Book Reviews wrote a lot, using a simple and effective style. sound analysis of the evidence Snow gathered He died suddenly, in his prime, but not before in arguing that cholera is essentially a disease producing work of lasting importance in two of the bowels, rather than of the blood. Not separate fields, anaesthesiology and surprisingly, Shephard (himself an anaesthetist) epidemiology. He has a blue plaque in has plenty to say about the other string to and a society commemorating his name. Snow's bow. Nevertheless, David Shephard's is the first full- Occasionally, the lack of direct evidence length biography of this remarkable Victorian leads Shephard to unnecessary poetic licence, general practitioner. and some of Snow's contemporaries are not Part of the reason for this undoubtedly is treated as seriously or as fully as they deserve. the absence of any collection of his Around the fringes, there are a few lapses: correspondence and other private papers. Even William Wilberforce was not MP for York the archives of people with whom he might be when Snow was born, and nonconformists did expected to have corresponded, such as Edwin not have a monopoly on evangelicalism. Erwin Chadwick, are silent. The one exception are the Ackerknecht's name is consistently misspelt. three volumes of Snow's Case Books, held in Nevertheless, we now have a full-length the Library of the Royal College of Physicians biography of Snow, and a good one. And if the of London, and recently transcribed and book, as an object, is a rather poor thing, at magnificently edited by the late Richard Ellis least the price is right. (Medical History, Supplement No. 14, 1994). The poignant dedication of Shephard's W F Bynum, Wellcome Institute biography is a paste-over In Memoriam to Ellis and Roderick Calverley, two anaesthetists cut off in 1995, also in their primes. Joseph Lester, E and the Shephard has made good use of the Case making ofmodern British , ed. Peter J Books, although Ellis's editorial apparatus and Bowler, BSHS Monographs 10, Faringdon, greater familiarity with Snow's handwriting Oxon, British Society for the History of were not available to him. The Case Books Science, 1995, pp. 220, illus., £9.00, $17.00 allow Shephard to comment on Snow's (0-906450-1 1-X). anaesthetic and general practice. For the most part, however, Shephard confines himself to Ray Lankester, knight, the eminent, many- Snow's published writings and what they say sided and controversial British biologist who about his evolving ideas on the nature and rose to the high position of Director of the mode of spread of cholera, and on the science British Museum of , and was and art of anaesthesia. His bibliography of well known in his day for his popular scientific Snow's writings is a full one, and every writings (often first published in newspapers, publication gets at least a mention. The and then in books such as From an easy chair discussion of Snow's epidemiological (1908) and Science from an easy chair (1910)), investigations during the 1854 cholera outbreak has long merited a biography. One has at last in London is especially cogent, for it goes appeared from the pen of a retired Manchester beyond Snow's classic work around Broad schoolmaster, Joe Lester, now over ninety. Street, Soho, and his comparison of the cholera Lester-who, like Lankester, was much incidence in houses supplied by two different interested in microscopy-began his studies of water companies, to scrutinize the immediate his "hero" back in the 1950s, when he was reception of Snow's findings. Shephard kindly allowed access to the Lankester papers emphasizes that Snow never believed that by the biologist's descendants. But, although contaminated water was the sole mode the main body of the text was written some whereby cholera is spread (soiled bedding thirty years ago, it appears that the project could be equally as effective), and provides a languished. Now, with the assistance of Peter

527 Book Reviews Bowler, who has done a general editorial job marine biology, embryology (with attention on the text and written Chapter 7 ('The given to the changes in body cavities during anatomist and evolutionist'), as well as development), parasitology, the colours of revising some other parts of the book, it organisms, etc. He argued for Darwinian theory appears after its long gestation. The publication contra Lamarckism, but held nevertheless that is greatly to be welcomed. all characters were partly inherited and partly Lankester must have been a fascinating acquired. He was active in the British character. Portly in build (somewhat Association and was instrumental in the resembling the younger Churchill), he came foundation of the Plymouth laboratory of the from a well-heeled family with scientific Marine Biological Association. Lankester was interests. Educated at St Paul's School, editor of the Quarterly Journal of Downing, and Christ Church, he had already Microscopical Science. His positive attitude published a scientific communication (a letter towards the idea of eoliths and the work of J to The Geologist on Pteraspis) at the age of Reid Moir appears, when viewed with good sixteen. He took a first at Oxford, and then whiggish retrospectivity, to have been an proceeded to postgraduate research on the unfortunate error. But it was one that was Continent, being particularly influenced by his commonly made at that time. Lankester was a experiences at the Naples Marine Research friend of H G Wells, and knew Marx. Institute. For the rest of his career, Lankester So now, at last, we have a biography of this was inclined to rail against the British fascinating and influential man-one who did establishment, and repeatedly compared the not suffer fools gladly-who, as Bowler points system of higher education in England out, came a little too late to be involved in the unfavourably with that in Germany. He once early, well-known, Darwinian controversies, wrote that "[a]n overwhelming majority of the and a little too early to be part of twentieth- young men who go as students to ... [Oxford century, post-Mendelian biology. (But this puts and Cambridge] have no intention of studying him at the centre of the period that Bowler has anything"; and that "[t]he inefficiency of the made his own for the study of the history of old universities is to a large extent the cause of British biology.) Despite his obvious qualities, the neglect and ignorance of science in the Lankester made enemies as well as friends. well-to-do class." Lester and Bowler have done their job well. Lankester was, then, a somewhat radical Although, as I understand from Professor figure; but his brilliance as a lecturer and a Bowler, there is more archival material of writer, and his flow of significant research interest to historians than has been used in the findings, made him impossible to ignore, and book, we already have "a rattling good story", at different times he occupied chairs at Oxford and one that does credit to all concerned. (where he was a Fellow of Merton), Edinburgh It is interesting to compare Bowler's Chapter (for but two weeks before he resigned, to the 7 with the rest of the book. It has the polish of embarrassment of those who had supported his the professional historian of science. Lester's application), and University College, London. prose is a little more rough hewn. But I liked it To an extent, Lankester's essays made him the no less. The biography puts the spotlight on a distinguished precursor of science writers such man who has for long been neglected, and as Stephen J Gould. He was knighted on his although some warts thereby become evident, retirement from the Museum; but his obituarist, we now have a most important piece of the Gavin de Beer, opined that Lankester was "not historical jigsaw for British biology in the suited to administrative work". second half of the nineteenth century. As biologist, Lankester was perhaps best known for his recognition that king crabs were David Oldroyd, The University of related to spiders. But he did much work on New South Wales

528