Surgery in the Seventeenth Century
Surgery in the Seventeenth Century by Rachel Carter
In a time before anaesthetics and antiseptics, surgery was a painful, and even deadly, procedure.
Surgery was known as ‘the cutter’s art’, and surgeons, who worked with their hands, and were
habitually in contact with diseased and rotting flesh, were looked down upon by their clean handed,
university graduate, physician colleagues. Surgeons tended to learn their profession through
practical apprenticeships, while physicians learned theirs, cerebrally, from books and lectures.
However, that is not to say that surgery was unlearned, or unregulated; guilds, such as the
Barber-Surgeons Company of London, provided both surgeons and patients with a degree of protection.
The Renaissance had sparked an interest in anatomy, and had begun to challenge traditional thought
and practice. It was a time of great change and development. Renowned master surgeons translated
Latin documents into English, or French, to make them more accessible to young students and apprentices.
They also published their own works, bestowing their knowledge and experience to the next generation,
and reforming the macabre face of surgery in Europe.[1]
In 1540 the rival Guild of Surgeons and Company of Barbers united to form the London Company of
Barber-Surgeons. Barbers had been encouraged to perform minor surgery by the Church, because of
their skill in the use of sharp blades, such as those used to tonsure monks, and subsequently
they considered themselves barber-surgeons. Agreement was reached between the two opposing parties;
surgeons would not cut hair, and barbers would not cut flesh. However, in reality those who performed
surgery could be divided into three categories: master surgeons (who would have considered it beneath
them to cut hair), barber-surgeons (who performed minor surgery, tooth pulling, and bloodletting),
and barbers (who primarily cut hair, but may have had side-lines in pulling teeth and letting blood).
The London Company of Barber-Surgeons was granted a royal charter, giving it the authority to license
all surgeons in the London area. The Crown also sanctioned the dissecting of four executed criminals
a year, giving the company the opportunity to study human anatomy in detail.[2]
The role of the surgeon was diverse in the seventeenth century. The most common surgical procedure,
bloodletting, became the symbol of barber-surgery, with the white of the barber’s pole representing
the bandage, which was tied around the patient's arm to expose the veins. The veins were then
opened with a lancet, revealing the blood within, the red of the barber’s pole. Along with the routine
day-to-day practices of bloodletting and tooth pulling there were more painful, and life threatening,
operations such as amputations and trepanning. However, major operations were not undertaken lightly,
and were often only attempted as a last resort. The London Barber-Surgeons Company dictated that
surgeons should consult with senior members of the company, on any case which carried the risk of death
or maiming, and that the patients in such cases should be examined by members of the company.
Surgeons who disregarded these rules were fined or imprisoned. In addition, surgeons relied on their
reputation, and patients would naturally be put off by a high death rate. Patients could also sue for
compensation if they were dissatisfied (or if their family were dissatisfied). By providing surgeons
with strict guidelines, both surgeons and patients had some protection.[3]
Apprentice surgeons were expected to be literate in English, and have a basic knowledge of anatomy.
Some proficiency in Latin was also desirable, being the language used in medical literature.
However, during the sixteenth century Thomas Gale, and Ambroise Paré, translated Latin medical books
into English and French respectively. Paré was also important in developing a substitute for painful
hot oil cauterizing. Having exhausted his supplies of cauterizing oil, Paré experimented with the
ingredients he had to hand, egg yolk, rose oil and turpentine. The mixture proved a success, and
patients recovered much quicker than with the oil. In England Richard Wiseman became known as the
‘father of English surgery’. His Several Chirurgical Treatises (1676) particularly dealt with naval
and military surgery, and his Treatise of Wounds (1672) advertised itself as being intended particularly
for ships’ doctors. John Woodall’s The Surgeon’s Mate (1617) long served as a manual for naval surgeons.
Advances in the navy and military led to changes in surgery. The increase in the use of cannons and
gunpowder, in particular, led to surgeons becoming bolder, as they sought to deal with severed limbs and
gunshot wounds. Warfare led to more amputations, including amputations above the knee, which were rarely
performed before the sixteenth century, being nearly always fatal. However they became more prominent in
the seventeenth century, with a wooden leg or a hook being attached to the stump.[4]
Warfare, and naval and colonial expansion, led to a huge increase in demand for junior surgeons,
willing to serve abroad or on board a ship. For young men with strong stomachs, naval or military
service provided invaluable experience, and a valuable boost into the profession. Sea surgeons were
tested for proficiency by the London Barber-Surgeons Company. The company also inspected each surgical
chest before a voyage. John Woodall, who was surgeon-general of the East India Company, listed the
ingredients and materials which should be included in the sea chest: ointments, plasters, laxatives,
opiates. Sea surgeons had to be surgeon, physician and pharmacist in one. For them there was no
occupational barrier between surgeon and physician. The effects of combat notwithstanding, the role
of the sea surgeon would not have been too far removed from that of the role of surgeons on land.
The bulk of the surgeon’s work was routine, small scale, and fairly safe (if at times excruciatingly
painful). It involved dressing wounds, bloodletting, drawing teeth, dealing with ulcers, burns, and the
effects of venereal disease. Surgeons were not butchers, or knife-happy. They needed nimble fingers, a
steady hand, sharp sight, quick wit, boldness and sobriety. Such qualities are not so different from the
- ↑ Turner, E. S.Call the Doctor - a social
history of medical men. London: Michael Joseph Ltd, 1958; McCray Beier, Lucinda Sufferers & Healers:
The experience of illness in Seventeenth-Century England London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1987; Porter,
Roy ed.The Cambridge Illustrated History of Medicine Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001
- ↑ Turner Call the Doctor; McCray Beier Sufferers & Healers
- ↑ McCray Beier
Sufferers & Healers; Porter Cambridge Illustrated History of Medicine
- ↑ McCray Beier Sufferers & Healers; Porter Cambridge Illustrated History of Medicine
- ↑ Wear, Andrew Knowledge & Practice in english Medicine, 1550-1680 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000; McCray Beier
Sufferers & Healers; Porter Cambridge Illustrated History of Medicine
