The place of man in Darwin's development of a theory of transmutation has been obscured by his manner of disclosure. Comparing the 1837–1839 period to his entire career as a theorist suggests that it was Darwin's practice to present himself and his work only before the most select scientific audiences, and then in accordance with their expectations. The negative implications of this rule for his publication on man are clear enough: finding no general invitation in science to publish as a (...) theorist and no contemporary scientific audience for the sorts of inquiries he was making on man, he was silent, at least until such time as he could publish on the strength of reputation alone. Now, with the availability of manuscripts from the early period, what was once hidden stands revealed. It is clear from Darwin's notebooks that man played a dual role in the formation of his theory: as a zoological species to be incorporated into the theory and as the primary vehicle for the study of behavior. On the first score, integrating man into the theory provoked Darwin to break with the traditional view of man's place in nature and to reject a major element in the scientific notion of progressive development. On the second score, the study of behavior led Darwin outside natural history and thence, unexpectedly, to Malthus and natural selection.One is left with the certainty that the subject of man was a central element in Darwin's formulation of his species theory. To an extent, then, the public judgment of Darwin was right all along, for the public had always sensed that Darwin spoke to a larger audience than that formed around science. On the basis of new evidence, we can add that Darwin drew from that larger audience as well. There are of course ironies to this conclusion: that Darwin the professional drew so heavily from fields where he was the amateur, that as a transparent man his inner life should prove so at odds with the manner in which he presented himself, and that his arrival at a strong sense of himself—the revolutionary “I” of his notebooks—should occur just as he stepped beyond science to engage the general culture. But when one considers the inherent difficulties of Darwin's subject and the magnitude of his claims respecting man, these ironies are perhaps not surprising at all but those of a kind which might be anticipated. (shrink)

(1978). George Hoggart Toulmin's theory of man and the earth in the light of the development of British geology. Annals of Science: Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 339-352.

This article examines the development of pneumatic medicine as practised by Erasmus Darwin, Thomas Beddoes and Joseph Priestley, and the support for their experimental trials by other Dissenting doctors and industrialists including Boulton, Watt and Wedgwood. The article examines their belief that if one could create the conditions under which `good air' could be manufactured — where the work of Dissenting chemists and doctors was embraced rather than condemned, supported rather than attacked — then conditions, political and medical, under which (...) a healthy country will flourish will prevail. Contra the claim made by Roy Porter that doctors, such as Erasmus Darwin, were `profoundly troubled by what they saw as the counterproductive impact on health produced by the spread of progressive ideas, refined culture, and modern, commercial, urban values', I believe that it was precisely those progressive values that led Dissenting doctors and pneumatic chemists to believe that by applying the same principles that led to the phenomenal industrial and commercial success of their friends like Boulton, Watt and Wedgwood, they could improve population health by attempting to reform simultaneously politics and therapeutics. (shrink)