CHAPTER

Peter Mark Roget: Physician, Scientist, Systematist; his Thesaurus and his Impact on 19th-Century Neuroscience

9

Lawrence Kruger*,1, Stanley Finger{ *

Department of Neurobiology, The David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA { Department of Psychology, Programs in Neuroscience and Philosophy–Neuroscience–Psychology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, USA 1 Corresponding author: Tel.: þ1-310-825-9572 Fax: þ310 825-2224, e-mail address: [email protected]

Abstract Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) is best known for his Thesaurus, a project completed late in his long life. He trained as a physician, practiced medicine, and was interested in many branches of science. Much of his life was dedicated to the systematization of knowledge and identifying relationships. Although not an experimentalist in the modern sense of the word, he contributed to “neuroscience” in journal and encyclopaedia articles, as well as in books and lectures. He wrote extensively on comparative physiology, sensory systems, phrenology, optics, and various disorders affecting the nervous system. He viewed his two-volume Bridgewater Treatise of 1834 as his most significant achievement, turning to physiology and comparative anatomy to argue that God’s existence can be seen in how living forms and their components are designed. Roget was active in many scholarly organizations, most notably the Royal Society of London, where he served for more than two decades as its secretary before “retiring” to pursue his Thesaurus.

Keywords Roget (Peter Mark), Encyclopaedia Britannica, spoke illusion, phrenology, optics, taxonomy, Bridgewater Treatises, Royal Society of London, Thesaurus

The enduring impact of Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) on literature is assured by his Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases, completed in 1852, and the enormous growth of its various derivatives since his death almost a century and a half ago

Progress in Brain Research, Volume 205, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63273-9.00010-1 © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

173

174

CHAPTER 9 Peter Mark Roget: Physician, Scientist, Systematist

FIGURE 1 The best known portrait of Peter Mark Roget (1779–1869) in 1839, from an engraving based on the painting by E.Y. Eddis appearing in many American and British editions of the Thesaurus.

(Fig. 1)(Roget, 1852). In his youth, Roget became interested in the structure of “word books,” but the later objective of his lasting contribution to literature and the structure of language proved far more ambitious than the construction of a mere collection of synonyms (or of antonyms). In the introduction to the first edition of his Thesaurus (a neologism from the Latin “treasury”), he states his intention to produce a book with a semantic structure unlike its precedents, hoping to provide a significant means of improving lexical decision and naming tasks by constructing “a systematic arrangement of ideas with a view to their expression.”1 Roget was exploring a means of organizing the relationships between words through their meanings with new rules of classification. His neologism, “thesaurus” 1

For a scholarly treatise on the antecedents and structure of Roget’s Thesaurus, see Hu¨llen (2004).

CHAPTER 9 Peter Mark Roget: Physician, Scientist, Systematist

typified his originality. “Language is the medium through which we communicate our ideas to one another,” he wrote in the introduction to the 1852 edition—its role is “no less important as an instrument of thought; not merely being its vehicle, but giving it wings for flight.” Roget informs his readers that he had long been occupied with this task: Its now nearly fifty years since I first projected a system of verbal classification similar to that on which the present work is founded. Conceiving that such a compilation might help to supply my own deficiencies, I had, in the year 1805, completed a classed catalogue of words on a small scale, but on the same principle, and nearly in the same form, as the Thesaurus now published. I had often during that long interval found this little collection, scanty and imperfect though it was, of much use to me in literary composition, and often contemplated its extension and improvement; but a sense of the magnitude of the task, amidst a multiple of other avocations, deterred me from the attempt. Since my retirement from the duties of Secretary to the Royal Society, however, finding myself possessed of more leisure, and believing that a repertory of which I had myself experienced the advantage might, when amplified, prove useful to others, I resolved to embark in an undertaking which, for the last three or four years, has given me incessant occupation . . .

The lexicography of the English language had been an intellectual challenge for Roget, paralleling his long-standing interest in biological classification or taxonomy, a theme central to his life’s work and to some of his many publications. In his Introduction to the Thesaurus, he states, the principle by which I have been guided in framing my verbal classification is the same as that which is employed in the various departments of Natural History. Thus the sectional divisions I have formed correspond to Natural families in Botany and Zoology, and the filiation2 of words presents a network analogous to the natural filiation of plants and animals.3

The importance and rapid expansion of the English language had its counterpart in the contemporary development of the sciences, and the systematic classification of all matter had been a dominant theme throughout Roget’s lifetime. Naming and lexical decision-making were key features in defining science as “an organized body of knowledge,” all of which makes it less surprising that this singular individual devoted his professional life to the importance of semantic accuracy in language, together with a disciplined account and description of animal life.

2

Roget’s word “filiation” is no longer in common use, but its nineteenth-century meaning persists and is easily understood. 3 Roget separated ideas into six major classes (e.g., matter, intellect, volition), analogous to zoological phyla, split them into “sections” equivalent to zoological classes, and thereafter into “heads,” corresponding to Orders.

175

176

CHAPTER 9 Peter Mark Roget: Physician, Scientist, Systematist

The semantic richness of the English language would be of obvious fascination to someone seeking rules for large sets of concrete descriptive constructs and abstract concepts. But lexical decision-making was only one component of the task confronting “systematists” wrestling with the classification and description of a vast array of plants and living organisms. The context of Roget’s principal interests derived largely from the eighteenth century, during which Carl Linnaeus (1707–1778) had outlined taxonomic rules for a biological classification system that required grouping, naming, and ranking variants of all living forms.4 By the turn of the century in Paris, Baron Georges Cuvier (1769–1832) had established royal patronage for a practical, organized effort to extend the functional concepts of a taxonomy to include paleontology, and the Comte de Buffon (Georges-Louis Leclerc; 1707–1788) had recruited to the Jardin des Plantes, Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1744–1829), the pioneer in devising the original terminology for all invertebrate taxonomy. Importantly, Lamarck attempted to understand the similarities between clearly related forms and organisms by developing early concepts of evolution based on the principles of “use and disuse.” His underlying argument attracted the interests of Erasmus Darwin (1731–1802), Alfred Russell Wallace (1823–1913) and others in England, as well as Charles Darwin (1809–1882), whose ideas about “natural selection” later revolutionized biology (Darwin, 1859). The aim of this essay is to examine some of Roget’s forays into comparative anatomy and physiology (a subject he defined broadly) in terms of what he did, wrote, and how he tried to organize this subject. It focuses on the nerves, the brain and, by extension, the mind (e.g., perception), including his powerful arguments against the phrenologists, who were claiming to localize different behavioral functions in discrete parts of the cerebral cortex. For Roget, understanding the nervous system was associated with “science,” defined as “an organized body of knowledge,” but was based in the “systematics” associated with God’s creations in the age of “natural philosophy”—a key feature of Roget’s broad scientific orientation, and a controversial feature of the changing nineteenth-century zeitgeist.

1 EARLY YEARS AND MEDICAL EDUCATION Peter Mark Roget was born on January 18, 1779 in London’s Soho District, where his Swiss-born father was pastor at the local French Huguenot Church. Although his father died 4 years later, his mother became convinced that, with his notebook lists (e.g., Latin words and their English equivalents under categories such as “Beasts” and “Parts of the Body”)5 and early love of science (including astronomy as well as biology), he should train in medicine. Peter was 14 when his family moved to Edinburgh in 1793, in order to study medicine. 4

For the history and further details of the Linnaean taxonomic system, see Hagberg (1952) and Frangsmyr (1983). 5 For more on Roget and his word lists, see Emblen (1970) and Kendall (2008).

2 The Emerging Physician–Scientist

The royal charter for the University of Edinburgh dates from 1582, but it was not until the eighteenth century that its innovative and highly influential medical school achieved great importance (see Horn, 1967). Unlike Oxford and Cambridge, it was not restricted to students of a particular faith, was not as heavily dependent on theology and ancient languages, and innovatively employed the English language in its curriculum. By attracting aspiring physicians and dispersing them widely, its graduates became a significant influence on the teaching and practice of medicine throughout the expanding British Empire. Roget received a broad education at Edinburgh, studying classical literature, philosophy, and Latin, as well as medicine in his university classes and with privately paid tutors. In a letter dated December 1793, he informed his much-loved uncle and “surrogate father,” Sir Samuel Romilly (1757–1818), about the anatomy lessons given by Alexander Monro, Secundus (1733–1817).6 “I often hear Dr. [Alexander] Monro [Secundus] who reads lectures on Anatomy in the College,” he wrote. “He has a subject [body] at every lecture, which he dissects in the Class; the smell is sometimes offensive, when the dead body has been kept too long, as was the case yesterday” (cited in Emblen, 1970, p. 21).7 Although only a small percentage of the 400–500 students attending classes at the medical school actually graduated in this era, Roget obtained his diploma at age 19, submitting a thesis (in Latin) on the laws of chemical affinity Roget in 1798. It included references to Erasmus Darwin (1731–1802), who adopted the Linnaean classification system and searched for order in nature; something that Roget, as an energetic young scientist with the mind-set of a systematist, deemed important. He now set forth exploring nature with a vigor matched to his passion for the English language.

2 THE EMERGING PHYSICIAN–SCIENTIST Soon after obtaining his degree, Roget began working on a large, unpublished manuscript, in which he, following Edinburgh philosopher Dugald Stewart (1753–1828), divided knowledge into three categories: the material world (natural history), the intellectual world, and signs (words). He also met important scientists, including Erasmus Darwin and Thomas Beddoes (1760–1808), who published Roget’s notes on the prevalence of consumption (tuberculosis) in people of different occupations, this being Roget’s first “publication” (see Beddoes, 1799, pp. 48–51).

6

Alexander Monro, Secundus (1733–1817) was Professor of Medicine and Anatomy at Edinburgh University from 1758 until his death. Son of a famous founder of the Edinburgh Medical School, he is best remembered for describing the “foramen of Monro” connecting the lateral and third ventricles of the brain. 7 Another important figure in the history of neuroscience, Charles Bell (1774–1842) was teaching the practice of surgery in Edinburgh at this time.

177

178

CHAPTER 9 Peter Mark Roget: Physician, Scientist, Systematist

Roget joined Beddoes’ Pneumatic Medical Institution, working with Humphry Davy (1778–1829) and studying whether gases might be used therapeutically for various disorders, including palsies and venereal diseases. Davy was particularly interested in nitrous oxide, noting that it could cause euphoria in most volunteers.8 Roget did not become euphoric but did become drowsy, disoriented, and unable to function rationally, describing his experiences in Davy’s (1800) book on nitrous oxide: I seemed to lose the sense of my own weight, and imagined I was sinking into the ground. I then felt a drowsiness gradually steal over me, and a disinclination to motion; . . . I was gradually roused from this torpor by a kind of delirium . . . I felt myself totally incapable of speaking, and for some time lost all consciousness of where I was, or, who was near me. . . . I cannot remember that I experienced the least pleasure from any of these experiments. Roget in Davy, 1800, pp. 509–511

Although Davy recognized that nitrous oxide could safely diminish pain, and therefore might prove useful in surgery, it was not used for sedating dental and general surgery patients until the 1840s (Duncam, 1947; Finger, 1994, p. 160). The Beddoes Institute closed before nitrous oxide (and ether) were used in surgery.9 Leaving the Beddoes Institute for London in 1800, Roget continued his medical education with “morbid anatomist” Mathew Baillie (1761–1823), who was associated with St. George’s Hospital and had inherited the Great Windmill Street School of Anatomy from his uncle, William Hunter (1718–1783). He also attended a course of lectures by surgeon John Abernathy at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, briefly worked with Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) on his “frigidarium,” an unsuccessful underground icehouse for safely preserving foods, and made contact with other leading physicians and scientists, including Edward Jenner (1749–1823), who had recently introduced an effective smallpox vaccine. Roget also served as a tutor, taking two boys on a “grand tour” of the Continent, which included his unpleasant detention by Napoleonic forces in Geneva. Upon returning to England in 1804, he moved to Manchester, where public health had become a major concern, and accepted the position of physician at the Public Infirmary (later, Manchester Royal Infirmary). He offered a course of 18 lectures “under the auspices of the College of Arts and Sciences [that] were, in effect, the beginnings of a medical school in Manchester” (Emblen, 1970, p. 96). In these lectures, started in 1806, he proceeded to classify physiology into four classes; “Nervous,” “Mechanical, Respiratory, and Reproductive functions”; each further divided into subclasses. He also presented a course of 15 lectures on animal physiology.

8

Other subjects included famed British poets William Wordsworth (1770–1850) and Samuel Taylor Coleridge (1772–1834). Nitrous oxide was discovered by Joseph Priestley (1770–1850) in 1772 and was marketed as “laughing gas” for recreational “frolics.” 9 Roget left the Beddoes Institute in 1800 and Davy followed a year later.

3 More Lecturing and Scientific Societies

3 MORE LECTURING AND SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES Moving back to London in 1808, Roget practiced medicine at his own expense at the Northern Dispensary, while also starting a private practice, lecturing to the public on animal physiology at the Russell Institution, and teaching “Theory and Practice of Physic” to aspiring physicians at the Great Windmill Street (or Hunterian) School of Medicine.10,11 It was important for a person with Roget’s interests and drive to affiliate with London’s important scientific and medical societies, and, in 1809, the year he was licensed by the Royal College of Physicians, he joined the new Medical and Chirurgical Society (renamed the Royal Society of Medicine in 1907). Two years later, he was elected this society’s secretary, a position he held for 21 years. He published a paper on arsenic poisoning and its detection in its Transactions (Roget, 1812), which he managed for 16 years, later serving as treasurer and president. Roget was also affiliated with the Royal Institution; appointed its Professor of Comparative Anatomy in 1812 and its first Fullerian Professor of Physiology in 1834. In 1822–1823, he presented lectures emphasizing the importance of systematizing natural phenomena, abstracts of which were published in widely disseminated periodicals (Roget, 1822a,b,c,d,e).12 Roget opened these lectures with a discussion on comparative physiology applied to zoological classification (later the basis of a monograph: Roget, 1826). Noteworthy for historians of neuroscience are lectures “On the Functions of Progressive Motion in Vertebrated Animals,” “Vision” (in which he compared the eye to a camera obscura and argued that the sense of touch is the real foundation of knowledge of the visual world), “Perception and Feeling in Animals,” and “Comparative Physiology of Sensitive Functions.” In the published synopsis of his “Perception and Feeling” lecture, readers are informed: “The hypothesis invented to explain these phenomena, such as that of a nervous fluid, secreted by the brain, and conducted by their nerves; and that of vibrations in the nervous substance propagated to the brain were briefly stated, and their futility exposed” (Roget, 1822e). Here Roget was wrestling with how nerves could transmit sensory information and activate muscles. Although the concept of animal electricity

10 Founded in 1769 by Dr. William Hunter, the school’s fame was largely related to his brother, Mr. John Hunter (1728–1793), a Scottish surgeon whose dissections and discoveries, many involving the nervous system, advancing surgery as a science. Roget lectured here from 1810 to 1815, overlapping Charles Bell, who had moved to London from Edinburgh, and Benjamin Brodie (1783–1862), a surgeon who also wrote about the nervous system. 11 Over the next decade his sense of service and passion for communication by writing and lecturing broadened, and included serving as physician to the Spanish embassy in 1820 and advising the government during the outbreak of an 1823 epidemic of dysentery affecting 800 prisoners in the Millbank penitentiary, although his attempted solutions proved largely ineffective. 12 While at the Royal Institution, he overlapped chemist Humphry Davy and Michael Faraday (1791–1867), who had started as Davy’s assistant.

179

180

CHAPTER 9 Peter Mark Roget: Physician, Scientist, Systematist

emerged with research on electric fishes in the mid-eighteenth century, the idea was not broadly extended to other animals until Luigi Galvani’s (1737–1798) landmark treatise on the subject appeared late in the century (Finger and Piccolino, 2011; Galvani, 1791). Nevertheless, Galvani’s claim was controversial, and new research on nerve and muscle electricity was curtailed in part because Alexander Volta (1745–1827) strongly opposed the idea.13 Roget also recognized Bell’s (1811) functional separation of dorsal and ventral spinal roots, and new ideas about functional specialization and localization elsewhere in the nervous system: Many tribes of articulated animals present phenomena, which indicate the existence of a number of centres of sensations; and the series of ganglions, from which the nerves radiate, appear to perform, with relation to each system of nerves, the office of a separate brain, or organ of sensation and volition. In proportion as we ascend in the scale of animals the individuality of the sensations becomes more complete, and the power of feeling appears to be more limited to a particular part of the nervous system. Roget, 1822d, p. 327

Roget contended most of the great mass constituting the brain must “serve as an organ of association.” With reference to the latest fad, “phrenology,” Roget firmly expressed his opposition and directed readers to his Encyclopedia Britannica article (discussed below). In 1815, Roget devised a slide-rule calculating device that could add the logarithms of logarithms, the “log-log scale,” enabling values of ex and the calculation of any numerical power or root.14 This paper was presented to the Royal Society in 1814 and published the next year (Roget, 1815), supporting his election as Fellow of the Royal Society of London. The log-log scale on Roget’s spiral device was eventually recognized as the key step in the invention of the linear slide rule itself (Hopp, 1999) and, despite a later erroneously awarded copyright, Roget’s precedence was eventually recognized. In 1827, Roget succeeded astronomer and physicist Sir John Herschel (1792–1871) as Secretary of the Royal Society, a position he held until 1848, when he resigned after a variety of personal accusations and attacks, discord within the Royal Society related to the weak scientific credentials of many Fellows, and

13 Nevertheless, Volta accepted the earlier notion of specialized fish electricity. After Volta’s death in 1827, researchers began to publish important new experiments on nerve and muscle electricity in frogs and other animals (see Finger and Piccolino, 2011; for the history of the earlier animal spirit doctrine of nerve physiology, see Smith et al., 2012). 14 William Hyde Wollaston (1776–1828) presented Roget’s paper on the subject to the Royal Society, and his spiral device was probably the most important invention of its type other than the slide rule itself (see Hopp, 1999). There was no tangible use for it, however, until there was an increasing need to perform calculations in thermodynamics and electrical engineering later in the century. A patent was issued for the slide rule in 1901, albeit without knowledge of Roget’s earlier achievements.

4 The Encyclopaedia Britannica

concerns about the organization’s future direction.15 Despite the death of his wife and other difficulties in his personal life, Roget served as Vice-President of the Royal Society, was long active on its Council, and was later recognized as the “Father of the Royal Society Club.” He also joined The Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, which attempted to communicate scientific ideas to the public, became a prominent member of the Zoological Society of London and the British Association for the Advancement of Science, and participated in many other learned societies.

4 THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA In 1815–1817 Roget became involved with the Encyclopaedia Britannica (EB), an educational project that from the start probably delighted him, because it was devoted to collecting, organizing, and systematizing human knowledge.16 The EB’s scholarly links to Edinburgh and its Medical School contributed significantly to its stabilization and growth to 18 volumes by the 3rd edition of 1788–1797 (Kogan, 1958) with Macvey Napier (1776–1847) now editing what had become the most comprehensive, trustworthy, and prestigious general encyclopedia. Like polymath Thomas Young (1773–1829),17 who Napier recruited for particularly difficult and exotic topics, Roget was asked to write numerous entries, reflecting his broad knowledge and many interests. These varied interests included the sensational new “kaleidoscope” and related optical instruments (e.g., phenakistoscope, thaumatrope) and how they might be improved (Roget, 1818). During the early eighteenth century, the kaleidoscope was considered a “philosophical toy”: a source of amusement and an instrument “for scientific experiment and . . . expanding awareness of the senses” (Wade, 2004, p. 1025). Roget’s (1824a) important entry on this subject appeared in the Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions of the EB (Roget, 1824a).18 15

Roget’s term ended with a rebellion by a group of reformers led by Charles Babbage (1791–1871). Babbage’s attacks on the Royal Society started broadly, with his Decline of Science in England, and on Some of its Causes (Babbage, 1830), calling for more effective means to promote science in what he considered a backward and indifferent England. For more on the upheaval in the Royal Society, see Lyons (1968), Emblen (1970), and Hall (1984). 16 Conceptualized by bookseller-printer Colin Macfarquhar (1745–1793) and engraver Andrew Bell (1726–1809), both of Edinburgh, the EB began with three volumes over the years 1768–1771, and was edited by William Smellie (1740–1795), who borrowed liberally and wrote most of the first edition. See Kogan (1958) for a history of the EB and Wells (1968) for more on the history of encyclopedias. 17 Young provided over 60 diverse entries to the EB, including physiological optics (e.g., the trichromatic (later Young-Helmholtz) theory of color vision), and his own pioneer work on accommodation and astigmatism. He was master of several modern and ancient languages, and instrumental in decoding the first several hieroglyphic symbols and words of the Rosetta stone, writing the EB entry on Egyptology. 18 These EB supplements appeared in serial form starting in 1816 but are typically cited as 1824, when they sold together. Roget’s interest in this subject led to his important later paper on “persistent” imagery Roget, 1825), discussed below.

181

182

CHAPTER 9 Peter Mark Roget: Physician, Scientist, Systematist

He also returned to the topic of “Physiology,” which he defined as the science dealing with “the study of the phenomena of life” (Roget, 1824b) and criticized some physiological terminology, while again promoting his fourfold organizational system (Roget, 1824b). In his “Nervous Agency” segment, he maintained scientists were still basically ignorant about nerves function. But Roget now appears more receptive to the concept of nerve electricity, opining that the process “bears a greater resemblance to the transmission of the electric agency along conducting wires, than to any other fact we are acquainted with in nature: and on the strength of this analogy the nervous influence itself has often been conceived to be of an electrical nature” (Roget, 1824b, p. 1877). He proceeds to discuss electric fishes, noting that, starting with them, “animal electricity was beginning to engage the attention of the philosophic world.” At this time, there were two schools of thought about the source of nerve electricity. Galvani (1791) theorized it arose centrally in the brain and was then transmitted through nerves to muscles, but animal nerve preparations devoid of brain were leading scientists to ponder whether the nerves themselves could produce the electricity (or a “galvanic force” related to electricity). Roget was noncommittal on this issue, writing that the nerves might convey a perpetual secretion from the brain to the muscles, while also presenting the newer notion, that “the nervous power is generated throughout the whole extent of the nervous system.” “There are facts in favour of each side of the question,” he informs EB readers, “and the subject is still involved in considerable obscurity” (Roget, 1824b, p. 188). Roget also comments about the sensorium, which receives “impressions” conveyed by the nerves and mediates sensation and voluntary movement. Here he mistakenly concludes that the sensorium “does not extend to the great mass of the hemispheres of the brain: for these may be wounded, or even wholly removed, in a living animal, without any indication of suffering” (Roget, 1824b, p. 190). He opines that the anatomical locus for sensation is the “medulla oblongata19 and upper part of the spinal marrow” in higher animals, although “the power of determining resides exclusively in the brain” (Roget, 1824b, p. 190). Roget’s 17-page contribution, “Physiology,” completed in 1823, served as the basis for a much larger essay on physiology in the seventh edition EB (Roget, 1837; also appearing in book form, see Roget, 1838, 1839). He maintains “that no part of the brain higher than the corpora quadrigemina, and no part whatever of the cerebellum, is essentially concerned in sensation” (Roget, 1839, p. 295). Contending very little is known about the role of the cerebrum in thinking, remembering, and other higher mental functions; he explains that these functions really belong in the domain of psychology and will not be examined in his essay.

19 Roget is referring more generally to brainstem white matter, even though he uses the term “medulla oblongata” here. He writes about the medullary white mater and sensation with greater clarity in later publications (e.g., Roget, 1839, p. 295).

5 “Cranioscopy” and “Phrenology”

Roget also provided an EB entry, “Deaf and Dumb” (Roget, 1824c), intelligently discussing how speech can be affected by deafness, maintaining that mute children can possess normal intelligence, and that education thus can improve speech, writing, and sign/gestural languages (needed for forming and retaining mental associations)—a primary therapeutic goal. This insightful entry contains detailed educational instructions with examples and some interesting history. Roget’s short EB entries included information on some of the physicians he had worked with, including Thomas Beddoes (Roget, 1824d) and Richard Brocklesby (1722–1797; Roget, 1824e), and on some of the systematist/ taxonomists whose ideas had helped to define and provide structure to the life sciences, including French naturalist Pierre Marie August Broussonet (1761–1807; Roget, 1824f) and French anatomist Marie Franc¸ois Xavier Bichat (1771–1802; Roget, 1824g), who attempted to classify internal organs and their functions. In contrast, Roget’s (1824h) entry on “Cranioscopy” for the 1824 EB was lengthy, opinionated, and of far greater interest and importance, especially in shaping the history of neuroscience.

5 “CRANIOSCOPY” AND “PHRENOLOGY” Understanding the functional organization of the brain was still in its infancy at the end of the seventeenth century, and perturbations of the brain relating to size, developmental abnormalities, and wartime or accidental lesions were only rarely systematically correlated with specific signs, symptoms, or behaviors. An exception was Emanuel Swedenborg (1688–1772), who concluded during the 1740s that the cerebrum must be composed of specialized areas and located the motor area in the contralateral Rolandic region using human case histories (Finger, 2000, pp. 119–121). Nevertheless, Swedenborg’s insights, while accurate, failed to capture the attention of the medical community. Similarly, brain lesion experiments on animals were rare during the 1700s, with even fewer hinting at cortical localization,20 although there were exceptions, notably Franc¸ois Pourfour du Petit (1664–1741), who, in addition to reporting evidence of specialized functional localization following cerebral lesions in soldiers, obtained somewhat comparable findings following experimental cerebral lesions in dogs (Kruger and Swanson, 2007; Pourfour du Petit, 1710). During the eighteenth century, “physiognomy” (from the Greek physis, “nature,” and gnomon, “judge” or “interpreter”)—thinking based on the belief that a person’s “nature” or character could be determined from outward appearance, and especially facial expression—was drawing considerable attention.

20 The idea of using brain lesions in animals to ascertain the functions of specific brain parts gained momentum during the nineteenth century: for example, Jean-Ce´sar Legallois (1770–1840) made lesions in rabbits delineating the locus of the medullary respiratory center, and Marie Jean Pierre Flourens (1794–1867) challenged the phrenological idea of cortical localization of function with experiments involving brain lesions in birds and other animals (Flourens, 1824; Legallois, 1812).

183

184

CHAPTER 9 Peter Mark Roget: Physician, Scientist, Systematist

Swiss theologian Johann Kaspar Lavater (1741–1801), whose influential essays were translated from German into other languages, had become the most important champion and systematist of this new idea (e.g., Lavater, 1772). Also called “Lavaterianism,” this misguided fad stimulated thinking about the brain and behavior, and especially physical markers (e.g., skull features and facial expressions) that might correlate with brain development and behavioral traits. At the end of the eighteenth century, Franz Joseph Gall (1758–1828) had developed a new and ostensibly superior system for classifying and localizing the “faculties” of mind and for correlating them with cerebral anatomy (Finger, 2000, pp. 119–136). He referred to his system as “craniology” and to his skull-based measurements as “cranioscopy,” but during the next century his system was usually called “phrenology” (from the Greek words phre¯n, “mind,” and logos, “knowledge”). This term was popularized by Johann Spurzheim (1776–1832), who served as Gall’s assistant until 1812, when he left to promote the new “science” independently. Gall argued that the roof of the brain is composed of multiple paired organs (one in each hemisphere) in specific locations. In this context, Gall, with Spurzheim’s assistance (in the first two volumes), published four large volumes and an atlas describing and localizing the various ostensible “faculties of mind” (Gall and Spurzheim, 1810-19). Their list included faculties that humans ostensibly share with higher animals, including “Philoprogenitiveness” (love of offspring), “Combativeness,” “Covetiveness,” “Veneration,” and “Tune,” but also some faculties believed unique to humans and localized more anteriorly in the cortex, such as “Causality,” “Wit,” “Wonder,” and “Eventuality” (here drawing from Roget’s English terms for Gall’s 33 faculties). Perhaps phrenology appealed to Roget for complex reasons: it was an attempt to order or classify the “faculties” of mind, and it was focused on unlocking a possible hidden organization within the hemispheres—and perhaps he was wickedly to tempted to excoriate the faulty nature of a pseudoscience. Finding the amassed skull-based evidence too selective and methodologically flawed to consider supporting such a system, he assailed it. Gall’s primary method involved measuring the skulls of people with specific talents or those deficient in one, and it was based upon the premise that physical markers (e.g., “bumps,” size) could accurately reflect the development of underlying brain areas. He further attempted to support his list of faculties and their locations by comparing different species (e.g., birds, carnivores and omnivores, aggressive and nonaggressive animals, etc.) and the two sexes, and by studying skull development and selective cases of brain damage (Finger, 2000, pp. 119–136). As his research on “extreme” human cases progressed, he claimed that he could determine an individual’s talents and deficiencies by palpating that person’s scalp, and that by knowing a person’s proficiencies or weaknesses, he could accurately predict what the skull features would look like. Roget attacked each of Gall’s 33 faculties of mind mercilessly and in some detail, earning the energetic scorn of the “fad” followers and special attention in the published debates.

5 “Cranioscopy” and “Phrenology”

Napier sought an entry on “Cranioscopy” in the EB and first turned to Thomas Young, who understandably demurred, and then to Roget, who explained to his readers what Gall was proposing about 33 distinct faculties of mind, his logic, and his paths of discovery. Roget (1824h) then used his own colorful and witty language to denounce a system, “which would have been so capable of affording [Jonathan] Swift a new incident for the history of the philosophers of Laputa,” calling it a poorly constructed edifice built of “flimsy materials” based on a “sandy foundation,” and further contending (with less flowery language) that, “nothing like direct proof has been given that the presence of any particular part of the brain is essentially necessary to the carrying on of the operations of the mind” (Roget, 1824h, p. 433). Not quite finished with his assault, Roget added that the logic displayed by the cranioscopists, which was largely based on reasoning by analogy (e.g., if the glands secrete fluids, the brain must release thoughts and emotions), is itself flawed. In his own memorable language, reasoning by analogy might afford indications of what may possibly happen, stimulating the discovery of truth by the legitimate road of observation and experiment. But to assume the existence of any such analogy as equivalent to a positive proof which can only result from the evidence of direct observation, is a gross violation of logic. Roget, 1824h, p. 433

He next took aim at the belief that skull features and size could be valid indicators of specific brain area development, arguing that this notion was also based on reasoning by analogy. Quoting Roget, with his pithy language and wonderful ability to find the best wording make a point: “With such convenient logic, and accommodating principles of philosophizing, it would be easy to prove anything. We suspect, however, that on that very account, they will be rejected as having proved nothing” (Roget, 1824h, p. 437). Not surprisingly, Roget’s robustly sarcastic, negative assessment of cranioscopy/ phrenology elicited some strong dissent. Physician Andrew Combe (1797–1847) and his lawyer brother, George Combe (1788–1858) were Edinburgh phrenologists, who vigorously and publically lambasted, reprimanded, and berated Roget for what he had written (e.g., Combe, 1838a; Combe, 1819, 1838b; Combe and Combe, 183821). They accused him of failing to comprehend the principles of phrenology, being misguided and disrespectful, not recognizing that duplicate faculties (one on each side) could account for negative findings in brain damage cases, and not presenting original evidence. Admitting that their system was new and the functional anatomy still imperfectly mastered, they denounced their critic, writing: “[Roget] must, necessarily, be in a state of profound ignorance on the subject on which he writes” (Combe, 1838b, p. 201); that “you have proved yourself to be also incompetent to write a good treatise on Phrenology”; and “the publishers of the

21

The 1838 books by the Combe brothers also contain letters from Roget and their replies, as well as negative assessments of the system by other scientists.

185

186

CHAPTER 9 Peter Mark Roget: Physician, Scientist, Systematist

Encyclopaedia may yet find cause to regret having ever had the disadvantage of your pen” (Combe, 1838a, pp. 7, 31). Roget firmly replied that it was up to the phrenologists to establish the validity of their system. Republishing his article in the 7th edition of the EB, but now calling it “Phrenology,” Roget (1837) further criticized what the phrenologists had written with a 21-page addendum, skillfully and resolutely handling the Combes’ character attacks and not responding in kind.22 Roget had indeed queried others about the validity of the system and had contacted respected physicians and scientists to determine whether they had been able to confirm the system, relating: “I do not remember to have found one who could say that his own observations had afforded any evidence favourable to the doctrine” (Roget, 1839, p. 497). The battle between Roget and the Combe brothers ended in 1839 when Roget withdrew, convinced that phrenology was largely discredited in scientific circles. More than two decades later, Paul Broca (1824–1880), studying aphasic patients, and then Gustav Fritsch (1837–1927) and Eduard Hitzig (1838–1907), working with dogs, demonstrated specialized cortical areas for speech and motor functions, respectively (Finger, 2000, pp. 136–175). Broca (1861) based his insights on human cases with brain damage, whereas Fritsch and Hitzig (1870) did so by electrically stimulating surgically exposed dog cerebral cortex and then subjecting their animals to brain lesions followed by observing their motor defects. Importantly, their findings, and those of others in the second half of the nineteenth century, were not presented as support for the phrenologists, because they did not support Gall’s localizations, and because they utilized different, more acceptable methodologies.

6 OTHER ENCYCLOPEDIAS The EB was not the only encyclopedia containing articles by Roget related to the nervous system. He also published in Abraham Rees (1743–1825) 34-volume The Cyclopaedia, or Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature in 1819. “Tabes” (Roget, 1819a) and “Tetanus” (Roget, 1819b) were among his chosen medical topics, and after pointing to the muscle spasms and severe pain associated with the tetanus, he informed his readers: “The result of dissections of patients who have died of tetanus, has thrown no light whatsoever on the nature of this terrible affection,” adding, “Sometimes there are found slight effusions within the cranium: but, in general, no morbid appearance whatever can be detected in the head” (Roget, 1819b). He states that severe tetanus is almost always fatal. In contrast to this encyclopedia and the EB, the editors of The Cyclopaedia of Practical Medicine (1832) made a serious attempt to collect and organize topics related solely to medicine. “Age” and “Asphyxia” were among Roget’s alphabetically

22

Both documents later appeared in book form (Roget, 1838, 1839).

7 Optics and Illusions

assigned contributions, and in his “Age” entry, Roget discussed brain shrinkage and its behavioral correlates, stating: The structure and composition of the brain undergo . . . changes no less great and important than those that affect other parts. In general the whole mass of brain is diminished in size in advanced age, so that it does not completely fill the cavity of the cranium. . . . The first indication of diminished vigour in the intellectual faculties is usually the decay of the memory. Roget, 1832a, pp. 40–41

Writing about “Asphyxia,” defined as the interruption of the beneficial effects of respiration on the blood, Roget offers various causes that can result in oxygen deficiency and discusses treatments, including artificial respiration and “slight shocks of electricity, or of galvanism.” Concerning drowning, one of the causes of asphyxia he examines in detail, he mentions the brain, stating: “The external surface of the brain is of a darker colour than usual; but the vessels are not turgid with blood, nor are there any marks of extravasation about them” (Roget, 1832b, p. 173).

7 OPTICS AND ILLUSIONS Roget maintained a strong interest in optics, optical phenomena, and optical instruments throughout his scientific career. He became associated with Michael Faraday (1791–1867) and Joseph Plateau (1801–1883) around 1820, leading to simple “experiments” and observations about vision and the visual system, in addition to his efforts to improve the kaleidoscope, which quickly became a popular “philosophical toy” (above). Among his ostensible discoveries was his ability to willfully or consciously control the size of his pupillary apertures (Roget, 1820).23 Today, his best-known visual discovery is an optical illusion he described in 1825, usually called the “spoke illusion.” Looking out from his basement kitchen window with its vertical slats (blinds), Roget observed a carriage wheel turning. “Under these circumstances the spokes of the wheel, instead of appearing straight, seem to have a considerable degree of curvature” (Roget, 1825, p. 131). The magnitude of curvature appeared to vary with individual spoke positions, rotation velocity, slat width, and his position behind the slats. Puzzled by this odd phenomenon, he rushed to the street and paid a willing vendor to move his cart back and forth, while making notes and observing how the effect is like “the illusion that occurs when a bright object is wheeled rapidly round in a circle, giving rise to the appearance of a line of light throughout the whole circumference.” Roget surmised that he was seeing the turning wheel as a series of individual frames, and that the illusion 23

Roget (1820, p. 72), wrote: “When I have stated that I possessed the power of dilating and contracting at pleasure the iris, the fibres of which are usually considered as no more under the dominion of the will than the heart or blood vessels, my assertion has in general excited much astonishment. Such however is strictly the fact. I can easily satisfy any person who witnesses the movements.”

187

188

CHAPTER 9 Peter Mark Roget: Physician, Scientist, Systematist

of the spokes bending was the result of enduring fused retinal after-images (Roget, 1825, p. 135), similar to the continuous moving images he had studied from about 1820 with Faraday, Plateau, and others, as described in his original and scholarly EB entry on devices or “toys” simulating apparent motion (Roget, 1824a).24 Approximately a century later, Hollywood publicist Will Hays (1879–1954) celebrated Roget’s discovery of the nature of “movies,” but such generous attribution has caused some controversy in the accounts of cinema historians. The resulting ambiguous explanations of the illusion of some curved or stationary spokes of rotating wagon wheels observed in early “Western” films—a century after Roget’s account— have added some confusion to the complex subject of “feature extraction” by specialized zones of visual cortical neurons.25

8 BRIDGEWATER TREATISE Roget undertook his two-volume contribution to the Bridgewater Treatises as his most important project in science and medicine. It was written with somewhat expansive and florid language, and debuted between beautiful calf-bound and goldstamped covers in 1834 as Animal and Vegetable Physiology Considered with Reference to Natural Theology (Roget, 1834). His biographer appropriately called it “a monument to Roget’s capacity for work—prolonged, resourceful, highly organized labor—and can serve as a testament to the real need of a talented man to reaffirm order in human existence at a difficult time in his life” (Emblen, 1970, p. 226)26 His commissioned treatise was one of eight written to fulfill the terms of the eighth Earl of Bridgewater’s (Francis Henry Egerton; 1756–1829) will, bequeathing 8000 pounds to be paid to a person or persons designated by the President of the Royal Society, who would publish 1000 copies of a work “on the power, wisdom, and goodness of God, as manifested in the creation; illustrating such work by all reasonable arguments.” Davies Gilbert (1767–1839), the Royal Society’s president at the time, enlisted the assistance of the Archbishop of Canterbury and Bishop of London when announcing the eight treatises on the glories of “natural theology.” A noteworthy opus by Sir Charles Bell (1833) preceded Roget’s (the fifth in the series) and was titled The Hand: its Mechanism and Vital Endowments as Evincing Design. The magnitude of Roget’s monumental effort in producing this broad collection of then-current British and European literature is astonishing in terms of size, scope, 24

For additional information on Roget’s illusion, Plateau’s anorthoscope, and the persistence of vision, see Hunt (2003). 25 For more on the neurophysiology of illusory feature extraction, see Anderson and Anderson (1993). 26 Roget was also involved in lecturing and working to sustain a medical practice in a period dominated by apothecary practitioners, and was writing on myriad subjects at this time, including chess problem solutions and his invention of a popular portable pocket chessboard. Additionally, he was dealing with the great stress of a dying wife and young children to care for, as well as destructive battles within the hierarchy of the Royal Society, including challenges to his long tenure as its secretary.

8 Bridgewater Treatise

and intensity—over a quarter million words on more than 600 pages. While drawing heavily on his own writings and illustrations, he assembled much of the scientific literature of the time, albeit with little original “scientific” observation, and of the 463 illustrations from Cuvier and other luminaries, only about a dozen drawings by the obscure entomologist George Newport (1803–1854) are “original,” as duly noted by his critics. This large undertaking was a methodical assemblage of Roget’s sense of organization and unity, derived from the vast comparative anatomy and physiology literatures, including his own work. This and his later treatises on electricity and galvanism, and his earlier report on optical illusions, indicate his openness to contemporary scientific observation and his close friendship with physiologist John Bostock (1773–1846), an early pioneer in electrophysiology, who wrote a book on Galvanism and had also studied medicine at Edinburgh and later moved to London. Roget considered this project his greatest work and one that would secure his reputation as a scientist and a scholar. It was not merely based on his ability to organize a massive amount of information; it drew heavily from his sense of unity, perceived when examining the extensive literature of comparative anatomy, as well as from what scientists understood about physiology at this pivotal moment. These were among the things that he attempted to frame theologically under the heading of physiology. His argument for the existence of God in a purposeful universe, and his firm belief that design in nature proved the very existence of God, were widely accepted at the time. He drew upon, among others, William Paley (1743–1805), author of the widely disseminated text, Natural Theology (Paley, 1802). Roget’s first volume follows Cuvier’s comparative anatomy and classification system. In the second volume, in which he turned to “Vital Functions,” in effect comparative physiology, he includes chapters on “Nervous Power,” the individual senses, and perception. In later chapters titled “Final Causes” and “Unity of Design,” Roget argues that simple cause-and-effect relationships could not fully account for all of the phenomena studied by physiologists—that one can see evidence of God’s design in every organism and its parts. Roget’s volumes underwent several English and foreign editions. There were some respectful, laudatory reviews of these editions (especially in the Christian press) but also opponents of his texts and the series as a whole. One such critic was the brilliant but eccentric mathematician, Charles Babbage, mentioned earlier, the “godfather” of the idea that one could construct a mechanical device capable of producing tables that were at that time calculated by hand.27 Described by a contemporary as “the militant man of science,” and possessing an independent spirit (he had turned down a knighthood!), Babbage was elected Fellow of the Royal Society

27

The people doing these calculations by hand were called computeurs in French. Babbage designed the first mechanical operational computer, which was built after his demise and is now an operational museum piece in London.

189

190

CHAPTER 9 Peter Mark Roget: Physician, Scientist, Systematist

following publication of his landmark work, “An Essay Towards the Calculus of Functions” in the Philosophical Transactions (Babbage, 1815). Roget had met Babbage earlier in his career, and Roget’s (1815) important article on the log-log scale, which was instrumental in the development of the slide rule, had appeared in the same volume as Babbage’s “Essay.” Although there are several indications that there once were amicable relations between Babbage and Roget, Babbage, who became a Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge in 1824, singled out Roget for criticism in his book-length attack on what he perceived as the failings of the Royal Society (Babbage, 1830), ultimately leading to Roget’s unhappy ouster as its secretary. Three years after Roget’s two volumes appeared, Babbage chose to comment on the Bridgewater Treatises in an independent, unauthorized volume, his “Ninth Bridgewater Treatise: A Fragment” (Babbage, 1837). Babbage strongly opposed the contention that science could not explain the administration of the universe and other matters, an idea expressed by Cambridge scientist and priest William Whewell (1794–1866) in the first Bridgewater Treatise. Moreover, Babbage believed the volumes conveyed the negative effect of promoting the idea that scientific pursuits are unfavorable to religion. He envisioned a God that set the universe and its parts in motion, and argued that changes in natural laws (as evidenced by the creation of new species) do not necessarily signify heavenly intervention or what might be considered new miracles. Such changes, he presumed, could have been built into the “programming” (using today’s terminology) at the time of the creation. Babbage’s position retained a place for God and the creation, and stimulated thinking and discussions about evolution. Roget’s two volumes on the science of physiology did not have great impact in Britain, where a new generation of scientists was beginning to reject some aspects of Christian theology, including the controversial idea today known as “intelligent design.”28 Roget, among others, was clearly at odds with Charles Lyell (1797–1875), whose “Principles of Geology” gave rise to the stormy birth of the science of geology—with shattering implications for the accepted theology (Lyell, 1831–1833). Charles Darwin (1839) dedicated his Voyage of the Beagle (1939) to Lyell, and credited him with opening the path to evolution. Darwin also expressed profound admiration for Lamarck, and his ideas of “use and disuse” were consistent with many of his own observations (e.g., variations in the development of the visual system in burrowing and nonburrowing animals).29 Lamarck’s “inheritance of acquired characteristics” was the key failed aspect that

28

In German-speaking countries, unity in nature as a reflection of God’s design remained a major theme among the Naturphilosophen, including physiologists Johannes Mu¨ller (1801–1858) and Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859), throughout the nineteenth century (see Finger et al., 2013a,b). Nevertheless, there were also German dissenters, who wanted a physiology devoid of metaphysical notions, much as there were scientists other than Roget in Britain who promoted notions akin to intelligent design. 29 Darwin was generously fair with the contributions of others, acknowledging and arranging for simultaneous publication of Alfred Russell Wallace’s (1823–1913) independently generated ideas about evolution, and in his discussion of Lamarck.

References

prevented him from explaining evolution and was a basis for Roget’s strong dismissal of Lamarck’s insights (only now gaining broad acceptance with the birth of “epigenetics”). Darwin’s (1859) landmark Origin of the Species, with its many revealing original observations and clearly formulated arguments, deflected Roget farther away from the new scientific mainstream. There is little evidence that Roget had significant impact on the Darwinian revolution in biology or recognized its significance and the importance of the mechanisms of natural selection.

9 RETIREMENT YEARS Roget remained interested in many things that can be related to “neuroscience” (a mid-twentieth-century term) just before and long after losing his position as Secretary of the Royal Society in 1848. He published over 50 pages on “Galvanism” in the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana in 1845, following up on his earlier publications on this subject (Roget, 1829, 1845), while also continuing to serve as an examiner in comparative anatomy and physiology at the University of London. In the year in which he was succeeded as Royal Society secretary, he served on a committee attempting to determine whether “ganglia and plexuses exist in the heart” (Physiological Committee of the Royal Society, 1848). He remained active in the Council of the Royal Society and continued to serve on other committees, continuing a life-long commitment to improving health and related services in Britain, endeavors that included establishing public health facilities, researching epidemics and suspecting infectious agents years before their discovery, and curtailing diseases caused by polluted water supplies (e.g., Emblen, 1970, pp. 189 and 212–219). On September 12, 1869, Peter Mark Roget died at age 90 while on a trip to West Malvern, a center for hydrotherapy. His gravestone at St. James Church cites only MD and FRS after his name, sadly providing no more information about his rich life and many significant contributions. Roget’s prominent and fulfilling life has been largely overlooked by historians of science and medicine, and somewhat surprisingly, even by those scholars of the English language who view the construction of his Thesaurus as distinct or separate from his scientific life. He was a scholar of diverse interests, a systematist whose life and accomplishments reveal much about the culture, interests, values, and medical and scientific issues of his time, including many of the critical issues, problems, and discoveries that have led to the development of contemporary “neuroscience.”

References Anderson, J., Anderson, B.F., 1993. The myth of the persistence of vision revisited. J. Film Video 45, 2–12. Babbage, C., 1815. An essay towards the calculus of functions. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 105, 389–423.

191

192

CHAPTER 9 Peter Mark Roget: Physician, Scientist, Systematist

Babbage, C., 1830. Decline of Science in England, and on Some of Its Causes. B. Fellowes and J. Booth, London. Babbage, C., 1837. The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise, a Fragment. J. Murray, London. Beddoes, T., 1799. Essay on the Causes of Pulmonary Consumption. Longman and Rees, London. Bell, C., 1811. An Idea of a New Anatomy of the Brain. London, privately printed. Bell, C., 1833. The Hand; Its Mechanism and Vital Endowments as Evincing Design. William Pickering, London (Bridgewater Treatise). Broca, P., 1861. Sur le volume et la forme du cerveau suivant les individus et suivant les races. Bull. Soc. d’Anthropol. 2, 139–207 301–321, 441–446. Combe, G., 1819. Essays on Phrenology; or, An Inquiry into the Principles and Utility of the System of Drs., Gall and Spurzheim, and into the Objections Made Against It. Bell, Bradfute, Edinburgh. Combe, A., 1838. Strictures on Anti-Phrenology in Two Letters to Macvey Napier, Esq., and P. M. Roget, M.D., Being an exposure of the article called “Phrenology” Recently Published in the Encyclopaedia Britannica. London, Printed for Private Distribution. Combe, G., 1838b. Answers to the objections urged by Dr Peter Mark Roget against phrenology. In: Combe, G., Combe, A. (Eds.), On the Functions of the Cerebellum by Gall, Vimont, and Broussais . . . Also Answers to the Objections Urged Against Phrenology by Drs Roget, Rudolphi, Prichard, and Tiedemann. Maclachlan Stewart, Edinburgh, pp. 185–239. Combe, G., Combe, A., 1838. On the Functions of the Cerebellum by Gall, Vimont, and Broussais . . . Also Answers to the Objections Urged Against Phrenology by Drs Roget, Rudolphi, Prichard, and Tiedemann. Maclachlan & Stewart, Edinburgh. Darwin, C., 1839. Journal of Researches into the Geology and Natural History of the Various Countries Visited by H. M. S. Beagle . . .. Henry Colburn, London. Darwin, C., 1859. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection: or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life. J. Murray, London. Davy, H., 1800. Researches, Chemical and Philosophical; Chiefly Concerning Nitrous Oxide, or Dephlogisticated Nitrous Air, and Its Respiration. Biggs and Cottle, London Printed for J. Johnson. Duncam, B.M., 1947. The Development of Inhalation Anesthesia. Oxford University Press, London. Emblen, D.L., 1970. Peter Mark Roget: The Word and the Man. Thomas Y. Crowell Company, New York. Finger, S., 1994. Origins of Neuroscience: A History of Explorations into Brain Function. Oxford University Press, New York. Finger, S., 2000. Minds Behind the Brain: A History of the Pioneers and their Discoveries. Oxford University Press, New York. Finger, S., Piccolino, M., 2011. The Shocking History of Electric Fishes: From Ancient Epochs to the Birth of Modern Physiology. Oxford University Press, New York. Finger, S., Piccolino, M., Stahnisch, F., 2013a. Alexander von Humboldt: galvanism, animal electricity, and self-experimentation. Part 1: formative years, naturphilosophie, and galvanism. J. Hist. Neurosci. 22, 225–260. Finger, S., Piccolino, M., Stahnisch, F., 2013b. Alexander von Humboldt: galvanism, animal electricity, and self-experimentation. Part 2: the electric Eel, animal electricity, and later years. J. Hist. Neurosci. 22, 327–352.

References

Flourens, M.-J.-P., 1824. Recherches Expe´rimentales sur les Proprie´te´s et les Fonctions du Syste`me Nerveux dans les Animaux Verte´bre´s. Ballie`re, Paris. Frangsmyr, T. (Ed.), 1983. Linnaeus: The Man and His Work. University of California Press, Berkeley. ¨ ber die elektrische Erregbarkeit des Grosshirns. Arch. Anat. Fritsch, G., Hitzig, E., 1870. U Physiol. 300–332. Gall, F.J., Spurzheim, J., 1810-19. Anatomie et Physiologie du Syste`me Nerveux en Ge´ne´ral, et du Cerveau en Particulier. F. Schoell, Paris. Galvani, L., 1791. De viribus electricitatis in motu musculari commentarius. De Bononiensi Scientiarum et Artium Instituto atque Academia Commentarii, Bologna: Ex typographia Instituti Scientiarium, 7, 363–418. Hagberg, K., 1952. Carl Linnaeus. (A. Blair, trans.). Jonathan Cape, London. Hall, M.B., 1984. All Scientists Now: The Royal Society in the Nineteenth Century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Hopp, P.M., 1999. Slide Rules: Their History, Models and Makers. Finney Company, Inc., Lakeville, MN. Horn, D.B., 1967. A Short History of the University of Edinburgh. The University Press, Edinburgh. Hu¨llen, W., 2004. A History of Roget’s Thesaurus. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Hunt, J.L., 2003. The Roget Illusion, the anorthoscope and the persistence of vision. Am. J. Phys. 78, 774–777. Kendall, J., 2008. The Man Who Made Lists: Love, Death, Madness, and the Creation of Roget’s Thesaurus. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York. Kogan, H., 1958. The Great EB: The Story of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Kruger, L., Swanson, L.W., 2007. 1710: The introduction of experimental nervous system physiology and anatomy by Francois Pourfour du Petit. In: Whitaker, H., Smith, C.U.M., Finger, S. (Eds.), Brain, Mind, and Medicine: Essays in 18th Century Neuroscience, Springer, Boston, pp. 101–115. Lavater, J.C., 1772. Von der Physiognomik. Bey Weidmanns Erben und Reich, Leipzig. Legallois, J.J.C., 1812. Expe´riences sur le Principe de la Vie, Notamment sur Celui des Movemens du Coeur, et sur le Sie`ge de ce Principe. Hautel, Paris. Lyell, C., 1831–33. Principles of Geology. John Murray, London. Lyons, H., 1968. The Royal Society 1660–1940. Greenwood Press, New York. Paley, W., 1802. Natural Theology, or Evidences of the Existence and Attributes of the Deity. London, Printed for R. Faulder. Physiological Committee of the Royal Society, 1848. Report of the Physiological Committee of the Royal Society on Dr. Robert Lee’s paper, entitled, “On the Ganglia and Nerves of the Heart.” London Medical Gazette, January 14, pp. 82–84. Pourfour du Petit, F., 1710. Lettres d’un Me´dicin des Hoˆpitaux du Roy a` un Autre Me´dicin de ses Amis. Albert, Namur. Roget, P.M., 1800. Untitled letter on the effects of nitrous oxide. In: Davy, H. (Ed.), Researches, Chemical and Philosophical; Chiefly Concerning Nitrous Oxide, or Dephlogisticated Nitrous Air, and Its Respiration. Biggs and Cottle, London, pp. 509–512. Printed for J. Johnson. Roget, P.M., 1812. A case of recovery from the effects of arsenic, with a new mode of detecting the presence of this metal. Trans. Med. Chir. Soc. 2, 136–160.

193

194

CHAPTER 9 Peter Mark Roget: Physician, Scientist, Systematist

Roget, P.M., 1815. Description of a new instrument for performing mechanically the involution and evolution of numbers. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 105, 9–28. Roget, P.M., 1818. On the kaleidoscope. Ann. Philos. 11, 375–378. Roget, P.M., 1819a. Tabes. In: Rees, A. (Ed.), Cyclopaedia or Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature. vol. 34. A. Stratham, London. Roget, P.M., 1819b. Tetanus. In: Rees, A. (Ed.), Cyclopaedia or Universal Dictionary of Arts, Sciences, and Literature, vol. 35. A. Stratham, London. Roget, P.M., 1820. On the voluntary actions of the iris. In: Travers, B. (Ed.), A Synopsis of the Diseases of the Eye, and Their Treatment: To Which are Prefixed, a Short Anatomical Description and a Sketch of the Physiology of That Organ. Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, and Brown, London, pp. 69–75. Roget, P.M., 1822a. Progressive motion in vertebrates. Literary Gaz. J. Belles Lett. Arts Sci. (March 16), 168. Roget, P.M., 1822b. Vision. Literary Gaz. J. Belles Lett. Arts Sci. (May 18), 311–312. Roget, P.M., 1822c. Introduction to perception and feeling in animals. Literary Gaz. J. Belles Lett. Arts Sci. (May 25), 295–296. Roget, P.M., 1822d. Comparative physiology of the sensitive functions. Literary Gaz. J. Belles Lett. Arts Sci. (March 16), 327–328. Roget, P.M., 1822e. On the functions of progressive motion in vertebrated animals. Philos. Mag. 59, 385–393. Roget, P.M., 1824a. Kaleidoscope. In: Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 1. Edinburgh, Printed for A. Constable and Co., pp. 455–462. Roget, P.M., 1824b. Physiology. In: Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 6. Edinburgh, Printed for A. Constable and Co., pp. 180–197. Roget, P.M., 1824c. Deaf and dumb. In: Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 3. Edinburgh, Printed for A. Constable and Co., pp. 467–483. Roget, P.M., 1824d. Beddoes. In: Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 2. Edinburgh, Printed for A. Constable and Co., pp. 206–210. Roget, P.M., 1824e. Brocklesby. In: Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 2. Edinburgh, Printed for A. Constable and Co., pp. 523–524. Roget, P.M., 1824f. Broussonet. In: Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 2. Edinburgh, Printed for A. Constable and Co., p. 529. Roget, P.M., 1824g. Bichat. In: Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 2. Edinburgh, Printed for A. Constable and Co., pp. 299–302. Roget, P.M., 1824h. Cranioscopy. In: Supplement to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Editions of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 3. Edinburgh, Printed for A. Constable and Co., pp. 419–437. Roget, P.M., 1825. Explanation of an optical deception in the appearance of the spokes of a wheel seen through vertical apertures. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. 65, 131–140. Roget, P.M., 1826. An Introductory Lecture on Human and Comparative Physiology. Longman, Rees, Orme, and Green, London. Roget, P.M., 1829. Galvanism. Library of Useful Knowledge. Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, London.

References

Roget, P.M., 1832a. Age. In: Forbes, J., Tweedie, A., Conolly, J. (Eds.), The Cyclopaedia of Practical Medicine, vol. 1. Sherwood, Gilbert, and Piper, and Baldwin and Cradock, London, pp. 34–46. Roget, P.M., 1832b. Asphyxia. In: Forbes, J., Tweedie, A., Conolly, J. (Eds.), The Cyclopaedia of Practical Medicine, vol. 1. Sherwood, Gilbert, and Piper, and Baldwin and Cradock, London, pp. 167–183. Roget, P.M., 1834. Animal and Vegetable Physiology Considered with Reference to Natural Theology (2 vols.). William Pickering, London (Bridgewater Treatise). Roget, P.M., 1837. Physiology. In: Encyclopaedia Britannica, vol. 18, seventh ed. Edinburgh, Printed for A. Constable and Co., pp. 577–729. Roget, P.M., 1838. Treatises on Physiology and Phrenology (2 vols.). Adam and Charles Black, Edinburgh. Roget, P.M., 1839. Outlines of Physiology, with an Appendix on Phrenology. Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia. Roget, P.M., 1845. Galvanism. Encyclopaedia Metropolitana; or, Universal Dictionary of Knowledge, vol. IV. B. Fellowes, London, pp. 173–224. Roget, P.M., 1852. Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases, Classified and Arranged so as to Facilitate the Expression of Ideas and Assist in Literary Composition. Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans, London. Smith, C.U.M., Frixione, E., Finger, S., Clower, W., 2012. The Animal Spirit Doctrine and the Origins of Neurophysiology. Oxford University Press, New York. Wade, N., 2004. Philosophical instruments and toys: optical devices extending the art of seeing. J. Hist. Neurosci. 13, 102–124. Wells, J.M., 1968. The Circle of Knowledge: Encyclopaedias Past and Present. The Newberry Library, Chicago.

195