Barber in the Surgeon: The Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and Medical Service in India

About the Speaker

Shrimoy Roy Chaudhury teaches History at Shiv Nadar University. His research interests include imperial histories of medicine, law and expertise. Presently Shrimoy is working on his monograph, which is based on his dissertation titled "Engrafting Modernity: Daktari in 19th century Bengal". He has recently undertaken a new project on the archival and oral histories of the Pakur Murder case of 1933.

Abstract

This paper studies the historical flows and cross-currents between the imperial turn of Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh (RCSE) in the late eighteenth century, and articulations of medicine as a service in India over the first half of the nineteenth century. This talk proposes that to understand how surgery came to be counted as imperial medical service, it is important to account for the presence of the barber, a prefix to which the surgeon was historically aligned.

Report

A phenological sketch was presented to us at the beginning of the seminar. It contained the etched-out heads of two individuals, Mr Nindchand Dasgupta and a Barber. The figure was drawn in a hospital in a dispensary hospital in Dhaka, by a surgeon known as Thomas Alexander Wies, clearly with the purpose of comparing the two men's heads. The purpose of showing us this slide, was to draw attention to the intrigue of the phenological study of human anatomy, even before it was classified as such; we were told that early barber-surgeons would travel to schools, measuring the bumps on the heads of students for the purposes of an informal study. In today's time, the role of the surgeon is a well-established- even desirable- one. However, this was not always the case. In this seminar, Dr Shrimoy Roy Chaudhury discussed the evolution of the job of the surgeon, especially highlighting the early role of the Barber (the “prefix” to the surgeon) and the role of institutions of guilds, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and the East India Company in this process.

The Indian barbers in the early eighteenth century were known to have a working knowledge of Ayurveda. At the time, this was not considered a legitimate science, as it fell outside of the Scientific Orientalist Englishman's realm of knowledge. The barbers were described as "superstitious" and even pagan. These barber-surgeons, alongside their grooming services, also performed medical procedures such as lobotomies and tooth extractions.

As for tracing the transformation of the barber-surgeons to simply surgeons, one needs to be transported back to Edinburgh. Here, we notice the introduction of guilds. Guilds are potent political forums that, in a sense, monopolised the trade of the surgeon. One had to join the guild to practice surgery. In order to do so, one must abide by their conditions; those part of the guild must pay it a practising tax of sorts, and the individual must exclusively practice surgery, letting go of the barber tradition. The guilds also ensured that the surgeons' profession was noticed by the sovereign, King James the Fourth, and was mentioned in the list of occupations in the parliament. However, since the guild required very high standard, it soon fell out of popularity and lost its power. Baber Surgeons then opted for the formalized education at the Royal College of Surgeons in Edinburgh instead.

In the year 1770, John Tung called for Scots to join with the East India Company and do service abroad, as an attempt to give the Scots job opportunities, as well as to make them submit to English authority. Thus, they made their way to India. It is interesting to note, that the Scottish barber-surgeons did not appear for the compulsory entrance exam at the Royal College of Surgeons, London, perhaps in an act of defiance.

The history of service is also a religious history. Further, the creation of the gentleman surgeon began as the superstitious barber-surgeon, who were recognised at the time for their service, not their craft, which was considered to be primitive and undignified. The barber seems to be quite strictly a colonial subject first, before a craftsman. Thus, one sees that the history of surgeons that we are left with is a narrative woven from the material found from Sovereign; official documentation, which is somewhat limiting. This seminar leaves us with the impulse to re-examine the process of institutionalisation, which is something we often take for granted. The history behind something as matter-of-fact as surgery is brought to our consciousness. Different threads- colonisation, formal education, caste and even globalisation, are interwoven in such interesting ways, and this seminar was a reminder of this.

By Khushaali Shukla, Undergraduate Class of 2020