Frederick Tyrrell
| Born | 1793 |
| Died | 1843 |
Related eponyms
Bibliography
Biography of Frederick Tyrrell
Frederick Tyrrell was an apprentice under his uncle Astley Paston Cooper (1768-1841) 1811-1812. In 1819 he went for one year to Edinburgh for further studies. In 1820 he became an assistant surgeon in the London Infirmary for Diseases of the Eye, and in 1822 surgeon in St. Thomas’s Hospital. From 1825 he taught anatomy and surgery at the Aldersgate School, later at St. Thomas and the Royal College of Surgeons. He died suddenly in 1843, aged only 43 years.
Tyrrell was a member of the College of Surgeons 1816, of its Council 1838.
Report from St. Thomas’s Hospital, printed in The Lancet, December 14, 1823: “Operations: The operation for artificial pupil was performed here on Wednesday (Dec. 10th) by Mr. Tyrrell. The cornea was divided by means of a knife, and the requisite portion of iris removed by a small curved scissors.”
Lancet, October 16th, 1824: We have received a number of communications on the subject of the recent exploit of the consistent and conscientious person who unites the characters of a champion of “Hole and Corner” Surgery, and a humble transcriber of the pages of The Lancet. We insert the following letter with a view of enabling Mr. Tyrrell to judge of the feeling which his exploit has excited among those who are possessed of the volumes of The Lancet, and who have been ensnared into paying half a guinea for the twelve Lectures which the real Simon Pure has nearly transcribed from our pages, not only without acknowledgement, but under the false pretence that his is the only correct and authentic copy. One word as to the observation of our correspondent respecting copyright. We know that we could expose the real Simon Pure in a court of justice; but we have already declared that we think Sir A. Cooper’s invaluable Lectures cannot be to extensively diffused., and if Benbow, ashamed by being eclipsed by Mr. Tyrrell, were to imitate his example to-morrow, he may do so, as far as any legal interference on our part is concerned, with impunity. Unblushing is that individual’s invasions of literary property have been, we do not think that even Benbow, if he were to pirate our reports, would have the meanness to conceal the source from which he derived them, and the effronetry to represent himself as the author of them. A press of mater obliges us to postpone our dissection of the real Simon Pure until next week.
