Ogetic Francophile, he embraced the cutting-edge materialism of French medical science with such enthusiasm as to invite charges of blasphemy and sedition.37 By contrast, Wakley accused Abernethy of intellectual idleness, of merely restating the ideas of his former tutor, John Hunter, without reference to recent continental developments. In this way, incompetence and ignorance were made the epistemic corollary of nepotism, of a system of succession and patronage which mirrored the corruption of pocket boroughs and aristocratic governance. Indeed, Wakley compared his publication of surgical lectures to those of parliamentary debates, a practice of Cobbett’s.38 As in the parliamentary realm, then, the publication of medical and surgical proceedings functioned as a form of critical scrutiny, a vocal challenge to the monopolistic and oligarchic practices of political authority: Champions of `Hole and Corner’ surgery ?Hospital imbeciles ?Hospital drones ?idiotic lecturers ?Enemies to the freedom of the medical press! ?your hour is at hand; you will no longer be quietly permitted to usurp those offices and stations which are the birth-right of the talented, you will no longer be allowed to blight the bud of genius ?or deprive industry of its due reward . . . that mighty and indestructible engine, THE PRESS, will strip you of family protection, will disregard your official robes . . . and hurl you upon the pedestal of public opinion.39 Such rhetorical invective was highly Torin 1 biological activity uncommon in the world of medical publishing prior to the foundation of The Lancet. Whereas established medical journals had tended to adopt a sober and even tone with minimal editorializing, The Lancet followed the lead of the political press in which there had been a shift from RWJ 64809 msds anonymous or pseudonymousThe Lancet, 3:68 (15 January 1825), 61. Ruston, ` “Natural enemies in science, as well as in politics”: Romanticism and scientific conflict’, Romanticism, XI , 1 (2005), 70 ?83. 37L. S. Jacyna, `Lawrence, Sir William, first baronet (1783 ?867)’, Oxford Dictionary of36S.National Biography (Oxford, 2004); Desmond, Politics of Evolution, op. cit. 38For example, see The Lancet, 2:1 (4 January 1824), 3. 39The Lancet, 3:69 (22 January 1825), 89.Social HistoryVOL.39 :NO.discourse to what T. J. Wooler, editor of the Black Dwarf, termed `democratic celebrity’.40 Thus, even if The Lancet was a composite publication, including input from Cobbett himself, the voice it adopted was unmistakably that of Wakley. In terms of typography, too, The Lancet drew from a different well to its contemporaries, confronting its readers with a riot of block capitals, italics and exclamation marks (see Figure 1). Not only were these expressive of outrage at the extent and audacity of medical corruption, but the staccato rhythm of Wakley’s editorial prose evoked the immediacy and force of the spoken word. Again, Wakley had clearly been influenced by the Black Dwarf, whose own explosive typography constituted what Jon Klancher has called `an extraordinary symbolic violence’.41 Melodrama was likewise central toFigure 1. `Dickey Fubs’, The Cooper’s Adz!! versus the Lancet!! (1828). Reproduced with the permission of Wellcome Images.40Gilmartin,op. cit., 35 ?2.P. Klancher, The Making of English Reading Audiences, 1790 ?832 (Madison, 1987), 115.41J.MayThe Lancet, libel and English medicineWakley’s writing. Compared with Wooler, who, inspired by popular theatre, possessed an `almost extra-linguistic force . . . st.Ogetic Francophile, he embraced the cutting-edge materialism of French medical science with such enthusiasm as to invite charges of blasphemy and sedition.37 By contrast, Wakley accused Abernethy of intellectual idleness, of merely restating the ideas of his former tutor, John Hunter, without reference to recent continental developments. In this way, incompetence and ignorance were made the epistemic corollary of nepotism, of a system of succession and patronage which mirrored the corruption of pocket boroughs and aristocratic governance. Indeed, Wakley compared his publication of surgical lectures to those of parliamentary debates, a practice of Cobbett’s.38 As in the parliamentary realm, then, the publication of medical and surgical proceedings functioned as a form of critical scrutiny, a vocal challenge to the monopolistic and oligarchic practices of political authority: Champions of `Hole and Corner’ surgery ?Hospital imbeciles ?Hospital drones ?idiotic lecturers ?Enemies to the freedom of the medical press! ?your hour is at hand; you will no longer be quietly permitted to usurp those offices and stations which are the birth-right of the talented, you will no longer be allowed to blight the bud of genius ?or deprive industry of its due reward . . . that mighty and indestructible engine, THE PRESS, will strip you of family protection, will disregard your official robes . . . and hurl you upon the pedestal of public opinion.39 Such rhetorical invective was highly uncommon in the world of medical publishing prior to the foundation of The Lancet. Whereas established medical journals had tended to adopt a sober and even tone with minimal editorializing, The Lancet followed the lead of the political press in which there had been a shift from anonymous or pseudonymousThe Lancet, 3:68 (15 January 1825), 61. Ruston, ` “Natural enemies in science, as well as in politics”: Romanticism and scientific conflict’, Romanticism, XI , 1 (2005), 70 ?83. 37L. S. Jacyna, `Lawrence, Sir William, first baronet (1783 ?867)’, Oxford Dictionary of36S.National Biography (Oxford, 2004); Desmond, Politics of Evolution, op. cit. 38For example, see The Lancet, 2:1 (4 January 1824), 3. 39The Lancet, 3:69 (22 January 1825), 89.Social HistoryVOL.39 :NO.discourse to what T. J. Wooler, editor of the Black Dwarf, termed `democratic celebrity’.40 Thus, even if The Lancet was a composite publication, including input from Cobbett himself, the voice it adopted was unmistakably that of Wakley. In terms of typography, too, The Lancet drew from a different well to its contemporaries, confronting its readers with a riot of block capitals, italics and exclamation marks (see Figure 1). Not only were these expressive of outrage at the extent and audacity of medical corruption, but the staccato rhythm of Wakley’s editorial prose evoked the immediacy and force of the spoken word. Again, Wakley had clearly been influenced by the Black Dwarf, whose own explosive typography constituted what Jon Klancher has called `an extraordinary symbolic violence’.41 Melodrama was likewise central toFigure 1. `Dickey Fubs’, The Cooper’s Adz!! versus the Lancet!! (1828). Reproduced with the permission of Wellcome Images.40Gilmartin,op. cit., 35 ?2.P. Klancher, The Making of English Reading Audiences, 1790 ?832 (Madison, 1987), 115.41J.MayThe Lancet, libel and English medicineWakley’s writing. Compared with Wooler, who, inspired by popular theatre, possessed an `almost extra-linguistic force . . . st.