796 . EEPOBT— 1894. 



As time went on the interests of medical men became gradually more absorbed 

 in the rapidly growing British Medical Association ; and in 1841 the medical title 

 was dropped, and the Section came to be called simply Physiology, which title it 

 retained until 1847. Under that designation the Section has now been revived. 



The fact that Physiology as a separate Section in this Association was 

 allowed to lapse for so long a period is not remarkable when we remember that 

 during the first half of this period Physiology as a science was practically non- 

 existent in this country. The teachers of Physiology were, almost without ex- 

 ception, practising physicians and surgeons, and even when a professor was 

 expected to devote his time to the teaching of Physiology he was not expected 

 to devote part of that time to the prosecution of physiological research. During 

 all these years, from 18;j3 to 1847, we do not find amongst the officers of the Section 

 any actual working physiologists. Most of the officers were distinguished medical 

 men, with an anatomist here and there amongst them. Far be it from me to say 

 that there was no actual work being done in Physiology at this time ; for Charles 

 Bell and Marshall Hall were engaged in elucidating the functions of the nervous 

 system; whilst Bowman, Wharton Jones, and others were producing good and 

 permanent work in various other departments of Physiology. Their labours, how- 

 ever, were isolated, and formed but oases in the Sahara of neglect into which the 

 pursuit of Physiology had fallen in this country ; and this during a period when it 

 was being pursued with signal success and activity both in Germany and France. 



After 1847 a revival ot Physiology began to manifest itself even here ; and this 

 was followed by the establishment, from time to time, of a sub-section to Section D , 

 which was devoted to Physiology, and had a special President. Whether, however, 

 owing to their subordinate character, or from some other reason, these sub-sections 

 had not usually any great measure of success, and for the last twelve years they 

 have been wholly dropped. During that period Physiology has only twice been 

 represented in the Chair of Section D, and has usually had no secretarial repre- 

 sentation. This decadence of Physiology in the British Association during the last 

 eleven or twelve years is the more remarkable because it is obviously not due to 

 any want of outside activity in regard to the subject ; for during this period we 

 find an extraordinary revival of interest in phj'siological research, a revival which 

 in its most active stage dates from about twentj'-five years ago, but still some 

 twenty or thirty vears later than the corresponding revival in France and Germany. 

 I have taken the trouble to prepare a list of prominent physiological workers who 

 flourished during the thirty years prior to 1870. My list comprises, in all, thirty. 

 Of these, four are English, five French, and twenty-one German or Dutch. Of the 

 four English working physiologists not one is a teacher of Physiology. Of the five 

 French and twenty-one German all are recognised teachers. It was not, in fact, 

 until it came to be understood that teaching and work in Physiology, as in all 

 branches of science, ought in the main, to be successful, to go hand in hand, that 

 the science had any possibility of revival. 



Let us glance for a moment at the history of the revival of Physiology in this 

 country as compared with its revival in Germany. In each country the re- 

 vival may be said to have been largely due to the influence of one teacher. 

 In Germany the teacher was Johannes Mtiller; in this country, William Sharpey. 

 Both of these remarkable men were pupils of Rudolphi, who was Professor of 

 Anatomy and Physiology in Berlin imtil 1833. It is stated regarding Rudolphi 

 that ' he was an enemy to subjective speculation in biological science : he looked 

 on the so-called philosophy as mistaken and futile in its application to the 

 phenomena of the animal economy, and based his phj'siology chiefl}', and perhaps 

 rather exclusively, on the study of the animal structure.' The influence of 

 Rudolphi is apparent in both Miiller and Sharpey. 



Miiller was born in 1801, Sharpey in 1802 ; they were therefore of about the 

 same age. But Miillar's scientific and intellectual development was more rapid 

 than that of his contemporary. Thus we find that already in 1826, when he was 

 but twenty-five years old, Miiller attained so great a reputation as to be made 

 Professor Extraordinary in the University of Bonn ; and before very long he was 

 promoted to the grade of Ordinary Professor there. In 1833, whilst still a 



