Joseph Adams in the Judgment of Paris
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Evolutionary Anthropology 17:245À249 (2008) Crotchets & Quiddities Joseph Adams in the Judgment of Paris Evolution’s remarkable little book 45 years before Darwin KENNETH M. WEISS In Greek mythology, the Trojan shep- herd-prince Paris was asked to decide who was the fairest of three competing goddesses, Hera, Athena, and Aphrodite (Fig. 1). Pandering to vested interests to win his vote, Hera offered Paris political power, while Athena offered him wisdom. But Aphrodite offered the love of Helen, the face of beauty among mortals. As we all learned as high school stu- dents, at an age when we could eas- ily understand, he opted for sex, and abducted Helen back home to Troy. The rest is history. The history of science also has multiple-choice stories to tell, but they’re real, not mythological. The idea that life was molded through historical processes involving natural selection is rightly credited to Charles Darwin and Alfred Wallace, but historians have found others who anticipated the idea in various ways. There are many places, includ- ing Wikipedia, to find discussions of these people,1–4 and some of them, including Erasmus Darwin, Charles’ grandfather, are often briefly men- tioned in textbooks of evolution. The Figure 1. The Judgment of Paris: Hera, Athena, or Aphrodite? By Lucas Cranach the Elder, idea that the traits of organisms 1528. Public domain, from Wikimedia. could be changed by artificial breed- ing was widely accepted at the time Historians debate the contribu- His theory addressed the origin and and was highly influential to Darwin. tions of these progenitors. The main modification of species, but was vili- problem is that before Darwin most fied as mystical because his sug- natural philosophers, as biologists gested mechanism was the inheri- were then called, had a static view tance of characteristics that organ- Kenneth M. Weiss is Evan Pugh Professor of species in which their traits isms acquired as a result of what of Anthropology and Genetics at Penn could change but they could not they strove to do in their daily lives. State University. E-mail: kenweiss@psu. ‘‘transmute’’ into other species. Lamarck was, in fact, a materialist, edu Most prominent in the Darwinian not a mystic, but in any case his pre-Pantheon was Jean-Baptiste mechanism did not survive the Lamarck (1744–1829). He coined judgment of closer scrutiny.6 VC 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. the term ‘‘biology’’ for this branch Among other notable precursors DOI 10.1002/evan.20186 of knowledge and, in 1809, wrote was William C. Wells (1757–1817) Published online in Wiley InterScience 5 (www.interscience.wiley.com). his famous volume on evolution. who, in 1813, described the origin of 246 Weiss Crotchets & Quiddities the best ones reproduce. Matthew context and antecedents. Historians took his ideas to the next level, sug- have unearthed relevant contribu- gesting that descendants of favor- tionsbymanyotherwriterswhose able individuals might ‘‘in several degree of anticipation (or not) of generations, even become distinct modern evolutionary biology have species, incapable of co-reproduc- been debated at length.1,3,4,9 There tion.’’ This work was obscure and are understandable reasons for the unknown to Darwin, but when Mat- endless debate. It is impossible to thew wrote to complain and claim get completely into the minds of credit, he was given grudging ac- people who wrote before Darwin’s knowledgment in later editions of and Wallace’s ideas became com- Origin of Species. monplace. Antecedents cannot be Edward Blyth was a physician expected to have had exactly the who argued some of these same same thoughts, although they did points quite explicitly. In 1959, our come very close. Equally important, prominent anthropological forebear, if we have declared Darwin and Loren Eiseley, wrote a long article Wallace to be our heroes, then there suggesting that Darwin, who knew are reasons, intentional or other- Blyth and had read his work, had wise, to lessen the insight attributed Figure 2. Joseph Adams. Reproduced with cribbed key ideas from him without to predecessors who, necessarily, the kind permission of the President and credit.8 However, subsequent study had to express ideas in terms of Council of the Royal College of Surgeons their own times. The main point, of England. of Darwin’s notebooks has made this allegation untenable,4,9 at least in which isn’t disputed, is that evolu- the eyes of Darwin hagiographers.10 tionary ideas were in the air. But human racial variation in terms of They say this for two reasons. One now I want to add another name to natural selection for disease resist- is that Darwin’s ideas developed the list, a man who seems to have ance. He, like Darwin decades later, gradually, rather than coming in a been wholly unknown to historians proposed a blending theory of inheri- flash as they might have if reading of evolutionary biology. tance that led him to suggest that Blyth’s papers had turned on the racial variation had to adapt as a light. The other is that Blyth, like MONSIEUR PORTAL’S BAD form of group selection because most others, saw selection as a ADVICE intermarriage between groups was means of removing the unfit to keep observed to blend away their distinc- the species static in its highly In the early 1800s, educated people tive traits.4 He recognized that selec- adapted form—what we would call were quite concerned about the he- tion would favor ‘‘accidental varie- purifying selection today. He did not reditary nature of disease, especially ties...which would occur among the proffer selection as a positive adapt- ‘‘madness.’’ In 1808, a French physi- ... inhabitants of the middle regions ing force that screened randomly cian, Antoine Portal, published a 12 of Africa’’ that conveyed disease arising variation to produce new treatise on hereditary diseases. resistance.20:435 In that sense, he, species. This reflected a heightened interest unlike Lamarck, saw selection as Darwin acknowledged these and in heredity in France at that time, an choosing opportunistically among other authors, though of Blythe only interest that later spread influentially 13 randomly arising variations. Wells for other contributions to biology. to other parts of Europe. Portal’s extended his idea to other species, He even credited his American corre- popularly accessible work fed fears but not to the origin of new species. spondent, C. L. Brace, great-grandfa- among people who had diseases like In 1831, a British forestry agrono- ther of our own C. Loring Brace (the madness in their families and, given mist, Patrick Matthew (1790–1874), IVth), with bringing Wells’ work to the typically large families of the wrote appendix material for a work his attention. In Darwinism, a paean time, many did. They feared that if on means of growing the best tim- to his friend,11 Wallace gave scant they had children they would pass ber for the Royal Navy’s ships, the credit to any predecessors, whose on the curse to their descendants masts that launched the ships that views were, in his judgment, ‘‘either and hence to posterity. maintained the British Empire.7 He altogether obsolete or positively This attracted the attention of a referred explicitly to many of the absurd’’ (p. 5) because they did not British apothecary-turned-physician core ideas of evolution. A ‘‘law uni- adequately address the transmuta- named Joseph Adams (1756–1818); versal in nature,’’ he wrote, adapted tion of one species into another. Of (Fig. 2). As a physician, Adams was the physical and mental powers of the authors discussed earlier, he well-regarded by his British contem- organisms to their conditions. The mentioned only Lamarck, whom he poraries, though he seems to have way to mimic nature to advance the immediately dismissed because his been an irritable fellow who liked Navy was not by immediately har- ideas did not ‘‘satisfy naturalists.’’ recognition but not criticism and vesting the best timber, but by sys- It does not demean Darwin in any wished he were in the Royal Soci- tematically culling lesser trees to let way to dig hard to understand his ety.14,15 However, he was not in the Crotchets & Quiddities Joseph Adams in the Judgement of Paris 247 Adams recognized that the prob- external event, what today we call lem of these somber beliefs in Paris environmental or life-style factors. was a confusion of traits that family He pointed out that if the exposure members might share by reason of factor were known and avoided, the contagion with traits that are truly trait would not arise and the person hereditary. In 1814, responding to need not worry about transmitting it this misleading popular science, to his or her children. He even Adams wrote a short book of his noticed that some traits, like gout, own (Fig. 3).16 He tried to clarify were consequences of sedentary or the nature, meaning, and origins of wealthy life styles; these are known hereditary traits. In a prescient way, today as the diseases of ‘‘western’’ 45 years before Darwin’s Origin of modernization.17 Madness could be Species,hedid. a disposition or a predisposition, Adams argued that just because but since no one could detect its several family members have a dis- preclinical manifestations one could ease does not mean that it is herit- not determine whether environmen- able or that everyone in the family tal factors were necessary in every has the bad seed and will transmit it. case or not. Far from being a clear- Because of the mass confusion in cut risk that people should be so concept, he made major distinctions fearful of that they refrained from that in their main points are per- reproducing, Adams said that mad- fectly modern today.