an eccentric curve. The lancet was set by a detachable key
(Figure 23).

The second patent lancet was even more singular in appearance, having the
shape of a gun. This instrument, patented by Hermann Reinhold and August
Schreiber of Davenport, Iowa, in 1880, featured a cocking lever that
extended to form a coiled spring in the handle portion of the gun. Also
attached to the cocking lever was an extended blade with ratchet catches,
so that by pulling on the cocking lever, the blade was brought inside the
casing and the spring placed under tension. Pushing upon the trigger then
shot the blade into the vein.[201] (Figure 24.)




Physical Analysis of Artifacts


The Conservation Analytical Laboratory of the Smithsonian Institution
analyzed selected bloodletting instruments and one drawing from the
Museum's collection. Instruments were chosen on the basis of their unique
appearance and as representative examples of the major types of
instruments in the collection. Six lancets and cases, two scarificators,
and one pen and ink drawing were analyzed.


[Illustration: FIGURE 23.--Patent model, J. Ives, 1849. (NMHT 89797
[M-4292]: SI photo 73-4211.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 24.--Patent model, Reinhold and Schreiber, 1880.
(NMHT 89797 [M-4327]; SI photo 73-4210.)]


X-ray fluorescence analysis, response to a magnet, reaction to nitric
acid, and the Vickers pyramid hardness test were among the methods of
analysis used that involved no damage to the objects.

The instrument for X-ray fluorescence analysis has been modified to permit
analysis of selected areas on the objects. This instrument produces,
detects, and records the object's X-ray fluorescence spectrum, which is
characteristic of its composition. X-rays produced by a target in the
instrument strike the object and cause it, in turn, to fluoresce, or emit,
X-rays. This fluorescence is detected by a silicon crystal in the detector
and dispersed into a spectrum, which is displayed on an oscilloscope
screen. The entire spectrum--from 0 to 40 Ke V--can be displayed or
portions of it can be expanded and displayed at an apparently higher
resolution that permits differentiation between closely spaced fluorescent
peaks, such as those from iron and manganese. The spectrum may be
transferred from the oscilloscope to a computer for calculation of the
percentage of composition and for comparison with spectra of other
samples. During analysis the objects can be supported and masked by sheets
of plexiglas or metal foils to limit the radiation to a certain area of
the object. Masks also prevent scattering of radiation off other parts of
the object and off the instrument itself, which otherwise might be
detected and interpreted as less concentrated components in the object.

Brass was the most common metal used in the fabrication of eighteenth- and
nineteenth-century lancets and scarificators. Upon analysis the brass was
found to contain 70%-75% copper, 20%-30% zinc, and other trace elements.
The blades, cocking levers, and button releases of lancets and
scarificators were found to be made of ferrous metal (iron or steel). In
addition to the typical brass pieces, a number of "white metal" pieces
were analyzed. (The term "white metal" is used to designate any
undetermined silver-colored metal alloy.) Those white metal pieces dating
from the eighteenth century (a Swiss or Tyrolean fleam and an English
veterinary spring lancet) were found to be composed entirely of ferrous
metal. The hardness of the fleam metal indicated that it was carburized
sufficiently to be made of steel. Two of the spring lancets, dating from
the late nineteenth century, were found to be made of a silver-copper
composition that was not rich enough in silver to be sterling silver.
These lancets were probably typical of the lancets advertised as silver in
the late nineteenth-century trade catalogs. About 1850 an alloy imitating
silver began to be widely used in the making of surgical instruments. This
was German silver or nickel-silver, an alloy containing no silver at all,
but rather copper, zinc, and nickel. A patent model scarificator dating
from 1851 was found to contain about 63% copper, 24% zinc, and 13% nickel.
This alloy is presently called "nickel-silver 65-12" alloy. The French
made scarificators out of their own version of nickel-silver that was
called "maillechort." The French circular scarificator was found to
contain copper (55%-70%), nickel (10%-20%), zinc (20%-30%), and tin (less
than 10%). The cases in which the lancets and scarificators were carried
were covered with leather, despite the fact that several appeared to be
covered with paper. X-ray analysis revealed that several cases contained
tin, leading to the possibility that a tin salt was used in the
dye-mordant for leather. The clasps on the cases were made of brass. One
case was trimmed in gold leaf.

The most difficult item to analyze was the pen and ink drawing in black
and red of a bloodletting man purported to be a fifteenth-century specimen
(1480) from South Germany. The text is in German (Figure 25).

The watermark of the paper--a horned bull (ox) with crown--is believed to
have appeared in 1310 and was used widely for two hundred years. The paper
was heavily sized and no feathering of the black ink or red paint appears.

The paper fluoresced only faintly under ultraviolet light and much less
brightly than new paper, leading to the conclusion that the paper is not
modern. Various stains on the paper fluoresce yellow, which also indicates
a considerable history for the document.

The guard strip is vellum. Red stains on this strip may have been made by
blood.

The inks (brown and red) may have come from different sources or been
applied at different times because of their various compositions and
densities. Iron and lead were found in an area of writing on the left
foot. Iron is typical of an iron gall ink. Some of the lighter lines
contain graphite. The red lines contain mercury and lead suggesting a
mixture of vermilion and red lead.

Analysis of the ink and paper indicates that the document has had a varied
history and seems not to have been a deliberate production intended to
simulate age.




Catalog of Bloodletting Instruments


Several systems of catalog numbers have been employed for instruments in
the collections. The earliest instruments were originally collected by the
Division of Anthropology and were given a six-digit number in the division
catalog (referred to as "Anthropology"). Later objects in the collections
have been given a six-digit National Museum of History and Technology
(NMHT) accession number, which serves for all items obtained from one
source at a given date. Before 1973, the Division of Medical Sciences used
a system of numbering individual items by M numbers (e.g., "M-4151").
Since 1973, individual items have been distinguished by adding decimal
numbers to the accession numbers (e.g., "308730.10"). Objects on loan have
been marked as such and given a six-digit number. Other institutional
abbreviations are as follows: SI = Smithsonian Institution; USNM = the
former United States National Museum; NLM = National Library of Medicine.


[Illustration: FIGURE 25.--Bloodletting manikin. (NMHT 243033 [M-10288];
SI photo 76-13536.)]


Photograph numbers are labeled "BW" for black and white negative and "CS"
for color slide. (Copies of photographs or slides may be purchased through
the Office of Printing and Photographic Services, Smithsonian
Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560.) Abbreviations for dimensions of
objects are as follows: D = diameter; L = length; W = width; H = height.

Instruments within each group are arranged chronologically as accessioned
by the museum.


_Phlebotomy_

FLINT AND THUMB LANCETS

Flint lancets (4). Pieces of flint used to let blood by native doctors in
Alaska in the 1880s. Donated by William J. Fisher late 19th century. L 22
mm, 35 mm, 43 mm, 50 mm. Anthropology vol. 30, catalog no. 127758. Neg.
73-4208 (BW, CS). (Figure 30.)

Thumb lancet, 19th century. Typical thumb lancet with steel blade and
tortoise shell shield, engraved with a crown and "Evans/Old Change/London"
(manufacturer). Purchased 1898. Shield: L 56 mm. Blade: L 50 mm.
Anthropology vol. 30, catalog no. 143079.

Flint lancet. "Indian scarificator" collected by the Section of Ethnology
of the Smithsonian 1902. L 44 mm. Anthropology vol. 30, catalog no.
143166.

Thumb lancets (4) with case, 19th century. Lancets are engraved "S. Maw"
(manufacturer). The case is made of cardboard covered with brown leather
and has four compartments. Used by the donor's father while a missionary
in Samoa in the 1830s. Donated in 1936 by the Rev. Robert G. Harbutt.
Lancets: L 55 mm. Case: L 60 mm, W 28 mm, H 10 mm. Neg. 73-4230 (BW) four
lancets with case; negs. 73-4226, 73-4227, 73-4228, 73-4229 (BW & CS),
individual lancets. NMHT 139980 (M-4151). (Figure 38.)

Thumb lancets (2), 19th century. Lancets are typical 19th century thumb
lancets. Shell shields are broken. Second lancet is engraved with a crown
denoting British manufacture. Owned by S. K. Jennings of Baltimore
(1771-1854). Donated by the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland
1976. First lancet: L 54 mm; L of blade 46 mm. Second lancet: L 58 mm; L
of blade 42 mm. NMHT 302606.062.

Thumb lancets (2), 19th century. Shell shields. One shell is marked "A. L.
Hernstein." Purchased 1976. First lancet: L 60 mm. Second lancet: L 70 mm.
NMHT 1977.0789.

Bloodletting knife, 19th century. Handle is cylindrical and made of carved
wood, which has been turned, a brass ring, and an ivory tip with a hole
bored through it. Blade is double beveled and engraved "Rodgers/Cutlers to
Her Majesty," which indicates that the piece is Victorian. It could have
been used for many purposes, including bloodletting. Purchased 1976. L 129
mm; L of blade 30 mm. Neg. 76-76108 (BW). NMHT 321697.39.

Thumb lancets in cases (8), 19th century. Seven of the cases have silver
trimming and are closed by a hinged cap. These are similar in appearance
to cigarette lighters. The first case, made of tortoise shell, contains
four thumb lancets (with tortoise shell sheaths). Two blades are marked
"Savigny & Co.," two are marked with a cross on top of crown symbol. The
second case is made of mother-of-pearl carved with an intricate floral
design. It has space for four lancets but contains only one lancet marked
"Thompson" on the inner side of the shell cover, and a silver pincers. The
scroll initials "J H" appear on the side of the case. The third case is
silver, decorated with a floral relief, and contains two lancets. The
fourth case is made of shagreen and contains six lancets, three engraved
"Savigny" and one "Morgan." The fifth case is made of shagreen. One blade
is inscribed "STODART." Blades are rusted. The sixth case is made of
shagreen. It contains one shell-covered lancet of a possible six. The
blade is marked Paris. "J. P. Honard" is engraved on the silver top of the
case. The seventh case is made of shagreen. It contains two lancets, one
with a pearl shield and one with a shell shield. On the blade of the shell
encased lancet is inscribed "B. Radford, 9 Patrick St. Conn." The last
case is made of leather, which is worn. It contains one shell-encased
lancet. The blade is marked "Gouldig & Ford, N.Y." Purchased 1976. Case
one: L 70 mm, W 36 mm. Case two: L 69 mm, W 33 mm. Case three: L 65 mm, W
30 mm. Case four: L 74 mm, W 50 mm. Case five: L 71 mm, W 33 mm. Case six:
L 75 mm, W 43 mm. Case seven: L 68 mm, W 32 mm. Case eight: L 75 mm, W 17
mm. Neg. 76-9116 (BW). NMHT 1977-0789. (Figure 5.)


SPRING LANCETS

NOTE: Lancets are measured to the tip of the casing rather than to the tip
of the blade. The blade length depends upon the setting, and varies from
an additional 8 to 13 mm.

Spring lancet, 19th century. Brass Knob end lancet with brass lever
release. Purchased 1898. L 42 mm, W 20 mm. Anthropology vol. 30, catalog
no. 143078.

Spring lancets (2) with case, 19th century. One lancet is plain with a
brass lever release. Second lancet is brass with a steel lever release and
has a floral design on the front and back panels. There are three settings
for the height of the blade instead of the usual two. Blade is broken off.
Case is square and made of wood covered with black leather and lined with
rose plush. It is stamped "Braumiller, jun." Wood is broken. Leather and
plush are badly torn. Donated by George B. Roth 1925. Both lancets: L 44
mm, W 20 mm. Case: L 62 mm, W 64 mm, H 20 mm. NMHT 88734 (M-2099).

Spring lancet, patent model, 1857. Lancet has a cupped end instead of the
usual knob end. According to analysis by the Conservation Laboratory, the
lancet is made of silver-copper alloy. A screw on the back regulates the
depth of cut by moving the spring mechanism back and forth inside the
outer casing. Patented by James W. W. Gordon (U.S. patent 16479).
Transferred from the U.S. Patent Office 1926. L 36 mm, W 25 mm, H 6 mm.
Neg. 73-10318 (BW) and 73-116 (CS), front view; 73-10319 (BW) and 73-11147
(CS), back view. NMHT 89797 (M-4298). (Figures 48, 49.)

Spring lancet, 19th century. Lancet is brass and has a brass lever
release. It is engraved with the initials "A. F." Donor claimed it was a
17th-century import from Wales, but it appears to be a standard 19th
century lancet. Donated by Edward Pryor 1930. L 45 mm, W 19 mm. Neg.
73-4235 (BW & CS). NMHT 112827 (M-2995). (Figure 105.)

Spring lancet, 19th century. Lancet is brass with a brass lever release.
Engraved "Wiegand & Snowden/Philadelphia" (manufacturer). Donated by Dr.
H. S. West 1934. L 44 mm, W 22 mm. NMHT 131386 (M-3636).

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Standard 19th century lancet with
typical case made of wood, covered with brown leather and lined with
chamois. Case closes by a latch, and is stamped "Traunichtessticht," which
translates, "Do not trust, it stabs." Many 19th century cases were stamped
with this motto. Donated by Fred G. Orsinger 1937. Lancet: L 41 mm, W 20
mm. Case: L 71 mm, W 35 mm, H 18 mm. Neg. 73-4237 (BW & CS), without case.
NMHT 145365 (M-4510).

Spring lancet blade with case, 19th century. The case is made of wood and
covered with red paper, and has "F D" stamped on the bottom. A piece of
paper with the date "1877" is affixed to the top of the case. This is the
date that the donor received the blade from his mother, daughter of the
owner, Dr. Joseph S. Dogan (1793-1870), who practiced as a country doctor
in South Carolina. Donated by B. F. Arthur 1937. Blade: L 42 mm. Case: L
64 mm, W 20 mm, H 15 mm. NMHT 145290 (M-4513).

NOTE: In the Wellcome Museum there are two spring lancets in a case. (R
3689/1936) One of these is marked "F. D." and the other "Fischer Peter,"
which may indicate that this is the name of the maker of all instruments
so marked. The Wellcome instruments were part of the Hamonic Collections.
Dr. Hamonic listed them as 18th century instruments. Another lancet that
appears to be veterinary, because of its size, is stamped "P. Fischer"
(Wellcome 13516). Note that several items in this catalog are so marked.

Spring lancet with case, late 19th-early 20th century. Tiemann & Co.'s
spring lancet, a modified lancet sold by George Tiemann & Co. and
advertised in the Tiemann catalogs of 1879 and 1889. Lancet is made of
German silver and has a domed rather than a knob end. It is stamped
"Tiemann" on the back panel. Release lever is a short bar across the top.
Leather case is lined in red plush and has a partition in which four extra
lancet blades are contained. Lancet was one of various instruments in a
medical bag used by Dr. Augustus Stabler of Brighton, Maryland, who
practiced from 1889 to 1914. Donated by Sidney Snowden Stabler 1942.
Lancet: L 34 mm, W 16 mm. Case: L 62 mm, W 40 mm, H 23 mm. Neg. 73-5644
(BW). NMHT 163863 (M-5141). (Figure 47.)

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Brass lancet with brown leather
case. Lancet was a part of the Squibb Ancient Pharmacy, a collection of
medical and pharmaceutical objects brought by E. Squibb and Sons to the
United States in 1932. On deposit from the American Pharmaceutical
Association 1945. Lancet: L 40 mm, W 19 mm. Case: L 70 mm, W 38 mm, H 24
mm. NMHT 170211 (M-6385).

Spring lancets (2) with case, 19th century. Lancets are made of brass and
have steel lever releases. They are engraved front and back with a floral
pattern. Tip of the blade of one of the lancets is broken. Case is wood
covered with red leather and is missing the top. Donated by the University
of Pennsylvania 1959. First lancet: L 43 mm, W 21 mm. Second lancet: L 75
mm, W 49 mm, H 11 mm. NMHT 218383 (M-9260).

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Brass lancet with brass lever
release. Case is covered with red cloth and lined with black plush. Used
by Dr. Samuel Fahnestock (1764-1836) or by his son, Dr. William Baker
Fahnestock (1804-1886) of Pennsylvania. Donated by Capt. Henry Fahnestock
MacComsey, U.S.N., and Dr. G. Horace Coshow 1968. Lancet: L 40 mm, W 20
mm. Case: L 74 mm, W 40 mm, H 26 mm. NMHT 280145 (M-12341).

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Lancet has a steel lever release
and is stamped "F. D." on the back panel. Other lancets have been found
with these initials but so far no manufacturer has been traced. Leather of
case is damaged. Owned by Dr. Harry Friedenwald of Baltimore, Maryland (b.
1864). Donated by the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland 1976.
Lancet: L 40 mm, W 20 mm. Case: L 72 mm, W 34 mm, H 20 mm. NMHT
302606.008.

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Brass spring lancet with a brass
lever release. Case is stamped "Traunichtessticht" (see NMHT 145365
[M-4510]). Used by Dr. Wilbur Phelps, Baltimore, Maryland (1841-1922).
Donated by the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland 1976. Lancet: L
38 mm, W 34 mm. Case: L 71 mm, W 34 mm, H 17 mm. Neg. 76-7757 (BW & CS),
compares lancet to a veterinary spring lancet. NMHT 302606.009. (Figure
22.)

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Brass spring lancet with a brass
release. Case is covered with navy blue leather, lined with chamois, and
stamped with a small flower and leaf design. Owned by Dr. Launcelot Jackes
of Hancock, Maryland (b. late 18th century). Donated by the Medical and
Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland 1976. Lancet: L 40 mm, W 22 mm. Case: L 66
mm, W 34 mm, H 20 mm. NMHT 302606.039.

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Lancet and case are very similar to
NMHT 302606.039. The case is more rounded on top, is covered with black
leather, and bears the same floral motif. Lancet blade is broken. Owned by
Dr. George Washington Crumm of Clearspring and Jefferson, Maryland
(1811-1896). Donated by the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland
1976. Lancet: L 42 mm, W 22 mm. Case: L 66 mm, W 38 mm, H 22 mm. NMHT
302606.056.

Spring lancet, 19th century. Brass lancet with steel lever release. Owned
by Dr. Joseph Tate Smith of Baltimore, Maryland (1850-1930). Donated by
the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland 1976. Lancet: L 42 mm, W
20 mm. NMHT 302606.057.

Spring lancets (2) with case, 19th century. Wood case, covered with brown
leather and lined with brown velvet, has space for two rectangular
lancets. One brass lancet, knob end, does not belong with the set. It has
a steel lever release and three settings for blade height. The rectangular
lancet, also made of brass, with an iron lever release and three settings
for the height of the blade, is unusual in that it is triggered by a slide
catch on the facing side rather than by a lever on top. The set was owned
by Dr. Charles W. Owen of Maryland (1823-1857). Donated by the Medical and
Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland 1976. Rectangular lancet: L 50 mm, W 16
mm. Knob end lancet: L 42 mm, W 18 mm. Case: L 150 mm, W 34 mm, H 22 mm.
NMHT 302606.058.

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Lancet and case are similar to NMHT
302606.039. The leather of the case is torn and the lancet blade is
broken. Donated by the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland 1976.
Lancet: L 42 mm, W 22 mm. Case: L 66 mm, W 38 mm, H 24 mm. NMHT
302606.061.

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. The Conservation Analytical
Laboratory found the lancet to be made of a silver-copper alloy with an
iron or steel lever release. It has a border around the top and along the
edge and is marked "Reinhardt & C{o}/Balt{o}." Case is covered with black
leather and lined in pink plush. It is decorated by a gold border and a
small scroll motif. Donated by Harry L. Schrader 1972. Lancet: L 42 mm, W
21 mm. Case: L 68 mm, W 34 mm, H 20 mm. NMHT 302607 (M-14682).

Spring lancet with case, late 19th-early 20th century. Lancet is similar
to the preceding lancet. It is made of white metal[B] (probably
silver-copper) and has a border decoration along the top and around the
edge. Case, which is badly rotted from water damage, is a folding style
case and is closed by a clasp. There is a pocket for extra blades. Donated
by John and James Draper 1973. Lancet: L 42 mm, W 21 mm. Case: L 74 mm, W
40 mm, H 18 mm. NMHT 304826.067.

Spring lancet with case, late 19th-early 20th century. Brass knob end
lancet with brass lever release. Case is covered with brown leather and
lined with chamois. Case is stamped "Traunichtessticht" (See NMHT 145365
[M-4510]). Owned by Dr. F. L. Orsinger of Chicago (1852-1925). Donated by
Dr. William Orsinger 1973. Lancet: L 43 mm, W 22 mm. Case: L 70 mm, W 30
mm, H 20 mm. Neg. 74-4088 (BW & CS); 76-13535 (BW), interior view of
spring mechanism. NMHT 308730.10. (Figures 7, 39.)

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Brass Lancet with steel lever
release. Leather of case is water damaged and is stamped
"Traunichtessticht." Latch is missing. Donated by Peter H. Smith Jr., 1975
Lancet: L 50 mm, W 25 mm (w/ blade extended), H 15 mm. Case: L 75 mm, W 42
mm, H 23 mm. NMHT 316508.01.

Spring lancet with case, 18th-early 19th century. Wooden case has a
hand-carved space for lancet. Lancet is brass and has an unusual boot
shape. The short lever release operates a catch at the very top of the
lancet casing. The large blade has a guard that is regulated by a screw on
the side. Purchased 1976. Lancet: L 35 mm, W 24 mm. Case: L 68 mm, W 33
mm, H 20 mm. Neg. 76-9114 (BW). NMHT 316478. (Figure 46.)

Spring lancet, late 18th-early 19th century. Unusually shaped large brass
and steel spring lancet, nicely decorated and engraved with the name "M.
A. Prizzi." Lancet is set by a slide cocking lever on the facing side and
released by another lever. A brass plate at the top of the lancet can be
moved back and forth by a screw in order to regulate the depth of cut of
the lancet blade. Lancet comes with a spare blade. Purchased 1975. Lancet:
L 86 mm. Neg. 76-7763 (BW, CS). NMHT 320033.06. (Figure 45.)

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Lancet is brass with a steel lever
release and has a zig-zag decoration on the front and back panels. Case is
covered with brown leather and lined with chamois and has a small basket
of flowers stamped on the top. Purchased 1976. Lancet: L 42 mm, W 19 mm.
Case: L 71 mm. W 34 mm. H 19 mm. Neg. 73-4236 (BW & CS). NMHT 321636.01.
(Figure 6.)

Spring lancet, 19th century. Lancet is engraved "F. D." on back (see NMHT
302606.008). Analysis by the Conservation Laboratory shows that the lancet
is made of brass composed of 70% copper and 30% zinc plated with a
tin-lead alloy. Most of the plating has been rubbed away. The blade,
cocking lever, and release lever are of iron or steel. Purchased 1976.
Lancet: L 43 mm. W 21 mm. NMHT 321636.02.

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Lancet is brass and has a brass
lever release. Engraved "Goulding/New York" (manufacturer). Case is made
of wood, covered with black leather and lined with light brown plush. It
has a tab closure. Lancet and case were not originally a set; the case was
designed for a larger lancet. Donated by the American Pharmaceutical
Association 1970. Lancet: L 40 mm, W 20 mm. Case: L 74 mm. W 38 mm. H 12
mm. NMHT 321641 (M-13060).

Spring lancet with case, late 19th century. Silver lancet with a button
release and a border decorating the top and edge. Button release lancets
were sold in the late 19th century for slightly more than lever release
lancets. Analysis by the Conservation Laboratory shows that the silver is
not sterling but a silver-copper alloy containing twice as much copper as
sterling silver. The button release is made of ferrous metal plated with
silver. The blade and cocking lever are also of ferrous metal. The case is
made of wood, covered with brown leather and trimmed with gold leaf. It is
closed by an ornate clasp made of ferrous metal plated with brass. Donated
by the American Pharmaceutical Association 1970. Lancet: L 42 mm, W 22 mm.
Case: L 73 mm, W 40 mm, H 11 mm. NMHT 321641 (M-13060.1).

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Silver lancet with lever release
described by seller as dating from 1800, although it is probably of a
later date. Lancet has a border decoration, and the back plate is opened
by a shell-design protuberance. The case is covered with brown leather
with gold leaf edging, and is stamped "A. St." Case is lined with rose
plush below and white silk above. Lancet is engraved "Cotzand." Purchased
1976. Lancet: L 42 mm, W 17 mm. Case: L 68 mm, W 37 mm, H 20 mm. Neg.
76-7752 (BW, CS). NMHT 321687.02. (Figure 44.)

Spring lancet with case, late 19th century. Silver lancet with a button
release and a border decorating the top and the edge. Mechanism is frozen.
Purchased 1976. Lancet: L 40 mm. NMHT 321697.01.

Spring lancet, late 19th century. White metal including the blade, which
may have been a replacement for the original. The blade is more highly
polished than the case. The black case is worn so that an indistinct mark
appears on its cover. It is lined with chamois. Lancet: L 41 mm, W 17 mm,
blade extends 10 mm. Case: L 65 mm, W 38 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.13.

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Brass lancet with steel lever
release. Case is covered with brown leather and lined with chamois.
Leather is torn and latch is missing. Owned by Dr. Launcelot Jackes of
Hancock, Maryland (b. late 18th c.). Donated by the Medical and
Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland 1976. Lancet: L 40 mm, W 20 mm. Case: L 72
mm, W 42 mm, H 24 mm. NMHT 302616.040.

Spring lancets (2) with case, late 18th-early 19th century. Pair of brass
lancets in a hand-carved wooden case. First lancet has a steel lever
release and is engraved with a zig-zag pattern and the initials "F. D."
Second lancet is shorter than usual and missing the lever release and
cocking lever. Case has space cut for each lancet and an additional space
for extra blades or a thumb lancet. Purchased 1976. First lancet: L 40 mm.
Second lancet: L 30 mm. Case: L 84 mm, W 56 mm, H 17 mm. NMHT 321697.02.

Spring lancet, late 19th century. Brass decorated with flowers, has tulip
and leaves on reverse side with iron blade and lever. Lancet: L 39 mm, W
21 mm. Case: L 65 mm, W 33 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.14.

Spring lancet, late 19th century. Brass case is unmarked. The leather case
had a red lining and a top that slips off. Lancet: L 44 mm, W 18 mm. Case:
L 77 mm, W 35 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.15.

Spring lancet, late 19th century. Brass case with unclear lettering
"WIEGANL Phila Powten." Leather case has red lining and closes with a
hook. Lancet: L 41 mm, W 22 mm. Case: L 70 mm, W 33 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.9.

Spring lancet, late 19th century. Brass case. Leather case has a chamois
lining and closed with a hook. An eagle on the cover is worn. Lancet: L 43
mm, W 19 mm. Case: L 70 mm, W 35 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.10.

Spring lancet, late 19th century. Light yellow brass case. Case is leather
(worn) with a chamois lining and hook closure. Lancet: L 41 mm, W 20 mm.
Case: L 71 mm, W 35 mm. NMHT 1977.0989.11.

Spring lancet, late 19th century. Brass case with small guard over blade.
Cover on the back appears to be a replacement for the original. Crude
wooden case is red and worn. Lancet: L 45 mm, W 33 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.12.

Spring lancet, late 19th century. Brass case with cover of the lancet
missing. Leather case has a chamois lining and hook closure. Lancet: L 38
mm, W 20 mm. Case: L 70 mm, W 34 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.7.

Spring lancet, late 19th century. Lancet is of white metal including the
blade. The leather case has a gold decoration around the edges. Lancet: L
41 mm, W 22 mm. Case: L 70 mm, W 36 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.8.

NOTE: For additional spring lancets, see "Cupping Sets" (NMHT 268719
[M-11878]) and "Related Artifacts" (NMHT 199536 [M-6689] and NMHT 285125
[M-12352]).


BLEEDING BOWLS

Bleeding bowl, after 1740. Pewter bowl with horizontally projecting
handle. Handle is decorated with cut out tracery, a coat of arms, and the
name of the London maker, John Foster. Bowl has graduated rings every 2
ounces from 2 to 16. Held by Division of Cultural History, Smithsonian
Institution (Greenwood Collection). L 200 mm to tip of handle, D 132 mm, H
45 mm. Neg. 61166-C (BW). (Figure 4.)

Barber's basin, 18th century. Blue faience basin with green, red, and blue
floral decoration. Used for shaving and probably for phlebotomy as well.
Bowl is indented to fit against the neck. Purchased 1959. L 260 mm, W at
indentation 173 mm, H 68 mm. Neg. 73-4220 (BW, CS). NMHT 225114 (M-9399).

Bleeding bowl. Circular bleeding bowl made of pewter and typical of the
bowls used to collect and measure blood in the 18th century. Such bowls
were no longer generally used in the 19th century. Bowl has a plain, flat,
horizontally projecting handle and graduated circles marking every 4
ounces from 4 to 24. Purchased 1976. L 233 mm to tip of handle, D 166 mm,
H 55 mm. NMHT 322691.01.

Bleeding bowl. Pewter bowl with a cut out tracery handle. Bowl has
graduated markings every 2 ounces from 2 to 16. Purchased 1976. D 127 mm,
H 64 mm. NMHT 322691.02.


EXTRA BLADES AND CASES

Spring lancet blades (2), 18th-19th century. Used by Dr. John Cooper,
Easton, Pennsylvania, great-grandfather of the donor. Donated by the Rev.
J. V. Cooper 1936. Blades: L 44 mm, W 14 mm. NMHT 139877 (M-4145).

Spring lancet case, 19th century. This case is unlike other lancet cases
in the collection in that the top half is a cap which slips off. The
bottom half opens lengthwise and has space for a lancet and two pockets
for extra blades. Case, made of cardboard and covered with black leather,
is lined in tan plush. Purchased 1963. Case: L 62 mm, W 32 mm, H 22 mm.
NMHT 251481 (M-10463).

Spring lancet case, 1827. Case is handmade of wood, with fabric panels
covered with glass on five sides. In the top panel, a spring lancet has
been hand drawn in blue. The bottom panel contains several symbolic images
and the motto, "Memento Mori." The end panel has the name of the owner,
"W. M. Bonwill's/1827." The case opens by a hinge and has space carved out
for two knob end lancets. Pasted to the lid is a leather pocket
containing two lancet blades of different sizes. The Smithsonian
Institution also owns a matching toilet case, given by the same donor.
Donated by the University of Pennsylvania 1959. Case: L 87 mm, W 48 mm, H
18 mm. Neg. 73-5847, 73-5848, 73-5849, 73-5850 (BW, various views with
toilet case)/73-7680 to 73-7693 (CS, various views with toilet case). NMHT
218383 (M-9261).

Spring lancet case, 19th century. Two part red leather case. Inner box has
space for a knob end spring lancet and two spare blades. Box slides into
an outer shell with a tab closure. Owned by Dr. Robert Moore (1764-1844),
who served as President of the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland
from 1820 to 1826. Donated by the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of
Maryland 1976. Case: L 78 mm, W 50 mm, H 12 mm. NMHT 302606.054.


_Cupping_

SCARIFICATORS

NOTE: Height is measured to the top of the casing. The height may vary by
a few millimeters because setting the depth of cut of the blades is
accomplished by raising or lowering the bottom of the scarificator.

Scarificator, 12 blades, 19th century. Octagonal brass scarificator with
blades arranged on two rods which cut in opposite directions. This is a
standard English-American 19th c. scarificator. As is true of all
scarificators, the blades and cocking lever are made of ferrous metal
(iron or steel). Two small stars on one side indicate how the top and
bottom of the scarificator fit together. Purchased 1898. L 46 mm, W 42 mm,
H 30 mm. Anthropology vol. 30, catalog no. 143080.

Scarificator with case, 12 blades, 19th century. Standard scarificator
with blades cutting in opposite directions. Case is wood covered with red
leather, lined in purple plush and closed by a latch. On top of the case
is an American eagle. Donated by Dr. D. H. Welling 1925. Scarificator: L
52 mm, W 46 mm, H 36 mm. Case: L 61 mm, W 56 mm, H 77 mm. NMHT 86124
(M-2087). NOTE: American eagles of this type were imprinted on many
objects at the time of the Centennial (1876).

Scarificator, 12 blades, patent model, 1846. Patented by George Tiemann of
New York (U.S. patent 4705). Engraved "Geo. Tieman[_sic_]/No. 63 Chatham
Street/New York/March 1846." The novel feature of the scarificator was the
addition of an ebony handle in which a coiled spring was contained. See
NMHT 254866 (M-10700), which is the same instrument as marketed by George
Tiemann & Co. Transferred from the U.S. Patent Office 1926. Overall L 176
mm. Base: L 42 mm, W 42 mm, H 18 mm. Neg. 76-9115 (BW). NMHT 89797
(M-4289). (Figure 76.)

Scarificator, 13 blades, patent model, 1847. Patented by Frederick M.
Leypoldt of Philadelphia (U.S. Patent 5111). Scarificator is brass,
octagonal with three rods containing 4, 5, and 4 blades respectively.
Blades turn in same direction. The innovation consisted of a new
arrangement of the cocking lever and spring. Engraved "F.
Leypoldt/Philada." Transferred from the U.S. Patent Office 1926. L 44 mm,
W 44 mm, H 40 mm. Neg. 73-4213 (BW & CS). NMHT 89797 (M-4290). (Figure
77.)

Scarificator, 10 blades, patent model, 1851. Patented by Frederick
Leypoldt of Philadelphia (U.S. patent 8095). This is a flattened model of
scarificator made of a copper-zinc-nickel alloy known as "nickel-silver,"
or German silver. The innovation in this patent model was a flat lever
extending from the side instead of the top, which fits into slots in two
racks which move back and forth and turn the pinions of the blade rods.
Blades cut in opposite directions. Transferred from the U.S. Patent Office
1926. L 42 mm, W 40 mm, H 16 mm. Neg. 76-9112 (BW). NMHT 89797 (M-4293).
(Figure 78.)

Scarificator, 12 blades, 19th century. Octagonal scarificator in which
blades cut in the same direction. Donated by Dr. George B. Roth 1928. L 44
mm, W 40 mm, H 38 mm. Neg. 76-7744 (BW, CS). NMHT 99749 (M-2336). (Figure
106.)

Scarificator, 12 blades, late 19th century. Octagonal scarificator; blades
cut in opposite directions. Used by the donor's father. Donated by Aida
Doyle 1932. L 48 mm, W 42 mm, H 34 mm. NMHT 118000 (M-3182).

Scarificator, 10 blades, early 19th century. Octagonal scarificator with
blades cutting in the same direction. Donated by H. S. West 1934. L 46 mm,
W 44 mm, H 34 mm. NMHT 131386 (M-3635).

Scarificator, 16 blades, early 19th century. This scarificator is typical
of Germanic manufacture during the late 18th and early 19th centuries. It
is square, hand engraved, and has pointed blades. Blades are arranged on
three rods that turn in the same direction. Engraved "J. T./Wien." Vienna
was the center of early scarificator manufacture. Scarificator said by
donor to date from 1806. Donated by the University of Pennsylvania 1959. L
35 mm, W 34 mm, H 39 mm. Neg. 73-4212 (BW, CS). NMHT 218383 (M-9257).
(Figure 60.)

Scarificator, 16 blades, 19th century. Square scarificator, made somewhat
later than the previous one because the blades are no longer pointed.
Donated by the University of Pennsylvania 1959. L 36 mm, W 36 mm, H 32 mm.
NMHT 218383 (M-9258).

Scarificator, 16 blades, late 18th-early 19th century. Square
scarificator. Donated by the University of Pennsylvania 1959. L 40 mm, W
30 mm, H 32 mm. Neg. 61130-B (BW). NMHT 218383 (M-9259).

Scarificator with case, 4 blades, 19th century. Small octagonal
scarificator used for cutting the temples. Bottom of scarificator is
engraved with an American eagle. Case is covered with navy blue leather,
lined with purple plush, and closed by a latch. Purchased 1960.
Scarificator: L 28 mm, W 26 mm, H 26 mm. Case: L 42 mm, W 40 mm, H 60 mm.
Neg. 76-7745 (BW, CS). NMHT 233056 (M-9639). (Figure 107.)

Scarificator, 12 blades, 19th century. This octagonal scarificator is
significant in that it bears a French patent. Turning the large
wing-shaped handle on the top of the instrument cocks the blades, and
turning a small key on the side regulates the depth of cut of the blades.
Blades cut in opposite directions. Scarificator engraved "Breveté, S.G.D.
Gouv." Purchased 1964. L 42 mm, W 38 mm, H 32 mm. NMHT 254866 (M-10695).

Scarificator with case, 12 blades, 19th century. This is the market
version of Tiemann's patent scarificator (NMHT 89797 [M-4289]), with a
bone handle. Engraved "Geo. Tiemann/Patent/August 20/1846." This
scarificator was advertised as late as 1889. Purchased 1964. Scarificator:
L 172 mm, W 45 mm, H 45 mm. Neg. 73-4237-D (CS). NMHT 254866 (M-10700).

Scarificator, 13 blades, 19th century. Octagonal scarificator with unusual
number of blades arranged on three rods and cutting in the same direction.
Purchased 1964. L 51 mm, W 46 mm, H 34 mm. NMHT 254866 (M-10706).

Scarificator with case, 10 blades, 19th century. Used by Mary Fueurstien
Kuhn, who practiced as a midwife in Ohio and also cupped and bled people
during the period 1850-1890. Scarificator was brought to the United States
from Germany by Mrs. Kuhn's father, who was a doctor. Blades cut in
opposite directions. Case is covered in brown leather and lined in rose
plush. Donated by Mrs. Arthur Peterman 1964. Scarificator: L 45 mm, W 42
mm, H 32 mm. Case: L 58 mm, W 55 mm, H 71 mm. NMHT 255254 (M10892).

Scarificator, 16 blades, late 18th-early 19th century. Square
scarificator. Top cap has a scalloped edge. Blades appear to be pointed.
Mechanism is frozen. Donated by Harry L. Schrader 1972. L 34 mm, W 34 mm,
H 34 mm. NMHT 302607 (H-14681).

Scarificator, 16 blades, late 18th-early 19th century. Square
scarificator. Mechanism is frozen. Donated by John and James Draper 1973.
L 38 mm, W 35 mm, H 32 mm. NMHT 304826.066.

Scarificator with case, 12 blades, late 19th-early 20th century. Octagonal
scarificator with blades cutting in opposite directions. Two stars are
engraved on the top and the bottom of one side. Case is cardboard covered
with leather. Owned by Dr. F. L. Orsinger of Chicago (1852-1925). Donated
by Dr. William Orsinger 1973. Scarificator L 45 mm, W 40 mm, H 35 mm. Case
L 54 mm, W 48 mm, H 80 mm. Neg 74-4089 (BW, CS). NMHT 308730.11.

Scarificator with case, 12 blades, 19th century. Octagonal scarificator
with blades cutting in the same direction. There are two star markings on
the top and the bottom of one side. Case is made of cardboard covered with
black leather. Donated by Ada and Grace Abrahamson 1975. Scarificator: L
43 mm, W 40 mm, H 34 mm. Case: L 56 mm, W 47 mm, H 73 mm. NMHT 318916.01.

Scarificator, 13 blades, 1973. Unusual hand-made brass and iron
scarificator, engraved with decoration and the name "Domenico Pica" and
date "1793." Blades are set on three rods of four, five, and four blades
(see NMHT 254866 [M-10706]). The scarificator is octagonal but much taller
than the standard octagonal model. Unlike all other scarificators in the
collection, the bottom opens by a hinge, and a key on top raises and
lowers the interior mechanism so as to regulate the depth of cut. Blades
are cocked by a lever on top and released by a button on the side.
Purchased 1975. L 50 mm, W 42 mm, H 60 mm. Neg. 76-7742 and 76-7743 (BW,
CS). NMHT 320033.01. (Figure 66.)

NOTE: The earliest marked scarificator known to the authors is one in the
Wellcome Medical Collection (Wellcome number R 2.852/1930 C.H.M.),
inscribed 1747. The case and blade are made entirely of iron or steel. L
144 mm, W 45 mm. Another one with a brass case (Wellcome number 290 or 6
7/36, in the Hamonic Collection) is inscribed Johann Darmreuther in
Vendelstein 1769. A third one with a brass case and thirteen blades
(Wellcome number 13555) is marked "Jo. Bat. Boeller _Fece anno_ 1762."

Scarificator, 16 blades, late 18th-early 19th century. Square scarificator
with 16 pointed blades engraved, in script, "Joseph Plunger in Brünn."
Case is covered with brown leather. Purchased 1975. L 32 mm, W 32 mm, H 30
mm. NMHT 320033.02.

Scarificator, 12 blades, 19th century. Standard octagonal scarificator
with blades cutting in opposite directions. Stamped on the bottom with an
American eagle, similar to that of NMHT 233056 (M-9639). This may mean the
scarificators were made around the time of the Centennial. Purchased 1975.
L 48 mm, W 45 mm, H 28 mm. NMHT 320033.03.

Scarificator, 12 blades, 19th century. Standard octagonal scarificator
with blades cutting in opposite directions. Engraved "H & H
Hilliard/Edinburgh." Purchased 1975. L 54 mm, W 47 mm, H 35 mm. NMHT
320033.04.

Scarificator, 16 blades, mid-late 19th century. Circular scarificator with
fluted sides of the type manufactured by Maison Charrière in Paris. Seller
describes instrument as French, mid-19th century. Analysis by the
Conservation Laboratory shows that the instrument was made of an alloy of
copper, zinc, nickel, and tin--probably the alloy that the French called
"maillechort." Winged lever on top triggers the sixteen small blades
arranged on two rods and cutting in opposite directions. A round knob on
the side is pushed downward to release the blades. Presumably by turning
the bottom, one can regulate the depth of cut. However, the bottom is
frozen. Purchased 1975. H 31 mm, D 45 mm. Neg. 76-7746. NMHT 320033.05.
(Figure 74.)

Scarificator, 12 blades, 19th century. Standard octagonal scarificator
with blades cutting in opposite directions. Used by Dr. G.W.M. Honberger
(b. 1819). Donated by the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland
1976. L 46 mm, W 44 mm, H 32 mm. NMHT 302606.006.

Scarificator with case, 12 blades, 19th-20th century. Standard octagonal
scarificator. Mechanism is frozen. Case covered with brown leather and
lined with brown plush. Used by Dr. Jesse O. Purvis (b. 1880). Donated by
the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland 1976. Scarificator: L 48
mm, W 46 mm, H 32 mm. Case: L 61 mm, W 54 mm, H 79 mm. NMHT 302606.059.

Scarificator, 10 blades, late 19th century. Standard scarificator, blades
cutting in opposite directions, owned by Dr. Charles Carroll Shippen of
Baltimore (b. 1856). Donated by the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of
Maryland 1976. L 48 mm, W 44 mm, H 34 mm. NMHT 302606.060.

Scarificator, 12 blades, 19th century. Donated by the Medical and
Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland 1976. L 48 mm, W 44 mm, H 36 mm. NMHT
302606.217.

Scarificator, 10 blades, 19th century. Octagonal scarificator of white
metal with an iron lever. Purchased 1976. L 41 mm, W 39 mm, H 31 mm. NMHT
1977.0789.40.

Scarificator, 16 blades, 19th century. Purchased 1976. L 41 mm, W 35 mm, H
32 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.41.

NOTE: Additional scarificators are found under "Cupping Sets" and in the
"Barber-surgeon's kit" listed under "Related Artifacts."


CUPS

Cupping cup, glass, 19th century. Large dome-shaped cup. Purchased 1898. H
82 mm, D 66 mm. Anthropology vol. 30, catalog no. 143081.

Cupping cup, glass, 18th-19th century. Hand-blown bellied cup from Hebron,
Palestine. Donated by Dr. Cyrus Adler 1902. H 53 mm, diameter 31 mm.
Anthropology vol. 30, catalog no. 143155. Neg. 59139-A (BW).

Cupping cup, 12th century. Cup is made of opaque greenish glass and is
triangular in shape. A vacuum is created in the cup by sucking air from
the cup through a tubular extension on the side. This 12th century cup was
recovered in Nishapur, Persia, by Dr. Richard Ettinghausen. On loan from
Dr. Ettinghausen 1955. H 68 mm, D 42 mm. Neg. 73-4205 (BW, CS). NMHT
207389 (M-6836). (Figure 108.)

Cupping cups (2), Pewter, 18th century. These cups are similar to those
found in a Revolutionary War surgeon's kit held by the Smithsonian, and
may therefore be of military issue. Metal cups were often preferred to
glass for military purposes because they were unbreakable. Donated by
Hattie Brunner 1955. M-6829 H 42 mm, D 34 mm. M-6830 H 38 mm, D 34 mm.
Neg. 76-9109 (BW), includes German brass cup. NMHT 207399 (M-6829 and
M-6830).

Cupping cup, 12th century. A second Persian spouted cup (cf. NMHT 207389
[M-6836]), also made of opaque greenish glass, but more dome shaped.
Purchased 1959. H 52 mm, D 50 mm. Neg. 73-4215 (BW). NMHT 224478 (M-8037).

Cupping cups (3), glass, 18th-19th centuries. Cups of smaller diameter
such as these were used for cupping on the temples and other parts of the
body with limited surface area. Cups are molded and slightly bellied.
Purchased 1964. First cup: H 54 mm, D 36 mm. Second and third cups: H 56
mm, D 36 mm. NMHT 254866 (M-10694).

Cupping cup, horn, 20th century. A horn of a cow from Madaoua, Niger
Republic, West Africa, used for drawing blood as late as the 1960s. There
is a small foramen at the tip for exhausting the air by sucking. Purchased
1966. L 88 mm, D 52 mm. Neg. 73-5643 (BW, CS). NMHT 270023.01 (M-11998).
(Figure 37.)

Cupping cups, glass, 19th century. Set of five dome-shaped cups ranging
from 50 mm to 60 mm in diameter and 64 mm to 72 mm in height. They were
dated by the seller as 1895. Purchased 1969. NMHT 287162 (M-12872).

Cupping cups (2), glass, 20th century. These two small cups were purchased
about 1912 by Mr. Harry Zucker from a drug supply company on 2nd Street
and Avenue B on the Lower East Side of New York City. Mr. Zucker used the
cups for dry cupping only. Donated by Ruth Zucker 1972. H 54 mm, D 34 mm.
NMHT 302834.1 and 302834.2.

Cupping vessels (5), glass, 19th-20th centuries. Set of five dome-shaped
cups ranging from 52 mm to 56 mm in height and 44 mm to 48 mm in diameter.
Owned by Dr. E. L. Orsinger of Chicago (1852-1925). Donated by Dr. William
Orsinger 1973. Neg. 74-4087 (BW, CS). NMHT 308730.09.

Cupping vessels (3), glass, 18th-19th centuries. These three cups have
button like protuberances on top for ease in handling. Cups were often
pictured in 18th century surgical texts with such protuberances. In the
19th century most cups lacked them. Purchased 1976. NMHT 314016.236-.239.
(Figure 109.)

Cupping vessel, glass, 19th century. Slightly bellied, hand-blown cup.
Donated by Ada and Grace Abrahamson 1975. H 47 mm, D 43 mm. NMHT
318916.02.

Cupping vessel and bloodletting knife, 17th century. Persian brass conical
cupping cup with a small hole at the tip for mouth suction. Knife has a
wood and brass handle and a folding blade. Seller gives date as 17th
century. Purchased 1976. Knife L 110 mm (folded). Cup L 86 mm, D 46 mm.
Neg. 76-7749 (BW, CS). NMHT 320033.07. (Figure 110.)

Cupping vessel, brass, 18th century. German brass cupping vessel.
Purchased 1976. H 30 mm, D 35 mm. Neg. 76-9109 (BW), includes two pewter
cups. NMHT 321697.22. (Figure 111.)

Cupping vessels, glass, 19th century. Five small, hand-blown, green glass
cupping cups. All are approximately the same size. Purchased 1976. Average
dimensions: H 44 mm, D 35 mm. NMHT 321697.23-.27.

Cupping vessels, glass, 19th and 20th centuries. Assortment of 22 cupping
cups, either dome-shaped or slightly bellied. Various sizes. Purchased
1976. NMHT 321697.28-.49.


CUPPING SETS

Cupping set, 19th-20th century. Set consists of three cupping glasses, two
dome-shaped and one bellied (M-4766, M-4767, M-4768), a 16 blade square
scarificator (M-4771), a candle in a metal holder used to ignite the
alcohol (M-4769), and a bit of sponge in a wire holder (M-4770).
Presumably, the sponge would be dipped in alcohol, ignited, and inserted
into the glasses. Used by Dr. Fred L. Orsinger of Chicago in the early
20th c. Donated by Fred G. Orsinger 1939. Scarificator: L 46 mm, W 37 mm,
H 33 mm. Sponge and holder: L 78 mm. Neg. 61135-C (cupping glasses);
61130-B and 61130-C (scarificator), front and back views; 61164-B (candle
in metal holder); 61129-D (sponge with wire holder); 76-9111 and 76-9113,
internal views of scarificator. All negatives BW. NMHT 152130 (M-4766-71).
(Figures 13, 43, 62.)

Cupping set, 19th century. Contained in a mahogany case with red velvet
lining are two glass cups without valves, a square model 16 blade
scarificator with a leather case top, a braided leather tourniquet, a
standard brass spring lancet in a case with an American eagle stamped in
gold, and two lancets used on the gums with tortoiseshell shields. One gum
lancet is engraved "Kuemerle & Kolbe," a Philadelphia manufacturer. Case
was originally intended for a set of six brass valved cupping glasses and
a pump. Owned and used by Dr. Elam Dowden Talbot of Barlow County,
Virginia (1810-1881). Donated by Elam D. Talbot through Edna G. Dorr 1966.
Case: L 204 mm, W 140 mm, H 110 mm. NMHT 268719 (M-11878).

Cupping set, late 19th century. Set of four cupping glasses with brass
fixtures, a pump, and two octagonal scarificators. Three of the cups are
identical in size, and the fourth is slightly larger. One scarificator has
13 blades arranged on three rods turning in the same direction (cf. NMHT
254866 [M-10706]). Scarificator is engraved "Schively/Philad."
(manufacturer). The other scarificator has 10 blades turning in opposite
directions. Used by Dr. Robert Evans Bromwell, Port Deposit, Maryland, in
the late 19th century. Donated by Dr. Bromwell's daughter, Roberta
Bromwell Craig, 1970. Case: L 203 mm, W 135 mm, H 110 mm. NMHT 290051
(M-13113).

Cupping set, 19th century. Mahogany case lined in rose plush has six
compartments holding 5 valved cups of slightly varying shapes. One cup and
pump are missing. Used by Dr. Launcelot Jackes, a member of the Medical
and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland. Donated by the Medical and
Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland 1976. Case L 184 mm, W 143 mm, M 94 mm.
NMHT 302606.005.

Cupping set, 19th century. This elegant set was manufactured by Charrière
of Paris. Set includes a circular scarificator with fluted sides similar
to NMHT 320033.05 but made of brass. Scarificator is engraved "Breveté
S.G.D. Gouv." Also in the set are a brass pump, tubing, and three
distinctive mushroom shaped glasses provided with stopcocks. Case is made
of wood and lined with fabric. All pieces except tubing and scarificator
are engraved with the Charrière name. Set was said to have been purchased
in Paris in 1850 by Dr. Asa Shinn Linthicum. Donated by the Medical and
Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland 1976. Case: L 240 mm, W 150 mm, H 94 mm.
First glass: H 110 mm, D 74 mm. Second glass: H 130 mm, D 80 mm. Third
glass: H 94 mm, diameter 54 mm. Pump: L 160 mm, D 26 mm. Scarificator: H
32 mm, D 46 mm. Tube: L 450 mm. Neg. 75-090 (BW & CS), 75-4237-C (CS).
NMHT 302606.007. (Figure 70.)

Cupping set, 19th century. Mahogany case lined in purple plush has
compartments for eight cups and space for a pump. Seven cups with valves
remain, one of them a narrow necked fluted cup for cupping the breasts.
Found in the case, though not part of the set, are an envelope with a
lancet blade and a packet of six lancet blades, each of slightly different
shape. On the packet is handwritten "American/25 each." Donated by the
Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland 1976. Case: L 249 mm, W 130
mm, H 100 mm. NMHT 302606.035.

Cupping set, mid-19th century. Charrière cupping set with four
mushroom-shaped glass cups (the largest two with round edges and the
smaller two with oval edges) with brass stopcocks, a pump, and a
scarificator. Two of the cups and the scarificator are engraved with the
Charrière name. The scarificator is octagonal and has twelve small blades
cutting in opposite directions. Internally it has two rolled springs as
described in the Charrière patent of 1841. Brass wrench case is mahogany
and lined with a reddish chamois above. Pasted to the chamois is a bit of
leather with wording in gold which reads "Paris/Charrière/Frabricant/Des/
Hopitaux/Civils/et/Mil. Rue de l'École de Méd. No. 7 (Bis)." Purchased
1976. Scarificator: L 42 mm, W 40 mm, H 34 mm. Pump: L 180.8 mm. Wrench:
L 76.2 mm. Case: L 250 mm, W 133 mm, H 105 mm. Neg. 76-9117 (BW); 76-9110
(BW), scarificator showing springs. NMHT 1977.0789.44.

Cupping set, 19th century. Set may date from early to mid 19th century.
Wooden case, lined with brown velvet, contains two glass cups, two
scarificators, a ball handled torch stuffed with a cotton wick, and a cut
glass alcohol bottle. Large scarificator has eight blades, almost pointed
in shape and cutting in opposite directions. Smaller scarificator has four
blades on one rod. Both scarificators are engraved, in script, "H.
Johnson/31 King Street/Borough." On top of the case is a silver plate with
the name of the owner, "Mr. Sam Richards." Purchased 1976. Torch: L 111
mm. Bottle: H 65 mm. Large scarificator: L 54 mm, W 48 mm, H 37 mm. Small
scarificator: L 36 mm, W 35 mm, H 29 mm. Case: L 248 mm, W 109 mm, H 94
mm. Neg. 76-9119 (BW). NMHT 1977.0789.48. (Figure 68.)

Cupping set, 19th century. This unique set consists of a red leather case
lined in purple velvet, four cups with brass fittings, a large octagonal
scarificator, and a pump. The most interesting piece in the set is the
pump, an oval cylinder enameled in yellow with a gold and black floral
design on front and back. On top of the cylinder are both the brass pump
and the attachment to the cups. The scarificator has twelve blades cutting
in opposite directions and is engraved, in script, "J & W Wood/74 King
Street/Manchester." The four cups vary widely in size, the largest having
a diameter of 73 mm, the smallest a diameter of 43 mm. Purchased 1976.
Pump: H 170 mm, L 78 mm, W 56 mm. Case: L 300 mm, W 150 mm, H 113 mm. Neg.
76-9118 (BW). NMHT 1977.0789.47.

Cupping set, 19th century. Case is mahogany with two ivory keyholes and a
brass handle. It is lined in red plush. Set includes nine glass cups of
various sizes (including an oval cup), each with screw threads covered by
a brass cap. Pump is brass, 142 mm long, and has a bit of leather wrapped
around the outside of the screw threads. There is an extra compartment in
the case that might have held a tenth cup, but now contains only the key.
In a compartment lined with silver paper and covered by a red plush top
with ivory handle are two octagonal scarificators. The first is a common
twelve blade scarificator in which the blades cut in opposite directions.
It is engraved with a crown and "Evans/London." The second is unusual in
that it has eleven blades arranged on two rods. It is also engraved
"Evans/London," and on top is engraved, in script, "W Tothill," and in
block letters, "Staines No 2." The mechanism is frozen. Purchased 1976.
Case: L 285 mm, W 210 mm, H 106 mm. Neg. 76-7747 (BW, CS), pieces in case;
76-7748 (BW, CS), pieces out of case. NMHT 321697.21. (Figure 112.)

Cupping set, 19th century. Case is mahogany, lined in red velvet, with
brass bindings on the corners and is incomplete. A brass plate on the
cover is blank. The key is missing. Set includes two glass cups without
fittings, two brass stopcocks, one 12-blade scarificator, and a brass
holder for a wick, which is missing. The scarificator bears the
inscription on one side, "Salt & Son/Birmingham." Purchased 1976. Brass
wick holder: L 101.6 mm. Cups: D 53.8 mm and 52.3 mm. Case: L 223 mm, W
127 mm, H 103 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.45.

Cupping set, 19th century. Case is mahogany with brass "straps" and a
brass handle that rests flush with the lid on the case. The key is
missing. Set contains two glass cups, one alcohol lamp, and one octagonal
bladed scarificator. One cup is shaped like the early bronze cups.
Purchased 1976. Alcohol lamp: L 67 mm, D of base 45 mm, D of top 20 mm.
First Cup: L 90 mm, D at opening 50 mm. Second cup: L 63 mm, D of base 45
mm. Case: L 260 mm, W 105 mm, H 98 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.46.

Cupping set, 19th century. Case is red leather and closes with two brass
hooks. It contains two glass cups with fittings, a brass syringe, a small
glass bottle shaped like a test tube, and a brass three-point scarifier
with a spring setting and a button release. The set is unusual for its
small size. Purchased 1976. Case: L 154 mm, W 108 mm, H 42 mm. Syringe: L
(closed) 101 mm, D 25 mm. Cups: L 60 mm and 67 mm, D 28 mm and 23 mm.
Scarificator: L 52 mm, D 20 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.49.


CUPPING APPARATUS

Cupping apparatus with case, patent model, 1844. Cupping set patented by
Dr. R. J. Dodd. Surgeon, U.S.N. (U.S. patent 3537). Brass syringe with
ivory handle is stamped "Dr. Dodd's Improved Cupping Apparatus." Syringe
can be fitted with either a large or small plate with blades. To operate
an internal part, a straight or curved glass tube is attached to the
syringe along with a flexible metal lancet that runs the length of the
tube. Straight glass tube is broken in two parts. Case is mahogany and
lined with red velvet. On hinge is stamped "Horne Patent." Transferred
from the U.S. Patent Office 1926. Case: L 307 mm, W 178 mm, H 80 mm. Neg.
73-4237B (CS). NMHT 89797 (M-4288).

Cupping apparatus, patent model, 1856. Patented by Mr. Loyall Tillotson of
Thompson, Ohio (U.S. patent 15626). Model of plunger apparatus is made of
wood, though the actual instrument would have been made of metal. The body
of the instrument was to be attached to a cup (not included in the model)
with a spiral wire to which a battery would be attached. The novelty of
the apparatus was that electricity would be employed in conjunction with
dry cupping. Transferred from the U.S. Patent Office 1926. H 160 mm, D 60
mm. NMHT 89797 (M-4296).

Cupping apparatus, patent model, 1867. Patented by Mr. William D. Hooper
of Liberty, Virginia (U.S. patent 68985). Model consists of a brass
syringe attached to a wooden cup. In the working instrument the cup would
be made of glass. Model does not contain the diaphragm and cutting blades.
The novelty was that blades were to be tubular with adjustable length and
that they would remain in the skin while blood was being removed.
Transferred from the U.S. Patent Office 1926. Overall L 202 mm. Cup: L 47
mm, D 36 mm. Neg. 73-4214 (BW, CS). NMHT 89797 (M-4309).

Cupping apparatus with case, late 19th century. Invented by the Drs. W. S.
Black and F. Black and manufactured by Wm. B. Stewart, Trenton, New
Jersey, this set includes a hard rubber pump, three glass cups, the
smallest for cupping the breasts, a valve, and a head for the pump.
Missing are a nipple shield and rubber tubing. Case is made of wood and
has a label attached to the inside top with an illustration of the set,
the title, "Drs. W. S. & F. Black's Combined Cupping Apparatus, Breast
Pump, Stomach Pump, Aspirator, Atomizer, Etc., Etc.," the name of the
manufacturer, and directions for use. Donated by the Medical and
Chirurgical Faculty of Maryland 1976. Case: L 250 mm, W 120 mm, H 78 mm.
NMHT 302606.036.

Cupping apparatus with case, late 19th century. Another example of the
previous all-purpose cupping set with the same pieces and three fragments
of rubber tubing. Donated by the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of
Maryland 1976. NMHT 302606.037.


BREAST PUMPS

Breast pump, patent model, 1879. Patented by William Kennish of
Philadelphia (U.S. patent 219738), this breast pump consists of a glass
receiver with a hanging glass globe to catch the milk, and a rubber bulb
to provide suction. The innovation was the addition of an internal valve
and a valve at the bottom of the globe in such a way that continued
compression and expansion of the large rubber bulb would cause milk to
flow out of the valve at the base of the globe. Transferred from the U.S.
Patent Office 1926. L 141 mm. NMHT (M-4343).

Breast pump. Glass breast cup with brass fittings and brass pump in a
wooden case lined with green felt. Donated by the College of Physicians,
Philadelphia, 1958. Cup: L 99 mm, W 72 mm at widest point. Pump: L 88 mm.
Case: L 132 mm, W 121 mm, H 82 mm. Neg. 76-7761 (BW, CS). NMHT 220170
(M-7435). (Figure 113.)

Breast pump. Glass breast pump with tube for self-suction of the breasts.
Tip is broken. Purchased from the Medizinhistorisches Institut,
Universität, Zurich, 1960. L 305 mm, H 80 mm. NMHT 232067 (M-9578).

Breast pump. Glass breast cup with protuberance for holding milk, attached
to a rubber bulb. Top of bulb is stamped "Union India Rubber Co/Goodyear's
Patent/New York/1844 & 48." Part of the original cardboard carton is
extant. Donated by Mr. and Mrs. Elliston P. Morris 1964. L 205 mm, W of
bulb 87 mm. Neg. 76-7762 (BW, CS). NMHT 252497 (M-10510). (Figure 84.)

Breast pump. Hand blown breast pump with glass tube for self-suction.
Purchased 1965. L 233 mm, W 103 mm at widest point, D 70 mm. Neg. 76-7759
(BW, CS); 76-7760 (BW, CS). NMHT 260557 (M-11467). (Figure 83.)

Breast pump, 19th century. Glass breast cup with protuberance for holding
milk attached to a vulcanite pump. Purchased 1965. L 242 mm. NMHT 260557
(M-11467.1).

Breast pump. Glass cup with "white metal" syringe similar to Meig's Piston
Breast Pump that was sold through surgical and pharmaceutical catalogs
towards the end of the 19th century. Handle is missing. Donated by George
Watson 1968. L 200 mm. NMHT 281244 (M-12343).

Breast pump. Another example similar to the one above. Used by Dr. Robert
E. Bromwell, Port Deposit, Maryland (d. 1906). Donated by Roberta Craig
1972. L 168 mm, D of bulb 79 mm, D 35 mm. NMHT 299502 (M-14703).


_Leeching_

Leeches. Two leeches (Hirudo medicinalis) purchased in 1898, preserved and
later mounted in plastic. L of leeches 83 mm. Anthropology vol. 30,
catalog no. 143077. Neg. 73-4233 (BW, CS). (Figure 91.)

Leech jar, 19th century. White ceramic leech jar typical of jars found in
late 19th century pharmacies. Word "leeches" is painted in black with the
symbol of medicine below in gold. Top is missing. On loan from Dr.
Frederick D. Lascoff 1954. H 242 mm, D 229 mm. Neg. 73-4232 (BW, CS). NMHT
201821 (M-6712). (Figure 114.)

Leech jars, 19th century. Elegant pair of tall Staffordshire leech jars.
They are light blue, ornamented with gold bordered leaves in relief, and
marked "Leeches" in gold on a dark blue decorated panel. Covers are
perforated and have flower-shaped finials. Donated by Smith, Kline, and
French Laboratories 1965. H 460 mm, D at widest point 215 mm. Neg. 73-4231
(BW, CS). NMHT 263554 (M-11504). (Figure 20.)

Leech jar, 19th century. In contrast to the other jars in the Smithsonian
collection, this one is small and plain, and perhaps more typical of 19th
century leech jars. It is a white ceramic jar shaped like a canister with
two knob handles and a perforated lid with its own knob handle. Jar is
labeled "Leeches" in black and stamped "Germany" and "IQ" below. Purchased
1976. It was formerly owned by Dr. Sydney N. Blumberg. H 175 mm, D 107 mm.
NMHT 1977.0789.43.

Leech jars, 19th century. Pair of tall Staffordshire leech jars with royal
blue handles and royal blue perforated canopy tops. The jars are decorated
with a multi-colored floral design upon a magenta background. Purchased
1976. H 710 mm, W 265 mm. Neg. 76-7765 (BW, CS). NMHT 321697.18-19.
(Figure 115.)

Lithograph, 1814. Framed colored lithograph dated "London/1814" and titled
"Leech Finders." Picture shows three women gathering leeches by a stream.
Purchased 1975. W 454 mm, H 363 mm. Neg. 76-7741 (BW, CS). NMHT 320033.08.
(Figure 85.)

Artificial leech, 19th century. Brass, cylindrical "scarificator" has
three pointed blades arranged in a triangle so as to simulate a leech
bite. Blades are cocked by pulling on the handle of the device, and
released by pushing a small button on the cylinder. Set also includes two
small oval glass cups with brass stopcocks and a brass pump, a glass tube
with cork lid for collecting blood, and a mass of silvery thread. The use
of the thread is uncertain. Case is made of wood covered with red leather
and lined with black plush. Unfortunately there are no manufacturer
markings or other clues to the provenance of this unusual set. Purchased
1976. "Leech:" L 61 mm, D 20 mm. Pump: L 102 mm. Case: L 155 mm, W 107 mm,
H 45 mm. Neg. 76-9120 (BW). NMHT 316478. (Figure 98.)

Leech cage, 19th century. Tin, nickel, lead composition. The surface is
worn and five holes are punctured in the hinge at one end. Purchased 1976.
L 120 mm, H 32 mm, W 31 mm. Neg. 77-13984 (BW, CS). NMHT 1977.0576.02.
(Figure 116.)


_Veterinary Bloodletting_

FLEAMS

NOTE: Widths are measured at the widest point.

Fleam, 18th-19th century. Fleam has a brass shield and three fold out
blades of different sizes. Donated by M. Lamar Jackson 1932. L 80 mm, W 27
mm. Neg. 73-4206 (BW, CS). NMHT 121573 (M-3462). (Figure 100.)

Fleam, 19th century. Fleam has a brass shield, one blade, and a tenaculum
(hook). Shield is engraved "Proctor" (manufacturer). Donated by Joseph L.
Clough 1947. L 84 mm, W 27 mm. Neg 73-4209 (BW). NMHT 176124 (M-6480).

Fleam, 19th century. Fleam has a brass shield, three blades, and a knife.
Donated by the University of Pennsylvania 1959. L 81 mm, W 25 mm. Neg.
61125-A (BW). NMHT 218383 (M-9255). (Figure 117.)

Fleam, 19th century. Fleam has a brass shield and three blades, each
marked with a crown denoting British manufacture and a "W." Said to have
been made in Sheffield, England. Purchased 1960. L 97 mm, W 33 mm. Neg.
59139-H (BW), case open, blades displayed; 59139-G (BW), case closed. NMHT
233570 (M-9665). (Figure 118.)

Fleam, 17th or 18th century. Hand-made curved bar with projecting blade,
described by seller as Swiss or Tyrolean. Case is wooden and hand-carved.
It is not clear whether this fleam was used for human or for animal
bloodletting. Purchased 1960. Fleam: L 129 mm. Case: L 146 mm, W 47 mm at
widest point. Neg. 59139-E (BW). NMHT 233570 (M-9666). (Figure 42.)

NOTE: There are two interesting early fleams in the Medical Historical
Collection of Zurich University. One has a plain wooden handle and one has
a turned metal handle with a metal extension.

Fleam, 19th century. Fleam has a horn shield and three blades. The first
blade is stamped "Borwick," an English manufacturer. Purchased 1964. L 82
mm, W 28 mm. NMHT 254866 (M-10696).

Fleam, 19th century. Fleam has a brass shield and two blades. First blade
is stamped "Harmer & Co's/Cast Steel Fleams/Sheffield." Donated by H. J.
Hopp 1970. L 82 mm, W 27 mm. NMHT 291361 (M-13828).

Fleam, 19th century. Fleam has brass shield and three blades. First blade
is stamped "W. Harmar & Co. Cast Steel fleams Sheffield." Purchased 1976.
L 80 mm, W 27 mm. NMHT 321697.24.

Fleam, 18th century. Five-bladed fleam said to have been made in Denmark.
Instrument appears to be hand-made. Brass shield has a hinged piece
covering the blades that is held closed by a brass latch. Purchased 1976.
L 89 mm, W 30 mm, H 17 mm. NMHT 321697.16.

Fleam with case, 19th century. Fleam has a brass shield and three blades,
engraved with a "W" over the name "Pepys." Fitted leather case. Purchased
1976. Fleam: L 102 mm, W 40 mm. NMHT 321697.03.

Fleam with case, 19th century. Fleam has a brass shield, two blades, and a
knife. Fitted leather case. Purchased 1976. L 94 mm, W 26 mm. NMHT
321697.04.

Fleam with case, 19th century. Fleam has a horn shield, two blades, and is
engraved "Green & Pickslay." Fitted black leather case. Purchased 1976. L
100 mm, W 32 mm. Neg. 76-7758 (BW, CS). NMHT 321697.05. (Figure 101.)

Fleam with case, 19th century. Fleam has a brass shield and four blades.
Fitted leather case. Owner's name, "C. Famell Isleworth[?]," is written in
ink on the case. Purchased 1976. L 79 mm, W 27 mm. NMHT 321697.06.

Fleam, 19th century. Brass shield, four blades, and one hook. Purchased
1976. L 122 mm, W 30 mm, W with pocket for hook 15 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.17.

Fleam, 19th century. Brass shield with five blades. An arrow is stamped on
one side of the shield. Purchased 1976. L 88 mm, W 27 mm. NMHT
1977.0789.18.

Fleam, 19th century. Brass shield with three different sized blades. Case
is inscribed "Gorham Parsons, Byfield." Purchased 1976. L 88 mm, W 30 mm.
NMHT 1977.0789.19.

Fleam, 19th century. Brass case with three different sized blades.
Purchased 1976. L 82 mm, W 26 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.20.

Fleam, 19th century. Brass shield with five blades and one hook. On one
side of the case appears indistinctly, "HOW: IN London" on each of the
blades except the straight blade and the hook. Purchased 1976. L 85 mm, W
23 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.21.

Fleam, 19th century. Five blades in a brass case. On two of the blades
appears "How: in LONDON." Purchased 1976. L 80 mm, W 22 mm. NMHT
1977.0789.23.

Fleam with case, 19th century. Four blades in brass case. Purchased 1976.
L 95 mm, W 25 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.22.

Fleam, 19th century. Brass case with three blades. Purchased 1976. L 94
mm, W 32 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.25.

Fleam, 19th century. Three blades in brass case. Purchased 1976. L 83 mm,
W 29 mm. NMHT 1977.0789.26.

Fleam, 19th century. Single blade in brass case. On blade is marked
"ARNOLD & SONS LONDON." Purchased 1976. L 98 mm, W 38 mm. NMHT
1977.0789.27.

Fleam, 19th century. Fleam has a horn shield and two blades engraved "J &
S Maw/London." Horn shield is broken on one side, and has openings for a
thumb lancet on each side. Only one thumb lancet with tortoise shell
shield remains. Purchased 1976. L 84 mm, W 28 mm. NMHT 321697.12.

Fleam, 19th century. Fleam has a horn shield and three blades. Purchased
1976. L 83 mm, W 26 mm. NMHT 321697.13.

Fleam, 19th century. Fleam has a horn shield and three blades; "G. Gregory
Cast Steel." Purchased 1976. L 87 mm, W 31 mm. NMHT 321697.14.

Fleam, 19th century. Fleam has a horn shield and one blade. Blade is
engraved "Arnold and Sons/Smithfield." Purchased 1976. L 97 mm, W 37 mm.
NMHT 321697.15.

Fleam, 19th century. Fleam has a horn shield, two blades, and is engraved
"Borwick." Purchased 1976. L 82 mm, W 27 mm. NMHT 321697.16.


SPRING LANCETS

Spring lancet, patent model, 1849. Lancet is brass and oval shaped. A
wheel and axle mechanism allows the blade to sweep out an elliptical
curve. Lancet is set by a detachable key and released by a lever
protruding from the side. Lever is missing or hidden inside the case and
the mechanism is frozen. Patented in 1849 by Joseph Ives of Bristol,
Connecticut (U.S. patent 6240). Transferred from the U.S. Patent Office
1926. L 97 mm, W 33 mm, H 14 mm. Neg. 73-4211 (BW, CS). NMHT 89797
(M-4292). (Figure 23.)

Spring lancet, patent model, 1880. Instrument is made of brass and shaped
like a gun. The cocking lever is attached to both a coiled spring in the
handle of the gun and an extension of the blade. Pushing the trigger
injects the blade. Blade is dart form with double beveled edges, as was
typical of veterinary fleams. Patented by Hermann Reinhold and August
Schreiber of Davenport, Iowa (U.S. patent 236084). Transferred from the
U.S. Patent Office 1926. L 105 mm (to tip of blade), H 77 mm. Neg. 73-4210
(BW, CS). NMHT 89797 (M-4327). (Figure 24.)

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Brass knob end lancet, a larger
version of the spring lancet used in human phlebotomy. Case is also
similar to the spring lancet cases for human use. It is made of wood
covered with brown leather, lined with chamois, and closed by a latch.
Case has a chalice decoration on top. Donated by Dr. A. J. Olmstead 1945.
Lancet: L 74 mm, W 38 mm. Case: L 133 mm, W 60 mm, H 33 mm. NMHT 171080
(M-6418).

Spring lancet, 19th century. Veterinary lancet similar to the previous
lancet except that the blade is larger and provided with a blade guard.
Blade guard can be set by a screw in order to regulate the size of the
blade. Stamped on back panel is "F. Leypoldt/Phila." This is presumably
the same Frederick Leypoldt who patented two scarificators, one in 1847
and one in 1851. Donated by the University of Pennsylvania 1959. L 74 mm,
W 34 mm. Neg. 76-7757 (BW, CS), compares lancet to one used in human
phlebotomy, NMHT 218383 (M-9256). (Figure 22.)

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Brass knob end lancet with large
blade and blade guard. Lancet has a rim around the top and a lever release
molded to resemble a torch. Case is lined with black plush and covered
with black cloth. Purchased 1976. Lancet: L 85 mm (not including blade), W
40 mm. Case: L 142 mm, W 78 mm, H 39 mm. NMHT 316478.

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Instrument is made of brass and has
a ball-shaped handle. The blade is double beveled, typical of blades for
veterinary bleeders. The ball handle contains a spring that is attached to
a small projecting cylinder with string tied to it. By pulling on the
string, one can pull the blade in, and by pushing a button one can inject
the blade. Case is made of wood covered with leather and is coffin-shaped.
Purchased 1976. L 95 mm (to tip of blade), D of ball 34 mm. Neg. 76-7750
(BW, CS). NMHT 321697.07. (Figure 104.)

Spring lancet with case, 19th century. Lancet is brass and has a
triangular shape. It is triggered by a slide catch on the front of the
instrument. The triggering handle is a detachable piece that lifts off a
square peg. Hinged from the side is a curved piece for ease in holding.
Screw on front of the instrument probably regulates blade depth and a
rectangular button at the top corner probably releases the blade.
Mechanism is jammed and the blade is hidden within the instrument. Only
the bottom half of the case remains. Purchase 1976. L 83 mm, W 59 mm. Neg.
76-7756 (BW, CS). NMHT 321697.08. (Figure 119.)

Spring lancet, late 18th-early 19th century. Triangular-shaped lancet made
of brass and iron and decorated with a floral design. Blade (missing) is
attached to an iron lever, which, when pulled back, is held in place by a
lever with ratchets attached to the facing side of the instrument.
Pressing upon this same lever releases the ratchets and injects the blade.
Purchased 1976. H 97 mm, W 80 mm. Neg. 76-7755 (BW, CS). NMHT 321697.09.
(Figure 120.)

Spring lancet with case, 18th century. This rather elegant lancet consists
of a body and a detachable handle. According to analysis by the
Conservation Laboratory, the lancet is made of ferrous metal (iron or
steel). Blade is screwed into a curved lever. Pulling upon the handle
pulls back the lever with the blade, and releasing the handle releases the
blade. Case is made of wood, covered with black leather and lined with
green silk and green plush. Seller says that the lancet was made in
England, ca. 1700. This date seems somewhat too early. Purchased 1976. H
112 mm, W 72 mm (to tip of blade). Neg. 76-7753 (BW, CS). NMHT 321697.10.
(Figure 121.)

Spring lancet, 19th century. Instrument is made of brass and has an odd,
irregularly curved shape. A large blade with a blade guard protrudes from
the side. Blade is triggered by an iron slide catch on the front of the
instrument and released by a brass lever release similar to that found in
knob end lancets. Purchased 1976. L 138 mm, W 82 mm (to tip of blade).
Neg. 76-7754 (BW, CS). NMHT 321697.11. (Figure 103.)

Spring lancet, 19th century. Instrument is made of brass with steel
screws. It is inscribed on one side: "Weiss improved bleeding instrument
33 Strand London." There is a brass guard on the blade that can be moved
along the blade by a screw attached directly opposite the blade. It fits
into a red leather case with beige velvet lining. The case closes with two
brass hooks. Purchased 1976. Case: L 92 mm, W 75 mm. Height without lever
66 mm, Width at widest point 64 mm, overall width 12 mm. Neg. 77-13961
(BW, CS). NMHT 1977.0576.01. (Figure 122.)


_Related Artifacts_

Counter-irritation device, patent model, 1860. Improved version of
Baunscheidt's _Lebenswecker_ patented by Alfred Stauch of Philadelphia
(U.S. patent no. 28697). Stauch added a brush around the needles and an
additional spring to force the needles back after they had entered the
skin. The brush could be oiled before the operation, thus saving the need
to oil the wound afterwards. The device is similar to the _Lebenswecker_
in size and construction, except that it was made of a lighter colored
wood and was trimmed in brass. Transferred from the U.S. Patent Office
1926. L 245 mm, D 20 mm. Neg. 72-11290 (BW). NMHT 89797 (M-4299).

Counter-irritation device, patent model, 1866. Patented by Friederich Klee
of Williamsburg, New York (U.S. Patent 55775), this instrument is another
modification of Baunscheidt's _Lebenswecker_. It is made of wood and
brass, and is much shorter than the _Lebenswecker_ but operated in the
same manner. A screw on the handle served to regulate the length of the
needles. A further innovation was the addition of a diaphragm of leather
through which the needles pass. The leather could be saturated with oil
before the operation, thus again saving the need to apply oil afterwards.
Transferred from the U.S. Patent Office 1926. L 92 mm. Neg. 72-11274. NMHT
89797 (M-4305). (Figure 123.)

Barber-surgeon's kit, late 18th-early 19th century. Kit includes a
teakettle lamp (M-6991), a deck of playing cards to amuse customers, four
standard glass cupping cups (M-6686), two scarificators (M-6687, M-6688),
two rectangular spring lancets in a case (M-6689), a dental kit, a barber
kit, a tourniquet (M-6692), and a comb. Scarificators are both 16 blade
square models. One is unusual in that only the bottom is detachable as in
octagonal scarificators. The spring lancets are of an unusual shape, with
straight edges and curved tops and bottoms. Donated by Mrs. Frank J.
Delinger, Jr., through Mrs. Paul J. Delinger, 1953. Lamp: D of base 65 mm,
W 145 mm, H 95 mm. Spring lancets: L 49 mm, W 18 mm. Tourniquet: L 1260
mm, W 35 mm. Neg. 73-4207, entire kit plus barber's basin (NMHT 225114
[M-9399]), which is not part of kit; 73-4225, cups; 73-4219, two
scarificators; 73-4221, dental set; 73-4222, barber set; 73-4223, deck of
cards; 73-4224, tourniquet; 73-4234, set of spring lancets; 73-4218,
teakettle lamp. All negatives BW, CS. NMHT 199536 (M-6684 to M-6693).

Barber-surgeon's sign (replica). Reproduction of a 1623 barber-surgeon's
sign (original is in Wellcome Medical Museum) illustrating the various
specialties of the barber-surgeon of the period. Phlebotomy is shown in
the upper right hand corner. Made by Richard Dendy of London and donated
by him 1958. L 724 mm, W 624 mm. Neg. 44681 (BW). NMHT 215690 (M-7343).
(Figure 32.)

Greek votive tablet (replica). Reproduction of a Greek votive tablet found
on the site of the Temple of Aesculapius. The original is in the Athens
Museum. Illustrated are two metal cupping cups and a case containing six
scalpels. Replica made by Dorothy Briggs of the Smithsonian Institution
1960. W 400 mm, H 295 mm, Thickness 30 mm. Neg. 73-4217 (BW, CS). NMHT
233055 (M-9617). (See Figure 54.)

Greek vase (replica). Reproduction of a small Greek vase depicting a 5th
century B.C. medical "clinic," including a Greek physician bleeding a
patient. Original is in the Louvre. Made by Dorothy Briggs of the
Smithsonian Institution 1960. H 85 mm, W 75 mm. Neg. 73-4216 (BW, CS);
73-4216-A (CS), red background. NMHT 233055 (M-9618). (Figure 26.)

Bloodletting manikin, 15th century. Pen and ink drawing in black and red
inks on a folded sheet of paper with the watermark "Ochsenkapf mit Krone"
reportedly made in Southern Germany in 1480. The paper is backed at the
fold by a piece of vellum. Drawing is of a man with astrological signs and
instructions in German in balloons pointing at 25 points of his body, of
which 4 are symmetrical. Such a drawing used in conjunction with a dial
would be used to determine when and where to bleed. On the reverse are
astronomical tables. According to analysis by the Conservation Laboratory
at the Smithsonian, the paper might well date from the 15th century and
the ink has been applied at various times. Purchased 1962. L 310 mm, W 225
mm. Neg. 76-13536 (BW). NMHT 243033 (M-10288).

Surgeon's kit, late 18th century. Revolutionary War surgeon's kit includes
a leather case with brass handle, three pewter cupping cups, a spring
lancet, syringe, two trocars, knife, probe, and scraper. There is space
for two other missing instruments, one of which may have been a
scarificator. Lancet has an unusual boot shape and is decorated with a
floral design. It is made of brass and has a steel lever release.
Purchased 1969. Neg. 73-4237-A (CS). NMHT 285125 (M-12352).

Baunscheidt's _Lebenswecker_, mid 19th-early 20th century. Carl
Baunscheidt of Bonn exhibited his _Lebenswecker_ ("Life Awakener") at the
Great Exhibition in London in 1851. It consists of a long hollow tube made
of ebony and containing a coiled spring attached to a handle. A cap
covers a plate with some thirty sharp needles. Pushing upon the handle
injects the needles into the skin. The devise was used with Baunscheidt's
special oil, which was applied to the skin after the needles had irritated
it. Donated by Grace Sutherland 1970. L 250 mm, W 30 mm. Neg. 76-7751
(BW). NMHT 287885 (M-12936). (Figure 79.)

Baunscheidt's _Lebenswecker_, mid 19th-early 20th century. Another example
of the previous instrument. Donated by Mrs. William F. Press 1970. L 245
mm, W 20 mm, H 25 mm. NMHT 290304 (M-13832).

Baunscheidt's _Lebenswecker_, mid 19th-early 20th century. Another example
of the previous instruments. Purchased 1976. NMHT 1977.0789.

Alcohol lamp, late 19th-early 20th century. Glass lamp with glass cap and
cotton wick, used in exhausting air from cups. Used by Dr. F. L. Orsinger
of Chicago (1852-1925). Donated by Dr. William H. Orsinger 1973. H 100 mm,
D 83 mm. Neg. 74-4086 (BW, CW). NMHT 308730.08.

Junod's boot, 19th-early 20th century. Copper boot first introduced by
Victor-Theodore Junod in the 1830s. The boot fits tightly about the foot
and air is exhausted from it by means of a pump. John S. Billings
described the boot as "An apparatus for enclosing a limb, and from which
air can be exhausted so as to produce the effect of a large cupping
glass." (_The National Medical Dictionary._ Philadelphia, 1890 p. 732.) On
loan from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology. L 280 mm, H 430 mm.
Neg. 73-7885 (BW). (Figure 81.)

Barber pole, ca. 1890-1900. This small, red, white, and blue striped pole,
with a newel post and no globe on the top, was used in Binghamton, New
York. The colors are faded into an orange and tan color. Purchased 1974.
Pole L 2600 mm, W at widest point 900 mm. NMHT 312616.

Barber pole, ca. 1920. A red, white, and blue striped pole full size. It
has a silver wooden top. It was used in New Jersey. Pole: L 63 mm, W at
widest point 20 mm. Top: L 33 mm. Gift of H. E. Green. NMHT 322,655.01.




Footnotes:


[A] _Audrey Davis, Department of History of Science, National Museum of
History and Technology, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560.
Toby Appel, Charles Willson Peale Papers, National Portrait Gallery,
Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. 20560._

[B] "White metal" is the technical term for an undetermined silver colored
metal alloy. See discussion of materials at beginning of index.




NOTES


[1] Julius Gurlt's bibliographical essay on bloodletting, originally
published in 1898, is a prime source for tracing in detail the specific
contributions of European and Asian authors in the ancient, medieval, and
Renaissance periods. See JULIUS GURLT, _Geschichte der Chirurgie und ihrer
Ausuebung_ (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1964), volume 3, page 556-565.

[2] GEORGE F. KNOX, _The Art of Cupping_ (London, 1836), page 30.

[3] For a general history of bloodletting, see TOWNSEND W. THORNDIKE, "A
History of Bleeding and Leeching," _British Medical and Surgical Journal_,
volume 197, number 12 (September 1927), pages 437-477. For a detailed
account of ancient bloodletting, see RUDOLPH SIEGEL, "Galen's Concept of
Bloodletting in Relation to His Ideas on Pulmonary and Peripheral Blood
Flow and Blood Formation" (chapter 19 in volume 1 of _Science, Medicine
and Society in the Renaissance_ edited by Allen Debus, New York: Science
History Publications, 1973), pages 247-275.

[4] ROBERT MONTRAVILLE GREEN, "A Translation of Galen's Temperaments and
Venesection" (manuscript, Yale Medical Library, New Haven, Connecticut),
page 102.

[5] Ibid., page ii-iv.

[6] CELSUS, _De Medicina_, translated by W. G. Spencer (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1960), volume 1, book 2, page 155.

[7] HENRY E. SIGERIST, _A History of Medicine_ (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1961), volume II, pages 317-335.

[8] GREEN, op. cit. [note 4], page 105.

[9] PETER H. NIEBYL, "Galen, Van Helmont and Blood Letting," (chapter 21
in volume 2 of _Science, Medicine and Society in the Renaissance_ edited
by Allen Debus, New York: Science History Publications, 1972); PETER
NIEBYL, "Venesection and the Concept of the Foreign Body: A Historical
Study in the Therapeutic Consequences of Humoral and Traumatic
Consequences of Diseases" (doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1969),
page 156.

[10] GREEN, op. cit. [note 4], page 171.

[11] Ibid., page 114.

[12] Ibid., page 173.

[13] Ibid., pages 174, 180.

[14] CELSUS, op. cit. [note 6], page 163.

[15] CHARLES H. TALBOT, _Medicine in Medieval England_ (London: Oldbourne,
1967), pages 127-131.

[16] CHARLES D. O'MALLEY, _Andreas Vesalius of Brussels 1514-1564_
(Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1964), pages
66-67.

[17] See, for example, M. DAVID, _Recherches sur la manière d'agir de la
saignée et sur les effets qu'elle produit relativement à la partie ou on
la fait_ (Paris, 1762), page iv.

[18] LORENZ HEISTER, _Chirurgie, in welcher alles, was zur wund artzney
gehöret ..._ (Nuremberg, 1719).

[19] GREEN, op. cit. [note 4], page 179.

[20] JOSEPH T. SMITH, SR., "An Historical Sketch of Bloodletting," _Johns
Hopkins Hospital Bulletin_, volume 21 (1910), page 312.

[21] MARSHALL HALL, _Observations on Bloodletting Founded upon Researches
on the Morbid and Curative Effects of Loss of Blood_ (London, 1836), page
280.

[22] ROBLEY DUNGLISON, _Medical Lexicon--A Dictionary of Medical Science_
(Philadelphia, 1848), page 820.

[23] JAMES E. BOWMAN, "Blood," _Encyclopaedia Britannica_ (Chicago:
William Benton, 1972), volume 34, pages 795-800.

[24] GREEN, op. cit. [note 4], page 187.

[25] KARL SUDHOFF, _Deutsche medizinische Inkunabeln_ (Leipzig, 1908);
Studien zur Geschichte der Medizin heft 2/3. SIR WILLIAM OSLER,
_Incunabula Medica: A Study of the Earliest Printed Medical Books,
1467-1480_ (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1923).

[26] FRANCISCO GUERRA, "Medical Almanacs of the American Colonial Period,"
_Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences_, volume 16
(1961), pages 235-237. The number of veins illustrated in the vein man
varied a great deal but became fewer after the seventeenth century.

[27] TALBOT, op. cit. [note 15], pages 127-131.

[28] GUERRA, op. cit. [note 26], pages 237; MARION BARBER STOWELL, _Early
American Almanacs: The Colonial Weekday Bible_ (New York: Burt Franklin,
1977). The latter work contains numerous illustrations of "anatomies" from
colonial almanacs.

[29] "Original Letters," General William F. Gordon to Thomas Walker
Gilmar, 11 December 1832, _William and Mary Quarterly_, volume 21 (July
1912), page 67.

[30] TALBOT, op. cit. [note 15], pages 50, 51. For another view of the
religious impact upon medieval medical and surgical practices, see JAMES
J. WALSH, _The Popes and Science_ (New York: Fordham University Press,
1908), pages 167-198.

[31] THORNDIKE, op. cit. [note 3], page 477.

[32] MIGUEL DE CERVANTES SAAVEDRA, _Don Quixote de la Mancha_, translated
by Walter Starkie (New York: Mentor, 1963), pages 91, 92.

[33] CHARLES ALVERSON, "Surgeon Abel's Exotic Bleeding Bowls," _Prism_,
volume 2 (July 1974), pages 16-18; JOHN K. CRELLIN, "Medical Ceramics," in
_A Catalogue of the English and Dutch Collections in the Museum of the
Wellcome Institute of the History of Medicine_ (London: Wellcome Institute
of the History of Medicine, 1969), pages 273-279.

[34] THORNDIKE, op. cit. [note 3], page 477; CAREY P. MCCORD,
"Bloodletting and Bandaging," _Archives Environmental Health_, volume 20
(April 1970), pages 551-553.

[35] LEO ZIMMERMAN and VEITH ILZA, _Great Ideas in the History of Surgery_
(New York: Dover Books, 1967), page 126.

[36] WILLIAM HARVEY, _Works_, edited by Robert Willis (London: Sydenham
Society, 1847), page 129. Harvey reaffirmed later: "I imagine that I shall
perform a task not less new and useful than agreeable to philosophers and
medical men, if I here briefly discourse of the causes and uses of the
circulation, and expose other obscure matters respecting the blood" (page
381).

[37] HENRY STUBBE, _The Lord Bacons Relation of the Sweating-Sickness
Examined ... Together with a Defense of Phlebotomy ..._ (London, 1671),
page 102.

[38] FIELDING H. GARRISON, "The History of Bloodletting," _New York
Medical Journal_, volume 97 (1913), page 499. Magendie was firmly opposed
to bloodletting and ordered physicians working under him not to bleed.
However, their belief in the practice was so strong that they disobeyed
his instructions and carried out the procedure. See ERWIN ACKERKNECHT,
_Therapeutics from the Primitives to the 20th Century_ (New York: Hafner,
1973), pages 111-112.

[39] AUDREY B. DAVIS, _Circulation Physiology and Medical Chemistry in
England, 1650-1680_ (Lawrence, Kansas: Coronado Press, 1973), pages 135,
167, 219. For the history of injecting remedies into the blood, see HORACE
M. BROWN, "The Beginnings of Intravenous Medication," _Annals of Medical
History_, volume 1 (1917), page 182.

[40] ARTURO CASTIGLIONI, _A History of Medicine_, translated from Italian
by E. B. Krumbhar, 2nd edition, revised and enlarged (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1958), page 444; NIEBYL, "Venesection" [note 9], page 414.

[41] JOAN LILLICO, "Primitive Bloodletting," _Annals of Medical History_,
volume II (1940), page 137.

[42] C.J.S. THOMPSON, _Guide to the Surgical Instruments and Objects in
the Historical Series with Their History and Development_ (London: Taylor
and Francis, 1929), page 40.

[43] JOHN STEWART MILNE, _Surgical Instruments in Greek and Roman Times_
(New York: Augustus M. Kelley, 1970), reprint of 1907 edition, pages
32-35. A bronze knife of this type is illustrated in THEODOR
MEYER-STEINEG, _Chirurgische Instrumente des Altertum_ (Jena: Gustav
Fischer, 1912), page iv, figure 9. The instrument was donated by Dr. Nylin
of the Kardinska Institute in Stockholm, who used a lancet until 1940.
Replicas of the early bronze medical instruments were sold in 1884 by
Professor Francesco Scalzi of Rome. He exhibited 45 of them at the
Exposition Universelle de Paris in 1878. He won an honorable mention
award, "Collezione di Istrumenti Chirurgici de Roma Antica," 1884.

[44] S. HOLTH, "Greco-Roman and Arabic Bronze Instruments and Their
Medico-Surgical Use," _Skriften utgit an Videnskapsselskapet I Kristrania_
(1919), page 1 (below). Holth lists the content of lead, tin, zinc, iron,
copper, and cobalt found in a number of ancient bronze medical items in
his collection, which formerly belonged to Baron Ustinov of Russia. These
instruments were unearthed in Syria and Palestine from 1872 to 1890.

[45] An occasional curious item like the spring lancet on display in the
Welch Medical Library of the Johns Hopkins University is an exception.

[46] MILNE, op cit. [note 43], pages 35-36.

[47] LAURENCE HEISTER, _A General System of Surgery in Three Parts_,
translated into English (London, 1759), 7th edition, page 294.

[48] GURLT, op. cit. [note 1], volume III, page 558.

[49] G. GAUJOT and E. SPILLMAN, _Arsenal de la Chirurgie Contemporaine_
(Paris: J. B. Bailliere et fils, 1872), pages 274-276.

[50] MILNE, op. cit. [note 43], page 33.

[51] GARRISON, op. cit. [note 38], page 433.

[52] SIR WILLIAM FERGUSON, _Lectures on the Progress of Anatomy and
Surgery during the Present Century_ (London: John Churchill & Sons, 1867),
page 284.

[53] JAMES EWELL, _The Medical Companion_ (Philadelphia, 1816), pages 405,
406.

[54] For an illustration of incisions, see HEISTER, (1759), op. cit. [note
47].

[55] MILNE, op. cit. [note 43], page 36.

[56] GURLT, op. cit. [note 1], volume III, page 556.

[57] P. Hamonic describes an eighteenth-century Naples porcelain figure of
a woman being bled that illustrates the elegant manner in which the
operation was performed. P. HAMONIC, _La Chirurgie et la medécine
d'autrefois d'aprés une première série d'instruments anciens renfermes
dans mes collections_ (Paris: A. Maloine, ed., 1900), pages 91, 93.

[58] THOMAS DICKSON, _A Treatise on Bloodletting with an Introduction
Recommending a Review of the Materia Medica_ (London, 1765), page 1.

[59] SIR D'ARCY POWER, editor, _British Medical Societies_ (London: The
Medical Press Circular, 1939), page 23.

[60] Wakeley was a heretic wealthy doctor who led the campaign in Britain
against the monopoly of surgical training and practice held by the Royal
College of Surgeons of London. ALAN ARNOLD KLASS, _There's Gold in "Them
Thar Pills"_ (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1975), pages 158-159.

[61] JOHN HARVEY POWELL, _Bring Out Your Dead_ (Philadelphia: University
of Pennsylvania Press, 1949), page 123.

[62] See, e.g., RICHARD SHRYOCK, _Medicine and Society in America:
1660-1860_ (New York: New York University Press, 1960), pages 67, 111-112.

[63] JAMES T. FLEXNER, _George Washington: Anguish and Farewell_ (Boston:
Little, Brown, 1972), pages 457-459.

[64] BARBARA DUNCUM, _The Development of Inhalation Anesthesia_ (The
Wellcome Historical Medical Museum, Oxford University Press, 1947), page
195.

[65] HAMONIC, op. cit. [note 57], pages 95-96.

[66] DONALD D. SHIRA, "Phlebotomy Lancet," _Ohio State Medical Journal_,
volume 35 (1939), page 67.

[67] HEISTER, (1719) loc. cit. [note 18].

[68] _Encyclopedia or Dictionary of the Arts and Sciences_, 1st American
edition (Philadelphia, 1798).

[69] RISTELHUEBER, "Notice: sur la flammette, phlébotome des Allemands,
Fliete, Schnepper oder gefederte Fliete, phlebotomus elasticus, Flamme ou
flammette," _Journal de Médecine, chirurgie et pharmacologie_, volume 37
(Paris, 1816), pages 9-17.

[70] JOHN SYNG DORSEY, _Elements of Surgery: For the Use of Students_,
volume 2 (Philadelphia, 1813), pages 279-281.

[71] Patent specifications, U.S. patent 16479.

[72] M. MALGAIGNE, "Esquisse historique sur la saignée considérée au point
de vue opératoire; extrait des leçons du Professeur Malgaigne," _Revue
Medico Chirurgicale de Paris_, volume 9 (1851), page 123.

[73] GARRISON, op. cit. [note 38], page 501.

[74] Some of these studies are cited in B. M. RANDOLPH, "The Bloodletting
Controversy in the Nineteenth Century," _Annals of Medical History_,
volume 7 (1935), page 181.

[75] Quotation cited by LESTER S. KING, "The Blood-letting Controversy: A
Study in the Scientific Method," _Bulletin of the History of Medicine_,
volume 35 (1961), page 2.

[76] MARTIN KAUFMANN, _Homeopathy in America_ (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
Press, 1971), pages 1-14. Other references on the decline of bloodletting
include: LEON S. BRYAN, JR., "Blood-letting in American Medicine,
1830-1892," _Bulletin of the History of Medicine_, volume 38 (1964), pages
516-529; B. M. RANDOLPH, op. cit. [note 74], pages 177-182; JAMES POLK
MORRIS, "The Decline of Bleeding in America, 1830-1865" (manuscript,
Institute for the Medical Humanities, University of Texas Medical Branch,
Galveston, Texas), 11 pages.

[77] HENRY I. BOWDITCH, _Venesection, Its Abuse Formerly--Its Neglect at
the Present Day_ (Boston: David Clapp & Son, 1872), pages 5, 6.

[78] W. MITCHELL CLARKE, "On the History of Bleeding, and Its Disuse in
Modern Practice," _The British Medical Journal_ (July 1875), page 67.

[79] HENRY LAFLEUR, "Venesection in Cardiac and Arterial Disease," _The
Johns Hopkins Hospital Bulletin_, volume 2 (1891), pages 112-114.

[80] See, for example, JOHN REID, _"Bleeding," Essays on Hypochondriasis
and Other Nervous Affections_ (London, 1821), essay 22 page 334.

[81] AUSTIN FLINT, _A Treatise on the Principles and Practice of
Medicine_, 3rd edition (Philadelphia, 1868), page 150.

[82] MARTIN DUKE, "Arteriosclerotic Heart Disease, Polychthenic and
Phlebotomy--Rediscovered," _Rhode Island Medical Journal_, volume 48
(1965), page 477.

[83] SAMUEL LEVINE, Editorial, "Phlebotomy, An Ancient Procedure Turning
Modern?," _Journal of the American Medical Association_ (January 26,
1963), page 280.

[84] GEORGE BURCH and N. P. DEPASQUALE, "Phlebotomy Use in Patients with
Erythrocytosis and Ischemic Heart Disease," _Archives of Internal
Medicine_, volume 3 (June 1963), pages 687-695. See also GEORGE BURCH and
N. P. DEPASQUALE, "Hematocrit, Viscosity and Coronary Blood Flow,"
_Diseases of the Chest_, volume 48 (September 1965), pages 225-232.

[85] HEINRICH STERN, "A Venepuncture Trocar (Stern's Trocar)," _Medical
Record_ (December 1905), pages 1043, 1044.

[86] DELAVAN V. HOLMAN, "Venesection, Before Harvey and After," _Bulletin
New York Academy of Medicine_, volume 31 (September 1955), pages 662, 664.

[87] SAMUEL BAYFIELD, _A Treatise on Practical Cupping_ (London, 1823),
page 11.

[88] CELSUS, _De Medicina_, op. cit. [note 6], page 169. For bibliography
on cupping, see WILLIAM BROCKBANK, _Ancient Therapeutic Arts_ (London:
William Heinemann, 1954); JOHN HALLER, "The Glass Leech: Wet and Dry
Cupping Practices in the Nineteenth Century," _New York State Journal of
Medicine_ (1973), pages 583-592; BROCHIN, "Ventouses," _Dictionnaire
encyclopédique des sciences médicales_, series 5, volume 2 (1886), pages
750-752; and, the _Index Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-General's
Office, U.S. Army_.

[89] HIPPOCRATES, _Aphorisms_, V, page 50.

[90] THOMAS MAPLESON, _A Treatise on the Art of Cupping_ (London, 1813),
opposite page 1.

[91] GURLT, op. cit. [note 1], volume 3, page 151.

[92] CHARLES COURY, "Saignées, ventouses et cautérisations dans le
médecine orientale à l'époque de la Renaissance," _Histoire de la
médecine_, volume 11 (November-December 1961), pages 9-23.

[93] W. A. GILLESPIE, "Remarks on the Operation of Cupping, and the
Instruments Best Adapted to Country Practice," _Boston Medical and
Surgical Journal_, volume 10 (1834), page 28.

[94] Letter from Rev. Robert Richards to Dr. Sami Hamarneh, 1 September
1966 (Division of Medical Sciences, Museum of History and Technology).

[95] On ancient cups, see CELSUS, op. cit. [note 6], pages 165-167; MILNE,
op. cit. [note 43], pages 101-105 and plates; and BROCKBANK, op. cit.
[note 88], pages 65-72. The Institute of the History of Medicine, Johns
Hopkins University, has several metal cups dating from about A.D. 100.

[96] CASTIGLIONI, op. cit. [note 40], page 380.

[97] PIERRE DIONIS, _Cours d'opérations de chirurgie demonstrées au Jardin
Royal_ (Paris, 1708), page 584.

[98] RÉNÉ JACQUES CROISSANTE DE GARENGEOT, _Nouveau Traité des Instrumens
de Chirurgie les plus utiles_ (The Hague, 1725), page 342.

[99] DIONIS, op. cit. [note 97], page 585.

[100] MAPLESON, op. cit. [note 90], pages 27-28. See also GEORGE FREDERICK
KNOX, op. cit. [note 2], page 29.

[101] MAPLESON, op. cit. [note 90]; BAYFIELD, op. cit. [note 87]; KNOX,
op. cit. [note 2]; and MONSON HILLS, "A Short Treatise on the Operation of
Cupping," _Boston Medical and Surgical Journal_, volume 9 (1834), pages
261-273.

[102] KNOX, op. cit. [note 2], page vi.

[103] BAYFIELD, op. cit. [note 87], page 125.

[104] DIONIS, op. cit. [note 97], page 587 and figure 57 on page 583.

[105] KNOX, op. cit. [note 2], page 33.

[106] JOHN H. SAVIGNY, _A Collection of Engravings representing the Most
Modern and Approved Instruments Used in the Practice of Surgery_ (London,
1798), plate 7. For the earlier grease lamp, see J. A. BRAMBILLA,
_Instrumentarium Chirurgicum Viennense oder Wiennerliche Chirurgische
Instrumenten Sammlung_ (Vienna, 1780), plate 2.

[107] BAYFIELD, op. cit. [note 87], page 123; KNOX, op. cit. [note 2],
page 33; HILLS, op. cit. [note 101], page 263.

[108] See DIONIS, op. cit. [note 97], page 587 and figure 58 on page 583;
and LAURENCE HEISTER, op. cit. [note 47], page 329 and plate 12. The
parallel incisions were described in antiquity by Oribasius (ca. A.D.
360), the most important medical author after Galen and the friend of the
emperor Julian. See GURLT, op. cit. [note 1], volume 3, page 563.

[109] AMBROISE PARÉ, _The Collected Works of Ambroise Paré_, translated by
Thomas Johnson (London, 1634). Reprint edition (Pound Ridge, New York:
Milford House, 1968), page 446. The drawing first appeared in Paré's
treatise "Methode de traiter des playes de la teste" in 1561.

[110] PAULUS AEGINETA, _Medicinae Totius enchiridion_ (Basileae, 1541),
page 460.

[111] ALBERT WILHELM HERMANN SEERIG, _Armamentarium chirurgicum oder
möglichst vollständige Sammlung von Abbildungen und Beschreibung
Chirurgischer Instrument alterer und neuerer Zeit_ (Breslau, 1838), page
598.

[112] JACQUES DELECHEMPS, _Chirurgie Françoise Recueillie_ (Lyon, 1564,
page 174); HELLKIAH CROOKE. _Micrographia: A Description of the Body of
Men ... with an Explanation of the Fashion and Use of Three & Fifty
Instruments of Chirurgy_ (London, 1631).

[113] GARENGEOT, op. cit. [note 98], pages 347, 351.

[114] HEISTER (1719), op. cit. [note 18], page 329. Lorenz Heister
_... Chirurgie ..._ (Nuremberg, 1719) includes the same picture of the
scarificator as the 1759 English translation.

[115] HEISTER (1759), op. cit. [note 47], page 330.

[116] See BRAMBILLA, op. cit. [note 106], plate 2; DENIS DIDEROT,
_Dictionnaire risonné des sciences, arts et métiers. Recueil des planches_
(Lausanne and Berne, 1780), volume 2, plate 23; and BENJAMIN BELL, _A
System of Surgery_, 5th edition (Edinburgh, 1791), volume 1, plate 5.

[117] JAMES LATTA, _A Practical System of Surgery_ (Edinburgh, 1795),
volume 1, plate I; BENJAMIN BELL, _A System of Surgery_, 7th edition
(Edinburgh, 1801), volume 3, plate 7.

[118] JOHN WEISS, _An Account of Inventions and Improvements in Surgical
Instruments Made by John Weiss, 62, Strand_, 2nd edition (London, 1831),
pages 12-13. A Mr. Fuller introduced a similar improvement, which Weiss
claimed Fuller had pirated from him. The only difference between Weiss's
Improved Scarificator and Fuller's Improved Scarificator was that the
blades in Weiss's were arch shaped and those of Fuller's crescent shaped.
The cupper, Knox, preferred the crescent blades because they gave a
sharper cut. In any case, most nineteenth-century scarificators were made
with crescent-shaped blades. On Fuller's scarificator, see BAYFIELD, op.
cit. [note 87], pages 99-100; and, SEERIG, op. cit. [note 111], pages
604-605 and plate 56.

[119] _Extract du Catalogue de la maison Charrière_ (Paris, 1843), page
30; KNOX, op. cit. [note 2], pages 39, 40.

[120] This statement is based on the perusal of a wide variety of
nineteenth-century trade catalogs. See "List of Trade Catalogs Consulted."

[121] KNOX, op. cit. [note 2], page xii.

[122] Ibid., pages 14-15.

[123] HILLS, op. cit. [note 101], page 266.

[124] BAYFIELD, op. cit. [note 87], page 116.

[125] KNOX, op. cit. [note 2], pages 53-64.

[126] Ibid., page 68.

[127] HERO OF ALEXANDRIA, _The Pneumatics of Hero of Alexandria_,
translated by Bennet Woodcroft (London, 1851).

[128] GURLT, op. cit. [note 1], volume 2, page 565 and plate X.

[129] BRAMBILLA, op. cit. [note 106], page 42, mentioned but did not
picture a cup with air pump. One of the earliest illustrations of a cup
with pump is found in SAVIGNY, op. cit. [note 106], plate 7.

[130] MAPLESON, op. cit. [note 90], page 63.

[131] KNOX, op. cit. [note 2], page 32.

[132] JOHN READ, _A Description of Read's Patent Syringe Pump_ (London, no
date). See also JOHN READ, _An Appeal to the Medical Profession on the
Utility of the Improved Patent Syringe_, 2nd edition (London, ca. 1825).

[133] WEISS, op. cit. [note 118], page 87; CHAS. TRUAX, GREENE & CO.,
_Price List of Physicians' Supplies_, 6th edition (Chicago, 1893), pages
989-1010.

[134] "Notice sur l'acupuncture et sur une nouvelle espèce de ventouse
armée de lancettes, inventée par A.-P. Demours," _Journal universal des
sciences médicales_, volume 15 (1819), pages 107-113; BAYFIELD, op. cit.
[note 87], pages 73-81.

[135] THOMAS MACHELL, "Description of an Apparatus for Cupping, Dry
Cupping, and Drawing the Breasts of Females; With some Observations
Respecting Its Use," _London Medical and Physical Journal_, volume 42
(1819), pages 378-380; BAYFIELD, op. cit. [note 87], pages 81-89.

[136] BAYFIELD, op. cit. [note 87], pages 92-93.

[137] ROBERT J. DODD, "Improved Cupping Apparatus," _The American Journal
of the Medical Sciences_, new series, volume 7 (1844), page 510. See also
patent specifications, U.S. patent 3537.

[138] Patent specifications, U.S. patent 68985.

[139] HILLS, op. cit. [note 101], page 261.

[140] GILLESPIE, op. cit. [note 93], page 29.

[141] FRANCES FOX, JR., "A Description of an Improved Cupping Glass, with
Which from Five to Eight Ounces of Blood May Be Drawn, with Observations,"
_The Lancet_, volume 12 (1827), pages 238-239. KNOX, op. cit. [note 2],
pages 36-37, recommended these glasses especially for use on young ladies
who feared scars left by cupping. One of the "glass leeches" fixed below
the level of the gown could draw all the blood necessary.

[142] See JOHN GORDON, "Remarks on the Present Practice of Cupping; With
an Account of an Improved Cupping Glass," _The London Medical Repository_,
volume 13 (1820), pages 286-289. J. WELSH, "Description of a Substitute
for Leeches," _The Edinburgh Medical and Surgical Journal_, volume 11
(1815), pages 193-194; P. MOLONEY, "A New Cupping Instrument," _Australia
Medical Journal_, new series, volume 1 (1879), pages 338-340. At least two
American patents were given for improved cups, one to C. L. Myers in 1884
(U.S. patent 291388) and one to Jaime Catuela in 1922 (U.S. patent
1463458).

[143] SAVIGNY, op. cit. [note 106], plate 18, illustrated in 1798 "elastic
bottles" that could be attached to glass cups for drawing the breasts;
however, not until Charles Goodyear's discovery of the vulcanization
process in 1838 was rubber widely used in cupping. An American surgeon,
Samuel Gross, wrote in 1866 that the glass cup with a bulb of vulcanized
rubber was the "most elegant and convenient cup, by far." See SAMUEL
GROSS, _A System of Surgery_, 4th edition, 2 volumes (Philadelphia, 1866),
volume 1, page 451.

[144] GEORGE TIEMANN & CO., _American Armamentarium Chirurgicum_ (New
York, 1889), page 825.

[145] For one listing of the disadvantages of the common scarificator, see
BLATIN, "Scarificator nouveau," _Bulletin de l'Académie Royale de
Medècine_, volume 11 (1845-1846), pages 87-90. Blatin patented a new
scarificator in 1844 that supposedly overcame the difficulties he listed.

[146] JAMES COXETER, "New Surgical Instruments," _The Lancet_ (November
15, 1845), page 538; JAMES COXETER & SON, _A Catalogue of Surgical
Instruments_ (London, 1870), page 48. Coxeter sold his scarificator for 2
pounds, 2 shillings, while he offered his "best scarificator, with old
action" for two pounds.

[147] GREAT BRITAIN PATENT OFFICE, _Subject-Matter Index of Patents of
Invention_, 1617-1852, 2 volumes (London, 1957); U.S. PATENT OFFICE,
_Subject Matter Index of Patents for Invention (Brevets d'invention)
Granted in France from 1791 to 1876 Inclusive_ (Washington, 1883).

[148] CHARRIÈRE [firm], _Cinq notices réunies presentées a MM. les membres
des jurys des expositions françaises de 1834, 1839, 1844, et 1849, et de
l'exposition universelle de Londres en 1851_ (Paris, 1851), page 56.

[149] MAISON CHARRIÈRE, ROBERT ET COLLIN, SUCCESSEURS, [Catalogue
générale] (Paris, 1867), pages 42, 44, and plate 9.

[150] Patent specifications, U.S. patent 4705; TIEMANN & CO., op. cit.
[note 144], page 115. Tiemann was awarded an earlier patent for a
scarificator in 1834 (unnumbered U.S. patent, 26 August 1834), which seems
to have employed a coiled spring similar to that found in the Charrière
scarificator. The fifth U.S. patent for a scarificator was issued in 1846
to A. F. Ahrens of Philadelphia (U.S. patent 4717) for a circular
scarificator in which all the blades were attached to a movable plate.

[151] Patent specifications, U.S. patent 5111.

[152] Patent specifications, U.S. patent 8095.

[153] DYCE DUCKWORTH, "On the Employment of Dry-Cupping," _The
Practitioner: A Monthly Journal of Therapeutics_, volume 2 (1869), page
153.

[154] Ibid., page 155. For more information on counter-irritation, see
BROCKBANK, op. cit. [note 88]. Blisters were substances (including mustard
and cantharides) that when applied to the skin, occasioned a serous
secretion and the raising of the epidermis to form a vesicle. Cautery was
the application of a red-hot iron to the skin. A seton was a long strip of
linen or cotton thread passed through the skin by a seton needle. Each day
a fresh piece of thread was drawn through the sore. Moxa were cones of
cotton wool or other substances which were placed upon the skin and
burned.

[155] CHARLES BAUNSCHEIDT, _Baunscheidtismus, by the Inventor of the New
Curing Method_, 1st English edition, translated from the 6th German
edition by John Cheyne and L. Hayman (Bonn., 1859?).

[156] The patent models are in the Smithsonian collection. See "Catalog"
herein. The Aima Tomaton, a device invented and manufactured by Dr. L.
M'Kay, was yet another American variation on the Lebenswecker. See L.
M'KAY, _Aima Tomaton: Or New Cupping and Puncturing Apparatus_ (Rochester,
1870). An example can be found in the collection of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology.

[157] See DUCKWORTH, op. cit. [note 153]; ISAAC HOOVER, "An Essay on Dry
Cupping," _Transactions of the Belmont Medical Society for 1847-48-49-50_
(Bridgeport, 1851), pages 30-32; MARSHALL HALL, _Practical Observations
and Suggestions in Medicine_ (London, 1845), pages 51-53; and B. H.
WASHINGTON, "Remarks on Dry Cupping," _The New Jersey Medical Reporter and
Transactions of the New Jersey Medical Society_ (1852-53), pages 278-281.

[158] CASPER WISTAR PENNOCK, "Observations and Experiments on the Efficacy
and Modus Operandi of Cupping-Glasses in Preventing and Arresting the
Effects of Poisoned Wounds," _The American Journal of Medical Sciences_,
volume 2 (1828), pages 9-26. For a discussion of the debate over
absorption, see KNOX, op. cit. [note 2], pages 21-24.

[159] TIEMANN, op. cit. [note 144], pages 116, 800.

[160] VICTOR-THÉODORE JUNOD, _A Theoretical and Practical Treatise on
Hemospasia_, translated by Mrs. E. Howley Palmer (London, 1879).

[161] HEINRICH STERN, _Theory and Practice of Bloodletting_ (New York:
Rebman Co., 1915), pages 71-72.

[162] AUGUST BIER, _Hyperemia as a Therapeutic Agent_ (Chicago, 1905),
page 21.

[163] WILLY MEYER and VICTOR SCHMIEDEN, _Bier's Hyperemic Treatment_, 2nd
edition (Philadelphia, 1909).

[164] HALLER, op. cit. [note 88; see also note 72], page 585.

[165] GROSS, op. cit. [note 143], volume 2, page 906.

[166] Such a breast pump was illustrated by HEISTER (1719), op. cit. [note
17], plate 14. All glass breast pumps were probably more typical of the
eighteenth than the nineteenth century. In the nineteenth century the
glass tube was replaced by a flexible tube with a mouthpiece.

[167] For example, see THE J. DURBIN SURGICAL SUPPLY CO., _Standard
Surgical Instruments_ (Denver, 1929), page 59.

[168] Data on the numbers of breast pumps patented was obtained from the
files of the U.S. Patent Office in Arlington, Virginia.

[169] Patent specifications, U.S. patent 1179129. For other illustrations
of late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century patents for cupping
devices, see HALLER, op. cit. [note 88].

[170] STERN, op. cit. [note 85], page 74.

[171] MABELLE S. WELSH, "'Cups for Colds': The Barber, the Surgeon and the
Nurse," _The American Journal of Nursing_, volume 19 (1918-19), pages
763-766. See also HALLER, op. cit. [note 88], and J. EPSTEIN, "The
Therapeutic Value of Cupping: Its Use and Abuse," _New York Medical
Journal_, volume 112 (1920), pages 584-585.

[172] THORNDIKE, op. cit. [note 3], page 477. For bibliography on
leeching, see BROCKBANK, op. cit. [note 88]; MERAT, "Sangsue,"
_Dictionnaire des sciences médicales_, volume 49 (1820), pages 520-541; G.
CARLET AND EMILE BERTIN, "Sangsue," _Dictionnaire encyclopédique des
sciences médicales_, 3rd series, volume 6 (1878), pages 660-681; and the
_Index Catalogue of the Library of the Surgeon-General's Office_, U.S.
Army.

[173] ALFRED STILLE AND JOHN M. MAISCH, _The National Dispensatory_, 2nd
edition (Philadelphia, 1880), page 713; JAMES THACHER, _The American
Dispensatory_, 2nd edition (Boston, 1813), page 230; C. LEWIS DIEHL,
"Report on the Progress of Pharmacy," _Proceedings of the American
Pharmaceutical Association_, volume 25 (1876), page 205.

[174] W. H. SCHIEFFELIN & CO., _General Prices Current_ (New York, 1887),
page 39.

[175] DIEHL, op. cit. [note 173]; JOHN C. HARTNETT, "The Care and Use of
Medicinal Leeches in 19th Century Pharmacy and Therapeutics," _Pharmacy in
History_, volume 14 (1972), page 133.

[176] Broussais offered the following explanation for the effectiveness of
leeching. Congestion of blood vessels in a healthy person gives rise to a
sympathetic irritation in the mucous surfaces of bodily orifices.
Equilibrium may be restored naturally by hemorrhage through the nose.
Without this release of blood, congestion builds up into an inflammation.
Local bloodletting relieves the congestion when applied on a portion of
the skin corresponding to the inflamed organ. Broussais's favorite remedy
was the application of leeches to the stomach and head. For this purpose
he ordered hundreds of leeches daily. See F.J.V. BROUSSAIS, _A Treatise
on Physiology Applied & Pathology_, translated by John Bell and R. La
Roche, 2nd American edition (Philadelphia, 1828), page 414, and
Castiglioni, op. cit. [note 40], page 609.

[177] THORNDIKE, op. cit. [note 3], page 477. See also KARL-OTTO KUPPE,
_Die Blutegel in der Aerztlichen Praxis_ (reprint, Stuttgart:
Hippocrates-Verlag, 1955), pages 9-11.

[178] HARTNETT, op. cit. [note 175], page 132.

[179] JONATHAN OSBORNE, "Observations on Local Bloodletting, and on Some
New Methods of Practicing It," _Dublin Journal of Medical and Chemical
Science_, volume 3 (1833), pages 334-342.

[180] See, for example, MAISON CHARRIÈRE, ROBERT ET COLLIN, op. cit. [note
149], page 42 and plate 9.

[181] JOHN BERRY HAYCRAFT, "On the Coagulation of the Blood," 9 pages,
extracted from _Proceedings of the Royal Society of London_, volume 231
(1884).

[182] THORNDIKE, op. cit. [note 3], page 477. MERAT, op. cit. [note 172],
page 528, cited an extreme case in which a woman suffering from
peritonitis was given a total of 250 leeches in 24 hours. She died soon
after.

[183] STILLE AND MAISCH, op. cit. [note 173], page 715; THACHER, op. cit.
[note 173], page 231.

[184] HARTNETT, op. cit. [note 175], page 132; J. K. CRELLIN, op. cit.
[note 33], pages 127-134.

[185] ANDREW H. SMITH, "An Artificial Leech," _Medical Record_, volume 4
(1869-70), page 406.

[186] In addition to the references below, articles on artificial leeches
include DR. MONTAIN, "Considérations thérapeutiques sur l'emploi du
pneumo-derme, nouvel instrument destiné à remplacer les sangsues et les
ventouses," _Bulletin Général de thérapeutique_, volume 11 (1836), pages
311-315; J. J. TWEED, "A Description of the Apparatus for Employing the
Mechanical Leeches," _Medical Times_, volume 21 (1850), pages 36-37; and
SAMUEL THEOBALD, "An Improved Method of Applying the Artificial Leech,"
_American Journal of Medical Science_, new series, volume 70 (1875), pages
139-142.

[187] SARLANDIÈRE, "Ventouse," _Dictionnaire des sciences médicales_,
volume 57 (Paris, 1821), pages 174-178; PAULET, "Bdellometre,"
_Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences médicales_, series 1, volume 8
(Paris, 1868), pages 632-633; L. GRESELY, "Dissertation sur les sangsues,
le nouveau scarificateur, et sur leur emploi en médecine" (Paris: Faculty
of Medicine, 1820), dissertation no. 202.

[188] ROBLEY DUNGLISON, _Medical Lexicon: A New Dictionary of Medical
Science_, 3rd edition (Philadelphia, 1842). The bdellometer was listed in
later editions of this dictionary throughout the nineteenth century.

[189] DAMOISEAU, _La terabdelle ou machine pneumatique operant a volonté
la saignée locale et la revulsion aux principales regions du corps
humains_ (Paris, 1862), 60 pages. See also GAUJOT and SPILLMAN, op. cit.
[note 49], pages 194-195.

[190] L. WECKER, "De la sangsue artificielle (modéle du baron Heurteloup),
et de son emploi dans le traitment des maladies des yeux." _Bulletin
général de thérapeutique médicale et chirurgicale_, volume 62 (1862),
pages 107-116. For price information, see CASWELL, HAZARD & CO. (W. F.
Ford), _Illustrated Catalogue of Surgical Instruments and Appliances_ (New
York, 1874), page 18. An example of Heurteloup's leech as well as a
larger, modified Heurteloup's leech can be found in the collection of the
Armed Forces Institute of Pathology.

[191] SMITH, op. cit. [note 185], page 406; TIEMANN, op. cit. [note 144],
page 116; Patent specifications, U.S. patent 100210. An example of this
artificial leech can be found in the collection of the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology.

[192] TIEMANN, op. cit. [note 144], page 506.

[193] WILLIAM REESE, "Uterine Leech and Aspirator," _Medical Record_,
volume 11 (1876), page 596.

[194] OTTO RAUBENHEIMER, "Leeches--How to Dispense Them," _Journal of the
American Pharmaceutical Association_, volume 12 (1923), page 339.
THORNDIKE, op. cit. [note 3], page 477, notes that in 1927, leeches still
could be had in Boston for 75¢ apiece. In Cleveland they were still
obtainable in the 1950s.

[195] _Dictionnaire usuel de chirurgie et de médicine vetérinaire_, 2
volumes (Paris, 1835-36), articles "Ventouses" and "Sangsues."

[196] Ibid., article "Saignée."

[197] _Encyclopédie méthodique: Médecine_, volume 9 (Paris, 1816), page
478.

[198] _Dictionnaire usuel_, op. cit. [note 195], volume 2, page 605.

[199] WEISS, op. cit. [note 118], page 100, plate 27.

[200] Patent specifications, U.S. patent 6240.

[201] Patent specifications, U.S. patent 236084.




LIST OF TRADE CATALOGS CONSULTED


Aloe, A. S. Company. _Illustrated and Priced Catalogue of Surgical
Instruments, Physicians' Supplies and Hospital Furnishings._ 6th edition.
St. Louis, 1891.

----. _Catalogue of Superior Surgical Instruments and Physicians' and
Surgeons' Supplies._ 6th Edition. St. Louis, 1895.

Becton, Dickinson & Co. _Trade Catalogue of Gold, Silver and Plated
Instruments for Surgeons and Veterinarians._ New York, 1904.

----. [Catalogue.] Rutherford, N.J., 1911.

----. _Illustrated Catalog of Druggists, Surgical, and Veterinary
Specialties._ Rutherford, N.J., 1917.

Caswell, Hazard & Co., W. F. Ford. _Illustrated Catalogue of Surgical
Instruments and Appliances._ New York, 1874.

Ch. Dubois. _Catalogue illustre des instruments de chirurgie._ Paris,
1884.

Charles Lentz & Sons. _Illustrated Catalogue and Price List of Surgical
Instruments._ 3rd edition. Philadelphia, ca. 1888.

Charles Henry Truax. _The Mechanics of Surgery, Comprising Detailed
Descriptions, Illustrations and List of the Instruments, Appliances and
Furniture Necessary in Modern Surgical Arts._ Chicago, 1899.

Codman and Shurtleff. _Illustrated Catalogue of Surgical Instruments and
Appliances._ Boston, 1879.

----. _Illustrated Catalogue of Surgical Instruments and Appliances._
Boston, 1886.

----. _Illustrated Catalogue of Surgical Instruments and Appliances._
Boston, 1890.

Coxeter, J., & Son. _Surgical Instruments Catalogue._ London, 1870.

Down Bros. _Catalogue of Surgical Instruments and Appliances._ London,
1885.

Dubois, Ch. See Ch. Dubois.

Durbin, J., Surgical Supply Co. (Catalogue.) Denver, 1929.

Feick Bros. _Illustrated Catalogue and Price List of Surgical
Instruments._ Pittsburgh, 1896.

Fred Haslam & Co. _Standard Surgical Instruments._ Brooklyn, 1922.

Fr. Lindstaedt. _Illustrirter Catalog chirurgischer Instrumente._ Bremen,
1882.

George Tiemann & Co. _American Armamentarium Chirurgicum._ New York, 1879.

----. _The American Armamentarium Chirurgicum._ New York, 1882.

----. _The American Armamentarium Chirurgicum._ New York, 1889.

Haslam & Co. See Fred Haslam & Co.

John Reynders & Co. _Illustrated Catalogue and Price List of Surgical
Instruments, Orthopaedical Apparatus, Trusses, etc._ 5th edition. New
York, 1884.

John Weiss. _An Account of Inventions and Improvements Made by John
Weiss._ 2nd edition. London, 1831.

John Weiss & Son. _Weiss and Son's Catalogue of Surgical Instruments for
1836._ London, 1836.

----. _A Catalogue of Opthalmic Instruments and Appliances, etc._ London,
1863.

----. _A Catalogue of Opthalmic Instruments and Appliances._ Manchester,
1898.

Kennedy, J. E., & Co. _Illustrated Catalogue of Surgical Instruments and
of Allied Lines._ New York, 1917.

Kny-Scheerer Co., The. _Illustrated Catalogue of Surgical Instruments._ 3
volumes. New York, 1899.

----. _Illustrated Catalogue of Surgical Instruments._ 16th edition. New
York, no date (20th century).

Krohne & Sesemann. _Catalogue of Surgical & Orthopedic Instruments._
London, 1878.

Lentz & Sons. See Charles Lentz & Sons.

Lindstaedt, Fr. See Fr. Lindstaedt.

Maison Charrière, Robert et Collin, Successeurs. [Catalogue.] Paris, 1867.

----. _Catalogue générale illustre._ Paris, 1879.

----. _Catalogue générale illustre._ Paris, 1885.

----. _Catalogue générale illustre._ Paris, 1890.

----. _Catalogue générale illustre._ Paris, 1894.

Maison Luër (H. Wulfing-Luër). _Catalogue générale Illustre._ Paris, ca.
1904.

Mathay Hospital Supply Co. _Surgical Instruments._ Los Angeles, ca. 1937.

Maison Mathieu. _Arsenal Chirurgical._ 15th edition. Paris, ca. 1905.

Matthews Bros. _A Catalogue of Surgical Instruments._ London, ca. 1875.

Maw, S., Son & Thompson's. _Surgical Instruments, etc._ London, 1882.

Obstetrical Society of London. _Catalogue and Report of Obstetrical and
Other Instruments Exhibited at the Converzatione of the Obstetrical
Society of London_, 1867.

Pittsburgh Physicians' Supply Co. _Illustrated Catalogue._ Pittsburgh,
1908.

Reiner, H. _Catalog medicinisch-chirurgischer Instrumente und Apparate._
Vienna, 1885.

Reynders, John, & Co. See John Reynders & Co.

Robert et Collin. See Maison Charrière.

Scheffelin, W. H., & Co. _General Prices Current._ New York, 1887.

Sharp and Smith. _Surgical Instruments._ 16th edition. Chicago, ca. 1892.

Shepard & Dudley. _Descriptive Catalogue._ New York, 1873.

Tiemann, George, & Co. See George Tiemann & Co.

Truax, Charles Henry. See Charles Henry Truax.

Truax, Green & Co. _Price List of Physicians Supplies._ 6th edition.
Chicago, 1893.

Weiss & Son. See John Weiss & Son.

W. H. Wigmore. _Surgical, Dental and Veterinary Instruments._
Philadelphia, no date (pre-1895).

W. Windler. _Preis-Verzeichniss der Fabrik chirurgischer Instrumente und
Bandagen._ Berlin, 1888.




Figures 26-124


[Illustration: FIGURE 26.--Reproduction of a Greek vase showing a 5th
century B.C. medical "clinic." Original is in the Louvre. Patient is about
to undergo venesection in the arm. Bronze bleeding bowl catches the blood.
(NMHT 233055 [M-9618]; SI photo 73-4216.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 27.--Bloodletting man from a New York almanac, 1710.
(From Daniel Leeds, _The American Almanack for the Year of Christian
Account, 1710_. Photo courtesy of the Library of Congress.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 28.--Phlebotomy manikin in Johannes de Ketham
_Fascicules Medicinae_. Venice, 1495. (From the Dibner Library of the
History of Science and Technology, NMHT.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 29.--Lionel Wepfer, a 17th century traveler,
described the Indian method of bloodletting as follows: "The patient is
seated on a stone in the river, and one with a small bow shoots little
arrows into the naked body of the patient, up and down, shooting them as
fast as he can and not missing any part. But the arrows are guarded, so
that they penetrate no farther than we commonly thrust our lancets; and if
by chance they hit a vein which is full of wind, and the blood spurts out
a little, they will leap and skip about, shewing many antic gestures, by
way of rejoicing and triumph." (From Lionel Wepfer, _A New Voyage and
Description of the Isthmus of America_, London, 1699. Photo courtesy of
NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 30.--Flint lancets used by native doctors in
Alaska, 1880s. (Anthropology Catalog 127758; SI photo 73-4208).]

[Illustration: FIGURE 31.--Instruments and technique of phlebotomy: Fig. 1
shows an arm about to be bled. A ligature has been applied to make the
veins swell. The common veins bled--cephalic, basilic, and median--are
illustrated. Fig. 2 shows several types of incisions. Fig. 3 is a fleam,
Fig. 4 a spring lancet, and Fig. 5 a "French lancet." (From Laurence
Heister, _A General System of Surgery_, London, 1759. Photo courtesy of
NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 32.--Replica of a barber-surgeon's signboard dated
1623. Top left corner shows a phlebotomy being performed. (NMHT 215690
[M-7343]; SI photo 44681.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 33.--Instruments for bleeding from the arm, 1708: A,
a serviette to cover the patient's clothing; B, a cloth ligature to place
around the arm; C, a lancet case; D, a lancet; E and F, candles to give
light for the operation; G, a baton or staff for the patient to hold; H,
I, and K, basins for collecting blood; L and M, compresses; N, a bandage
to be placed over the compress; P, _eau de la Reine d'Hongrie_ that can be
used instead of vinegar to revive the patient if he faints; Q, a glass of
urine and water for the patient to drink when he revives; R, S, T,
implements for washing the hands and the lancets after the operation.
(From Pierre Dionis, _Cours d'opérations de chirurgie demontrées au Jardin
Royal_, Paris, 1708. Photo courtesy of NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 34.--Two 18th century trade cards advertising
lancets. (Photo courtesy of Wellcome Institute, London.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 35.--Lithograph, London, 1804, showing a phlebotomy.
(On loan from Armed Forces Institute of Pathology; SI photo 42579.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 36.--18th-century cutler's illustrations for making
lancets. Note the variations in the shape of the lancet blades. (From Jean
Jacques Perret, _L'Art du Coutelier_, Paris, 1772. Photo courtesy of
NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 37.--Thumb lancet, 16th century. (From Leonardo
Botallo, _De Curatione per Sanguinis Missionem_, Antwerp, 1583. Photo
courtesy of NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 38.--Typical 19th-century thumb lancets, engraved
"S. Maw, London." (NMHT 139980 [M-4151]; SI photo 73-4230.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 39.--Typical 19th-century brass spring lancet and
case. The case is stamped "Traunichtessticht," which translates, "Watch
out, it stabs." (NMHT 308730.10; SI photo 74-4088.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 40.--Spring lancets, dated 1775. (Held by Rhode
Island Medical Society; SI photo 73-5762.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 41.--Fleam, 16th century. (From Leonardo Botallo,
_De Curatione per Sanguinis Missionem_, Antwerp, 1583. Photo courtesy of
NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 42.--Hand-forged fleam with hand-carved wooden case,
17th and 18th century, Swiss or Tyrolean. (NMHT 233570 [M-9666]; SI photo
59139-E.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 43.--Fleam made by E. Dalman, London. Note unusual
curved shape to blade. (From the original in the Wellcome Museum by
courtesy of the Trustees, photo L. 1346.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 44.--Silver spring lancet in case. Case is lined
with white silk and rose plush and has a gold leaf border. (NMHT
321687.02; SI photo 76-7752.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 45.--Unusual spring lancet with extra blade,
engraved "M.A. Prizzi," 18th century. (NMHT 320033.06; SI photo
76-7763.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 46.--Unusual spring lancet in hand-carved wooden
case, 18th century. Note the large blade and blade guard regulated by a
screw. (NMHT 321.697.12; SI photo 76-9114.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 47.--George Tiemann & Co.'s spring lancet, late 19th
century. (NMHT 163863 [M-5141]; SI photo 73-5644.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 48.--Patent model spring lancet, patented by J.W.W.
Gordon in 1857. Back view. (NMHT 89797 [M-4298]; SI photo 73-10319.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 49.--Patent model spring lancet, patented by J.W.W.
Gordon in 1857. Front view. (NMHT 89797 [M-4298]; SI photo 73-10318.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 50.--Wet cupping for a headache. (From Frederik
Dekkers, _Exercitationes Practicae Circa Medendi Methodum_, Leyden, 1694.
Photo courtesy of NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 51.--Dry cupping for sciatica. (From Frederik
Dekkers, _Exercitationes Practicae Circa Medendi Methodum_, Leyden, 1694.
Photo courtesy of NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 52.--Horn cups used in Egypt in the 16th century.
(From Prosper Alphinus, _Medicina Aegyptorum_, Leyden, 1719. Photo
courtesy of NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 53.--Horn cup used in the Niger Republic of West
Africa in the 1960s. (NMHT 270023 [M-11998]; SI photo 73-5643.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 54.--Replica of a Greek votive tablet found in the
remains of the Temple of Aesculapius. Pictured are two metal cups and a
set of scalpels. (NMHT 233055 [M-9617]; SI photo 73-4217.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 55.--Egyptian spouted cupping cups, 16th century.
(From Prosper Alpinus, _Medicina Aegyptorum_, Leyden, 1719. Photo courtesy
of NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 56.--Cupping instruments illustrated by Dionis,
1708: A, cups made of horn; B, lamp for exhausting air; C, fleam for
making scarifications; D, horns with holes at the tip for mouth suction;
E, balls of wax to close the holes in the horn cups; F, G, glass cups; H,
candle to light the tow or the small candles; I, tow; K, small candles on
a card which is placed over the scarifications and lit in order to exhaust
the cup; L, lancet for making scarifications; M, scarifications; N,
plaster to place on the wound. (From Pierre Dionis, _Cours d'opérations de
chirurgie demontrées au Jardin Royal_, Paris, 1708. Photo courtesy of
NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 57.--Teapot lamp, 18th century. (NMHT 199536
[M-6691]; SI photo 73-4218.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 58.--13th-century Arabic cupping scene. (From a
manuscript held by the Freer Gallery. SI photo 43757-J.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 59.--Paré's scarificator, 16th century. (From _The
Workes of that Famous Chirurgeon, Ambrose Parey_, translated by Thomas
Johnson, London, 1649. Photo courtesy of NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 60.--Square scarificator, engraved "J.T./Wien," late
18th-early 19th century. Vienna was an early center for the making of
scarificators. (NMHT 218383 [M-9257]; SI photo 73-4212.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 61.--An early illustration of the scarificator. Also
pictured are a fleam for making scarifications, the pattern of
scarifications, a metal cup, and a leech. (From Laurence Heister, _A
General System of Surgery_, 7th edition, London, 1759. SI photo 73-4182.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 62.--Square scarificator taken apart. (NMHT 152130
[M-4771]; SI photo 76-9113.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 63.--Cupping and bleeding instruments, 1780.
Illustrated are spring lancets, thumb lancets, cups, a square scarificator
with pointed blades, and a lamp in which animal fat was burned. Figs. 16,
17, and 18 are unrelated to bloodletting. (From J. A. Brambilla,
_Instrumentarium Chirurgicum Viennense_, Vienna, 1780. Photo courtesy of
NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 64.--Set of scarificator blades. Each row of
blades may be inserted in place of those in need of cleaning or repair.
(From the original in the Wellcome Museum by courtesy of the Trustees.
Photo L. 2418.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 65.--An early illustration of the octagonal
scarificator, 1801. This plate also includes one of the earliest
illustrations of the syringe applied to cupping cups. (From Benjamin Bell,
_A System of Surgery_, 7th edition, volume 3, Edinburgh, 1801. SI photo
73-5181.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 66.--An unusual octagonal scarificator made by
Domenico Pica in 1793. The blade cover is attached by a hinge, and the
turnkey on top raises and lowers the entire interior chassis in order to
regulate depth of cut. (NMHT 320033.01; SI photo 76-7742.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 67.--Scarificator marked Dom{o} Morett, 1813. (From
the original in the Wellcome Museum, by courtesy of the Trustees. Wellcome
R2909/1936; photo L 1159.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 68.--Cupping set with base handled torch, 8 blade
scarificator, 4 blade scarificator for cupping on temples, 2 cups and
alcohol bottle. (NMHT, SI photo 76-9119.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 69.--Calling card, ca. 1860. (SI photo.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 70.--Cupping set manufactured by Charrière of
Paris, mid-19th century. Note the tubing used to connect the pump to the
cups, and the circular scarificator with blades cutting in opposite
directions. (NMHT 302606.007; SI photo 75-090.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 71.--W. D. Hooper's patent cupping apparatus with
tubular blades. (From patent specifications, U.S. patent no. 68985. SI
photo 73-5193.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 72.--Demours' device for combining cup, scarifier
and exhausting apparatus. (From Samuel Bayfield, _A Treatise on Practical
Cupping_, London, 1823. Photo courtesy of the NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 73.--R. J. Dodd's patent cupping apparatus. Figs. 4
and 5 are the tubes for cupping the uterus. Fig. 3 is the flexible match
scarifier. (From patent specifications, U.S. patent no. 3537. SI photo
73-5192.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 74.--Circular scarificator. (NMHT 320933.05; SI
photo 76-7746.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 75.--Scarificator for vaccination. Mallam's, made by
Arnold & Sons, London. Patent 1406. (From the original in the Wellcome
Museum by courtesy of the Trustees. Wellcome 13557; photo 125/1960.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 76.--Patent model of Tiemann's scarificator. (NMHT
89797 [M-4289]; SI photo 76-9115.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 77.--Patent model of Leypoldt's scarificator, 1847.
(NMHT 89797 [M-4290]; SI photo 73-4213.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 78.--Patent model of Leypoldt's scarificator, 1851.
(NMHT 89797 [M-4293]; SI photo 76-9112.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 79.--Baunscheidt's _Lebenswecker_, a
counter-irritation device. (NMHT 287885 [M-12936]; SI photo 76-7751.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 80.--Depurator patented by A. F. Jones, 1866. (From
patent specifications, reissue 2276. SI photo.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 81.--Junod's boot. (On loan from the Armed Forces
Institute of Pathology. SI photo 73-7885.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 82.--Woman cupping her breast. (From Maw, Son &
Thompson, _Surgeon's Instruments, etc._, London, 1882. SI photo
76-13540.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 83.--Glass breast pump with spout for self
application. (NMHT 260557 [M-11467]; SI photo 76-7759.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 84.--Goodyear's patent breast pump, manufactured by
the Union India Rubber Co. (NMHT 252497 [M-10510]; SI photo 76-7762.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 85.--Brier's Hyperemia Apparatus, 1930s. (From
Matthay Hospital Supply Co., _Surgical Instruments_, Los Angeles, 1937(?).
SI photo.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 86.--Patent for a complex cupping pump, J. A.
Maxam, 1916. (From patent specifications, U.S. patent 1179129. SI photo
73-5186.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 87.--Heinrich Stern's phlebostasis chair, 1915.
(From Heinrich Stern, _Theory and Practice of Bloodletting_, New York,
1915. SI photo.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 88.--Old-fashioned cupping in a German physician's
office, Chicago, Illinois, 1904. (SI photo 45726-B.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 89.--A man employing leeches to reduce his weight,
16th century. (From P. Boaistuau, _Histoire Podigieuses_, Paris, 1567.
Photo courtesy of NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 90.--Osborne's instrument for inserting leeches into
the rectum. (From J. Osborne, "Observations on Local Bloodletting,"
_Dublin Journal of Medical and Chemical Science_, volume 3 (1833). Photo
courtesy of NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 91.--Two leeches (_Hirudo medicinalis_) preserved in
plastic. (Anthropology Catalog no. 143,077; SI photo 73-4233.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 92.--Satire on the theories of Broussais. The
caption read, "But, I haven't a drop of blood left in my veins! No matter,
another fifty leeches." (Undated print. Photo courtesy of NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 93.--Woman using leeches, 17th century. (From
Guillaume van den Bossche, _Historica Medica_, Brussels, 1639. Photo
courtesy of NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 94.--Heurteloup's leech. (From George Tiemann & Co.,
_American Armamentarium Chirurgicum_, New York, 1889. SI photo 76-13541.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 95.--Tiemann & Co.'s patent artificial leech. (From
George Tiemann & Co., _American Armamentarium Chirurgicum_, New York,
1889. SI photo 76-13541.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 96.--Reese's uterine leech. (From George Tiemann &
Co., _American Armamentarium Chirurgicum_, New York, 1889. SI photo
76-13539.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 97.--Sarlandière's bdellometer. Fig. 13 and Fig. 14
are a teapot lamp and a glass for measuring the blood taken in cupping.
All the other figures illustrate variations on the bdellometer. Fig. 19
and Fig. 20 are attachments for bleeding the internal membranes. (From
Sarlandière, "Ventouse," _Dictionnaire des sciences médicales_, volume 57,
1821. Photo courtesy of NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 98.--An artificial leech. Note the three blades on
the scarificator that simulate the triangular puncture of the leech.
(NMHT; SI photo 76-9120.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 99.--An 18th-century cutler's illustration of
veterinary instruments. Shown are a spring lancet and a fleam. Knives and
hooks were often added to the bloodletting blades in foldout fleams. (From
Jean Jacques Perret, _L'Art du Coutelier_, Paris, 1772. Photo courtesy of
the NLM.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 100.--Fleam with brass shield, 18th-19th century.
(NMHT 121573 [M-3462]; SI photo 73-4206.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 101.--Fleam with horn shield, 19th century. (NMHT
321697.05; SI photo 76-7758.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 102.--Phlebotomy knife by Rodgers & Co., London.
(Loan no. 316478; SI photo 76-9108.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 103.--Unusual shaped brass spring lancet set by a
sliding catch and released by a release lever. (NMHT 321697.11; SI photo
76-7754.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 104.--Brass spring lancet that is set by pulling on
the string and released by pushing upon the button. (NMHT 321697.07; SI
photo 76-7750.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 105.--Spring lancet. (NMHT 112827; SI photo
73-4235.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 106.--Scarificator, 12 blades. (NMHT 99749 [M-2336];
SI photo 76-7744.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 107.--Temple scarificator with case. (NMHT 233056
[M-9639]; SI photo 76-7745.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 108.--Persian cupping glass, 12th century. (NMHT
207389 [M-6836]; SI photo 73-4205.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 109.--Cupping cups, glass. (NMHT 308730.09; SI photo
74-4087.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 110.--Persian cupping cup and razor. (NMHT
320033.07; SI photo 76-7749.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 111.--Brass cup (1) and pewter cups (2). (NMHT
321697.22 and NMHT 207399 [M-6829 and M-6830]; SI photo 76-9109.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 112.--Cupping set. (NMHT 321697.21; SI photo
76-7747.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 113.--Breast pump. (NMHT 220170 [M-7435]; SI photo
76-7761.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 114.--Leech jar, minus top. (NMHT 201821 [M-6712];
SI photo 73-4232.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 115.--Staffordshire leech jars. (NMHT 321697.18 &
.19; SI photo 76-7765.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 116.--Leech cage. (NMHT 1977.0576.02; SI photo
77-13984.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 117.--Veterinary fleam. (NMHT 218383 [M-9255]; SI
photo 61125-A.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 118.--Veterinary fleam. (NMHT 233570 [M-9665]; SI
photo 59139-H.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 119.--Veterinary spring lancet. (NMHT 321697.08; SI
photo 76-7756.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 120.--Veterinary spring lancet. (NMHT 321697.09; SI
photo 76-7755.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 121.--Spring lancet, 18th century. (NMHT 321697.10;
SI photo 76-7753.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 122.--Spring lancet, 19th century. (NMHT
1977.0576.01; SI photo 77-13961.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 123.--Counter-irritation device. (NMHT 89797
[M-4305]; SI photo 72-11274.)]

[Illustration: FIGURE 124.--Barber surgeon's set, 18th century. (NMHT
199536 [M-6684-6692]; SI photo 73-4207.)]





REQUIREMENTS FOR SMITHSONIAN SERIES PUBLICATION


=Manuscripts= intended for series publication receive substantive review
within their originating Smithsonian museums or offices and are submitted
to the Smithsonian Institution Press with approval of the appropriate
museum authority on Form SI-36. Requests for special treatment--use of
color, foldouts, casebound covers, etc.--require, on the same form, the
added approval of designated committees or museum directors.

=Review= of manuscripts and art by the Press for requirements of series
format and style, completeness and clarity of copy, and arrangement of all
material, as outlined below, will govern, within the judgment of the
Press, acceptance or rejection of the manuscripts and art.

=Copy= must be typewritten, double-spaced, on one side of standard white
bond paper, with 1-1/4" margins, submitted as ribbon copy (not carbon or
xerox), in loose sheets (not stapled or bound), and accompanied by
original art. Minimum acceptable length is 30 pages.

Front matter (preceding the text) should include: =title page= with only
title and author and no other information, =abstract page= with
author/title/series/etc., following the established format, =table of
contents= with indents reflecting the heads and structure of the paper.

=First page of text= should carry the title and author at the top of the
page and an unnumbered footnote at the bottom consisting of author's name
and professional mailing address.

=Center heads= of whatever level should be typed with initial caps of
major words, with extra space above and below the head, but with no other
preparation (such as all caps or underline). Run-in paragraph heads should
use period/dashes or colons as necessary.

=Tabulations= within text (lists of data, often in parallel columns) can
be typed on the text page where they occur, but they should not contain
rules or formal, numbered table heads.

=Formal tables= (numbered, with table heads, boxheads, stubs, rules)
should be submitted as camera copy, but the author must contact the series
section of the Press for editorial attention and preparation assistance
before final typing of this matter.

=Taxonomic keys= in natural history papers should use the alined-couplet
form in the zoology and paleobiology series and the multi-level indent
form in the botany series. If cross-referencing is required between key
and text, do not include page references within the key, but number the
keyed-out taxa with their corresponding heads in the text.

=Synonymy= in the zoology and paleobiology series must use the short form
(taxon, author, year:page), with a full reference at the end of the paper
under "Literature Cited." For the botany series, the long form (taxon,
author, abbreviated journal or book title, volume, page, year, with no
reference in the "Literature Cited") is optional.

=Footnotes=, when few in number, whether annotative or bibliographic,
should be typed at the bottom of the text page on which the reference
occurs. Extensive notes must appear at the end of the text in a notes
section. If bibliographic footnotes are required, use the short form
(author/brief title/page) with the full reference in the bibliography.

=Text-reference system= (author/year/page within the text, with the full
reference in a "Literature Cited" at the end of the text) must be used in
place of bibliographic footnotes in all scientific series and is strongly
recommended in the history and technology series: "(Jones, 1910:122)" or
"... Jones (1910:122)."

=Bibliography=, depending upon use, is termed "References," "Selected
References," or "Literature Cited." Spell out book, journal, and article
titles, using initial caps in all major words. For capitalization of
titles in foreign languages, follow the national practice of each
language. Underline (for italics) book and journal titles. Use the
colon-parentheses system for volume/number/page citations: "10(2):5-9."
For alinement and arrangement of elements, follow the format of the series
for which the manuscript is intended.

=Legends= for illustrations must not be attached to the art nor included
within the text but must be submitted at the end of the manuscript--with
as many legends typed, double-spaced, to a page as convenient.

=Illustrations= must not be included within the manuscript but must be
submitted separately as original art (not copies). All illustrations
(photographs, line drawings, maps, etc.) can be intermixed throughout the
printed text. They should be termed =Figures= and should be numbered
consecutively. If several "figures" are treated as components of a single
larger figure, they should be designated by lowercase italic letters
(underlined in copy) on the illustration, in the legend, and in text
references: "Figure 9+b+." If illustrations are intended to be printed
separately on coated stock following the text, they should be termed
=Plates= and any components should be lettered as in figures: "Plate
9+b+." Keys to any symbols within an illustration should appear on the art
and not in the legend.

=A few points of style=: (1) Do not use periods after such abbreviations
as "mm, ft, yds, USNM, NNE, AM, BC." (2) Use hyphens in spelled-out
fractions: "two-thirds." (3) Spell out numbers "one" through "nine" in
expository text, but use numerals in all other cases if possible. (4) Use
the metric system of measurement, where possible, instead of the English
system. (5) Use the decimal system, where possible, in place of fractions.
(6) Use day/month/year sequence for dates: "9 April 1976." (7) For months
in tabular listings or data sections, use three-letter abbreviations with
no periods: "Jan, Mar, Jun," etc.

=Arrange and paginate sequentially EVERY sheet of manuscript=--including
ALL front matter and ALL legends, etc., at the back of the text--in the
following order: (1) title page, (2) abstract, (3) table of contents, (4)
foreword and/or preface, (5) text, (6) appendixes, (7) notes, (8)
glossary, (9) bibliography, (10) index, (11) legends.




Transcriber's Notes:

Passages in italics are indicated by _underscore_.

Passages in bold are indicated by =bold=.

Underlined passages are indicated by +underline+.

Superscripted letters are shown in {superscript}

Punctuation has been corrected without note.

The following misprints have been corrected:
  missing "a" added (Abstract)
  "sacrificator" corrected to "scarificator" (page 2)
  "Ristelheuber" corrected to "Ristelhueber" (page 14)
  "Pheonix" corrected to "Phoenix" (page 14)
  missing note marker 127 added
  "canula" corrected to "cannula" (page 38)
  "rachet" corrected to "ratchet" (page 41)
  "ocilloscope" corrected to "oscilloscope" (page 41)
  "NHMT" corrected to "NMHT" (page 44)
  "Divison" corrected to "Division" (page 47)
  "Pennyslvania" corrected to "Pennsylvania" (page 48)
  "Federick" corrected to "Frederick" (page 48)
  "has has" corrected to "has (page 48)
  "sacrificator" corrected to "scarificator" (page 48)
  "Sacrificator" corrected to "Scarificator" (page 48)
  "cylindical" corrected to "cylindrical" (page 53)
  "Septemper" corrected to "September" (Note 3)
  "Hypochrondriasis" corrected to "Hypochondriasis" (Note 80)
  "chirurguscher" corrected to "chirurgischer" (page 63)

"Joseph-Frédéric-Benoit Charrière (1803-1973)" is presented as in the
original text.

Other than the corrections listed above, printer's inconsistencies in
spelling and hyphenation usage have been retained.