Sir William Lawrence (1783-1867): A Study of Pre-Darwinian Ideas on Heredity and Variation Author(s): Kentwood D. Wells Source: Journal of the History of Biology, Vol. 4, No. 2 (Autumn, 1971), pp. 319-361 Published by: Springer Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4330564 . Accessed: 29/05/2013 14:11

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the History of Biology.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence (1783-1867) A Study of Pre-DarwinianIdeas on Heredity and Variation

KENTWOOD D. WELLS Section of Ecology and Systematics Cornell University Ithaca, New York

INTRODUCTION Of the many British biologists of the early nineteenth century who have been neglected by historians of science, one of the most interesting is Sir William Lawrence. Despite the fact that Lawrence was evidently the first man to introduce the term "biology" into English usage, a standard reference on the history of biology such as Nordenskiold's detailed treatment makes no mention of him.' In other works, if he is mentioned at all, it is often in a brief paragraph or footnote. There is no full biography of Lawrence, and only a few brief biographical sketches are available. Unfortunately, much of what has been written about him is inaccurate and misleading. In the last ten years there has been a slight revival of interest in Lawrence, begun largely by C. D. Darlington's claim that Lawrence was a full-fledged forerunner of Darwin.2 Darlington's brief treatment has been used as the basis for even briefer discussions by a number of other authors.3 Darlington is not 1. Erik Nordenskiold, The History of Biology (New York: Tudor Publish. ing Co., 1935). On Lawrence's use of the term "biology," see: William Lawrence, Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man (Salem, Mass.: Foote & Brown, 1828), p. 65; June Goodfield-Toulmin, "Blasphemy and Biology," Rockefeller University Review, 4 (1966), 14; Charles Singer, A History of Biology, rev. ed. (New York: Henry Schuman, 1950), p. 294n. 2. C. D. Darlington, Darwin's Place in History (New York: Macmillan, 1961), pp. 16-24; "The Origin of Darwinism," Scientific American, 200 (May 1959), 60-66. 3. Sir Alister Hardy, The Living Stream (London: Collins, 1966), p. 58; Desmond King-Hele, Erasmus Darwin (New York: Scribner's, 1963), p. 78; Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Science of Life (London: Thames & Hudson, 1963), p. 143. Journal of the History of Biology, vol. 4, no. 2 (Fall 1971), pp. 319-361.

319

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS the first to suggest that Lawrence anticipated Darwinian evo- lution. As early as the 1890's, during a period of great interest in forerunners of Darwin, Lawrence was cited as having an- ticipated certain aspects of Darwin's theory, and several writers since then have repeated the suggestion.4 In addition, a number of recent authors have focused their attention on other aspects of Lawrence's work, especially his physiological theories of life and the function of the brain.5 This paper will deal principally with Lawrence's views on heredity and race formation in man and with his position in the development of the theory of evolution. These are the aspects of his work which have been most often confused. William Lawrence was born in 1783 and died in 1867. He advanced rapidly in his medical education and at sixteen was made an apprentice to the well-known surgeon, John Abernethy, at St. Bartholomew's Hospital. He was appointed a demonstrator in anatomy in 1801. In 1804 he became a member of the Royal College of Surgeons, in 1813 a Fellow of the Royal Society, and in 1814 an assistant surgeon at St. Bartholomew's. Meanwhile he had begun publishing at an early age. While still an ap- prentice to Abernethy, he was asked to write a series of articles on anatomical and physiological subjects for Abraham Rees's Cyclopedia, and he continued to contribute articles until the work was finished in 1820. He also published translations of Murray's Arteries of the Human Body from the Latin, and Blumenbach's Comparative Anatomy from the German, in 1801 and 1807 respectively. In 1816 he published a series of lectures entitled An Introduction to Comparative Anatomy and Physiol- ogy, a book which inaugurated a fierce controversy with 4. Jonathan Hutchinson, "In Memory of William Lawrence," Nature, 56 (1897), 200-201; D. J. Cunningham, "Anthropology in the 18th Century," J. Royal Anthro. Inst., 38 (1908), 30-34; A.C. Haddon, History of Anthro- pology (London: Watts & Co., 1910), p. 55; Burton Chance, "Sir William Lawrence in Relation to Medical Education," Annals of Medical History, 8 (1926), 273; T. K. Penniman, A Hundred Years of Anthropology (London: Macmillan, 1935), p. 64; Conway Zirkle, "Natural Selection Before the 'Origin of Species'," Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 84 (1941), 109-110; E. W. Count, "The Evolution of the Race Idea in Modem Western Culture During the Period of the Pre-Darwinian Nineteenth Century," Trans. N. Y. Acad. Sci., ser. II, vol. 7 (1945), 154-159; M. J. Sirks and Conway Zirkle, The Evolution of Biology (New York: Ronald, 1964), p. 315. 5. Goodfield-Toulmin, "Blasphemy and Biology"; June Goodfield- Toulmin, "Some Aspects of English Physiology; 1780-1840," Journal of the History of Biology, 2 (1969), 283-320; Thomas S. Hall, Ideas of Life and Matter (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1969), II, 228-230; Philip C. Ritterbush, Overtures to Biology (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1964), pp. 189-191; Owsei Temkin, "Basic Science, Medicine, and the Romantic Era," Bull. Hist. Med., 37 (1963), 97-129.

320

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence

Abernethy and others on the nature of life. In 1819, he published his Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man, the book which is the subject of this paper.6 Lawrence's two sets of published lectures, particularly the second volume (1819), caused a great furor because of his views on the nature of life and on the function of the brain, which brought charges of materialism upon him. The details of this controversy have been fully discussed in papers by June Goodfield- Toulmin and Owsei Temkin, and they need not be repeated here.7 Suffice it to say that Lawrence withdrew his lectures from circulation to save his medical career. Although they were re- printed many times by various publishers after Lawrence was denied copyright, he never wrote anything more on these sub- jects, but confined his writings to purely medical treatises. The decision to suppress his lectures was evidently a wise one, for Lawrence went on to a brilliant career as a teacher and surgeon, eventually becoming Sergeant-Surgeon to Queen Victoria.8 Lawrence was an impressive lecturer who had a profound effect on his listeners. The style of his writing is unusually clear and precise for his period and conveys an impression of a vast amount of knowledge. We can get some idea of the impact which the young Lawrence had on his audience from Sir James Paget's description of lectures he attended in the mid-1830's. Those of Lawrence, were, I think, the best then given in London: admirable in their well collected knowledge, and even more admirable in their order, their perfect clearness of language, and the quiet attractive manner in which they were delivered . . . He used to come to the Hospital in the omnibus, and, after a few minutes in the Museum, would as the clock struck, enter the theater, then always full. He came with a strange vague outlook as if with uncertain sight; the expres- sion of his eyes was always inferior to that of his other features. These were impressive, beautiful, and grand- significant of vast mental power well trained and well sustained. He came in quietly, and after sitting for about half a minute, as if gathering his thoughts, began, in a clear, rather high note, speaking quite deliberately in faultless words

6. Benignus Winslow Forbes, Physic and Physicians (London: Longman, Orme, Brown & Co., 1839), IV, 360-378; Norman Moore, "William Law- rence," DNB., XI, 727-728. 7. Goodfield-Toulmin, "Blasphemy and Biology" and "Some Aspects of English Physiology" (n. 5 above); Temkin, "Basic Science" (n. 5 above). 8. Chance, "Sir William Lawrence . . ." (n. 4 above), pp. 270-279; Moore, "William Lawrence" (n. 6 above), p. 728.

321

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS

as if telling judiciously that which he was just now thinking. There was no hurry, no delay, no repitition, no revision: every word had been learned by heart, and yet there was not the least sign that one word was being remembered. It was the best method of scientific speaking that I have ever heard." Lawrence's major work, Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man, was divided into five sections. First there was a lengthy reply to charges made by Abernethy against Lawrence in their controversy on life, in which Lawrence made a strong plea for freedom of scientific enquiry. Following this, there was an historical overview of anatomy and physiology which demonstrated Lawrence's wide knowledge of the literature of those fields, especially the works of French and German writers. The next two lectures dealt with the subjects of life and the function of the brain which caused so much controversy. His main points in the lectures were ( 1 ) that there is no non- corporeal principle of life superadded to organic matter, and (2) that thought is as much the function of the brain as diges- tion is of the stomach.10 The final portion of the book, which dealt with the "Natural History of Man," contained Lawrence's views on heredity and variation.

LAWRENCE'SANTHROPOLOGY Lawrence began his discussion of the "Natural History of Man" by posing a number of questions to be examined from a zoologi- cal and physiological point of view: Is he a species broadly and clearly distinguished from all others; or is he specifically allied to the orangutang and other monkeys? What are his corporeal, what his mental distinc- tions . . . How is man affected by the external influences of climate, food, way of life? Are these, or any others, operating on beings originally alike, sufficient to account for all the diversities hitherto observed; or must we suppose that several kinds of men were created originally, each for its own situation? . . . What was the appearance of the first man? Did he go erect, or on all fours?'1 Lawrence immediately rejected any chain of being which made man "only . . . a more perfect kind of monkey," singling out Charles White's Account of the Regular Gradation in Man 9. Stephen Paget, ed., Memoirs and Letters of Sir James Paget (London: Longmans, Green, & Co., 1901), p. 45. 10. Lawrence, Lectures, pp. 1-103. 11. Ibid., pp. 107-108.

322

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence and in Different Animals and Vegetables (London, 1799) for particular criticism.12 He also rejected the "strange notion" of Rousseau and Monboddo that man and the orangutang are of one species. In his criticism of their theories, Lawrence maintained that these authors "were equally unacquainted with the structure and function of men and monkeys . . . and . . . entirely desti- tute of the principles on which alone a sound judgment can be formed concerning the natural capabilities and destiny of animals."13 To illustrate the absurdity of these speculations, Lawrence devoted the next seven chapters to a detailed analysis of the features which distinguish man from the lower animals. His careful marshaling of vast amounts of information culled from voluminous reading reminds one of Darwin's Descent of Man, written over fifty years later. But the point of view was quite different. Darwin concerned himself with similarities between man and animals; Lawrence was concerned with differences. Yet while Lawrence emphasized the distinctness of man, it is clear from his discussion that he considered man very much a part of nature, to be studied like any other object of natural history. In his concept of species, Lawrence was no evolutionist, for he held firmly to the fixity of species, as the following passages show. Animals are characterized by fixed and definite external forms, which are transmitted and perpetuated by generation. The offspring of sexual unions is marked with all the bodily characters of the parents . . . Constant and permanent differ- ence, therefore, is the essential notion conveyed by the word species.

Nature has provided, by the insurmountable barriers of instinctive aversion, of sterility in the hybrid offspring, and in the allotment of species to different parts of the earth, against any corruption or change of species of wild animals. We must therefore admit, for all the species which we know at present, as sufficiently distinct and constant, a distinct origin and common date.14 While he stated that species have "fixed and definite external forms," Lawrence realized that a great deal of variation occurs

12. Ibid., p. 110. 13. Ibid., pp. 110-111. 14. Ibid., pp. 226-227, 233.

323

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS in both man and animals. Much of his discussion centered around the analogy between the races of man and the varieties found among domesticated animals. Using this analogy, he attempted to show that human races are members of a single species and that the differences between them are no greater than those found among domesticated animals of a single species. Lawrence discussed the effects of food, climate, and manner of life in altering the physical appearance of human races, for these external factors were generally believed to be responsible for such differences as skin color.15 Unlike many of his contemporaries, however, Lawrence ex- plicitly denied the inheritance of acquired characteristics: Certain external circumstances, as food, climate, mode of life, have the power of modifying the animal's organization, so as to make it deviate from that of the parent. But this effect terminates in the individual.

In all the changes which are produced in the bodies of animals by the action of external causes, the effect terminates in the individual; the offspring is not in the slightest degree modified by them, but is born with the original properties and constitution of the parents, and a susceptibility only of the same changes when exposed to the same causes.'6 Since external influences played no role in producing varieties in animals and in man, Lawrence believed that these could only be the result of spontaneous variations. He was unsure of the causes of these variations, as unsure as Darwin was forty years later, but he clearly recognized the existence of this phenomenon: These [diversities] can be explained only by two principles . . . namely, the occasional production of an offspring with different characters from those of the parents, as a native or congenital variety; and the propagation of such varieties by generation. It is impossible, in the present state of physiologi- cal knowledge, to show how this is effected; to explain why a gray rabbit can sometimes bring forth at one birth, and from one father, yellow, black, white, and spotted young; why a

15. On various environmentalist theories of race formation, see: Herbert H. Odum, "Generalizations on Race in 19th Century Anthropology," Isis, 58 (1967), 5-18; Samuel Stanhope Smith, An Essay on the Causes of the Variety of Complexion and Figure in the Human Species, ed. with an intro. by Winthrop D. Jordan (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1965); Thomas Bendyshe, ed., The Anthropological Treatises of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach (London: The Anthropological Society, 1865). 16. Lawrence, Lectures, pp. 89, 436.

324

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence

white sheep sometimes has a black lamb; or why the same parents at different times have leucaethiopic children, and others with the ordinary formation and characters.17 According to Lawrence, domesticated animals are much more subject to variation than are wild animals. He saw the adaptation of wild animals to "places which are the most friendly to their constitutions" as a factor which limits variation and preserved the species.18 He was not certain why domesticated animals are more variable than their wild cousins, but he suggested this might be the result of artificial protection, abun- dance of food, and other similar factors. This notion that domesticated animals are more variable was in part due to Lawrence's ignorance of the role of crossing in producing greater variability, as Robert Olby has shown.'9 It was also due to the fact that apparently spontaneous variations are more readily observable in domesticated animals. Lawrence's prime example of this was the ancon sheep. This variety, which arose by chance, was propagated as a breed, as described in the following passage: A breed of sheep was lately produced in America, the origin and establishment of which confirms the positions already brought forwards. An ewe produced a male lamb of singular proportions and appearance. His offspring by other ewes, had, in many instances, the same characters with himself. These were, shortness of the limbs and length of the body; so that the breed was called the otter breed, from being compared to that animal. The forelimbs were also crooked . . . hence the name 'ancon' (from agkon lelbow]) . . . They were propagated in consequence of being less able to jump over fences.20 Lawrence gave several analogous examples of spontaneous variation in man, including the "porcupine men," who suffered from a congenital, hereditary disease which produced horny bristles on the skin. In his discussion of this peculiar family, Lawrence recognized the role of geographical isolation and interbreeding of similar individuals in maintaining new varieties: Let us suppose that the porcupine family had been exiled from human society, and been obliged to take up their abode in

17. Ibid., p. 438. 18. Ibid., p. 438. 19. Robert C. Olby, The Origins of Mendelism (London: Constable, 1966), pp. 96-97. 20. Lawrence, Lectures, pp. 391-392.

325

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS

some solitary spot or desert island. By matching with each other, a race would have been produced, more widely different from us in external appearance than the Negro. If they had been discovered at some remote period, our philosophers would have explained to us how the soil, air, or climate, had produced so strange an organization; or would have demon- strated that they must have sprung from an originally differ- ent race; for who would acknowledge such bristly beings for brothers?2' The idea that the "porcupine men" might form a new race was not original with Lawrence. Henry Baker, whose account of the "porcupine men" in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (1755) was Lawrence's source, suggested that this might be possible, and he even speculated that the colors of the human races might be due to such spontaneous variations. Lawrence seems to have been more aware of geographical isolation as an aid to reproductive isolation, however. This was not mentioned in Baker's account, given below: It appears therefore past all doubt that a race of people may be propagated by this man, having such rugged coats or coverings as himself; and, if this should ever happen, and the accidental original be forgotten, 'tis not improbable they might be deemed a different species of mankind: a consideration which would almost lead one to imagine, that if mankind were all produced from one and the same stock, the black skins of the negroes, and many other differences of the like kind, might possibly have been originally owing to some such accidental foreuse.22 Not only did Lawrence recognize the importance of geographi- cal isolation, but he also dealt with the role of artificial selection in maintaining breeds of domesticated animals. Forty years later, Charles Darwin began his examination of the origin of species with just such a discussion. Lawrence first discussed selection in animals, and then applied the process to man: The formation of new varieties, by breeding from individ- uals in whom the desirable properties exist in the greatest degree, is seen much more distinctly in our domestic animals than in our own species, since the former are entirely in our power. The great object is to preserve the race pure, by select-

21. Ibid., p. 387. 22. Henry Baker, "A Supplement to the Account of a Distempered Skin, published in the 424th number of the Philosophical Transactions," Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. (London), 49 (1755), 23.

326

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence

ing for propagation the animals most conspicuous for the size, color, form, proportion, or any other property we may fix on, and excluding all others.

The hereditary transmission of physical and moral qualities, so well understood and familiarly acted on in the domestic animals, is equally true of man. A superior breed of human beings could only be produced by selections and exclusions similar to those so successfully employed in rearing our more valuable animals.23 Lawrence then added a few more comments on eugenics, spiced with some unfortunate political remarks on royalty, which may have contributed to the hostile reception his book received.24 Continuing his discussion of selection in man, Lawrence wrote: Yet, in the human species, where the object is of such consequence, the principle is almost entirely overlooked. Hence all the native deformities of mind and body, which spring up so plentifully in our artificial mode of life, are handed down to posterity and tend by their multiplication and extension to degrade the race.

This inattention to breed is not, however, of so much consequence in the people, as in the rulers; in those to whom the destinies of nations are intrusted; on whose qualities and actions depend the present and future happiness of millions. Here, unfortunately, the evil is at its height; laws, customs, prejudices, pride, bigotry, confine them to intermarriages with each other; and thus degradation of race is added to all the pernicious influences inseparable from such exalted sta- tions. . . The strongest illustration of these principles will be found in the present state of many royal houses in Europe.25 In addition to artificial selection, Lawrence also had a clear grasp of sexual selection in man, although he did not apply this to animals as Darwin later did in The Descent of Man. Lawrence saw sexual selection as an extension of the principles of animal breeding which might be applied to man: Connexions in marriage will generally be formed on the

23. Lawrence, Lectures, pp. 393-394. 24. Darlington, Darwin's Place, p. 20; Peter G. Mudford, "William Lawrence and The Natural History of Man," J. Hist. Ideas, 29 (1968), 435. Both of these authors indicate that Lawrence's political views added to the criticism of his book. 25. Lawrence, Lectures, pp. 394-395.

327

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS

idea of human beauty in any country; an influence, this, which will gradually approximate the countenance towards one common standard. If men, in the affair of marriage, were as much under management as some animals are in the exercise of the generative functions, an absolute ruler might accomplish, in his dominions, almost any idea of the human form. The great and noble have generally had it more in their power than others to select the beauty of nations in marriage: and thus, while, without system or design, they gratified merely their own taste, they have distinguished their order, as much by elegant proportions of person, and beautiful features, as by its prerogatives in society.26 Very little has been written on Lawrence's views on heredity and variation, but what has been written generally misinterprets his ideas. Many recent accounts of Lawrence draw heavily on C. D. Darlington's highly inaccurate Darwin's Place in History, in which the author states that Lawrence discussed "the proc- esses of evolution" and applied them to man.27 Furthermore, Darlington implies that Lawrence saw direction in evolution determined by "competition or selection."28 Yet, as is clearly shown by the numerous passages from Lawrence which have been quoted above, Lawrence was not an evolutionist, although many of his ideas suggest elements of the Darwinian-Mendelian synthesis. Peter Mudford's recent critique of Darlington's book has exposed some of the major errors, but it does not examine Lawrence's ideas in detail.29 Darlington is not alone, however, in his misinterpretation of Lawrence. Conway Zirkle, in his excellent history of the concept of natural selection, states that Lawrence "almost arrived at an explanation of evolution through the action of natural selection and . . . just failed to make the ultimate logical inference."30 This statement, as well as Darlington's, fails to recognize the fact that an essential element of natural selection was missing 26. Ibid., pp. 389-390. Lawrence's remarks on sexual selection are taken almost verbatim from Samuel Stanhope Smith's Essay, pp. 116-117 (see n. 15 above). Smith's Essay is cited by Lawrence, Lectures, pp. 113, 443, 450, 451. 27. Darlington, Darwin's Place, p. 21. 28. Ibid., p. 17. Darlington also discusses the British anthropologist, James Cowles Prichard, in this context, since he expressed views similar to Lawrence's. The relationship between Lawrence and Prichard will be discussed in the final section of this paper. 29. Mudford, "William Lawrence and The Natural History of Man," pp. 430-436. 30. Zirkle, "Natural Selection. . ." (n. 4 above), p. 109.

328

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence from Lawrence's book, namely, the struggle for existence. No- where was any hint of this concept mentioned, nor is there any reason why it should have been. For Lawrence was concerned not with the evolution and adaptations of animals in nature, but with race formation in man. His analogy between variations in man and in domesticated animals was used to prove that all men are of one species. Variations in wild animals did not concern him, and, in any case, he believed wild animals to be much less variable than domesticated ones. Furthermore, Lawrence seems to have had no conception of the adaptations of animals to particular environments, and he certainly had no idea that some variations might make certain individuals more perfectly adapted to their environments than others. Therefore, while Lawrence realized that spontaneous varia- tions could be preserved by breeding of similar individuals and exclusion of others, he had no explanation of why the preserva- tion of certain characters in the races of man. He did hint that it would be possible for races to be formed through geographical isolation or sexual selection, but he was careful to point out that this was not necessarily the way that the present races actually were formed. As he put it, If, however, we should carry ourselves back, in imagination, to a supposed period, when mankind consisted of one race only,-and endeavor to show how the numerous varieties, which now occupy the different parts of the earth, have arisen out of the common stock, and have become so distinct from each other, as we find them at present-we cannot arrive at so satisfactory a decision.3' Thus it is clear that there was no reason for Lawrence to make the "logical inference" of evolution. Merely denying the inheri- tance of acquired characteristics, even when a theory of spontan- eous variation is substituted, does not lead inevitably to evolu- tion, for there is no direction given to such variation, nor is there any reason why it should transcend specific boundaries. Without the concept of natural selection, Lawrence had every reason to believe that variations in wild animals would be swamped and would return to the original type. It is true that he seems to have had some understanding of the role of geographical isola- tion and sexual selection in forming new races, but since he was not a traveling naturalist, he had no reason to apply these processes to animals in nature. If Lawrence did not anticipate Darwinian evolution, and was

31. Lawrence, Lectures, p. 470.

329

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS therefore not a "medical evolutionist," as Darlington calls him,32 then what position does he occupy in the history of nineteenth- century biology? What role did a man whose ideas on heredity seem so far ahead of his time play in the development of biologi- cal thought in the decades before Darwin? I will discuss this problem from two points of view. First I will deal with the reception of Lawrence's ideas, both by the popular press and the scientific community. Then I will examine in detail the development of Lawrence's own ideas on heredity and variation, so that we may better understand his position in nineteenth- century science.

THE RECEPTION OF LAWRENCE'SIDEAS As has been mentioned already, Lawrence's Lectures were engulfed in a storm of controversy which grew to such propor- tions that he was forced to suppress his book. The reasons for the denunciation of Lawrence are numerous and complex, and they have been treated extensively by a number of authors.33 Most of the opposition was connected with his views on the nature of life, on the function of the brain, and on the nature of scientific enquiry, together with his religious and political leanings. Edward Grinfield, for example, in a pamphlet entitled Cursory Observations Upon the 'Lectures' . . . by W. Lawrence, accused Lawrence of being a materialist, denying biblical Scripture, being anticlerical, praising the Quakers, distorting ancient history, and favoring American democracy over the British government.34 Darlington is quite incorrect in implying that Lawrence was attacked primarily because he discussed the evolution of man.35 Yet, despite the fact that he did not even discuss evolution, there were a number of criticisms of Lawrence's work, which, although peripheral to the main issues, fore- shadowed some of the objections raised against Darwinian evolution forty years later. Much of the attack on Lawrence focused on his advocacy of the materialistic views of the French physiological school and was part of the general English reaction against French science

32. Darlington, Darwin's Place, p. 23. 33. See n. 5 above. 34. Edward W. Grinfield, Cursory Observations Upon the "Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man, Delivered at the Royal College of Surgeons, by W. Lawrence, F.R.S." in a Series of Letters Addressed to that Gentleman; With a Concluding Letter to His Pupils. 2nd ed. (London: Cadell & Davies, 1819), pp. 5-8, 48, 52. 35. Darlington, Darwin's Place, pp. 19-24.

330

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence in the period following the Revolution of 1789.36 In evolutionary biology, the same anti-Jacobinism had resulted in vigorous denunciations of the doctrines of Lamarck, as well as those of Erasmus Darwin.37 Lawrence was already suspect in the eyes of many Englishmen because of his connections with the physiology of the French materialists, and some reviewers found ideas in Lawrence's book which seemed to them to hint at the evolution- ary views of Lamarck and Erasmus Darwin. Many reviewers felt that Lawrence's notion that the human brain functioned on principles identical to those of animal brains was dangerously close to asserting that man was in fact no more than an animal. Lawrence had written, "The number and kind of the intellectual phenomena in different animals correspond closely to the degree of development of the brain."38 Similarly, "It is strongly suspected that a Newton or a Shake- speare excels other mortals only by a more ample development of the anterior cerebral lobes, by having an extra inch of brain in the right place." 39 The Quarterly Review for July 1819 complained that the materialists, including Lawrence, believed "there is no other difference between a man and an oyster, than that the one possesses bodily organs more fully developed than the other." The reviewer then went on to show that this was only a short step away from the pernicious doctrines of Erasmus Darwin. "Dr. Darwin, indeed, carried the hypothesis still farther-for it was a favorite part of his creed that man, when he first sprang by chance into being, was an oyster, and nothing more." 40 The reviewer was surprised that Lawrence had rejected the man-as- orangutang theories of Monboddo and Rousseau, since he clearly believed that in intellectual qualities "man is nothing more than an orang-outang or ape with more 'ample cerebral hemi- spheres."' 41 As to the question of why Mr. Lawrence maintained such opinions, the reviewer could only conclude "that he is impelled to these speculations by having some extra inch of brain in the wrong place."42 The attack on Lawrence was not confined to Great Britain. On 36. Temkin, "Basic Science" (n. 5 above), pp. 103-105. 37. Norton Garfinkle, "Science and Religion in England 1790-1800: The Critical Response to the Work of Erasmus Darwin," J. Hist. Ideas, 16 (1955), 376-388. 38. Lawrence, Lectures, p. 98. 39. Ibid., pp. 99-100. 40. George D'Oyly, "Abernethy, Lawrence, etc. on the Theories of Life," Quarterly Review, 22 (July 1819), 14. 41. Ibid., pp. 29-30. 42. Ibid., p. 22.

331

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS the other side of the Atlantic, the North American Review pub- lished a highly critical review of Lawrence's book. Noting that "none but a philosopher mistakes a man, however humble his intellect, for an improved variety of monkey," the reviewer asked "whether it is philosophical or natural to conclude that those [mental] faculties . . . are but the active state of organs, which he has so nearly in common with orang-utans, pongos, monkeys, and the rest of the tribe of disgusting caricatures of the human species." 43 The reviewer also objected to Lawrence's use of phrases which no doubt suggested the "development hypothesis" of Lamarck: We take occasion here to express our annoyance at the frequent recurrence of the words 'develop' and 'development' in this work . . . We can assure Mr. Lawrence and some other modern writers, that to tell us that the tail of an animal is long, or his teeth large, would be quite as intelligible and a great deal more agreeable, than to say that these appendages were more developed.44 Leaving aside the question of thought and the brain, there were many who objected to the use of analogies with domesti- cated animals to explain the varieties of man. Edward Grinfield said that attempts to characterize man as an animal "will always appear ludicrous to those who are not initiated into the art of degrading their own species."45 As late as April 1850, the Democratic Review criticized "Laurence, La Marck, and others" for attempting "to account for existing differences [in human races] on the ground of the operation of various causes acting through long periods of time, gradually transmuting man into the various species as we now find him." 46 In the July 1850 issue, the Democratic Review praised the Reverend Thomas Smyth for seeking the laws of human nature in the "passions, social habits, laws, customs, arts, literature, [and] sciences." The reviewer continued: How different from the conceptions of Blumenbach, and his pupils, Lawrence and Prichard? How intensely interesting does it become, thus treated, compared with the dry, abstract, and uninteresting technicalities of the dissecting-table, and

43. "Lawrence's Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man," North American Review, 17 (1823), 23-24. 44. Ibid., p. 19. 45. Grinfield, Cursory Observations, p. 28. 46. "Natural History of Man," United States Magazine and Democratic Review, 26 (April 1850), 334.

332

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence

the debasing association with vegetables and beasts, as an- alogues of human nature.47 The August 1850 Democratic Review continued the attack, and once again, the use of animal analogies was criticized; as for the frequent use of such analogies as are now in vogue by grave philosophers, and the use of which has conferred on some of them a degree of reputation which, ordinarily, can be gained only by men of real genius . . . we confidently predict that ten years will not have elapsed before it will be regarded with . . . contempt.48 In fact, ten years had not passed before Darwin's Origin of Species provided the basis for the study of man as an animal. One of the most interesting attacks on Lawrence's theory of race formation appeared in Robert Knox's The Races of Men, published in 1850. Although Lawrence was not named, it is clear which theory Knox was discussing. Knox rejected the domesticated animal analogy, for "man is not a ruminant."49 As for the ancon sheep, Knox said, "When I am told that there is a short-legged race of sheep somewhere in America, the product of accident, my reply is simply, I do not believe it."50 Knox thus raised an objection against the theory of race forma- tion by spontaneous variation that is similar to objections ex- pressed against evolution by natural selection ten years later, namely, that all is reduced to blind chance. In his discussion, Knox failed to distingush between this type of variation and the inherited effects of climate.

It is the old fable of Hippocrates and the Macrocephali reduced to something like a scientific formula; transferred from sheep, it has been made the basis of a theory of race, of mankind reducing all to accident. By accident, a child darker than the rest of the family is born . . . This dark child, a little darker than the other, separates, with a few more, from the rest of the family, and sojourns in a land where a hot sun enbrowns them with a still deeper hue. In time they become blacker and

47. "Natural History of Man," U.S. Mag. and Dem. Rev., 27 (July, 1850), 41-43. 48. "Natural History of Man," U.S. Mag. and Dem. Rev., 27 (August 1850), 140. 49. Robert Knox, The Races of Men (Philadelphia: Lea & Blanchard, 1850), p. 67. 50. Ibid., pp. 67-68.

333

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS

blacker, or browner and browner . . . This is ancient and modem physiology I5- Knox seems to have realized that if this theory of accidental variation were accepted, there might be no barrier to contain variation within the species. Of accidental variation, he said, "May it not be that such is simply a law of nature?" He then went on to wonder whether these variations might really be the origin of new races if isolated and bred, adding, "Hence on this view has been explained the origin of permanent varieties, as they are called, which I fear is just another name for species." 52 William Van Amringe expressed similar fears that Lawrence's use of animal analogies to explain variation in human races was a victory in disguise for the "progressive developists." Recent writers imagine they have done much for the honor of the race, by placing [man] in an Order by himself,-thus separating him from the debasing association of monkeys, lemurs, and bats. It amounts, however, only to a nominal honor; a promotion without advantage; a distinction without a separation. They have, nevertheless, kept man so closely as- sociated, not only with the anthropoid animals . . . but with the whole of organic nature . . . that everything having life is regarded as his analogue, his associate, in the highest and noblest properties of his nature.

Progressive developists could ask for no more. They gained the fruits of victory, if they lost the battle. Horses and asses, oxen and sheep, dogs and hogs, rabbits and poultry, &c. con- stitute the basis of all theories, of all arguments, of all conclu- sions, in relation to the highest and noblest attributes of Man.53 Van Amringe argued that the human races were originally distinct, and he agreed with Lawrence that climate could not have produced the varieties of the human species. Indeed, he quoted Lawrence's own arguments against the environmentalist theories, stating that Lawrence "always argues well, until he arrives at the point from whence species are to be inferred." 54 Having used Lawrence's arguments against climatically pro-

51. Ibid., pp. 67-68. 52. Ibid., p. 113. 53. William Frederick Van Amringe, An Investigation of the Theories of the Natural History of Man by Lawrence, Prichard, and Others (New York: Baker & Scribner, 1848), pp. 26-27. 54. Ibid., pp. 240-243.

334

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence duced variations, Van Amringe then went on to reject "all theories founded upon accidental, unnatural, or monstrous births being the progenitors of any permanently distinct race of men or animals." 55 Accidental births could not give rise to permanent varieties because "their defective constitutions are incapable of continuing their kind; or if their constitutions are vigorous, they speedily return to, and are lost in, their original type." 5ff Finally, Van Amringe criticized Lawrence on the grounds that his theory required "innumerable intermediate" changes to have occurred between white and black races of man, and these intermediate forms were not observable in nature. Once again, we see an anticipation of objections later raised against Darwin's theories:

It probably did not occur to the learned Lecturer, that he was not supported by the analogy of domestic animals for these "almost innumerable intermediate" changes, which must occur from a change of color from white to black; consequently, it amounted to an abandonment, in this respect, of his analogies, which constitute the foundation of his theory . . . A white domestic animal, in changing to a black variety, does not proceed by "almost innumerable intermediate changes" . . . but passes from white to black, red, pied, brindled, &c. as it were by leaps. Consequently the analogy fails to apply, and the theory of the human species from this cause also.57

Not all of the reactions to Lawrence's Lectures were negative. The American Quarterly Review for June 1828 published a rather favorable review of the work. The reviewer felt that the zoological study of man had been neglected and that Lawrence's book "may be considered as going far towards filling the void in [that] department of natural history." 58 Lawrence's theory of spontaneous variation was believed to be more in agreement with observed fact than the theory of climatically induced variations. Interestingly enough, the reviewer argued that if the inherited effects of climate were accepted, then one must accept the "fanci- ful hypothesis" of Lamarck.59 Although he believed there was too little evidence on which to base any theory of the origin of variations, the reviewer noted that the examples of albinos and

55. Ibid., p. 424. 56. Ibid., p. 426. 57. Ibid., p. 443. 58. "Lawrence's Lectures on Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural His- tory of Man," American Quarterly Review, 3 (June 1828), 341. 59. Ibid., p. 333.

335

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS

"porcupine men" were good evidence for the occurrence of accidental varieties.60 Throughout the review, the author argued in favor of freedom of scientific enquiry and praised Lawrence for his courage in expressing unpopular views, although the author did not neces- sarily agree with them. He was critical of the way in which Lawrence had been treated.6' Here and there, other defenses of Lawrence and the freedom of scientific enquiry appeared in the press. The Monthly Magazine for June 1, 1819, compared Lawrence to Galileo and expressed the hope that an exposure of the affair by a free press would aid the search for truth.62 Other periodicals, like the North American Review, criticized the treatment Lawrence had received, not because of a love of free scientific enquiry, but because the notoriety which his book acquired caused it to be "hawked at the corners of the streets in sixpenny numbers," thus spreading its pernicious influence.63 It is evident from the foregoing discussion that Lawrence's book had an impact on the general public and the popular press which persisted, at least occasionally, for more than thirty years. While it is true that the overwhelming bulk of the criticism of Lawrence was leveled at his physiological theories of life and mind, nevertheless his views hinting at the problem of evolution were also discussed. The question which remains is this: to what extent did Lawrence's views, particularly on variation and heredity, affect the scientific community? Were his ideas on the formation of permanent varieties simply lost sight of, or did they have any direct effect on the formulation of evolutionary theories? Several early writers who recognized the advanced nature of Lawrence's views have assumed that his influence was lost.64 In the following section, I intend to show that this was not the case, that his book was widely read by prominent figures in the development of evolutionary theory, and that it had a considerable impact on several of them.

LAWRENCE AND THE EVOLUTIONISTS The extent of Lawrence's influence on Charles Darwin is difficult to determine. Darwin was aware of Lawrence's book as 60. Ibid., p. 335-337. 61. Ibid., pp. 326-328. 62. The Monthly Magazine, 47 (London, 1819), 451. 63. North American Review (1823), p. 14. 64. E. W. Count, This is Race (New York: Schuman, 1950), p. 706; Cunningham, "Anthropology in 18th Century" (n. 4 above), pp. 30-34; Hutchinson, "In Memory of Lawrence" (n. 4 above), pp. 200-201.

336

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir Wflliam Lawrence early as 1838, for in his second notebook, which covers the period from February to July of that year, there is a notation on structural differences among human races. Here Darwin re- minded himself to "make abstract on this subject from Lawrence, Blumenbach, and Prichard."65 In the same notebook there is a list of books "to be read," which includes a reference to Law- rence.66 However, Darwin does not seem to have read Lawrence's book until April 23, 1847, or at least if he read it before this, there is no indication of it in his notebooks.67 According to Sydney Smith, Darwin had a copy of Lawrence in his library, but unlike many of his books, it has no annotations in the text. Next to the title in his reading list, Darwin wrote, "Poor."68 It therefore appears that Darwin was not impressed by Lawrence's discussion of heredity and variation, or his denial of the inheritance of aquired characteristics. The reason for this is probably that he read it too late. By 1847, Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection was relatively complete, and he had already written his two preliminary sketches for the Origin of Species. By this time, Darwin's knowledge of variation in domesticated animals, as well as in wild animals, was far greater than anything to be found in Lawrence. In his early notebooks of 1837 and 1838, Darwin had considered the isolation of major saltations, or sports, to be an important mechanism of evolution. However, after his discovery of the principle of natural selection, the role of sports and isolation in the production of new species gradually became less important in Darwin's mind.69 Therefore, he was probably not impressed with a book which held fast to the fixity of species and added little to his under- standing of variation. On one problem, however, Darwin may have been influenced by Lawrence. This was the problem of sexual selection in man. I have already noted Lawrence's clear grasp of this concept, and his implied application of it to race formation. I have also quoted passages in which Lawrence attributed the beauty of the nobility to selection of the most attractive women for wives. The only references to Lawrence which I have found in any of Darwin's works occur in the section on sexual selection in The Descent of

65. Gavin De Beer, ed., "Darwin's Notebooks on Transmutation of Species: Part II. Second Notebook (February to July 1838)," Bull. Brit. Mus. Nat. Hist., Historical Series, vol. 2, no. 3 (1960), p. 107. 66. Ibid., p. 115. 67. Sydney Smith, "The Origin of 'The Origin,"' The Advancement of Science, 16 (1960), 399. 68. Ibid., p. 399. 69. Olby, Origins of Mendelism, pp. 55-58.

337

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS

Man. In one footnote, Darwin referred to "Lawrence . . . who attributes the beauty of the upper classes in England to the men having long selected the more beautiful women." 70 What is even more interesting is Darwin's treatment of human race formation. He examined the possibility that direct action of the climate might have produced differences in skin color, and while he admitted that some inherited effects might be produced, he believed that this had been a minor factor.7' Similarly, he saw the effects of use and disuse of organs as quite insignificant in producing racial differences.72 Darwin then sug- gested that perhaps natural selection had produced racial differ- ences among men, but he said that "we are at once met by the objection that beneficial variations alone can be thus preserved." He was unable to see how the various distinguishing racial characteristics could be beneficial.73 Darwin finally concluded that there was "one important agency, namely Sexual Selection, which appears to have acted powerfully on man." To this agency, he suggested, could be ascribed differences in "color, hairiness, form of features, etc." 74 Nevertheless, while he offered this as a suggestion, he was forced to admit, as was Lawrence, that the causes of racial differences were largely unknown. All he was sure of was that they were probably due to the preservation of spontaneous variations: I do not intend to assert that sexual selection will account for all the differences between the races. An unexplained residuum is left, about which we can only say, in our ignorance, that as individuals are continually born with, for instance, heads a little rounder or narrower, and with noses a little longer or shorter, such slight differences might become fixed and uni- form, if the unknown agencies which induced them were to act in a more constant manner, aided by long-continued intercrossing. Such variations come under the provisional class alluded to in our second chapter, which for the want of a better term are often called spontaneous.75 How much these ideas were influenced by Lawrence, and how much they were derived independently from Darwin's own theories, is impossible to say at this point. However, it is clear

70. Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man (New York: Hurst & Co., 1874), p. 610n; Other references to Lawrence: pp. 49n, 581n, 597n, 604n, 606n. 71. Darwin, Descent, p. 212. 72. Ibid., p. 213. 73. Ibid., p. 214. 74. Ibid., pp. 214-215. 75. Ibid., p. 215.

338

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence from Darwin's footnotes that he consulted Lawrence's book when writing the section on sexual selection. Furthermore, as early as 1864, he had written to Wallace, "I suspect that a sort of sexual selection has been the most powerful means of chang- ing the races of man," adding, "Our aristocracy is handsomer * . . than the middle classes, from pick of women." 76 Finally, it is worth noting that Darwin expressed views on the application of breeding to man, which, if not actually influenced by Lawrence's ideas, were at least strikingly similar. Thus, Darwin wrote, Man scans with scrupulous care the character and pedigree of his horses, cattle, and dogs before he matches them; but when he comes to his own marriage he rarely, or never, takes any such care . . . Yet he might by selection do something not only for the bodily constitution and frame of his offspring, but for their intellectual and moral qualities. Both sexes ought to refrain from marriage if they are in any marked degree inferior in body or mind; but such hopes are Utopian, and will never be even partially realized until the laws of inheri- tance are thoroughly known.77 If Darwin was influenced only slightly, if at all, by Lawrence's book, the same cannot be said of the co-discoverer of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace. An examination of Wallace's published letters and writings suggests that Lawrence had a considerable influence on his thinking, an influence which has hitherto been largely overlooked. In a letter to Henry Walter Bates, written on December 28, 1845, Wallace discussed his impressions of the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation.78 In the same letter, which clearly shows that Wallace was specu- lating on the origin of species at this early date, Lawrence's book was specifically mentioned: I have rather a more favorable opinion of the "Vestiges" than you appear to have. I do not consider it as a hasty gen- eralization, but rather as an ingenious hypothesis strongly supported by some striking facts and analogies but which remains to be proved by more facts & the additional light

76. James Marchant, Alfred Russel Wallace: Letters and Reminiscences (New York: Harper & Bros., 1916), p. 128. 77. Darwin, Descent, p. 642. 78. H. Lewis McKinney, "Wallace's Earliest Observations on Evolution: 28 December 1845," Isis, 60 (Fall 1969), 370-373. I have used the original text of the letter, as given by McKinney, in my quotations. It was published in slightly abridged form in A. R. Wallace, My Life (New York: Dodd, Mead, & Co., 1905), I, 254-255, and in Marchant, A. R. Wallace, pp. 73-74.

339

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS

which future researches may throw upon the subject. It in all events furnishes a subject for every observer of nature to turn his attention to; every fact he observes must make either for or against it, and it thus furnishes both an incitement to the collection of facts & an object to which to apply them when collected. I would observe that many eminent writers give great support to the theory of the progressive development of species in animals and plants. There is a very interesting and phil- osophical work bearing directly on the subject "Lawrence's Lectures on Man" delivered before the Royal College of Surgeons and which are now published in a cheap form.79 Wilma George and H. Lewis McKinney both quote from this letter in their discussions of Wallace, yet each of these authors includes only the portion dealing with the Vestiges and omits the reference to Lawrence.80 Barbara Beddall mentions the fact that Wallace read Lawrence, but she leaves it at that.81 Maurice Mandelbaum hints that Lawrence may have influenced Wallace but does not discuss this in detail.82 If Wallace had simply stated that Lawrence's book was a "work bearing directly on the subject" of the development of species and said no more, it would be difficult to assess Lawrence's influence on Wallace. However, Wallace summarized Lawrence's views at some length, before giving his own interpretation of the phenomena which Lawrence described. The passage is worth quoting in full: The great object of these lectures is to illustrate the different races of mankind & the manner in which they probably originated-and he arrives at the conclusion, as does also Mr.

79. McKinney, "Wallace's Earliest Observations" (n. 78 above), p. 370. 80. Wilma George, Biologist Philosopher: A Study of the Life and Writings of Alfred Russel Wallace (New York: Abelard-Schuman, 1964), 10; H. Lewis McKinney, "Alfred Russel Wallace and the Discovery of Natural Selection," J. Hist. Med. and Allied Sci., 21 (1966), 337. Since this section was written, I have discovered that McKinney does quote the portion of the letter relating to Lawrence in his Ph.D. thesis. However, he does not discuss any influence of Lawrence's ideas on variation on Wallace. See H. Lewis McKinney, "Alfred Russel Wallace and the Discovery of Natural Selection," unpubl. diss. (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, 1967), pp. 213-214. 81. Barbara Beddall, "Wallace, Darwin, and the Theory of Natural Selection," J. Hist. Biol., 1 (Fall 1968), 266. 82. Maurice Mandelbaum, "Scientific Background of Evolutionary Theory in Biology," in Philip P. Wiener and Aaron Noland, Roots of Scientific Thought (New York: Basic Books, 1957), p. 532.

340

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence

Pritchard in his work on the Physical history of man, that the varieties of the Human race have not proceeded from any external cause but have been produced by the development of certain distinctive peculiarities in some Individuals which have become propagated through an entire race. Now I should say that a permanent peculiarity not produced in any way by external causes is a distinction of species and not of mere variety & thus if the theory of the "Vestiges" is carried out the "Negro" the red Indian & the European are distinct species of the genus Homo. The Albino which presents as striking a difference as the negro, we have modern and not uncommon instances of the production of, but the peculiarity is not propagated so extensively as that of the other varieties. Now it appears to me that the "Albino" and "negro" are very analogous to what are generally considered as "variety" and "species" in the animal world. An animal which differs from another by some decided and permanent character however slight which difference is un- diminished by propagation and unchanged by climate and external circumstances, (like the negro) is invariably con- sidered as a distinct species-while one which is not propa- gated so as to form a distinct race, but is produced more frequently from the parent stock (like the Albino) is generally if the difference is not very striking, considered a variety,-now I consider both these to be equally distinct species, & I would only consider those to be varieties whose differences are pro- duced by External causes & which are not propagated as a distinct race. In how many cases in the animal world & particularly among Insects are the differences between species far less than those between varieties, so consid[ere]d neither however being produced by External circumstances. How well too does this theory account for those excessively rare species whose Existence seems almost a mystery. They may be produced by more common species at intervals in the same manner as the Albino is from European Parents.

Read Lawrence's work-it is well worth it.83 There are several important points to be made in connection with Wallace's letter. First of all, Wallace clearly was impressed by Lawrence's idea that spontaneous rather than acquired varia- tions have given rise to new races. While Wallace did not state

83. McKinney, "Wallace's Earliest Observations," pp. 372-373.

341

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS

specifically that acquired characteristics are not inherited, he implied it when he said that differences produced by external circumstances "are not propagated as a distinct race." Unlike Lawrence, Wallace imposed no limits on variation. What Law- rence considered to be permanent varieties, Wallace called species. It has generally been assumed that Wallace was converted to evolution through his reading of the Vestiges. Yet it seems clear from his 1845 letter that while he may have gotten the initial idea of evolution from the Vestiges, he was quite possibly even more impressed with Lawrence's ideas on variation and race formation. Thus, it appears that at the very beginning of his speculations on evolution, Wallace had found in Lawrence a possible mechan- ism of organic change, that of spontaneous variations leading to the formation of new species. In fact, Wallace actually made this extension from Lawrence's ideas when he said, in the passage quoted above, "How well too does this theory account for those excessively rare species whose Existence seems almost a mystery. They may be produced by more common species at intervals in the same manner as the Albino is from European Parents." What Wallace lacked at this point ,and what Lawrence had lacked as well, was a mechanism to preserve variation and give direction to evolution. By 1858, Wallace had, of course, found that mechanism to be natural selection. In contrast to Darwin, Wallace never seems to have ascribed much importance to the inheritance of acquired characteristics. He continued to believe that spontaneous variations provided the raw material for natural selection.84 In his "Species Note- book," quoted by Beddall, Wallace wrote, "We have no proof how the varieties of dogs were produced. All varieties we know of are produced at birth, the offspring differing from the parent. This offspring propagates its kind." 85 In other passages from his "Species Notebook," Wallace was somewhat uncertain on the question of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In an entry made in July 1856, he wrote: "Acquired variations. (? Are these ever propagated) Yes." 86 In 1857, he wrote of plants which "by the difference of stations of nourishment and of soil produce varieties."87 However, in a letter to Darwin in 1857, now ap- parently lost, Wallace evidently minimized the effects of climate on variation, for in his reply, Darwin said, "I most entirely agree 84. George, Biologist Philosopher, p. 76; Beddall, "Wallace and Darwin" (n. 81 above), p. 290. 85. Beddall, "Wallace and Darwin," p. 283. 86. McKinney, "Alfred Russel Wallace . . ." (n. 80 above), p. 84. 87. Ibid., p. 101.

342

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence

with you on the little effect of 'climatic conditions' which one sees referred to ad nauseam in all books: I suppose some very little effect must be attributed to such influences, but I fully believe that they are very slight." 88 Although Wallace accepted Darwin's pangenesis theory of heredity when it first appeared in 1868, he later became an enthusiastic proponent of Weismann's theory of the non-inheri- tance of acquired characteristics.89 Yet even before Weismann, Wallace was consistent in maintaining the existence of random variations. In a review written in 1868, he said, "Universal vari- ability-small in amount, but in every direction, ever fluctuating about a mean condition until made to advance in a given direction by 'selection,' natural or artificial-is the simple basis for the indefinite modification of the forms of life." 90 In Darwin- ism, published in 1889, Wallace vigorously denied the im- portance of use and disuse of organs, the direct effect of climate, and other acquired variations, and he buttressed his argument with evidence from Galton and Weismann. He stressed the absolute importance of natural selection in directing evolution.9' It seems possible that Wallace's attitude toward the inheritance of acquired characteristics was at least partly the result of his early reading of Lawrence's book. It is significant that both Lawrence and James Cowles Prichard, to whom Wallace also refers in his 1845 letter, were concerned with the origin of human races.92 McKinney has argued that "Wallace was led to his great discovery by a con- sideration of the origin of human races fiTSt before transferring to the animal species." McKinney speculates that it may have been his interest in ethnology which led Wallace to recall passages he had read in Malthus' Essay on Population, passages which provided the key to his theory.93 As shown by the 1845

88. Marchant, A. R. Wallace, p. 108. 89. George, Biologist Philosopher, pp. 76-77. 90. Alfred Russel Wallace, "Creation by Law," in Natural Selection and Tropical Nature (London: MacMillan, 1895), p. 158. 91. Alfred Russel Wallace, Dar-winism (London: MacMillan, 1889), pp. 410-444. 92. James Cowles Prichard, Researches Into the Physical History of Man, 1st ed. (London: John and Arthur Arch, 1813); Researches Into the Physical History of Mankind, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (London: John and Arthur Arch, 1826); 3rd ed., 5 vols. (London: Sherwood, Gilbert & Piper, 1836- 1847). It is unclear which edition Wallace read. The first and second contain ideas similar to Lawrence's; the third was changed considerably. See the final section of this paper for the relationship between Lawrence and Prichard. 93. McKinney, "Wallace and . . . Natural Selection," J. Hist. Med. (1966), p. 355 (see n. 80 above).

343

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS letter to Bates, the link between Wallace's ethnological and evolutionary interests was forged before he began his travels. It now seems clear that his reading of Lawrence and Prichard was the principal reason for this link. Indeed, it is quite likely that his reading of Lawrence and Prichard marked the beginning of his interest in ethnology, which, if McKinney is correct, event- ually led indirectly to the discovery of natural selection.94 An interesting intermediate link between the views of Lawrence and those of Wallace and Darwin occurs in the writings of Edward Blyth. Loren Eiseley has discussed in detail the important impact which he feels Blyth had on Darwin.95 McKinney has found that Wallace made notes on Blyth's paper of 1835 (see below). Wallace later referred back to these notes when writing a "Note on the Theory of Permanent and Geographical Varieties" in 1858.96 It thus appears that Blyth was an important source of ideas for Wallace as well as Darwin. However, despite the apparent importance of Blyth's work, no attempt has yet been made to examine in detail the origins of Blyth's own ideas. In 1835, Blyth published a paper entitled "An Attempt to Classify the 'Varieties' of Animals."97 In this article, Blyth attempted to clarify the use of the term "variety," which he said had previously been used to denote everything from "the slightest individual variation" to "the most dissimilar breeds." Blyth dis- cussed two types of varieties which differed only in degree, "simple variations" and "true varieties." The former were "slight individual variations . . . unaccompanied by any remarkable structural deviation."98 As an example of a "simple variation," Blyth cited the phenomenon of albinism. Blyth followed Law- rence in concluding that these variations could be perpetuated only if selectively bred: Mr. Lawrence observes on the subject (in his Lectures on the Physiology, Zoology, and the Natural History of Man) "the disposition to change is generally exhausted in one individual, 94. McKinney makes no mention of Lawrence or Prichard in his pub- lished paper, but in his thesis, he notes Wallace's high praise for Lawrence and suggests Lawrence's view of man as an animal may have led Wallace to make the connection between human races and animals species. See McKinney, "Alfred Russel Wallace" (n. 80 above), pp. 129-130. 95. Loren Eiseley, "Charles Darwin, Edward Blyth, and the Theory of Natural Selection," Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 103 (1959), 94-158. 96. McKinney, "Alfred Russel Wallace" (n. 80 above), p. 108. 97. Edward Blyth, "An Attempt to Classify the Varieties of Animals," Magazine of Natural History, 8 (1835), 40-53; reprinted in Eiseley, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 103 (1959), 115. All subsequent page references are to the reprint in Eiseley. 98. Blyth (1835), in Eiseley, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 103, p. 116.

344

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence

and the characters of the original stock return, unless the variety is kept up by the precaution above mentioned, of excluding from the breed all which have not the new charac- ters" . . . These observations apply alike to all simple or individual variations, and to most other varieties, and afford one of the many reasons why marked breeds are in a state of nature so rarely perpetuated.99 Similar to "simple variations" were "true varieties," which included "deformities" and "monstrous births." These were the familiar sports observed by all animal breeders. Blyth cited the ancon sheep as an example. His description was obviously taken from Lawrence, to whom he referred in a footnote.100 Like "simple variations," "true varieties" were seldom perpetuated in nature. However, Blyth did note that "deviations of this kind do not appear to have any tendency to revert to the original form: this, most probably, could only be restored, in a direct manner, by the way in which the variety was first produced." 10o Blyth thus had a rather crude conception of what would today be considered reverse mutation. Blyth clearly interpreted these two types of varieties as spontaneous, as distinguished from "acquired variations." He generally followed Lawrence in denying the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In an article published in 1837, how- ever, he seems to have allowed for the inheritance of acquired instincts in domesticated animals, but not in wild animals.102 Nevertheless, in his discussion of the varieties of the human species, he followed Lawrence quite closely, as the following passage shows:

With regard to colour, we know that temperature exerts no permanent gradual influence whatever; white races remain unchanged at slight elevations within the tropics . . . the swarthy inhabitants of Mauritania are a white race, and their sunburnt hue is merely an acquired variation, which is not transmissible by generation.103

Races of man, Blyth concluded, have been formed in a manner

99. Ibid.,p. 116. 100. Ibid., p. 118. 101. Ibid. 102. Edward Blyth, "On the Psychological Distinction Between Man and All Other Animals," Magazine of Natural History, n.s. 1 (1837), 1-9, 77- 85, 131-141; reprinted in Eiseley, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 103 (1959), p. 141. 103. Blyth (1835), in Eiseley, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 103, pp. 118-119.

345

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS analogous to the formation of the ancon breed of sheep, that is, through the perpetuation of spontaneous variations.104 As I have pointed out in my discussion of Lawrence's ideas, the mere denial of the inheritance of acquired characteristics does not necessarily lead to the concept of evolution, and, indeed, Blyth was not an evolutionist. He believed all variation was contained within specific boundaries, just as Lawrence did. By separating non-inheritable acquired variations from inheritable spontaneous variations, however, Blyth was able to show that only the latter could be the origin of breeds. These were estab- lished in domesticated animals by artificial selection: Breeds . . . are, for the most part, artificially brought about by the direct agency of man . . . When two animals are matched together, each remarkable for a certain given peculi- arity, no matter how trivial, there is also a decided tendency in nature for that peculiarity to increase; and if the produce of these animals be set apart, and only those in which the same peculiarity is most apparent, be selected to breed from, the next generation will possess it in a still more remarkable degree.105 Thus Blyth recognized two important components of Darwinian evolution, random variation and selection, just as Lawrence had, and like Lawrence, he applied these principles to the origin of human races. Blyth was somewhat more "advanced" than Lawrence in his ideas of variation, for he distinguished between major saltations, or monstrous births, and smaller variations, 'mutations. Blyth also recognized a process operating in nature which was analogous to artificial selection. However, he believed it acted not to produce new breeds but to preserve the original species. "The original form of a species," he wrote, "is unquestionably better adapted to its natural habits than any modification of that form." 106 In the struggle for existence, the best adapted, or original form, would be naturally selected. In Blyth's words: Among animals which procure their food by means of their agility, strength, or delicacy of sense, the one best organised must always obtain the greatest quantity; and must, therefore, become physically the strongest, and be thus enabled, by 104. Ibid. 105. Ibid., pp. 117-118. 106. Ibid., p. 118.

346

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence

routing its opponents, to transmit its superior qualities to a greater number of offspring. The same law, therefore, which was intended by Providence to keep up the typical qualities of a species, can be easily converted by man into a means of rais- ing different varieties.'07 Eiseley has traced the roots of Blyth's ideas on the struggle for existence to Lyell's Principles of Geology. Like Blyth, Lyell recognized the conservative aspects of natural selection while failing to see its creative role in forming new species. Eiseley notes, however, that while Lyell made "vague references . . . to the effects of climate, temperature, and other similar factors, in determining organic change," Blyth "wrestles directly with the genetics of the problem." 108 He quotes the following passage from Blyth by way of illustration: There would almost seem, in some species, to be a tendency, in every separate family, to some particular kind of deviation; which is only counteracted by the various crossings which, in a state of nature, must take place, and by the . . . law which causes each race to be chiefly propagated by the most typical and perfect individuals.'09 The origins of Blyth's more "modem" ideas on genetics now seem clear. They were derived from ideas which he found in Lawrence, particularly the notion that spontaneous rather than acquired variations are what are important in the formation of breeds and races through selection. As if to dispell any further doubts we might have, Blyth actually listed his major sources: 'Dr. Pritchard's work on man . . . the published Lectures on the Natural History of Man, by Lawrence . . . the second volume of Lyell's Principles of Geology." 'lo Gillispie has stated that Darwin was the first to make a distinction between the origin and preservation of variations."' Yet even before Darwin, Lawrence and Prichard made this distinction partially through their denial of the inheritance of 107. Ibid. 108. Eiseley, "Darwin and Blyth," p. 105. 109. Ibid., p. 105. 110. Blyth (1835), in Eiseley, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 103, p. 119; Blyth read either the first (1813) or the second (1826) edition of Prichard's Researches, since publication of the third edition was not started until 1836 (see n. 92 above). In both editions, Prichard denied the inheritance of acquired characteristics. The 1826 edition contains views on natural selection similar to Blyth's. 111. C. C. Gillispie, "Lamarck and Darwin in the History of Science," in Forerunners of Darwin, ed. by Bentley Glass, et. al. (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1959), p. 287.

347

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS acquired characteristics. The origin of variations was spontan- eous; their preservation was insured by selective breeding or isolation. Blyth advanced somewhat further in his recognition of the conservative aspect of natural selection. (Prichard also recognized this in the second edition of his Researches Into the Physical History of Mankind.) Blyth also admitted that breeds "may possibly be sometimes formed by accidental isolation in a state of nature," something Lawrence had suggested might pro- duce a race of "porcupine men." 112 However, neither Lawrence nor Prichard nor Blyth fully comprehended the creative role of natural selection which Darwin and Wallace later showed to be essential in the evolution of new species. In addition to Darwin, Wallace, and Blyth, a host of other major and minor figures in the development of the theory of evolution were familiar with Lawrence's book. In most cases, Lawrence's influence, if any, is difficult to determine. Many of these men developed no theories of their own, but were simply proponents of Darwinian evolution (Chambers is an exception). Nevertheless, it is worth mentioning them briefly to give some idea of how widely Lawrence's book was read by nineteenth- century biologists. In the early editions of the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, Robert Chambers accounted for race formation in man in terms of environmental influences, but he also allowed for the possibility of the kind of spontaneous variation often ob- served in domesticated animals. In the following passage, in which the ancon sheep and porcupine men were cited as ex- amples, Chambers gave Lawrence as his source.

A notable instance of variety-production in an animal family by no means low, is often referred to, as having occurred under the observation of persons still alive to attest it. On a New England farm there originated, in the latter part of the last century, a variety of sheep with unusually short legs, which was kept up by breeding, on account of the convenience in that country of having sheep which are unable to jump over low fences . . . It appears only necessary, when a variety has been thus produced, that a union should take place between individuals similarly characterized, and that the conditions under which it has been produced should be persisted in, in order to establish it. Early in the last century, a man named Lambert, was bom in Suffolk, with semi-horny excrescences of about half an inch long, thickly growing all over his body. 112. Blyth (1835), in Eiseley, Proc. Amer. Phil. Soc., 103, p. 117.

348

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence

The peculiarity was transmitted to his children . . . It was Mr. Lawrence's opinion, that a pair, in which both parties were so distinguished, might be the progenitors of a new variety of the race who would be thus marked in all future time.1t3 In the later editions of the Vestiges, Chambers omitted the material drawn from Lawrence and explained racial differences solely on a theory of racial progression toward the Caucasian type, coupled with environmental influences. In the twelfth edition (a reprint of the eleventh), Chambers said: On the whole, it results from inquiries into what is called the physical history of man, that conditions, such as climate and food, domestication, and perhaps an inward tendency to progress under tolerably favorable circumstances, are suf- ficient to account for all the outward peculiarities of form and color; so that these can only at the utmost serve as proofs of the distinctness of races, if supported by more decisive evi- dence.114 The reasons for this change are unknown, and it would require a detailed comparison of all the editions of the Vestiges to supply an adequate explanation. According to A. Hunter Dupree, Asa Gray, the most important American evolutionist, read Lawrence's book as a young man and was tremendously impressed by it. While there is apparently no firm evidence to suggest that Gray's acceptance of evolution was affected by his early reading of Lawrence, Dupree hints that Lawrence's view of man as a part of nature might have appealed to him. In any case, Gray expressed his admiration for Lawrence in a letter written in 1831, quoted by Dupree: That Lawrence is a grand fellow-a strong and agreeable writer. I wish you to read whenever you can obtain it. He is a materialist-after my own fashion precisely-Don't attempt to form an opinion on such matters until you read it.115 Charles Lyell was also familiar with Lawrence's work, for a few references to it occur in his Principles of Geology.111 Yet

113. Robert Chambers, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, 2nd Amer. ed. (New York: Wiley & Putnam, 1845), pp. 196-197. 114. Robert Chambers, Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, 12th ed. (Edinburgh: W. & R. Chambers, 1884), p. 339. 115. A. Hunter Dupree, Asa Gray (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard Univer- sity Press, 1959), p. 20. 116. Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology, 9th ed. (New York: D. Apple- ton & Co., 1856), p. 609.

349

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS

Lyell does not seem to have been influenced by the theoretical aspects of Lawrence's work as Blyth was; he quoted Lawrence only on factual matters. He accepted the inheritance of acquired characteristics and was not particularly aware of the importance of spontaneous variations. He also adopted the view that domesti- cated animals may have originally been endowed with a dis- position to domestication in order to serve man, a type of natural theology alien to Lawrence.'17 Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker was apparently familiar with Lawrence's work, since he referred to the Lectures briefly in an address to the British Association in 1868. The citation is unimportant, however, and oddly enough is in reference to a few remarks Lawrence made on geology."18Thomas Huxley, on the other hand, was familiar with the anthropological contents of Lawrence's book and with the controversy which surrounded it. He seems to have known Lawrence personally, and at one time he presented Lawrence with a copy of one of his books.'"9 However, the following passage, from the 1894 preface to Man's Place in Nature, gives no hint of any influence which Lawrence might have had on Huxley. It was not so very long since my kind friend Sir William Lawrence, one of the ablest men whom I have known, had been well-nigh ostracized for his book 'On Man', which now might be read in a Sunday-school without surprising any- body.'20 Finally, William Bateson, who was so important in introducing Mendelian genetics into Great Britain, was quite familiar with Lawrence's ideas on genetics. He referred to Lawrence briefly in an article written in 1909,121 and again in a 1924 article, in which he said,

Sir William Lawrence had (1818) collected many illustrations of variability, but maintains that none transgress the limits of specific differences, and he took a firm stand against the Lamarckian teaching of the transmission of acquired charac-

117. Ibid., pp. 591-600. 118. J. D. Hooker, "Address Before the British Association at Norwich," Every Saturday (Sept. 26, 1868), p. 393. 119. Leonard Huxley, ed. The Life and Letters of T. H. Huxley (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1901), I, 305. 120. T. H. Huxley, Man's Place in Nature, 2nd ed. (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1894), vii. 121. Beatrice Bateson, William Bateson, Naturalist (Cambridge (Eng.): Cambridge University Press, 1928), pp. 216, 220.

350

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence

ters, which he declared was contrary to experience-the first, I believe, actively to denounce that illusion.122 It has now become clear that Lawrence's ideas on variation and heredity were not lost in the obscurity of time, but were discussed in scientific circles for a considerable number of years. The degree of his influence varied, but his Lectures were recalled again and again by leading biologists, from the groping, un- certain days of pre-Darwinian biology to the heyday of post- Mendelian genetics.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAWRENCE'S IDEAS We have examined Lawrence's ideas on heredity and race formation as expressed in his Lectures of 1819, and we have seen the impact which they had on nineteenth-century biology. It will now be worthwhile to study the development of Lawrence's views as expressed in his earlier writings, and to attempt to determine the origins of his seemingly advanced ideas. This will in turn give us a clue to the way in which ideas which eventually fed into the work of Wallace, Blyth, and others developed and were transmitted. Early in his career, Lawrence showed an interest in problems of race formation. On October 4, 1803, at the age of twenty, Lawrence read a paper on the varieties of the human species to the Abernethian Society at St. Bartholomew's Hospital.123 Whether or not this paper still exists, I do not know. However, it was probably based largely on the writings of Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. In 1809, in Nicholson's British Encyclopedia, there appeared an article on "Man" written by Lawrence, in which he acknowledged that most of his information was taken from Blumenbach's De Generis Humani Varietate Nativa. There is no question that this article, which has not been noticed before, is by Lawrence, for in the preface to the Encyclopedia, Lawrence is cited as the author of articles on "Anatomy, Comparative Anatomy, the Natural History of Man, Physiology, Surgery, etc." 124 The article in Nicholson's Encyclopedia contained a discussion of the differences between man and animals which was similar to, but much shorter than the discussion in the 1819 Lectures.

122. Ibid., p. 402. 123. Norman Moore, The History of St. Bartholomew's Hospital (London: Pearson, 1918), II, 826-827. 124. William Nicholson, The British Encyclopedia, Amer. ed. (Philadel- phia: Mitchell, Ames & White, 1821), I, vii. I have been unable to use the 1809 edition (listed in British Museum Catalog).

351

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS

Lawrence's views on heredity and race formation, however, as expressed in this article, were diametrically opposed to his later ideas. Lawrence's aim was the same as in his Lectures, to prove that man is of one species. The analogy with domesticated animals was used, undoubtedly due to the influence of Blumen- bach, who popularized this approach to physical anthropology.125 Yet, in 1819 Lawrence emphatically denied that acquired charac- teristics could be inherited and dismissed climate, food, and way of life as unimportant in race formation. He took exactly the opposite point of view in this article. "Climate," he said, "has generally been regarded as the cause of national colour" and might also have "considerable influence on the hair." 128 Food and mode of life were also seen as important factors in race formation. Furthermore, the effects of these influences could be increased through breeding: The three causes now mentioned produce their effect in chang- ing the original character of the animal, and giving origin to a variety, only after a great length of time, and a continued action through several generations. But these changes are communicated much more quickly by the process of genera- tion. When two varieties copulate together, the offspring resembles neither parent wholly, but partakes of the form and other peculiarities of both.127 In addition, Lawrence stated that we have "many facts, shewing that, in some cases, casual mutilations are transmitted to the offspring; as want of tail in cat or dog." 128 There was no mention of spontaneous variation, no mention of the ancon sheep or porcupine men, no mention of sexual selection or geographical isolation. The treatment was almost pure Blumen- bach, although Lawrence listed a number of additional sources, including Petrus Camper, Buffon, John Hunter's 'Disputatio Inauguralis de Hominum Varietatibus," Zimmerman's "Geo- graphische Geschichte der Menschen," and Ludwig's "Grundriss der Naturgeschichte der Menschen-species." 129 Lawrence's early views on heredity were more fully expressed in several articles written for Abraham Rees's Cyclopedia. The publication dates of the various articles are difficult to determine,

125. Bendyshe, Anthropological Treatises of Blumenbach (see n. 15 above) passim. 126. William Lawrence, "Man," Nicholson's British Encyclopedia, VII, unpaginated. 127. Ibid. 128. Ibid. 129. Ibid.

352

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence since the volumes of the edition I have used are not dated. However, Collinson reports that publication of Rees's Cyclopedia was begun in 1802 and completed in 1820.130 The article "Cranium" is one of those written by Lawrence, for it is cited in his Lectures as having been written by him.131 It was evidently written at least as early as the 1809 article on "Man" in Nichol- son's Encyclopedia where it is also cited.132 In "Cranium," Lawrence admitted that it is difficult to deter- mine the causes of the varieties in the shapes of the human skull, but he offered Blumenbach's views on the subject for consideration. His whole treatment was essentially paraphrased from the third edition of Blumenbach's De Generis Humani Varietate Nativa (1795).133 He stated Blumenbach's idea that the skull could be modified by the facial muscles, which were in turn modified by climate. He also allowed for the possibility that artificial pressure might modify the shape of the skull and that the effects could be inherited. Like Blumenbach, Lawrence cited as an example the Macrocephali described by Hippocrates in Airs, Waters, Places. This was a nation of long-headed people who had supposedly lengthened the heads of their children for pur- poses of beautification. After several generations, the effects became hereditary. Still following Blumenbach, Lawrence de- scribed the pangenesis theory of Hippocrates and Buffon, which was often used to explain the inheritance of acquired charac- teristics: The father of medicine has endeavoured to explain this singular phenomenon by his hypothesis of generation, which is nearly similar to that of Buffon. He supposes the genital fluid to be collected from all parts of the body; and hence that the members of the foetus are fashioned according to those of the parents, from whom this fluid is derived; so that a Macrocephalous father would beget a son of the same forma- tion, etc.134 Lawrence acknowledged that "some physiologists" denied that "tartificialforms of the cranium may ultimately be transmitted to

130. Robert Collinson, Encyclopedias: Their History Throughout the Ages (New York: Hafner, 1966), p. 109. 131. Lawrence, Lectures, p. 332. 132. Lawrence, "Man," Nicholson's British Encyclopedia, VII, un- paginated. 133. Bendyshe, Anthropological Treatises of Blumenbach, pp. 203-204. 134. William Lawrence, "Cranium," The Cyclopedia; or Universal Dic- tionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature, ed. Abraham Rees (Philadelphia: S. F. Bradford, n.d.), X, unpaginated. Lawrence does not use the term "pangenesis," which was introduced by Charles Darwin in 1868.

353

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS

the offspring," and he admitted that there was too little evidence to "determine the question satisfactorily on either issue." How- ever, he wrote: The transmission of other national marks, as peculiar forms of the features, and of organic diseases, as defects of pro- nunciation, not to mention various instances in which casual mutilations have passed to the offspring, will induce us to reflect a little before we adopt implicitly the negative side of the question.'35 This passage, like all the others, was taken almost directly from Blumenbach.136 In fact, there was very little in the article that was original with Lawrence. His later ideas notwithstanding, Lawrence was at this time apparently willing to follow Blumen- bach in accepting the inheritance of acquired characteristics and the pangenesis theory of Buffon. However, in a later article on "Generation," in Volume XVI of Rees's Cyclopedia, Lawrence rejected Buffon's pangenesis theory as "vague chimeras" which were "destitute of foundation" and hardly "worthy of notice." 137 He gave a brief summary of Buffon's theory, which held that particles in the body were shaped by an "interior mould" and then carried to the genital organs where they were stored. These particles enabled parents to produce offspring like themselves.138 The reasons for Law- rence's rejection of Buffon's pangenesis at this point are unclear, especially since the exact date of the article is unknown. How- ever, in "Generation," Lawrence was more concerned with theories of sexual reproduction than with problems of heredity. Therefore, although he rejected Buffon's pangenesis, he did not directly address the problem of the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In the article on "Man" in Rees's Cyclopedia, Lawrence ex- pressed views which are essentially the same as those found in his 1819 Lectures, and it seems likely that the article was written at approximately the same time. In fact, much of the wording of the article was identical with that of the Lectures. In any case, Lawrence's views on heredity as expressed in this article were completely different from those in the Nicholson's En- cyclopedia article and in "Cranium." The inheritance of acquired

135. Ibid. 136. Bendyshe, Anthropological Treatises of Blumenbach, pp. 203-204. 137. William Lawrence, "Generation," Rees's Cyclopedia, XVI, unpagin- ated. See Lawrence, Lectures, p. 367 for reference to "Generation" as having been written by Lawrence. 138. Lawrence, "Generation," Rees's Cyclopedia, XVI.

354

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir Willam Lawrence characteristics was emphatically denied, and the varieties of man were explained in terms of transmission of spontaneous variations. The examples of the ancon sheep and porcupine men were discussed, and the role of breeding and sexual selection in man were described.'39 What caused Lawrence to alter his views on the nature of heredity so dramatically? The answer lies in the expanded list of sources which Lawrence cited in the Rees Cyclopedia article on "Man" and in his Lectures. A number of sources were added to those listed in the Nicholson's Encyclopedia article, but one was given particular emphasis. This source was James Cowles Prichard, of whom Lawrence said, "[His] clear statements, con- vincing reasoning, and very extensive information, stamp the highest value on his interesting work, and distinguish it very ad- vantageously from most other productions on the same sub- ject." 140 Prichard's major work was published in a number of editions, first appearing as Disputatio Inauguralis de Generis Humani Varietate (1808).'41 In 1813, it was expanded and translated as Researches Into the Physical History of Man. A two-volume second edition, quite different from the first, appeared in 1826. A third edition of five volumes was begun in 1837, and this was later reprinted as the "fourth edition" several times. This five- volume edition was again much altered. Prichard was heavily influenced by Blumenbach, as was Lawrence, and both men dedicated their books to Blumenbach. Prichard used the domesti- cated animal analogy to prove the unity of the human species. Yet he diverged from Blumenbach in denying the inheritance of acquired characteristics. "The offspring," he said, "inherit only their connate peculiarities and not any of the acquired quali- ties." 142 He ascribed race formation in man to the propagation of "connate" varieties, just as Lawrence did. He used the ex- amples of the ancon sheep and porcupine men, and it seems likely that Lawrence first read of these varieties in Prichard. Indeed, a close examination of the first edition of Prichard's Researches reveals that virtually all of the major elements of Lawrence's 1819 treatment are present, and there is no doubt that Prichard was Lawrence's major source. Prichard fully

139. William Lawrence, "Man," Rees's Cyclopedia, XXIII, unpaginated. 140. Lawrence, Lectures, p. 113. 141. James Cowles Prichard, Disputatio Inauguralis de Generis Humani Varietate (Edinburgh; Abernethy and Walker, 1808). 142. James Cowles Prichard, Researches Into the Physical History of Man, 1st ed. (London: J. & A. Arch, 1813), p. 230. See n. 92 above for bibliographical information on other editions of Prichard's work.

355

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS recognized the role of selection in the breeding of animals and applied it to man: If the same constraint were exercised over men, which produce such remarkable effects among the brute kinds, there is no doubt that its influence would be as great. But no despot has ever thought of amusing himself in this manner, or least such an experiment has never been carried on upon that extensive a scale, which might lead to important results.143 Prichard also recognized the analogy between artificial selec- tion in domesticated animals and sexual selection in man, and he actually stated it more clearly than Lawrence: The perception of beauty is the chief principle in every country which directs men in their marriages. It does not appear that the inferior tribes of animals have anything analogous to this feeling . . . This peculiarity in the constitu- tion of man, must have considerable effects on the physical principle of improvement, supplying the place in our own kind the beneficial control which we exercise over the brute creation.144 Prichard himself has been as misunderstood as Lawrence. E. B. Poulton read the second edition of the Researches and found "a remarkable anticipation of modem views on evolu- tion."'145 Darlington lumps Prichard with Lawrence as one of the English "medical evolutionists." 146 Conway Zirkle states that Prichard had a "very accurate idea of evolution."147 It is true that, like Lawrence, Prichard anticipated important ele- ments of Darwinian evolution: spontaneous variation, sexual selection, geographical isolation, etc. In the 1826 edition of his work, he went much farther than Lawrence and recognized the conservative aspect of natural selection.'48 He also discussed 143. Ibid., p. 40. 144. Ibid., p. 41. Prichard probably derived his ideas on sexual selection from Samuel Stanhope Smith, whom he cites (p. 41). Lawrence also drew on Smith's views (see n. 26 above). 145. E. B. Poulton, "A Remarkable Anticipation of Modern Views on Evolution," in Essays on Evolution (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1908), pp. 173-192. 146. Darlington, Darwin's Place, pp. 16-18. 147. Conway Zirkle, "The Early History of the Idea of Acquired Charac- teristics and of Pangenesis," Trans. Amer. Phil. Soc., n.s. 35 (1946), 117. 148. Prichard, Researches (1826), II, 557-581. It should be noted that Prichard's views changed drastically in each edition of his Researches. In the third edition (1836-1847), he was willing to allow for the inheri- tance of acquired characteristics (see n. 92 above for bibliographical details). In his Natural History of Man (4th ed., London: H. Bailliere,

356

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence the geographical distribution of animals at great length and was frequently quoted by Lyell in the Principles of Geology on this subject.149 However, Prichard consistently supported the con- cept of fixed species, just as Lawrence did. In a book published in 1829, in one of his few direct references to evolution, Prichard specifically refuted the evolutionary doctrines of Geoffroy St. Hilaire and Erasmus Darwin.'50 Nevertheless, Prichard's views on heredity and variation, as expressed in the 1813 edition of his Researches, were certainly advanced for his time, although their origin is unclear and would be an appropriate subject for another whole paper. What ob- viously impressed Lawrence, however, was Prichard's ability to distinguish between spontaneous and acquired variations, some- thing on which Blumenbach had been vague. Blumenbach, in fact, believed that "peculiarities which happen accidentally to one or two individuals" were of little importance in race forma- tion, and that only "varieties of whole nations" should be considered.151 This explained the fact that albinos did not form a distinct race. Prichard, on the other hand, said, "We see no instance of connate variety, however trifling, which does not manifest a tendency to become hereditary and permanent in the race," and he specifically cited albinos as an example.152 The shift from a consideration of variations in whole races to a discussion of variations in individuals was the most important element of Prichard's work, and it became the most important of Lawrence's as well. By denying the inheritance of acquired characteristics as Prichard initially did, he and Lawrence were able to show that only individual variations could be the source of new breeds or races. The origin of these variations must be spontaneous, since external factors would be unlikely to work only on one individual. The ancon sheep and porcupine men provided concrete proof that such variations did occur de novo, and that they were hereditary. Lawrence's emphasis on individ- ual variation led Wallace to realize very early that species might

1855), he seems to have completely accepted the inheritance of acquired characteristics (I, 24-70). The reasons for this change of view are not entirely clear, but it is important to determine which editions of his works were read by later naturalists, if an accurate picture of his influence is to be obtained. Lawrence could not have read the second (1826) or third (1836-1847) edition prior to the publication of his Lectures in 1819, so I have limited my discussion to the first (1813) edition. 149. Lyell, Principles, pp. 615, 630-635, 643, 647. 150. James Cowles Prichard, A Review of the Doctrine of a Vital Princi- ple (London: Sherwood, Gilbert and Piper, 1829), p. 227. 151. Bendyshe, Anthropological Treatises of Blumenbach, p. 129. 152. Prichard, Researches (1813), p. 25.

357

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS be produced from "certain distinctive peculiarities in some Individuals."153 It also enabled Blyth to adopt his classification of varieties, in which he distinguished between the spontaneous "'simple"and "true" varieties, and acquired variations. The em- phasis on individual variation also led Wallace and Blyth to recognize the importance of selection in perpetuating new varieties. In the case of Wallace, it was natural selection that was found to be important. Blyth, on the other hand, recognized the importance of artificial selection in maintaining new breeds, but failed to grasp the creative aspect of natural selection. Even allowing for the fact that neither Lawrence nor Prichard was truly an evolutionist, there still is a danger of reading too much modernity into their ideas on heredity. Since actual knowledge of the mechanisms of inheritance was nonexistent at this time, Lawrence and Prichard were at a loss to explain the causes of what I have referred to throughout this paper as spontaneous variations. They actually called such variations "de novo," "connate," "congenital," or "accidental," terms which Prichard admitted were "only expressive of our ignorance as to the causes which give rise to them." 154 Lawrence also professed ignorance of the causes of variation.155 Nevertheless, both men suggested that the artificial conditions of domestication might have some influence on the reproductive system.'56 Prichard never really spelled out his conception of how the reproductive system might be affected, nor did Law- rence in his Lectures. However, in an article entitled "Monster" in Rees's Cyclopedia, Lawrence discussed possible causes of monstrous births. He seems to have conceived of the major cause as some sort of disruption of foetal. development, although he was necessarily rather vague on the subject. We now know that such embryological birth defects cannot be inherited, but Lawrence had no way of knowing that. Thus, he wrote, Observation . . . exhibits to us the production and develop- ment of the foetus as the result of vascular action in secretion and nutrition . . . The function of generation is not more exempt from the operation of disturbing causes than any other in the animal economy. Any violent and sudden impression interrupts it at once by causing abortion; but minor causes, although their effects are not seen, are not to be deemed inop-

153. McKinney, "Wallace's First Observations" (n. 83 above), p. 372. 154. Prichard, Researches (1826), II, 548. 155. Lawrence, Lectures, p. 438. 156. Prichard, Researches (1813), pp. 207-228; Researches (1826), II, 580; Lawrence, Lectures, pp. 383-384, 438.

358

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir Wfiliam Lawrence

erative. Particular bodily formations, particular mental char- acters, and dispositions to certain diseases, etc., etc., are transmitted to the offspring . . . We ascribe then the aberra- tions from the usual form and structure of the body, which produce monsters, to an irregular operation of the powers concerned in generation.157 It is clear, then, that despite the modern sound of Lawrence's ideas on heredity, he was as ignorant of the actual mechanism of inheritance as were his contemporaries. It is to the credit of Lawrence and Prichard that they were able to conclude from the evidence available to them that acquired characteristics could not be inherited and that spontaneous variations did occur. However, to say that they "took up the challenge of Lamarck," as Darlington does, is to misinterpret their aims.'58 They were in no way concerned with finding a new source of variation in evolution, to oppose Lamarck's theories, and Lamarck himself was almost never mentioned by either of them. Their concern was simply to explain the formation of human races. That in the course of this explanation they hit upon an essentially modern concept of heredity and variation, is largely incidental. What is particularly interesting about Lawrence is that he was basically an armchair biologist who based his Lectures primarily on previously published material. Having adopted Blumenbach's domesticated animal analogy as his basic starting point, Lawrence was converted to the theory of race formation by spontaneous variation through his reading of the first edition of Prichard's Researches. Having adopted this theory, all that remained was for Lawrence to buttress his arguments with numerous examples drawn from a wide variety of literature on travel, ethnology, stock breeding, anatomy, and physiology. If Lawrence's work was more influential than Prichard's, as seems to have been the case, it may have been partly due to Lawrence's clearer, more precise style of writing. Prichard tended to ramble, filling volumes with ethnological details. In addition, Lawrence's book remained unchanged and in print for almost fifty years (the last printing was in 1866).159 Prichard, on the

157. William Lawrence, "Monster," Rees's Cyclopedia, XXV, unpaginated. The fact that Lawrence wrote the article has been established through cross references to other articles he wrote and a comparison of the text with his Lectures. 158. Darlington, Darwin's Place, p. 16. 159. I have seen copies of, or reference to, the following editions of Lawrence's Lectures: 1819 (London: J. Callow); 1822 (London: W. Benbow); 1822 (London: Kaygill & Price);; 1823 (London: J. & C. Smith); 1823

359

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions KENTWOOD D. WELLS other hand, was constantly revising his Researches, thus leaving the early editions outdated and out of print. For this reason, many of the evolutionists may have read only the third edition, in which many of his most interesting ideas were either obscured or omitted (Darwin, for example, read only the third edition).160 What makes Lawrence's influence on someone like Wallace so remarkable, and at the same time, paradoxical, is the fact that he was not an evolutionist. Furthermore, his book contained very little that was original. The first of these paradoxes is due largely to the fact that Lawrence was a man with an eighteenth- century background whose influence was felt in the nine- teenth-century. Most of his sources were eighteenth-century authors, with the exception of Prichard, who was himself a product of the eighteenth-century. Hence, Lawrence adopted the accepted view of fixed species in nature. Since he was concerned with the extent of variation within a single species, human or animal, there was no reason for him to alter his views in this respect. Wallace, on the other hand, having previously read the Vestiges of Creation, was already convinced of the truth of evolution when he read Lawrence's book. Thus, the same sort of hindsight which has led modem authors to call Lawrence an evolutionist led Wallace to consider Lawrence's ideas from an evolutionary point of view. As McKinney has remarked, there never was a "species barrier" for Wallace.116 He therefore immediately realized that Lawrence's permanent varieties might just as well be called species. With respect to the problem of Lawrence's lack of originality, we should remember that even Darwin's great work had two distinct components. On the one hand, there was his original theory of natural selection. On the other hand, there was his immense compilation of previously recorded facts drawn from a vast array of source materials. Lawrence developed no original theory of his own, although he adopted and clarified Prichard's ideas. His Lectures were important primarily because they collected in a clear and logical manner useful information which had been available previously, but only in widely scattered sources. Lawrence played the role of the encyclopedist, a com- piler of ideas as well as facts. His work thus served as a sort of pipeline through which important concepts of heredity and

(London: R. Carlile); 1828 (Salem, Mass.: Foote and Brown); 1840 (London: publisher unknown); 1844 (London: J. Taylor); 1848 (London: H. G. Bohn); 1866 (London: Bell & Daldy). 160. Smith, "Origin of the 'Origin'" (n. 67 above), p. 399. 161. McKinney, "Alfred Russel Wallace," p. 87.

360

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Sir William Lawrence variation were able to feed directly into the mainstream of evolutionary theory.

Acknowledgments I would like to express my appreciation to Professor Seymour H. Mauskopf of the History Department, Duke University, and Professor William B. Provine of the History Department, Cornell University, for their valuable suggestions and comments on this paper. I would also like to thank Professor Donald Ginter, History Department, Duke University, for first introducing me to rigorous historical research.

361

This content downloaded from 150.135.115.31 on Wed, 29 May 2013 14:11:36 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions