(Proceedings, vol. xliii. p. 135), and in that
article he incorporated a note by me on the Corporation of Surgeons and
Barbers of the City of Edinburgh. That note was rather hurriedly compiled
from papers in my possession, and, although in the main correct, is
misleading in one particular and capable of considerable extension in
others. From my note it would be inferred that the Court of Session in
1722 had decided that barbers had never been full members of the
Corporation under the Seal of Cause, as they had not been required to pass
the examinations laid down in that document, but had merely been dependent
on the surgeons. This was the not unnatural inference which I drew from
the terms of the Court’s interlocutor. A careful examination, however, of
the pleadings before the Court has convinced me that, while the decision
declared that the then barbers who had raised the action were not
entitled to the full privileges of the Corporation, the Court had
signified their opinion that the barbers admitted to the Society prior to
1648 were entitled to the same privileges as the surgeons. The matter is
not one of much importance, but, as the proceedings are in themselves
rather interesting, I may perhaps be allowed to go into the matter in
greater detail.
For the purpose of making myself
clear I must here repeat these clauses of the Seal of Cause which were
particularly founded on in the action between the barbers and surgeons and
afterwards in the action between the barbers and hairdressers. The second
regulation runs as follows :—" ITEM that no manner of person occupy or use
any points of our saids Crafts of Surgerie or Barber Craft within this
Burgh but gif he be first freeman and Burgess of the samen and that he be
worthie and expert in all the points belongand to the saids Crafts
diligently and avisitly examined and admitted by the Masters of the said
Craft for the honourable serving of our Soveraign Lord his Leiges and
neighbours of this Burgh, and also that every man that is to be made
freeman and Master among us be examined and provite in thei points
following, That is to say That he know Anatomia, Nature and Complexion of
every Member human’s Body, & in like-ways that he know all the veins of
the samen that he may make Flewbothomia in due time, and als that he know
in whilk member the Sign has Domination for the time, for every man
ought-to know the Nature and Substance of every thing he wirks, or els he
is negligent and that we may have ains in the year an condemnet man after
he be dead to make anatomia of wherethrow we may have experience ilk an to
instruct others and we shall do suffrage for the Saul and that nae barber
nor Master nor Servant within this Burgh haunt use nor exerce the Craft of
Surgerie without he be expert & know perfectly the things above written."
And the next Clause runs: "ITEM that nae Master of the saids Crafts sall
take prentice or fietman in time coming till use the Surgeon Craft without
he can baith wryte and read."
The Seal of Cause, which was dated
1st July 1505, was ratified by James IV. on 13th October 1506 and by James
VI. on 6th June 1630, and the further privilege of exemption from serving
in the army or as juryman was conferred on the surgeons by Queen Mary in
1567. Under these various deeds the surgeons and barbers seem to have
lived together in comparative amity until the beginning of the seventeenth
century, when the surgeons, aspiring to higher social rank, found their
progress rather retarded by their connection with the barbers. Not that
the surgeon-barber had by that time ceased to exist, for by the 20th
chapter of the statutes of George Heriot’s Hospital which were adopted in
1627, it is provided that there shall be "one Surgeon Barber who shall cut
and pole the hair of all the scholars in the Hospital and look to the care
of those within the Hospital who any way stand in need of his art." Still,
there is no doubt that the two bodies were drifting further and further
apart, and the first definite step towards separation was taken in 1648.
In this year, according to the barbers, the surgeons took advantage of the
fact that there were in town ten surgeons and only six barbers, and passed
an act and statute excluding the admission of simple barbers into the
Corporation except they should be tried and found qualified in surgery.
This resolution, they maintained, was merely carrying out the terms of the
Seal of Cause, which had been allowed to fall into desuetude.
About the same time, 20th April
1649, the Incorporation got the Town Council to order all surgeons and
barbers practising in the suburbs under the jurisdiction of
Edinburgh—namely, the Canongate, Leith, Broughton, Portsburgh, and other
pendicles—to take down their signs or basins until they had obtained
liberty to practise from the Corporation of Surgeons and Barbers of
Edinburgh. To this ordinance the bailies of the Canongate at first paid no
attention, whereupon the City of Edinburgh appointed John Denham, one of
their own bailies, together with James Borthwick, Deacon of the Surgeons,
to go down to the Canongate and "see course and order taken with the non
friemen barbers." Four of these contumacious gentlemen were thereupon
summoned before the Town Council and admonished, and the bailies of the
Canongate were informed if they did not carry out the ordinance the
"deacon of the said craft with concourse of the officers of this Burgh are
hereby authorised to pass to the said Burgh of the Canongait" to compel
observance.
It will be noted that there was no
question of barbers in the suburbs becoming members of the Corporation.
All that they were required to do was to obtain a licence from the
Incorporation to exercise their craft.
The result of the measure excluding
barbers unless they could pass in surgery was soon felt, as the
inhabitants of Edinburgh began to experience a difficulty in getting
shaved and "poled." To what state of hairiness they had been reduced by
the year 1682 it is impossible to say, but on 26th July of that year an
Act of Council was passed which shows that considerable discomfort
existed. This Act runs on the narrative that the Lord Provost,
Magistrates, and Council, etc., "taking to their consideration that there
is great scarcity of good qualified persons within the city who have skill
to trim and barberise so that a considerable number of the inhabitants are
forced to go to the suburbs to be trimmed as likewise it has occasioned
many complaints to be made by noblemen and others resorting to the town
that they cannot be conveniently served by persons of that employment
within the town and to the effect the lieges may bot have sufficient
ground to clamour upon that account, therefore they recommend to the
Deacon and Incorporation of Chirurgeons to take some effectual course that
the city be furnished with a competent and suitable number of persons
skilled in the art of cutting hair and taking off of beards and that upon
payment of such compensation as the said Incorporation and these persons
can best agree; Declaring that if they did not speedily fall on some
course to answer the expectation of the lieges in that point that they
will not espouse or own their interest in case any attempt should be made
by application to superior judicatories for causing the Incorporation of
Chirurgeons to receive into their freedoms such a number of barbers as
they shall think fit: Declaring likewise that in case they should
voluntarily admit a competent number at present or any time hereafter of
persons skilled in these points that they shall be holden as depending
upon the said Incorporation and liable to the laws and acts of their
calling." It will be noted that while in 1649 the Corporation is mentioned
as that of Surgeons and Barbers, by this time it has become the
Corporation of Surgeons only; and it will also be noted that in the event
of the surgeons voluntarily admitting barbers "they shall be holden as
depending upon the said Incorporation."
Following upon this, a number of
barbers were admitted as free barbers of the Corporation, the terms of
their admission varying greatly in each case. In some cases they were
admitted with the privilege of their after entering as surgeons should
they pass the necessary examinations; in some, with extension of
privileges to sons and sons-in-law; and in one case, that of Reuben
M’Rabbie, only during the lifetime of his wife, Rebecca Pringle, daughter
of Surgeon David Pringle.
The surgeons next strengthened their
position by getting a new gift under the Great Seal, dated 28th February
1694, ratifying the rights of the surgeons but entirely ignoring the
barbers, and, instead of conjoining with themselves their former
associates, conjoining the apothecaries, thereby creating that mongrel
body of "surgeon-apothecaries," as the barbers afterwards termed it. This
new gift, which gave the new Incorporation full power over all persons
exercising surgery, pharmacy, or barbery within the bounds of the city of
Edinburgh, was duly confirmed by Parliament on 17th July 1695.
The surgeons now considered that
they, and they alone, were the Corporation, the barbers, although
nominally admitted as freemen, being allowed no say in the administration
and getting no advantage of the fees which they had to contribute. They
were regarded as merely licensed to shave. Matters culminated in 1718 by
the barbers raising an action for restitution of their rights under the
Seal of Cause. In the summons they complained of the arbitrary way in
which they were admitted, if the fees levied, which are in one place
stated to have amounted to no less than 140,000 merks, or £7694, and which
money had been applied by the surgeons "for their own ends without
applying for the poor of the barbers any part of it by quarterly pensions
or so much as the value of two upsets any way since the pretended
dependence in 1682." The barbers in their pleadings maintained that the
Act and Statute of 1648, insisting on the barbers having a knowledge of
anatomy, was ultra vires and contrary to the terms of the Seal of
Cause, and that all subsequent Acts of the Town Council and of Parliament
were of no effect so far as they, the barbers, were concerned, they not
having been parties to them. The surgeons maintained that nothing had been
done in 1648 but what had already been done by the Seal of Cause, wherein
anatomy was laid down as a necessary subject of examination; that the
barbers had never been members of the Corporation, but had merely been
dependent on and licensed by the Surgeons in the same way as cobblers were
by the Corporation of Shoemakers and wheelwrights by the Corporation of
Wrights. The barbers said, "No; the subjects of examination laid down by
the Seal of Cause were clearly applicable to the surgeons alone, and that
they could prove that they had been full members of the Corporation up to
1648 by the books of the Corporation itself, and they accordingly called
on the surgeons to produce them." This the surgeons, while protesting they
had nothing to conceal, refused to do, whereupon the Court ordered them to
exhibit them upon a certain day and at a certain place to the barbers.
When the day came the representatives of the barbers attended at the hour
and place, but the clerk of the surgeons was found to have "stepped out of
the way and the books were not forthcoming." Then followed another and
more peremptory order from the Court, who stigmatised " the stepping out
of the way" as a mere shifting and pretence. The surgeons’ clerk, however,
was wise in his day and generation, for the books, on being produced,
conclusively proved (first) that surgeons alone had been asked to pass the
examination in anatomy, etc., and (second) that up to 1648 barbers had
been admitted to all the privileges of the Corporation—had not only
attended and voted at the meetings, but on some occasions had held office.
This demolished the surgeons’ first
line of defence, obliging them to
fall back on their second line, namely, that the Act and Statute of 1648
and the subsequent Acts of the Town Council and Parliament had altered the
position of the barbers and had reduced them to the position of mere
licence-holders. This view, for reasons not given, the Court, to a certain
extent sustained, declaring that although the barbers were members of the
Corporation, they were not entitled to all the privileges. The Court then
laid down what privileges they were to enjoy, which are practically those
mentioned in my former note. This decision, it will be seen, although it
practically separated the surgeons from the barbers, did not entirely do
so, for they still remained on as members of the same Incorporation. It
was not a divorce, but merely a separation, a mensa et thoro, so to
speak— a point which the barbers had to maintain, and did maintain
successfully, in their after proceedings against the wigmakers,
hairdressers, etc., who tried to infringe their monopoly.
There are two other points in the
Seal of Cause to which I would like to draw attention. The first is the
necessity for surgeons being acquainted with astrology in order to be able
to bleed and operate satisfactorily. In the hope that I might be able to
give you some information which might be valuable to you on the next
occasion on which you require the services of a surgeon, I examined
several books on astrology. I found them deeply interesting, but not pf
such a nature as could be condensed into a few words. This fact, however,
which I found in the Encyclopedia Britannica, is short and
interesting, namely, that to this day, when the astrologers declare the
heavens to be favourable for bleeding, the streets of Bagdad run with
blood from the barbers’ shops. It is evident, therefore, that the belief
in astrology has not yet entirely died out.
The second point to which I would
like to refer is in connection with the following clause in the Seal of
Cause: "That nae man nor woman within this Burgh make nor sell any aqua
vitae within the samen except the said masters, brither and freeman of the
said crafts under the pain of escheat of the samen but (without) favours."
This clause, I think, is rather a remarkable one, and, although it has
been quoted by several writers, does not seem to have attracted the
attention it deserves. Time, however, does not permit of me doing more at
present than merely referring to it.
In the foregoing remarks I have
touched on one or two matters which are of interest in the relationship
between the surgeons and barbers. The most curious fact, however, to me is
that there should have been any relationship at all between these two
bodies. This relationship was not confined to Edinburgh or even Scotland,
but was common to the whole of Europe. In the pleadings before the Court
of Session the two following reasons for the connection were given: (1)
that both callings made use of sharp implements, and (2) that shaving was
a necessary and preliminary operation to either bleeding or dressing of
head wounds, and that in consequence a surgeon had either to be able to
shave or had to call in a barber. This may be sufficient to explain why
barbers for centuries prior to the Christian era had been in a way
associated with surgeons, and had been allowed to bleed, draw teeth,
pierce ears, and to cut corns and nails.’ It does not, however, explain
how it came about that surgeons, who, prior to the dark ages of the
Christian era, were apparently closely associated with physicians, and,
ranking as their social equals, were as far removed as the physicians were
from the barbers, yet by the beginning of the fourteenth century had
become so degraded as to be regarded as merely of a trade, and to be
separated from their confreres, the physicians, by papal bulls.
As the following old lines poetically express it:
"His pole with pewter basons
hung,
Black, rotten teeth in order strung,
Rang’d cups that in the windows stood,
Lined with red rags to look like blood,
Did well his threefold trade explain,
Who shaved, drew teeth, and breathed a vein.’
Prior to the Christian era the art
of surgery was wonderfully advanced, and in Egypt there were specialists
for almost every form of operation. The art was probably on a sounder
foundation than the art of medicine, and this change that it underwent
seems most extraordinary. Dr Mellingen, an army surgeon, writing in 1837,
attributes the change to the following causes, and I give them here as
they are at least suggestive and interesting and may lead to someone else
inquiring more fully into the matter.
After the fall of the Roman Empire
and up to the middle of the twelfth century the practice of both medicine
and surgery was almost entirely confined to churchmen. In 1163, however,
the Council of Tours, held by Pope Alexander III., came to the conclusion
that the humane interest excited in the breasts of churchmen in the
illnesses and accidents of poor struggling mankind was but a wile of the
devil to withdraw their attention from heavenly to earthly matters. The
study and practice of medicine and law was accordingly forbidden to all
who had taken religious vows, under pain of excommunication. This was
followed in 1215 by a further anathema on transgressors, with an
additional canon decreeing that, as the Church abhorred sanguinary
practices, not only should no priest be allowed to practise surgery, but
benediction should be refused to all who did so. This was carrying out
with a vengeance the maxim, "Ecclesia abhorret a sanguine," and of course
placed a bad mark against the practice of surgery.
It was one thing, however, to forbid
churchmen to practise medicine and surgery, and quite another matter to
get them to desist from what had no doubt been a lucrative business. With
medicine it was comparatively easy to circumvent the edicts without
detection; for as the diagnosing of disease was at this time done chiefly
by an examination of the patient’s excretions, it was an easy matter to
carry these privately to the monastery and get a prescription. This plan
was of course impossible as regards surgical cases, for the patient had to
be seen, and to see him without detection was more or less impracticable.
The priests therefore turned to the barbers, who, for tonsorial purposes,
were much employed by the Church, who were accustomed to the skilful use
of sharp instruments, and who from time immemorial had been entrusted with
the minor operations. In this way the barbers became the recipients of any
surgical knowledge still surviving in the Church, and were probably used
as tulchan calves. Hence the surgeon-barber of medaeval times. When the
arts of medicine and surgery began to shake themselves free from the
Church, this association of surgeon and barber proved most unfortunate for
surgery, the practitioners into whose hands the art had fallen being as a
rule uneducated men of a different social class from those practising
medicine. The result was the deterioration of surgery, its exclusion from
the universities, and its degradation to the position of a trade. It bad
taken surgery some centuries to sink to a trade, and it took it some
centuries to rise again to a profession. Even as late as the beginning of
the nineteenth century, Dr Mellingen states that surgeon-barbers were
common all over Europe, and in support of his statement he relates the two
following incidents. Tie writes:
"So late as the year 1809 one of my
assistants in the Portuguese army felt much hurt at my declining his offer
to shave me; and in 1801 some British assistant-surgeons who had entered
the Swedish navy were ordered to shave the ship’s company, and were
dismissed the service in consequence of their refusal."
If, on the one hand, the
surgeon-barter lingered on the Continent long after he had disappeared
from Great Britain, on the other hand it can be said that surgeons were
officially recognised as a separate body in France at least long before
they were so recognised in either England or Scotland; for St Louis,
filled with admiration of the surgeon’s art, which he had witnessed during
the Crusades, formed a College of Surgeons in 1268.
In England it was not until 1540
that surgeons apart from surgeon-barbers were officially recognised, and
then, curiously enough, their recognition is only for the purpose of
conjoining them with the older Incorporation of Surgeon-Barbers, created
in 1461 by letters-patent of Edward IV. One gathers from the Act of
Parliament conjoining the two bodies that the older Incorporation of
Surgeon-Barbers, although admittedly created for the advancement of
surgery, had also practised barbery. For the future, however (i.e.
after 1540), no member of the corporation was to be admitted to practise
the two callings at one and the same time, "forasmuch as such persons
using the mystery or Faculty of Surgery oftentimes meddle and take into
their Cures and houses such sick and diseased persons as have been
infected with the Pestilence, great Pox and such other contagious
Infirmities, do use or exercise Barbery, as washing or shaving or other
feats thereunto belong, which is very perilous for infecting the King’s
liege people resorting to their shops and houses, there being washed or
shaven." The only exception was that barbers were to be allowed to draw
teeth. The final separation between the two bodies in England did not take
place until 1745.