Bloodletting Instruments in the National Museum of History and Technology

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

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]

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]

[Larger Image]

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]

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.

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.

[Larger Image]

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.

Figure 6.(left)—Spring lancet, 19th century. (NMHT 321636.01; SI photo 73-4236.)

Figure 7.(right)—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

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]

[Larger Image]

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].)

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]

[Larger Image]

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]

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].)

[Larger Image]

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].)

[Larger Image]

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 ¼″. If cupping behind the ears, they should be set at ¹⁄7″, if on the temple at ⅛″, and if on the scalp at ⅙″. 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].)

[Larger Image]

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]

[Larger Image]

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.

[Larger Image]

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]).

[Larger Image]

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]

[Larger Image]

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].)

[Larger Image]

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]

[Larger Image]

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]

[Larger Image]

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: