William Lawrence (biologist)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Sir William Lawrence, 1st Baronet FRCS FRS (July 16, 1783–July 05, 1867) was an English surgeon who became President of the Royal College of Surgeons of London and Serjeant Surgeon to the Queen. As a young man he published a book containing pre-Darwinian ideas on man's nature and, effectively, on evolution. His book was suppressed, after which his later surgical career was highly successful.

Contents 1 Life 2 Surgical career 3 Controversy and Chancery 4 Context 4.1 Lawrence on heredity 4.2 Darlington's interpretation 5 Content of the book 5.1 The introductory sections 5.2 Evidence from geology and palaeontology 5.3 Summary of ideas on human races 5.4 Ideas on mechanism 5.5 Contradiction of the Bible 6 References

[edit] Life

Lawrence was born in Cirencester, Gloucestershire, the son of a surgeon. He was apprenticed to, and lived with, John Abernethy (FRS 1796) for 5 years. He married Louisa (1803–1855), the daughter of a Mayfair haberdasher, who built up social fame through horticulture. Their son, Sir Trevor Lawrence MP, (1831–1913) was for many years President of the Royal Horticultural Society.

Lawrence had a long and successful career as a surgeon. At his death he had reached the top of his profession, and the Queen rewarded him with a baronetcy. He was created a baronet (see Lawrence Baronets) on 30 April 1867. Lawrence suffered an attack of apoplexy whilst descending the stairs at the College of Surgeons and died later at his house, 18 Whitehall Place, London (5th July 1867).^[1]

[edit] Surgical career

During Lawrence's surgical career he held the posts of Professor of Anatomy and Surgery, Royal College of Surgeons (1815); Demonstrator of Anatomy, then Assistant Surgeon, later Surgeon, St Bartholomew's Hospital (1824-1865); Surgeon Extraordinary, later Serjeant Surgeon, to the Queen. His specialty was ophthalmology, although he practiced in and lectured and wrote on all branches of surgery. Shelley, Pugin, and Queen Victoria were among his patients.

Despite the outstanding quality of his surgical work, which took him to the height of his profession, Lawrence is mostly remembered today for an extraordinary period in his early career which brought him fame and notoriety, and led him to the brink of ruin.

[edit] Controversy and Chancery

At the age of 30, in 1813 (the year he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society), Lawrence began a series of lectures at the College of Surgeons. These lectures led, in 1819, to the publication of a book entitled Lectures on comparative anatomy, physiology, zoology and the natural history of man, shortened here to Natural history of man. The book caused a storm of disapproval from conservative and clerical quarters for their supposed atheism, and within the medical profession because he advocated a materialist rather than vitalist approach to human life. He was linked by his critics with such other 'revolutionaries' as Thomas Paine and Lord Byron.

Hostility from the established Church of England was guaranteed, and immediate. "A vicious review in the Tory Quarterly Review execrated his materialist explanation of man and mind"; ^[2][3] the Lord Chancellor, in the Court of Chancery, ruled his lectures blasphemous, on the grounds that the book contradicted Holy Scripture (the Bible). This destroyed the book's copyright. Lawrence was also repudiated by his own teacher, Abernethy, with whom he had already had a controversy about John Hunter's teachings. Faced by persecution, perhaps prosecution, and certainly ruin through the loss of surgical patients, Lawrence withdrew the book. The time had not yet arrived when a science which dealt with man as a species could be conducted without interference from the religious authorities.

It is interesting that the Court of Chancery was acting, here, in its most ancient role, that of a court of conscience. This entailed the moral law applied to prevent peril to the soul of the wrongdoer through mortal sin. The remedy was given to the plaintiff (the Crown, in this case) to look after the wrongdoer's soul; the benefit to the plaintiff was only incidental. This is also the explanation for specific performance, which compels the sinner to put matters right. The whole conception is mediæval in origin.

It is difficult to find a present-day parallel. Neither censorship nor suppression of dissent covers this situation; though there resulted only an indirect financial penalty, the withholding of copyright was both an official act and a hostile signal. We do not seem to have a word for this kind of indirect pressure; perhaps the modern 'naming and shaming' comes closest. The importance of respectability, reputation and public standing were critical in this case, as so often in traditional societies.

The anonymous publication of the Vestiges in 1844, and the very great caution shown by Darwin in publishing his radical ideas has a similar cause, the need to avoid a direct conflict with religion whilst giving voice to scientific ideas. We know that Darwin owned a copy of Lawrence's book, and that he did brood about the consequences of publishing his ideas.^[4] In Lawrence's day the impact of laws on sedition and blasphemy were even more threatening than they were in Darwin's time.^[5]

Lawrence's Natural history of man contained some remarkable anticipations of later thought, but was ruthlessly, and successfully, suppressed. The suppression was so effective that to this day Lawrence does not seem to get the recognition he deserves. He is omitted, for example, from many of the Darwin biographies,^[6] and from some evolution textbooks.^[7]

Having made his critical decision to withdraw the book, Lawrence's career went ever forward. He never looked back: he became President of the Royal College of Surgeons, and Serjeant-Surgeon to Queen Victoria. Before he died she made him a baronet. "Never again [did] he venture to express his views on the processes of evolution, on the past or the future of man." ^[8] He did, however, warn the young T.H. Huxley – in vain, it must be said – not to broach the dangerous topic of the evolution of man.^[9]

[edit] Context

Lawrence was one of three British medical men who wrote on evolution-related topics between 1813 and 1819. They would all have been familiar with Erasmus Darwin and Lamark at least; probably also Malthus. Two (Prichard and Lawrence) dedicated their works to Blumenbach, the founder of physical anthropology. "The men who took up the challenge of Lamark were three English physicians, Wells, Lawrence and Prichard"... "All three men denied soft heredity (Lamarkism)" ^[10] Not too accurate in biographical terms, as Lawrence was actually a surgeon, Wells was born in Carolina to a Scottish family, and Prichard was a Scot! However, correct in principle on the main issue. Each grasped aspects of Darwin's theory, yet none saw the whole picture, and none developed the ideas any further. The later publication of Chambers' Vestiges and Matthew's Naval timber^[11] was more expicit; the existence of the whole group suggests there was something real (though intangible) about the intellectual atmosphere in Britain which is captured by the phrase 'evolution was in the air.'

[edit] Lawrence on heredity

The existence of races is a token of change in the human species, and suggests there is some significance in geographic separation. Lawrence noted that racial characteristics were inherited, not caused by the direct effect of, for instance, climate.

Lawrence's ideas on heredity were many years ahead of their time, as this extract shows: "The offspring inherit only [their parents'] connate peculiarities and not any of the acquired qualities". This is as clear a rejection of soft inheritance as one can find. However, Lawrence qualified it by including the origin of birth defects owing to influences on the mother (an old folk superstition). So Mayr places Wilhelm His, Sr. in 1874 as the first unqualified rejection of soft inheritance.^[12][13] However, the number of places in the text where Lawrence explicitly rejects the direct action of the environment on heredity justifies his recognition as an early opponent of Lamarkism.

[edit] Darlington's interpretation

Here, as seen by Cyril Darlington, are some of the ideas presented by Lawrence in his book, much abbreviated and rephrased in more modern terms:

• Mental as well as physical differences in man are inherited.
• Races of man have arisen by mutations such as may be seen in litters of kittens.
• Sexual selection has improved the beauty of advanced races and governing classes.
• The separation of races preserves their characters.
• 'Selections and exclusions' are the means of change and adaptation.
• Men can be improved by selection in breeding just as domesticated cattle can be. Conversely, they can be ruined by inbreeding, a consequence which can be observed in many royal families.
• Zoological study, the treatment of man as an animal, is the only proper foundation for teaching and research in medicine, morals, or even in politics.^[14]

Darlington's account goes further than other commentators. He seems to credit Lawrence with a modern appreciation of selection (which he definitely did not have); subsequently, Darlington's account was criticised as an over-statement.^[15] Darlington does not claim Lawrence actually enunciated a theory of evolution, though passages in Lawence's book do suggest that races were historically developed. On heredity and adaptation, and the rejection of Lamarkism (soft inheritance) Lawrence is quite advanced.

[edit] Content of the book

[edit] The introductory sections

Lecture I: introductory to the lectures of 1817.
Reply to the charges of Mr Abernethy; Modern history and progress of comparative anatomy.

The significance of this section is to show that the argument between Abernethy and Lawrence had been going on from well before the publication of the book:

"Gentlemen! I cannot presume to address you again... without first publicly clearing myself from a charge publicly made... of propagating opinions detrimental to society... for the purpose of loosening those restraints, on which the welfare of mankind depends."
*[footnote] Physiological lectures, exhibiting a general view of Mr Hunter's Physiology &c &c. by John Abernethy FRS. [references] "too numerous to be particularized." This book of lectures at the same College of Surgeons contained the charge of which Lawrence complained.
In this very long footnote Lawrence says that the elementary anatomy in Abernethy's text is used "like water in a medical prescription... an innocent vehicle for the more active ingredients."

After a long preamble, in which Lawrence extols the virtue of freedom of speech, he eventually gets to the point:

"It is alleged that there is a party of modern sceptics, co-operating in the diffusion of these noxious opinions with a no less terrible band of French physiologists, for the purpose of demoralising mankind! Such is the general tenor of the accusation..." p3

"Where, Gentlemen! shall we find proofs of this heavy charge? p4
I see the animal functions inseparable from the animal organs... examine the mind... Do we not see it actually built up before our eyes by the actions of the five external senses, and of the gradually developed internal faculties? p5
I say, physiologically speaking... 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 proof altogether different." p6

Lawrence is here arguing that medical questions should be answered by medical evidence, in other words, he is arguing for rational thought and empiricism instead of revelation or received religion. In particular, he insisted that mental activity was produced as a function of the brain, and has nothing to do with metaphysical concepts such as the 'soul'. Also, there is an implication, never quite stated, that Abernethy's motive might be venal; that jealousy (for example) might be revealed by "a consideration of the real motives" (phrase from his long initial footnote). It is absolutely clear that the conflict predates the publication of Lawrence's book.

[edit] Evidence from geology and palaeontology

The discussion drawn from stratigraphy is interesting:

"The inferior layers, or the first in order of time, contain the remains most widely different from the animals of the living creation; and as we advance to the surface there is a gradual approximation to our present species." p39

Refers to Cuvier, Brongniart and Lamark in France, and Parkinson in Britain) in connection with fossils:

"... the extinct races of animals... those authentic memorials of beings... whose living existence... has been supposed, with considerable probability, to be of older date than the formation of the human race." p39

[edit] Summary of ideas on human races

Chapter VII raises the issue of whether different races have similar diseases (p162 et seq) and ends with a list of reasons for placing man in one distinct species. The reasons are mostly anatomical with some behavioural, such as speech. They remain valid today.

Next there is a lengthy discussion of variation in man, and of the differences between races. Then he considers causation. Lectures of 1818, Chapter IX: On the causes of the varieties of the human species:

"Having examined the principal points in which the several tribes of the human species differ from each other... I proceed to inquire whether the diversities enumerated ... are to be considered as characteristic distinctions coeval with the origin of the species, or as a result of subsequent variation; and in the event of the latter... whether they are the effect of external... causes, or of native or congenital variety." p343
"Great influence has at all times been ascribed to climate... [but] we have abundance of proof that [differences of climate] are entirely inadequate to account for the differences between the different races of men. p343–4

He shows clearly in several places that differences between races (and between varieties of domesticated animals) are inherited, and not caused by the direct action of the environment; then follows this admission:

"We do not understand the exact nature of the process by which it [meaning the correspondence between climate and racial characteristics] is effected." p345

So, after insisting on empirical (non-religious) evidence, he has clearly rejected Lamarkism but has not thought of natural selection.

[edit] Ideas on mechanism

Although in places Lawrence disclaims all knowledge of how the differences between races arose, elsewhere there are passages which hint at a mechanism. In Chapter IX, for example, we find:

"These signal diversities which constitute differences of race in animals... can only be explained by two principles... namely, the occasional production of an offspring with different characters from those of the parents, as a native or congenital variety; [ie heritable] and the propagation of such varieties by generation." p348 [continues with examples of heritable variety in offspring in one litter of kittens, or sheep. This is Mendelian inheritance and segregation]

Passages like this are interpreted by Darlington in his first two points above. It is clear that Lawrence's understanding of heredity was well ahead of his time, (ahead of Darwin, in fact) and that he only lacks the idea of selection to have a fully-fledged theory of evolution.

[edit] Contradiction of the Bible

Direct contradiction of the Bible was something Lawrence might have avoided, but his honesty and forthright approach led him onto this dangerous ground:

"The representations of all the animals being brought before Adam in the first instance and subsequently of their being collected in the ark... are zoogically impossible." p169

"The entire or even partial inspiration of the... Old Testament has been, and is, doubted by many persons, including learned divines and distinguished oriental and biblical scholars. The account of the creation and of subsequent events, has the allegorical character common to eastern compositions..." p168-9 incl. footnotes.

"The astronomer does not portray the heavenly motions, or lay down the laws which govern them, according to the Jewish scriptures [= the Old Testament] nor does the geologist think it necessary to modify the results of experience according to the contents of the Mosaic writngs. I conclude then, that the subject is open for discussion." p172

Passages such as these, fully in the tradition of British empiricism and the Age of Enlightenment, were no doubt pointed out to the Lord Chancellor. In his opinion, the subject was not open for discussion.

[edit] References

• Lawrence, William FRS. 1816. An introduction to the comparative anatomy and physiology, being the two introductory lectures deliverred at the Royal College of Surgeons on the 21st and 25th of March 1916. J. Callow, London. [the content of this book is repeated at the start of the following work]

• Lawrence, William FRS. 1819. Lectures on physiology, zoology and the natural history of man. J. Callow, London. 579pp.
  There were a number of unauthorized reprints of this work, pirated (in the sense that the author went unrecompensed) but seemingly unexpurgated. These editions also lacked the protection of copyright, and date from 1819 to 1848. Some of them were by quite respectable publishers. Desmond's view is that the Chancery decision was "a ringing endorsement to atheist ears. Six pauper presses pirated the offending book, keeping it in print for decades. As a result, although officially withdrawn, Laurence's magnum opus could be found on every dissident's bookshelf." Desmond & Moore 1991. Darwin p253.
  The text of all editions is probably identical, though no-one has published a full bibliographical study.

1822 W. Benbow. 500pp. Darwin's copy was of this edition.

1822 Kaygill & Price (no plates). 2 vols, 288+212pp.

1823 J&C Smith (new plates). 532pp.

1838 J. Taylor. ('twelve new engravings'; seventh edition – stereotyped). 396pp.

1844 J. Taylor (old plates; 'ninth edition – stereotyped). 396pp.

1848 H. G. Bohn (ninth edition, as above).

The British Library also holds a number of pamphlets, mostly attacking L's ideas.

• Lawrence, William FRS. 1834. The Hunterian Oration, delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons on the 14th of February 1834. Churchill, London.

• Darlington, Cyril D. 1959. Darwin's place in history. Blackwell, Oxford; also Macmillan, N.Y. 1961.

• Mudford P.G. 1968. William Lawrence and The Natural History of Man. Journal of the History of Ideas 29, 430-436.

• Wells K.D. 1971. Sir William Lawrence (1783-1867): a study of pre-Darwinian ideas on heredity and variation. J. History of Biology 6, 225-58.

Baronetage of the United Kingdom
Preceded by New Creation	Baronet (of Ealing Park) 1867	Succeeded by Sir Trevor Lawrence, 2nd Baronet