This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
References
G. J. Goodfield, The Growth of Scientific Physiology (London, 1960).
I actually started this investigation as a result of a difference between myself and Dr. Everett Mendelsohn. In a footnote to his book Heat and Life, Dr. Mendelsohn says:—“His [Crawford's] failure to directly enter the philosophical arguments over vitalism should not be misconstrued. Most working biologists remained outside of this discourse.” (E. Mendelsohn, Heat and Life, 1964, p. 159n.) This statement is questionable. For example, in the particular discussion with which I am here concerned, which proved to be only one aspect of this issue within physiology at that time, I have counted the number of working scientists in France and England who actually wrote on this matter and noted where they wrote. Both Palmer, editing the works of John Hunter in 1837, and Bostock in his great compendium of contemporary physiology (3rd ed., 1836), devoted considerable footnote space to a discussion of this particular question and listed the names, with bibliographical references, of working physiologists who had expressed written opinions on this topic. The list contains many well-known scientists from France, Germany, and England, as well as a number whose names are not so familiar. Together these add up to over fifty references, and few well-known physiologists are missing. This was only one aspect of the physiological-philosophical discussion within the broad framework of general physiology. I would, therefore, still hold to the statement that I made when reviewing Mendelsohn's book in Isis [56, (1965), 461–465]: “with few exceptions, this was a time of methodological heart-searching for physiologists.”
For instance, William Lawrence, who will receive extensive discussion in this paper, refers to the following influential book which he had studied carefully: Thomas Brown, Inquiry into the Relation of Cause and Effect, 3rd ed., Edinburgh, 1818. Lawrence, moreover, is constantly writing in Humean terms, e.g.,” ... and the constant conjunction of phenomena ... is the sole ground for affirming a necessary connection between them.” W. Lawrence, Lectures on Comparative Anatomy, Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man. Dedicated to Blumenbach (London, 1819), p. 105.
P. Medawar, The Art of the Soluble (1967), p. 9.
This point has also been discussed by OsweiTempkin, “Basic Science, Medicine, and the Romantic Era,” Bull. Hist. Med., 36 (1963), 97–129.
W. Lawrence, Lecture XI, p. 109.
An earlier version of Part I of this paper was first presented to Sir Karl Popper's seminar at London School of Economics in June 1967. It was given in its present form at the History of Science Colloquium at Harvard University in February 1968. Part II of this paper was given as a lecture at the Rockefeller University in March 1966, and subsequently printed in The Rockefeller Review (October 1966). It has been amended for this printing. My thanks are due to the Librarians of the Royal College of Medicine, the Royal College of Surgeons, and the Royal College of Physicians in London, England, for their help and assistance during the work on the manuscripts.
The Edinburgh Review, (1814), Article VI, pp. 384–398 (Anonymous).
Ibid., p. 384.
D. Hartley, Observations on Man (1749), pt. II, chap. 1, Proposition 6.
D. Hartley, Observations, pt. I. Conclusion.
J.Ferriar, “Observations concerning the Vital Principle,” Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, 3 (1990), 223.
For a comprehensive discussion of this point see S. E. Toulmin, “Neurosciences and Human Understanding,” In Neurosciences: A Study Program. Rockefeller University Press (1968), pp. 822–832.
M. F. X. Bichat, Anatomie generale appliquée à la physiologie et médécine (Paris, 1801); J. A. Chaptal (1791), Elements of Chemistry, trans. W. Nicholson (London, 1791), esp. p. 279.
See G. J. Goodfield, “Benjamin Brodie,” in Dictionary of Scientific Biography (in press).
C. Bernard, Leçons sur la chaleur animale, Paris (1876), p. 290.
J. Hunter, “Lectures on the Principles of Surgery,” delivered in 1786–1787, in The Works of John Hunter, edited with notes by J. Palmer (London, 1837), vol. I. Discussion of this relevant problem is in chap. 2 of vol. I. See also “A Treatise on the Blood,” 1793, Works, vol. III, especially footnote, pp. 120–121.
J. Hunter, Works, I, 214.
Ibid., p. 223.
D. Hartley. Observations, pt. II, chap. 1, proposition 6.
J. Hunter, Works, I, 124n.
J. Abernethy. An Inquiry, p. 33.
I. Newton, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 2nd ed., 1713, General Scholium, last paragraph.
J. Prichard, Vital Principle, p. 12–13.
J. Abernethy. An Inquiry, pp. 10–12.
The Edinburgh Review (September 1814), p. 391. The author of this anonymous review still remains untraced. Walter Houghton and his wife, Esther Houghton, of Wellesley College, who have been preparing the Index to Victorian Periodicals, have so far been unable to identify him. We have discussed this and are still looking for more ancilliary evidence. My own suspicion, based on the style of writing and also on the nature of the scientific criticisms presented, is that it could well be William Lawrence. He was relatively young, thirty-one, in 1814. (See last sentence of quotation following.)
Ibid., p. 297.
W. Lawrence, “On Life,” Lecture II in An Introduction to Comparative Anatomy and Physiology (London, 1816), p. 167.
J. Prichard, Vital Principle, pp. 97–129. Prichard was also a corresponding member of the National Institute of Science in France, Honorary Fellow of Kings and Queens Colleges of Physicians in Ireland, and a member of the World Academy of Medicine in Paris. Not only did he have a distinguished medical practice, specializing in some of the very earliest studies of human behavior and ethnology, but he was completely “au fait” with the current opinions abroad.
Lawrence tried, vainly, to insist that there was a genuine distinction between physiology and theology. “I say, physiologically speaking, and beg you to attend particularly to this qualification: because the theological doctrine of the soul, and its separate existence, has nothing to do with this physiological question, but rests on a species of truth altogether different” (Lectures, p. 8).
Prichard's footnote reads, “See the Advertisement of Mr. Dutrochet's Work, entitled L'agent immediat du mouvement vital ...”
Vital Principle, Preface, p. vii.
Ibid., p. 21.
Ibid.
Ibid., p. 22.
This was surely an oversimplification of the manner in which Newton's theory of gravitation was established. No sharp line can be drawn marking the point at which Newton's argument had succeeded in “ascertaining” the principle of gravitation “beyond all doubt as a matter of fact,” so allowing him to turn to the new task of using it “to the explanation of phenomena.” The evidence for gravitation was cumulative and involved using it to “explain phenomena” from the outset. One can argue that beyond a certain point no reasonable doubt remained of the validity of such gravitational explanations; but this judgement turns on a matter of degree, and there was certainly no clear point at which “all doubt whatever” suddenly disappeared.
Ibid., pp. 22–26.
Ibid., p. 25.
Ibid., p. 23.
J. Bostock, General Physiology, pp. 402–405.
See William Jacobs, Reports of Cases in the Court of Chancery During the Time of Lord Chancellor Eldon (London, 1828). The Lawrence case, “Lawrence v. Smith,” was heard on March 21, 25, and 26, 1822. The Law Reports for March of that year give full details of the arguments used by Counsels both for the Plaintiff and for the Defense. The various editions of Lawrence's book are as follows: 1) 1819 (J. Callow), 579 pp.; 2) 1822 (W. Benbow), 500 pp.; 3) 1822 (Kaygill & Price, no plates) 2 vols., 288 and 212 pp.; 4) 1823 (J. & C. Smith, new plates) 532 pp.; 5) 1823 (R. Carlile, 5 Water Lane, Fleet Street, and 201 Strand). This edition carries a sarcastic dedication to Lord Eldon “as the result of his injustice in refusing to establish the Author's Right of Property in these lectures.” There is a copy in the Royal Society of Science in Stockholm,—with a note inside by Lawrence presenting this book to the Society. There is also a copy in the New York Academy of Medicine. This edition also contains the two lectures that Lawrence delivered in 1816; 6) 1844 (J. Taylor, old plates) “Ninth edition—stereotyped,” 396 pp. I have used as my source of quotations none of the above editions, but the collection of these lectures which is in the library of The Royal Society of Medicine in London.
W. Lawrence. Introduction to Comparative Anatomy and Physiology, Lecture II.
J. Abernethy, Physiological Lectures addressed to The Royal College of Surgeons, London. Delivered 1817, published 1825.
W. Lawrence. Lectures, p. 9.
Ibid., p. 4.
Ibid., p. 107.
Ibid., p. 60.
W. Lawrence, Introduction to Comparative Anatomy and Physiology, p. 121.
J. G. Goodfield, The Growth of Scientific Physiology, p. 70.
W. Lawrence, Lectures, p. 72.
Ibid., p. 91.
Ibid., p. 76.
Ibid., p. 88.
Ibid., p. 106.
Ibid., p. 110.
Ibid., p. 114.
T. Rennell, Remarks on Scepticism ... being an Answer to the Views of M. Bichat, Sir T. C. Morgan, and Mr. Lawrence. 3rd ed. (London, 1819), p. 54.
The Quarterly Review, 22, (July 1819), 1; The British Critic, 12, (1819), 89.
Anon., A Letter on the Reputed Immateriality of the Human Soul with Strictures on the Rev. T. Rennell's Late Publication (London, 1821), p. 64.
Philostratus (Foster of Chelmsford). Somatopsychonoologia, showing that Body, Life and Mind considered as Distinct Essences cannot be deduced from Physiology (London, 1823), p. 116.
The Quarterly Review, 22 (July 1819), 33.
The British Critic, 12 (1819), 95
A letter of Lawrence's is in the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum. It is written to a bookseller, William Hone, and though not dated, is on paper watermarked ‘1820’. It says: “... I beg you to accept the accompanying copy of my lectures, and to assure you that although I thought it expedient to withdraw this work from circulation, no consideration of expediency would ever induce me to shun the appearance of intimacy with one whom I respect so highly for talent and the most important public services as well as for the possession of much greater courage in these matters than falls to the lot of Yours very faithfully, W. Lawrence” (B.M. Add. Ms. 40120, f 171).
T. H. Huxley. Evidence on Man's Place in Nature (1836), Preface.
Four authors, in recent times, have written on this episode: see C. D. Darlington, Darwin's Place in History (1960); Owsei Temkin, “Basic Science, Medicine and the Romantic Era”, Bull. Hist. Med., 36 (1963) 97–129; J. Goodfield-Toulmin, “Blasphemy and Biology,” The Rockefeller University Review, September 1966, pp. 9–18; P. D. Mudford, “William Lawrence and the Natural History of Man”, J. Hist. Ideas, 22 (1968), 430–436. Darlington places a different interpretation on the whole episode from those of the other authors, who are more or less in agreement. As I wrote in 1966, “Darlington's interpretation is misjudged. Lawrence's views on evolution and inheritance did NOT provide the focus of the attacks on him; the issues were more to do with his materialism.” Mudford's article, a critique of Darlington's, emphasizes this and demonstrates how misleading and inaccurate Darlington's interpretation is.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Goodfield-Toulmin, J. Some aspects of English physiology: 1780–1840. J Hist Biol 2, 283–320 (1969). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00125021
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00125021