The College of Physicians of Philadelphia: A Legacy of Medical Advancement and Historical Preservation
The College of Physicians of Philadelphia, a venerable institution with a rich history, stands as a testament to the evolution of medicine in the United States. Founded in 1787, it is the oldest professional medical organization in the country, earning the distinction of a National Historic Landmark as the "Birthplace of American Medicine." Throughout its existence, the College has been dedicated to "advancing the cause of health while upholding the ideals and heritage of medicine." This mission is carried out through its Center for Medical History, encompassing the Mütter Museum, the Historical Medical Library, and the F.C. Wood Institute for the History of Medicine.
A Foundation of Medical Excellence
The College of Physicians of Philadelphia emerged from the vision of prominent physicians, including Edinburgh graduates Dr. John Morgan and Dr. William Shippen Jr., along with Benjamin Rush. Inspired by the Royal Colleges of Physicians in Edinburgh and London, they sought to establish a society that would regulate the medical profession, foster medical research and education, and provide a sense of cohesion and prestige to the medical community in Philadelphia, which was then the center of American medicine. Fellows were elected based on their contributions to American medicine and society, counting among their ranks such notable figures as surgeon Samuel D. Gross and neurologist Silas Weir Mitchell.
In its early years, the College addressed challenges facing Philadelphia physicians, particularly infectious diseases like yellow fever, cholera, typhoid fever, and tuberculosis. During the yellow fever outbreak of 1793, the College actively participated in debates concerning the disease's origin, spread, and treatment, advocating for quarantine and sanitary measures.
Initially, the College rented rooms from the American Philosophical Society, using the space to develop an extensive library, a museum of medical specimens, lecture series, and meetings for the exchange of medical knowledge. A substantial endowment from College fellow Thomas Dent Mütter enabled the construction of its first permanent home in 1863.
The Historical Medical Library: A Treasure Trove of Medical Knowledge
Established in 1788, the Historical Medical Library served as Philadelphia's central medical library for over 150 years, catering to the needs of medical schools, hospitals, physicians, and other health professionals. Today, it stands as an independent library dedicated to the history of medicine and the medical humanities, serving scholars, health professionals, students, and writers.
Read also: Comprehensive Ranking: Women's College Basketball
The Library's collection is vast and diverse, containing over 250,000 books and journals published before 1966, including more than 400 incunabula (editions printed before 1501) and over 12,000 pre-1801 imprints. The Library boasts strong holdings in various medical specialties, including anatomy, surgery, dermatology, neurology, embryology, pathology, and ophthalmology, with particularly rich collections in homeopathy, tuberculosis, and yellow fever.
The manuscript collection comprises over one million items, including medieval illuminated manuscripts, 18th- and 19th-century student lecture notes, and the papers of prominent figures in American medicine, such as Robley Dunglison, George Bacon Wood, S. Weir Mitchell, Joseph Leidy, William Williams Keen, Edward Bell Krumbhaar, and Francis Clark Wood. The Library also houses the archives of numerous medical societies and institutions, including the American Association for the History of Medicine and the College of Physicians in Philadelphia itself.
The Prints and Photographs collection contains over 100,000 cards representing reproductions in books and journals, as well as original prints and photographs, including the Samuel B. Sturgis collection and the Faber Family collection of medical illustrations. Special Collections include the William H. Helfand-Samuel X Radbill Medical Bookplate Collection and the Samuel D. Gross Library of Surgery.
The Library's online catalog provides access to its holdings, while the Sturgis Collection of Medical Images database and the Historical Medical Digital Library (HMDL) offer further digital resources.
Guides to the Collection include:
Read also: Phoenix Suns' New Center
- A Catalogue of the Manuscripts and Archives of the Library of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia (1983)
- Lisabeth M. Holloway, "The Historical Collections of the Library…" in Transactions and Studies of the College of Physicians of Philadelphia, 4th ser. 41 (1974): 151-162
- Thomas A. Horrocks, "As Far as the Eye Can See: Ophthalmology in the Historical Collections of the Library…", T & S, 5th ser. 11 (1989): 37-49
- Horrocks and Jack Eckert, "Manuscript Resources in Neurology, Neurosurgery, and Psychiatry in the Historical Collections of the Library…", T & S, 5th ser.
The Mütter Museum: A Window into Medical Anomalies and History
Established in 1858, the Mütter Museum is renowned for its collection of anatomical and pathological specimens, wax models, and medical instruments. The museum's origins can be traced to Dr. Thomas Dent Mütter, who donated his collection of anatomical and pathological specimens to the College of Physicians in 1856, along with an endowment to construct a fireproof building to house the collection.
The Mütter Museum's exhibits offer a glimpse into the history of medicine and the human body, showcasing specimens ranging from the Hyrtl Skull Collection to the plaster cast of conjoined twins Chang and Eng. The museum also houses sections of Albert Einstein’s brain, preserved in glass slides.
The Mütter Museum has faced scrutiny for its displays of human remains, including ethical considerations regarding consent and the acquisition of "collected" bodies. The museum has made efforts to address these concerns by updating label information and working with disability consultants.
The F.C. Wood Institute for the History of Medicine
The Francis Clark Wood Institute for the History of Medicine was established in 1976 to promote the rich historical resources of the College's Historical Medical Library and the Mütter Museum to the scholarly community. It supports research and scholarship in the history of medicine through fellowships, programs, and events.
Navigating Sensitive Issues and Promoting Inclusivity
The Historical Medical Library acknowledges the presence of items that reflect the biases and prejudices of their original owners, including materials related to racist medical beliefs such as eugenics and anthropodermic books made from human skin. The Library is committed to addressing these issues with transparency and sensitivity, aiming to provide context and promote critical engagement with the history of medicine. The library intends to be frank about problematic medical practices.
Read also: About Grossmont Community College
The Library also recognizes the underrepresentation of physicians of color in its collections, reflecting the historical exclusion of Black physicians from American medical schools. Efforts are being made to address this imbalance and highlight the contributions of BIPOC healthcare professionals, such as Suzie King Taylor, Carlos Juan Finlay, and Bernardo A. Houssay.
Expanding Access and Engagement
The College of Physicians of Philadelphia is committed to expanding access to its collections and resources, offering online catalogs, digital collections, and weekend hours at the Historical Medical Library. The Library welcomes researchers from diverse backgrounds, including medical history students, artists, genealogists, and researchers of printing history, photography, and architecture.
The King's Affliction: An Artifact of the Regency Crisis
The Historical Medical Library holds an interesting artifact of this period resides in the Historical Medical Library (HML): a pamphlet written by Philip Withers, a former chaplain and courtier in the household of George III. Its over long title can be summarized History of the Royal Malady.
History of the Royal Malady features accounts of conversations supposedly overheard by Withers in the palace. George III was a fairly popular king, give or take the loss of some American colonies. After this loss, the king turned more to domestic affairs and left decisions of state to his prime minister, William Pitt the Younger. The king earned the affectionate nickname “Farmer George” for his interest in the minutia of his agricultural nation. He kept height charts for all fifteen of his children and never took a mistress. In such a situation, the king’s son could only respond with extravagance. The prince of Wales was in many ways the quintessential spoiled rich kid - accruing gambling debts, debts to clothiers, continually appealing to Parliament for a raise in his allowance. But he was also known as a quick wit, a talented mimic, and a lively conversationalist in opposition to his somewhat dour father. Thus disposed, the prince of Wales started hanging out with Charles Fox, leader of the Whig party that was largely opposed to everything the king did. We have on one side the Tory party, as represented by Pitt the Younger, advocating the supremacy of the Church of England and the king’s prerogative to do pretty much what he wanted. On the other side, the Whig Party, led by Charles Fox, were standard bearers of Enlightenment-influenced ideas of rule with consent of the governed. These are the broad outlines. When the Regency Crisis arrived, the Whigs advocated that, as the heir to the throne, their creature, the prince of Wales, be automatically named regent. The Tories countered that, sure, the prince of Wales could be named regent, or it could be literally anybody else, and the decision is up to Parliament alone. Now, although George III was a conscientious bridegroom, his brothers were not. They married unsuitable women - Catholics and divorcees and commoners. This led to the Royal Marriage Act of 1772, whereby members of the royal family could marry only with the approval of the king. It was especially important to keep them from marrying Catholics because the 1701 Act of Settlement, which united England and Scotland, barred Catholics from the throne (this included queens). What’s a young prince to do when he’s run out of middle fingers to hurl at his father? Marry a Catholic widow in secret of course. Withers describes himself as “Senior Page of the Presence” with rooms adjoining those of the royal family. Much of the pamphlet consists of conversations overheard through latticed spyholes like in a licentious costume drama. In the first section, Withers relates a story, which he claims to have witness firsthand, wherein the king addresses a tree as though it were the King of Prussia, vigorously shaking the tree’s branches as if it were a person’s hand. Withers relates another story where the king is riding in a coach with his daughters when he turns to the Princess Charlotte, and says, “Will you give me leave to *?” with the implication of masturbation. Later, our pamphleteer is himself attacked when he is slow to answer the king’s questions. There is something here about the cultural relativism of mental illness. Were a Roman Emperor to behave sexually badly and beat up his servants, would that register as mental illness? It’s the king’s physicians who come in for the worst of it. The king tells his physicians to dance. They decline. The most memorable story in Withers’ pamphlet requires some background. A cloaca is a bird’s all-purpose orifice for reproduction and excrement. The Cloaca Maxima was the terminus of the Roman sewer system, overseen by the goddess Cloacina. One day, Withers writes, when “His majesty has lately propitiated the Goddess by a copious sacrifice,” the king gave his physicians a good clock to the face, fetched his overflowing chamber pot, and dumped the contents on the poor physician’s head. Withers’ account of the king’s derangement makes it far more severe than other sources. Yet his intention was not to paint the king as an invalid and so argue for a regency. It was to depict Charles Fox and Maria Fitzherbert as schemers, taking advantage of the king’s illness to impose themselves into power. One night, after bidding the royal family good night, Withers writes, “I withdraw to my apartment. Curiosity, however, urged me to the screen, that from a slight aperture I might view her ladyship…The Prince again enfolded her Ladyship and claimed an intercourse of wedded rights. Yet Withers’ recollection of this conversations continues past this withdrawal. The prince mentions that Lady Fitzherbert has been offered a stipend if she will withdraw to a convent. The Lady is adamant that although raised Catholic she is now a practicing Protestant. In addition to these conversations, the pamphlet includes one Withers supposedly overheard between the Bishop of Canterbury and someone identified as Lord Cynic. This is a pretty sick burn, but Withers’ intention here is to depict the two participants in this conversation as the Bad Guys. Withers’ own inflammatory handbill soon landed him in hot water. The pamphlet was supposed to be published by Jared Ridgway, known as a Whig partisan. Although not all partisan publishers were in direct contact with, or in the pay of, the party itself, many of them were. In a later pamphlet, Withers tells the story of being summoned to a meeting with Ridgway and the mysterious D., sometimes thought to be Maria Fitzherbert, sometimes the prince of Wales himself. The mysterious D. offers Withers a reward if he will withdraw his pamphlet. Without Ridgway’s cooperation, History of the Royal Malady saw very little distribution. The suppressed pamphlet was a available at the author’s house - and nowhere else. However, the story of Withers’ imprisonment for libel was followed closely by Tory newspaper The World. In prison, where Withers wrote [-], his rhetoric grew more pointed. Withers claims not to mind that the prince of Wales is married to a Catholic, but that parliament does mind very much, and Withers cares what parliament thinks. This is rather unconvincing. Though his rhetoric toward the prince of Wales grew more direct, still Withers cannot bring himself to blame the prince more than those who corrupted him. While parliament was arguing who had the authority to appoint a regent, the king recovered. This may be owing to the work of Dr. Wallis, whose slightly more modern approach to mental health was depicted by Ian Holm in *The Madness of George III*. 1789 also saw the outbreak of the French Revolution. There is speculation by historians that, if the Regency Crisis occurred a few years later, George III would have been replaced promptly by a regent. The whole brouhaha permanently stained the reputation of the prince of Wales and Charles Fox, who were seen as taking advantage of the king’s illness in order to seize power for themselves. The prince of Wales stopped being seen in public with Maria Fitzherbert after 1790. He eventually married someone more suitable after his father promised to intercede on behalf of the prince’s debts if he would do so. George ruled for another twenty years after the Regency Crisis with some relapses. In 1810 [?] his mental acuity deteriorated to the point where the prince of Wales was declared regent. There is speculation that the king’s final illness was prompted by the death of his beloved daughter, Amelia. As George’s mental condition grew worse, he went blind due to cataracts. The image of the king’s last few years is a dark one, and a stark reminder of the equality of all mortals under nature. You have scarcely seen a Wikipedia page so full of condemnation and contempt as that of George IV. In an era of rising republican sentiment, George spent lavishly and ostentatiously. He grew very fat and dependent on laudanum for gout. George IV died without legitimate children. He was succeeded by his brother and eventually his niece, Victoria.
tags: #College #of #Physicians #of #Philadelphia #history
