In 1776, Joseph Hooper, a London surgeon and man-midwife, published a short case history in Medical Observations and Inquiries. A female midwife had called him to see a woman who was a few months pregnant. The midwife was disturbed, Hooper wrote, because she was unable to “feel the mouth of the womb.” He proceeded to examine the patient per vaginum. At that moment, Hooper reported, “I immediately recollected what Dr. Hunter had said in his public lecture upon the subject of the inverted uterus.” While making the inspection, Hooper continued, “the woman, with expressions of much joy, said she could make water.” Hooper helped her to relieve her distended bladder and, following what he learned from William Hunter's course, manipulated the uterus back into its proper position.

Hooper decided to tell this story – and it was his story, for no doubt the midwife and the patient had their own versions – to medical readers. He depicted himself, of course, as a clever and competent practitioner, certainly more knowledgeable than the midwife. Yet he also chose to ascribe his knowledge to William Hunter's lectures. Here he not only revealed his regular education, but also borrowed Hunter's authority and expertise. Hooper's flash of memory and insight (even if contrived) illustrates just how ordinary practitioners both accepted and established lecturers' influence and reputations. Throughout my work, I have argued that stories like Hooper's reveal a great deal about the construction of medical authority in eighteenth-century London.