Good Sir
I take the liberty to give you an account of a book little known to most of the learn’d men of our Country, tho’ thrice publish’s in our Mother-Tongue. Doctor Douglass in his Bibliographiee anatomic & Speci= – men) mentions this book under the Title of Banister’s Breviary, probably not minding that Banister had only lent his name to the Chief work; for Richard Banister’s Breviary is but a Sorry, illiterate piece Sett before the worthy Treatise of 113 Diseases of ye. Eyes, and Eyelids printed the 2.d time in the year 1622 by Felix Kingston for Thomas Man dwelling in Pater-Noster-Row at the Sign of the Talbot. – This Richard Banister says in the last Side of his preface to the Reader: that this work was de==dicated to his Kinsman and Master John Banister in a former Edition but as I have the Said Edition, I find that R: Banister imposes on us, and tells us this Story for by-Ends easy to guess at. The title of the last Edition was thus. “A Treatise of 113 Diseases of the Eyes and Eyelids, the Second time publish’d with some profitable &c by Rich:d Banister [Mst?] in Chirurgery, Oculist, and Practitioner in Physick after this same Breviary whose pages are not figur’d, but are 86 in number consisting first 2 of his aphorisms, 2dly. of Errors amongst many that practise for the Eyes, 3dly. a Short rehearsal of most “medecines which are commonly us’d for the Eyes. 4thly of imperfect Cataracts &c at last he setts down the natural temperature of most Simplesis’d in several diseases of the Eyes, at the end of which– Banister’s Breviary is finish’d and then begins a worthy treatise of the Eyes containing the knowledge and care of 113 Diseases Incident to them, &c–
Tis worth remarking that the second Edition has not the pages cypher’d, tho’ the first has which contains 199 pages including Mr Le Jeune’s lettr. about the Ptheriasis, where as the original French contains 243 pages to the Said letter exclusively. The first edition in it’s title page contains the fol==lowing words. ”First gather’d, and written in French by Jacques Guillemeau Surgeon to the French Kg and now translated into English together with a profi==table treatise of the Scorbie, and an other of the Cancer by A.H. also next to the treatise of the Eyes is ad=joyn’d a work touching the preservation of the Sight Sett forth by W: Bailey Dr of Physick Printed by Robert Waldegrave for Thomas Mamcand Willm Brome. {}The first impression as much the best in all respects; but neither the one, nor the other is good English, the faults of the Translation being – infinite even in common things; but more intolerable in the Definitions and medicinal Prescriptions. -3 Sr William Read, (who I am inform’d could neither read nor write) has outdone R. Banister in plagiary: for he has not only publish’d (in the late Queen Anne’s Reign) Guillemeau’s for his own work, under this title. “A Short but an Exact account of all the Diseases incident to the Eyes with the Causes, Symptoms, and Cures.” Also practical observations upon some Ex==traordinary diseases of the Eyes. By Sr. William Read her Majesty’s Oculist, and Operator in the Eyes in ordinary, the 2d Edition corrected. London: printed and sold by [J: Rather?] at the end of Pater==Nosters [Row?] in 8[…], But pag. 160 says that the following letter was transmitted to London by Mr. Le Jeune Surgeon in Ordinary to the French King.
By comparing this letter with that of the two former Editions, one will be Sufficiently con==vinc’d that Sr. William Read had no other view in this 3d Edition *^ *^ which Sr. William calls his second/ but to pass for the proper Author of a Treatise he knew very little of, tho at the end pag 3[.] he has printed practical observations of his own, whereas there is nothing new, or worth obser==ving; but he has omitted the Silly verses of R: Banister with his illiterate aphorisms, tho they are the most [s…..ortable?] part of Banister’s Breviary.
Tis’ not strange that Dr. Heister (formerly Professor of Physick at Aldsorff and now at Helm=stadt in the Dutchy of Brunswick, who seizesim==mediately on all novelties, good or bad, to please his young Auditors) has anounc’d this plagiary Edition of Read as a new book in his Gration de Incremento 4 Anatomia in hoe Seeculo.18.00 pag by which passes current with foreigners since our own Countrymen have not yet taken notice of the Cheat. Dr. Heister’s is printed in[..] [Am.ssellodame] aptid [Joasossem Pauli?] 1723, at the end of his Compendium Auatomia, wherein I’ve ob==servd fewe. other errors and [.] ^Z and will some willfull prevarieations. Let us return &c/ But Let us return to Guillemeau (the Genuine and Primordial Author of this Trait of the Eyes, and it’s diseases which has been publishd thrice in French vis
“Fraite’ des maladies de l’oeil qui [sont?] au nombre de 113 (auxquelles il est Sujet) par Jaques Guille==meau Natif d’Orleans, Chiriergieu Ordinaire du Roy et fois Chirurgieu à Lyon 1584 in 2e – 2.e a Paris in 8.e 1585 chez Charles Masseau Clas [Breneau?] á [l’Enseigne?] de la Pyramide.
This Edition contains a table of the principal matters treated of in this book.
3e à Paris chez Nicolas Büourüe Sr. Jacques à l’image Sr. Claude, et a’ l’homme Sauvage 1620 in folio avec [soi.s] [les ou..ages?] du dit Auteur. This is the best and most correct Edition.
I make these remarks chiefly because [Sade==iutis] [Renouatus?] (publish’d by: Merklise & printed 1686 at Nuremberg in [4.e?] makes no manner of mention of this book: which is much to be wonder’d as some he tells us that Guillemeau publish’d Ambrose Parés works in latin folio 1582. 5 All Physicians know that this Guillemeau was a learnd Surgeon and Cotemporary with Ambrose Paré, and that he dedicated to the Said Paré this Treatise of the Diseases of the Eyes dwel==ling then at Ambrose Parés own house
In the year 1597 Charles [B.tto..?] got this book printed at Dodree [last?] in the Flemmish tongue by Abraham Caen which before had been trans==lated and publish’d at Amsterdam in Dutch by John Verbrigge or Verbrugge in 12.0 and upon this Said Edition of Verbrugge, D.r Martin Schu==ugen translated this book into high Dutch, and publish’d it at [Dresden?] in [3e?] in the year 1706. –
These three translation and Editions are all compos’d according to the Edition of Paris in [3e?] with a table of the principal matters.
Tis great pity that this work has not been translated into latin with good Remarks, Correc==tions, and additions (according to the new disco==verys in anatomy; Surgery and Physick made these two last Centurys) for the grounds and method of it are good, being modell’d on Galen’s Introduc==tion to Physick. &c
But I recommend to the Latin Reader what Sennertus has wrote on the eyes, who is the best Author we have extant upon that Subject. 6 Georgius Valla has publish’d something much like this Same work of guillemeau in latin at Strasbourg in [12e] join’d with the rest of his works, but Valla has copied [ll?] his even to a fault.
Dr. Douglass owns in his Bibliography that he never saw George Valla, but he might have had that [Sashs?] of the [homage?] Sr Hans Sloane our Honourable Presidents rich and numerous Library even at the time that he publish’s his Bibliography; Sr. Hans having had then two Copys of the Said Valla’s treatise of the Eyes, & who was so good as to Send me one of em know==ing that I cou’d not procure an Exemplar even at Strasbourg, where they were printed, and where I had good Correspondence.
Monavius de affectibus ocularibus supra Hecatontaden June 1711 (publish’d by the Care of the late Great Physician of Germany Georgius Wolfgangus Weddelius) is copied from Guille==meau, and is the 2d. Edition of this Copist, who gives only a Superficial Enameration of the Diseases of the Eyes after Guillemeau, whose errors he follows closely: Resides In brought the different Distempers of the Eyes to the number of three hundred and odd, having observ’d Nature exactly in the great multitude of General Revieurs I have made in the Royal Hospital of the Quinze vingt, 7 In the Hotel Royale des Invalides and in the Hospital General of Paris for near these forty years last past.
We have a book in French in little [8e?] call’d de la [Martrssiere?] Le Naturaliste charitable. That gives a Catalogue of the Diseases of the Eyes much what in the Same words with Guille==meau, but as my Exemplar of this Author was printed at Lyons 1560, probably Guillemeau borrow’d his definitions verbatim from this author, or both of ‘em imitated Galen’s Introductio, or Medicus.
8 Sr Entd: [L.B.?] 22. p. 432.
I sent some months ago this dissertation upon Guillemeau; desiring you’d please to communicate it to the Royal Society; but it miscarry’d, it seems, with several other Theses and books, and you acknowledge not the reception there of whom, nor Sr. Hans Sloane to whom they were directed so I have been oblig’d to have it written over a second time with corrections, if the other copy should chance to come to yr. hands, I pray you to prefer this to the precedent copy which is very faulty.
I shall be very glad (good Sir) to have the honour of yr. [an..b…?] to this and my foregoing letters with my hble Service I pray to Mr. [Mecrme?] and Dr. Campdell I am Dr. Sir Yr. most faithfull hble Servant Woolhouse
Paris March ye. 22d 1730
Woolhouse provides Dr. Rutty with an account of a the book that was referenced in the bibliography of Doctor Douglass’ anatomic & Specimen as “Banister’s Breviary.” Woolhouse clarifies that Banister “only lent his name to the Chief work” and therefore insists “Richard Banister’s Breviary is but a Sorry, illiterate piece Sett before the worthy Treatise of 113 Diseases of ye. Eyes, and Eyelids.”
Woolhouse insists that the first edition contains 199 pages including Mr Le Jeune’s lettr. about the Ptheriasis and was “First gather’d, and written in French by Jacques Guillemeau Surgeon to the French Kg[.]” The said edition was translated into English “together with a profi==table treatise of the Scorbie, and an other of the Cancer” … “also next to the treatise of the Eyes is ad=joyn’d a work touching the preservation of the Sight Sett forth by W: Bailey Dr.” Woolhouse criticizes both works for poor English and faults in the translation in addition to “Intolerable … Definitions and medicinal Prescriptions.”
Woolhouse conveys his indifference towards Sr. William Read, who he claimed, “could neither read nor write” had “outdone R. Banister in plagiary” as he published Guillemeau’s work as his own under the title, “A Short but an Exact account of all the Diseases incident to the Eyes with the Causes, Symptoms, and Cures.”
Whoolshouse shifts attention back to Guillemeau, who he refers to as “the Genuine and Primordial Author of this Trait of the Eyes, and it’s diseases which has been publishd thrice in French[.]” Woolhouse lists the three editions as follows:
“Fraite’ des maladies de l’oeil qui [sont?] au nombre de 113 (auxquelles il est Sujet) par Jaques Guille==meau Natif d’Orleans, Chiriergieu Ordinaire du Roy et fois Chirurgieu à Lyon 1584”
“2.e a Paris in 8.e 1585 chez Charles Masseau Clas [Breneau?] á [l’Enseigne?] de la Pyramide.”
“3e à Paris chez Nicolas Büourüe Sr. Jacques à l’image Sr. Claude, et a’ l’homme Sauvage 1620 in folio avec [soi.s] [les ou..ages?] du dit Auteur.” According to Woolhouse, “[t]his is the best and most correct Edition.” (Note: it appears that this edition was also translated into Flemmish, Dutch and high Dutch.
Woolhouse remarks that “[t]is great pity that this work has not been translated into latin” however; he reccomends that Latin readers consult Sennertus’ work on matters concerning the eyes. Georgius Valla also published a work similar to Guillemeau’s in Latin.
Woolhouse also makes note of a work published by Georgius Wolfgangus Wedelius titled “Monavius de affectibus ocularibus supra Hecatontaden.”
Whoolhouse mentions another book titled, “Le Naturaliste charitable” … which “gives a Catalogue of the Diseases of the Eyes” in similar manner to Guillemeau. This particular work was published in 1560. Woolhouse suggests that “Guillemeau borrow’d his definitions verbatim from this author, or both of ‘em imitated Galen’s Introductio, or Medicus.”
Woolhouse informs Dr. Rutty that the “dissertation upon Guillemeau” went missing after he sent it. He assures Dr. Rutty that he is having it written again with corrections.
John Thomas Woolhouse was an English oculist and physician. He practiced physic in London, served James II for a time, and in 1711 secured a position at Paris’s Hospice des Quinze-Vingts. He served as the King of France’s oculist, was elected a fellow of the Royal Society in 1721, and a member of both the Berlin Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Sciences of Bologna. Woolhouse was criticized for charlatanry by some contemporaries (Anita McConnell, Woolhouse, John Thomas (16661734), Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 [http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/29954, accessed 17 July 2013]).
(There are five other individuals mentioned in this letter whose names could not be accurately transcribed and/or verified – [J: Rather?] [Joasossem Pauli], [Charles Masseau Clas Breneau?], [John Verbrigge or Verbrugge?] Mr. [Mecrme?])
