The embodiment of value: C. S. Sherrington and the cultivation of science

British Journal for the History of Science

Volumn 33, Issue 3, 2000, Pages 283-311

  Smith, Roger ^a  

^a Institute of the History of Natural Sciences and Technology   (Russian Federation)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HISTORY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; SCIENCE; UNITED KINGDOM;

ENGLAND; HISTORY, 20TH CENTURY; PHYSIOLOGY; PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE; SCIENCE;

EID: 0034264176     PISSN: 00070874     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/S0007087499004021     Document Type: Article

References (215)

1. Many obituaries are listed in Ragnar Granit, Charles Scott Sherrington: An Appraisal, London, 1966, 179. There is a personal memoir by his son: C. E. R. Sherrington, 'Charles Scott Sherrington (1857-1952)', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1975), 30, 45-63.
2. Many obituaries are listed in Ragnar Granit, Charles Scott Sherrington: An Appraisal, London, 1966, 179. There is a personal memoir by his son: C. E. R. Sherrington, 'Charles Scott Sherrington (1857-1952)', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1975), 30, 45-63.
3. There is no systematic, let alone comprehensive, history of the modern brain sciences. For background material, compiled by scientists or physicians rather than historians, see J. D. Spillane, The Doctrine of the Nerves: Chapters in the History of Neurology, Oxford, 1981; E. G. T. Liddell, The Discovery of Reflexes, Oxford, 1960; Webb Haymaker and Francis Schiller (eds.), The Founders of Neurology: One Hundred and Forty- Six Biographical Sketches by Eighty-Eight Authors, 2nd edn., Springfield, IL, 1970; Stanley Finger, Origins of Neuroscience: A History of Exploration into Brain Function, New York, 1994; Leonard A. Stevens, Explorers of the Brain, New York, 1971. Personal views on post-Sherrington developments are assembled in F. G. Worden, J. P. Swazey and G. Adelman (eds.), The Neurosciences: Paths of Discovery, Cambridge, MA, 1975; F. Samson and G. Adelman (eds.), The Neurosciences: Paths of Discovery II, Boston, 1992.
4. There is no systematic, let alone comprehensive, history of the modern brain sciences. For background material, compiled by scientists or physicians rather than historians, see J. D. Spillane, The Doctrine of the Nerves: Chapters in the History of Neurology, Oxford, 1981; E. G. T. Liddell, The Discovery of Reflexes, Oxford, 1960; Webb Haymaker and Francis Schiller (eds.), The Founders of Neurology: One Hundred and Forty- Six Biographical Sketches by Eighty-Eight Authors, 2nd edn., Springfield, IL, 1970; Stanley Finger, Origins of Neuroscience: A History of Exploration into Brain Function, New York, 1994; Leonard A. Stevens, Explorers of the Brain, New York, 1971. Personal views on post-Sherrington developments are assembled in F. G. Worden, J. P. Swazey and G. Adelman (eds.), The Neurosciences: Paths of Discovery, Cambridge, MA, 1975; F. Samson and G. Adelman (eds.), The Neurosciences: Paths of Discovery II, Boston, 1992.
5. There is no systematic, let alone comprehensive, history of the modern brain sciences. For background material, compiled by scientists or physicians rather than historians, see J. D. Spillane, The Doctrine of the Nerves: Chapters in the History of Neurology, Oxford, 1981; E. G. T. Liddell, The Discovery of Reflexes, Oxford, 1960; Webb Haymaker and Francis Schiller (eds.), The Founders of Neurology: One Hundred and Forty-Six Biographical Sketches by Eighty-Eight Authors, 2nd edn., Springfield, IL, 1970; Stanley Finger, Origins of Neuroscience: A History of Exploration into Brain Function, New York, 1994; Leonard A. Stevens, Explorers of the Brain, New York, 1971. Personal views on post-Sherrington developments are assembled in F. G. Worden, J. P. Swazey and G. Adelman (eds.), The Neurosciences: Paths of Discovery, Cambridge, MA, 1975; F. Samson and G. Adelman (eds.), The Neurosciences: Paths of Discovery II, Boston, 1992.
6. There is no systematic, let alone comprehensive, history of the modern brain sciences. For background material, compiled by scientists or physicians rather than historians, see J. D. Spillane, The Doctrine of the Nerves: Chapters in the History of Neurology, Oxford, 1981; E. G. T. Liddell, The Discovery of Reflexes, Oxford, 1960; Webb Haymaker and Francis Schiller (eds.), The Founders of Neurology: One Hundred and Forty- Six Biographical Sketches by Eighty-Eight Authors, 2nd edn., Springfield, IL, 1970; Stanley Finger, Origins of Neuroscience: A History of Exploration into Brain Function, New York, 1994; Leonard A. Stevens, Explorers of the Brain, New York, 1971. Personal views on post-Sherrington developments are assembled in F. G. Worden, J. P. Swazey and G. Adelman (eds.), The Neurosciences: Paths of Discovery, Cambridge, MA, 1975; F. Samson and G. Adelman (eds.), The Neurosciences: Paths of Discovery II, Boston, 1992.
7. There is no systematic, let alone comprehensive, history of the modern brain sciences. For background material, compiled by scientists or physicians rather than historians, see J. D. Spillane, The Doctrine of the Nerves: Chapters in the History of Neurology, Oxford, 1981; E. G. T. Liddell, The Discovery of Reflexes, Oxford, 1960; Webb Haymaker and Francis Schiller (eds.), The Founders of Neurology: One Hundred and Forty- Six Biographical Sketches by Eighty-Eight Authors, 2nd edn., Springfield, IL, 1970; Stanley Finger, Origins of Neuroscience: A History of Exploration into Brain Function, New York, 1994; Leonard A. Stevens, Explorers of the Brain, New York, 1971. Personal views on post-Sherrington developments are assembled in F. G. Worden, J. P. Swazey and G. Adelman (eds.), The Neurosciences: Paths of Discovery, Cambridge, MA, 1975; F. Samson and G. Adelman (eds.), The Neurosciences: Paths of Discovery II, Boston, 1992.
8. There is no systematic, let alone comprehensive, history of the modern brain sciences. For background material, compiled by scientists or physicians rather than historians, see J. D. Spillane, The Doctrine of the Nerves: Chapters in the History of Neurology, Oxford, 1981; E. G. T. Liddell, The Discovery of Reflexes, Oxford, 1960; Webb Haymaker and Francis Schiller (eds.), The Founders of Neurology: One Hundred and Forty- Six Biographical Sketches by Eighty-Eight Authors, 2nd edn., Springfield, IL, 1970; Stanley Finger, Origins of Neuroscience: A History of Exploration into Brain Function, New York, 1994; Leonard A. Stevens, Explorers of the Brain, New York, 1971. Personal views on post-Sherrington developments are assembled in F. G. Worden, J. P. Swazey and G. Adelman (eds.), The Neurosciences: Paths of Discovery, Cambridge, MA, 1975; F. Samson and G. Adelman (eds.), The Neurosciences: Paths of Discovery II, Boston, 1992.
9. There is no systematic, let alone comprehensive, history of the modern brain sciences. For background material, compiled by scientists or physicians rather than historians, see J. D. Spillane, The Doctrine of the Nerves: Chapters in the History of Neurology, Oxford, 1981; E. G. T. Liddell, The Discovery of Reflexes, Oxford, 1960; Webb Haymaker and Francis Schiller (eds.), The Founders of Neurology: One Hundred and Forty- Six Biographical Sketches by Eighty-Eight Authors, 2nd edn., Springfield, IL, 1970; Stanley Finger, Origins of Neuroscience: A History of Exploration into Brain Function, New York, 1994; Leonard A. Stevens, Explorers of the Brain, New York, 1971. Personal views on post-Sherrington developments are assembled in F. G. Worden, J. P. Swazey and G. Adelman (eds.), The Neurosciences: Paths of Discovery, Cambridge, MA, 1975; F. Samson and G. Adelman (eds.), The Neurosciences: Paths of Discovery II, Boston, 1992.
10. Charles S. Sherrington, The Integrative Action of the Nervous System, New York, 1906; unchanged 2nd edn., with new Foreword (1947), reprinted New Haven, 1961. The most important papers were brought together and somewhat abridged in idem, Selected Writings of Sir Charles Sherrington (ed. D. Denny-Brown), London, 1939, with bibliography, 516-29. The bibliography was revised and updated in J. F. Fulton, 'Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, O. M. (1857-1952)', Journal of Neurophysiology (1952), 15, 167-90, 177-90; and again in Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, Sherrington: Physiologist, Philosopher, Poet, Liverpool, 1958, 71-106.
11. Charles S. Sherrington, The Integrative Action of the Nervous System, New York, 1906; unchanged 2nd edn., with new Foreword (1947), reprinted New Haven, 1961. The most important papers were brought together and somewhat abridged in idem, Selected Writings of Sir Charles Sherrington (ed. D. Denny-Brown), London, 1939, with bibliography, 516-29. The bibliography was revised and updated in J. F. Fulton, 'Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, O. M. (1857-1952)', Journal of Neurophysiology (1952), 15, 167-90, 177-90; and again in Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, Sherrington: Physiologist, Philosopher, Poet, Liverpool, 1958, 71-106.
12. Charles S. Sherrington, The Integrative Action of the Nervous System, New York, 1906; unchanged 2nd edn., with new Foreword (1947), reprinted New Haven, 1961. The most important papers were brought together and somewhat abridged in idem, Selected Writings of Sir Charles Sherrington (ed. D. Denny-Brown), London, 1939, with bibliography, 516-29. The bibliography was revised and updated in J. F. Fulton, 'Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, O. M. (1857-1952)', Journal of Neurophysiology (1952), 15, 167-90, 177-90; and again in Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, Sherrington: Physiologist, Philosopher, Poet, Liverpool, 1958, 71-106.
13. Charles S. Sherrington, The Integrative Action of the Nervous System, New York, 1906; unchanged 2nd edn., with new Foreword (1947), reprinted New Haven, 1961. The most important papers were brought together and somewhat abridged in idem, Selected Writings of Sir Charles Sherrington (ed. D. Denny-Brown), London, 1939, with bibliography, 516-29. The bibliography was revised and updated in J. F. Fulton, 'Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, O. M. (1857-1952)', Journal of Neurophysiology (1952), 15, 167-90, 177-90; and again in Lord Cohen of Birkenhead, Sherrington: Physiologist, Philosopher, Poet, Liverpool, 1958, 71-106.
14. The Assaying of Brabantius and Other Verse, London, 1925; expanded 2nd edn., London, 1940; Man on His Nature, Cambridge, 1940; 2nd edn., revised and abridged (1951), reprinted London, 1963; The Endeavour of Jean Fernel, Cambridge, 1946.
15. The Assaying of Brabantius and Other Verse, London, 1925; expanded 2nd edn., London, 1940; Man on His Nature, Cambridge, 1940; 2nd edn., revised and abridged (1951), reprinted London, 1963; The Endeavour of Jean Fernel, Cambridge, 1946.
16. The Assaying of Brabantius and Other Verse, London, 1925; expanded 2nd edn., London, 1940; Man on His Nature, Cambridge, 1940; 2nd edn., revised and abridged (1951), reprinted London, 1963; The Endeavour of Jean Fernel, Cambridge, 1946.
17. Having completed this paper, I find connections with Christopher Lawrence and Steven Shapin (eds.), Science Incarnate: Historical Embodiments of Natural Knowledge, Chicago, 1998; the idea of a scientist as 'figurehead' is yet another expression of embodiment.
18. C. S. Sherrington, 'Brain 2. Physiology', in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 11th edn., Cambridge, 1910, 403.
19. Granit, op. cit. (1), passim.
20. For the official version, see Göran Liljestrand, 'The prize in physiology or medecine', in The Nobel Foundation and Nobel: The Man & His Prizes (ed. W. Odelberg), 3rd edn., New York, 1972, 139-278, 247. It is hinted that more political factors, involving feelings about Germany and the First World War, may have been involved: John C. Eccles and William C. Gibson, Sherrington: His Life and Thought, New York/Berlin, 1979.
21. For the official version, see Göran Liljestrand, 'The prize in physiology or medecine', in The Nobel Foundation and Nobel: The Man & His Prizes (ed. W. Odelberg), 3rd edn., New York, 1972, 139-278, 247. It is hinted that more political factors, involving feelings about Germany and the First World War, may have been involved: John C. Eccles and William C. Gibson, Sherrington: His Life and Thought, New York/Berlin, 1979.
22. For Sherrington's 'discoveries' about inhibition see Roger Smith, Inhibition: History and Meaning in the Sciences of Mind and Brain, Berkeley and London, 1992, 179-90.
23. See Denny-Brown's preface to Sherrington, Selected Writings, op. cit. (3), pp. vii-viii. Denny-Brown commented on the resemblance of Sherrington's experimental observations to clinical observations: 'Thus direct vision and palpation served always to control the caprice and artifice of delicate apparatus' (p. vii). This gives insight into why Sherrington was hailed as much by medical neurologists as by experimental neurophysiologists: his actual investigative method united the two fields. Moreover, he was regarded as an excellent laboratory teacher (as opposed to lecturer); see Granit, op. cit. (1), 19. A retrospective view of British neurology claimed that it was transformed in 1910-15, when neurologists began to use Sherrington's framework for a 'scientific' as opposed to 'empiric' ordering of clinical data: [Editorial], 'The influence of Sherrington on clinical neurology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 825-6. The identification of neurologists with science, in the generation achieving leadership in the 1930s and 1940s, was bound up with Sherrington's own reputation. It is an interesting aspect of the success of Sherrington's research and teaching that he acquired the lifelong services of a laboratory technician, George Cox, who obtained, cared for and prepared the experimental animals. Cox was a working- class man whom Sherrington, as a young physician, encouraged at St Thomas's Hospital and then employed throughout his career. At Oxford, Cox's reputation was that he maintained laboratory discipline and fitted students into Sherrington's pattern of instruction. Students knew this lab as 'the cat class' - cats were both available and regarded as good subjects because of their relative anatomical comparability with humans. See Jack Morrell, Science at Oxford 1914-1939: Transforming an Arts University, Oxford, 1997, 176.
24. See Denny-Brown's preface to Sherrington, Selected Writings, op. cit. (3), pp. vii-viii. Denny-Brown commented on the resemblance of Sherrington's experimental observations to clinical observations: 'Thus direct vision and palpation served always to control the caprice and artifice of delicate apparatus' (p. vii). This gives insight into why Sherrington was hailed as much by medical neurologists as by experimental neurophysiologists: his actual investigative method united the two fields. Moreover, he was regarded as an excellent laboratory teacher (as opposed to lecturer); see Granit, op. cit. (1), 19. A retrospective view of British neurology claimed that it was transformed in 1910-15, when neurologists began to use Sherrington's framework for a 'scientific' as opposed to 'empiric' ordering of clinical data: [Editorial], 'The influence of Sherrington on clinical neurology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 825-6. The identification of neurologists with science, in the generation achieving leadership in the 1930s and 1940s, was bound up with Sherrington's own reputation. It is an interesting aspect of the success of Sherrington's research and teaching that he acquired the lifelong services of a laboratory technician, George Cox, who obtained, cared for and prepared the experimental animals. Cox was a working- class man whom Sherrington, as a young physician, encouraged at St Thomas's Hospital and then employed throughout his career. At Oxford, Cox's reputation was that he maintained laboratory discipline and fitted students into Sherrington's pattern of instruction. Students knew this lab as 'the cat class' - cats were both available and regarded as good subjects because of their relative anatomical comparability with humans. See Jack Morrell, Science at Oxford 1914-1939: Transforming an Arts University, Oxford, 1997, 176.
25. See Denny-Brown's preface to Sherrington, Selected Writings, op. cit. (3), pp. vii-viii. Denny-Brown commented on the resemblance of Sherrington's experimental observations to clinical observations: 'Thus direct vision and palpation served always to control the caprice and artifice of delicate apparatus' (p. vii). This gives insight into why Sherrington was hailed as much by medical neurologists as by experimental neurophysiologists: his actual investigative method united the two fields. Moreover, he was regarded as an excellent laboratory teacher (as opposed to lecturer); see Granit, op. cit. (1), 19. A retrospective view of British neurology claimed that it was transformed in 1910-15, when neurologists began to use Sherrington's framework for a 'scientific' as opposed to 'empiric' ordering of clinical data: [Editorial], 'The influence of Sherrington on clinical neurology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 825-6. The identification of neurologists with science, in the generation achieving leadership in the 1930s and 1940s, was bound up with Sherrington's own reputation. It is an interesting aspect of the success of Sherrington's research and teaching that he acquired the lifelong services of a laboratory technician, George Cox, who obtained, cared for and prepared the experimental animals. Cox was a working- class man whom Sherrington, as a young physician, encouraged at St Thomas's Hospital and then employed throughout his career. At Oxford, Cox's reputation was that he maintained laboratory discipline and fitted students into Sherrington's pattern of instruction. Students knew this lab as 'the cat class' - cats were both available and regarded as good subjects because of their relative anatomical comparability with humans. See Jack Morrell, Science at Oxford 1914-1939: Transforming an Arts University, Oxford, 1997, 176.
26. See Denny-Brown's preface to Sherrington, Selected Writings, op. cit. (3), pp. vii-viii. Denny-Brown commented on the resemblance of Sherrington's experimental observations to clinical observations: 'Thus direct vision and palpation served always to control the caprice and artifice of delicate apparatus' (p. vii). This gives insight into why Sherrington was hailed as much by medical neurologists as by experimental neurophysiologists: his actual investigative method united the two fields. Moreover, he was regarded as an excellent laboratory teacher (as opposed to lecturer); see Granit, op. cit. (1), 19. A retrospective view of British neurology claimed that it was transformed in 1910-15, when neurologists began to use Sherrington's framework for a 'scientific' as opposed to 'empiric' ordering of clinical data: [Editorial], 'The influence of Sherrington on clinical neurology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 825-6. The identification of neurologists with science, in the generation achieving leadership in the 1930s and 1940s, was bound up with Sherrington's own reputation. It is an interesting aspect of the success of Sherrington's research and teaching that he acquired the lifelong services of a laboratory technician, George Cox, who obtained, cared for and prepared the experimental animals. Cox was a working- class man whom Sherrington, as a young physician, encouraged at St Thomas's Hospital and then employed throughout his career. At Oxford, Cox's reputation was that he maintained laboratory discipline and fitted students into Sherrington's pattern of instruction. Students knew this lab as 'the cat class' - cats were both available and regarded as good subjects because of their relative anatomical comparability with humans. See Jack Morrell, Science at Oxford 1914-1939: Transforming an Arts University, Oxford, 1997, 176.
27. Sherrington, Integrative Action (1906 edn.), op. cit. (3), 179.
28. Sherrington was always clear that in studying isolated spinal reflexes he was, strictly speaking, studying abstractions. On this, see Marc Jeannerod, The Brain Machine: The Development of Neurophysiological Thought (tr. David Urion), Cambridge, MA, 1985, 45-7. Sherrington thought that the complexity of the brain and its links with mind made it profitable, or even necessary, to simplify in this way. At the same time, by choosing the spinal reflexes as his subject he was able to work with decerebrate animals, animals in which - it was accepted - no pain could be experienced. His elucidation of the physiological effects of decerebration (functional separation of the cortex from the rest of the brain) in specific species made possible the standardization of the experimental subject and hence the standardization and consolidation of results as facts. This standardization was also important as it made it possible for students to undertake experiments and thus receive a 'hands-on' training. Sherrington instituted such training procedures in his Liverpool and Oxford laboratories and published what was regarded as a model text for students (many of whom went on to medical training after thus having learned at first hand the research basis of scientific medicine). See C. S. Sherrington, Mammalian Physiology: A Course of Practical Exercises, Oxford, 1919, Preface, and the notice in British Medical Journal (1919), ii, 355. For Sherrington's work on cortical localization, see Integrative Action (1906 edn.), op. cit. (3), Chapter 8, and A. S. F. Leyton and C. S. Sherrington, 'On the motor area of the cerebral cortex' (1917), reprinted abridged in Selected Writings, op. cit. (3), 397-439. The new brain science of the 1930s was dependent on technological innovations, notably the oscilloscope, microelectrodes and pharmacology. For the history of localization, see Robert M. Young, Mind, Brain, and Adaptation: Cerebral Localization and Its Biological Context from Gall to Ferrier, Oxford, 1970; Anne Harrington, Medicine, Mind, and the Double Brain: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Thought, Princeton, 1987; Michael Hagner, Homo cerebralis: der Wandel vom Seelenorgan zum Gehirn, Berlin, 1997.
29. Sherrington was always clear that in studying isolated spinal reflexes he was, strictly speaking, studying abstractions. On this, see Marc Jeannerod, The Brain Machine: The Development of Neurophysiological Thought (tr. David Urion), Cambridge, MA, 1985, 45-7. Sherrington thought that the complexity of the brain and its links with mind made it profitable, or even necessary, to simplify in this way. At the same time, by choosing the spinal reflexes as his subject he was able to work with decerebrate animals, animals in which - it was accepted - no pain could be experienced. His elucidation of the physiological effects of decerebration (functional separation of the cortex from the rest of the brain) in specific species made possible the standardization of the experimental subject and hence the standardization and consolidation of results as facts. This standardization was also important as it made it possible for students to undertake experiments and thus receive a 'hands-on' training. Sherrington instituted such training procedures in his Liverpool and Oxford laboratories and published what was regarded as a model text for students (many of whom went on to medical training after thus having learned at first hand the research basis of scientific medicine). See C. S. Sherrington, Mammalian Physiology: A Course of Practical Exercises, Oxford, 1919, Preface, and the notice in British Medical Journal (1919), ii, 355. For Sherrington's work on cortical localization, see Integrative Action (1906 edn.), op. cit. (3), Chapter 8, and A. S. F. Leyton and C. S. Sherrington, 'On the motor area of the cerebral cortex' (1917), reprinted abridged in Selected Writings, op. cit. (3), 397-439. The new brain science of the 1930s was dependent on technological innovations, notably the oscilloscope, microelectrodes and pharmacology. For the history of localization, see Robert M. Young, Mind, Brain, and Adaptation: Cerebral Localization and Its Biological Context from Gall to Ferrier, Oxford, 1970; Anne Harrington, Medicine, Mind, and the Double Brain: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Thought, Princeton, 1987; Michael Hagner, Homo cerebralis: der Wandel vom Seelenorgan zum Gehirn, Berlin, 1997.
30. Sherrington was always clear that in studying isolated spinal reflexes he was, strictly speaking, studying abstractions. On this, see Marc Jeannerod, The Brain Machine: The Development of Neurophysiological Thought (tr. David Urion), Cambridge, MA, 1985, 45-7. Sherrington thought that the complexity of the brain and its links with mind made it profitable, or even necessary, to simplify in this way. At the same time, by choosing the spinal reflexes as his subject he was able to work with decerebrate animals, animals in which - it was accepted - no pain could be experienced. His elucidation of the physiological effects of decerebration (functional separation of the cortex from the rest of the brain) in specific species made possible the standardization of the experimental subject and hence the standardization and consolidation of results as facts. This standardization was also important as it made it possible for students to undertake experiments and thus receive a 'hands-on' training. Sherrington instituted such training procedures in his Liverpool and Oxford laboratories and published what was regarded as a model text for students (many of whom went on to medical training after thus having learned at first hand the research basis of scientific medicine). See C. S. Sherrington, Mammalian Physiology: A Course of Practical Exercises, Oxford, 1919, Preface, and the notice in British Medical Journal (1919), ii, 355. For Sherrington's work on cortical localization, see Integrative Action (1906 edn.), op. cit. (3), Chapter 8, and A. S. F. Leyton and C. S. Sherrington, 'On the motor area of the cerebral cortex' (1917), reprinted abridged in Selected Writings, op. cit. (3), 397-439. The new brain science of the 1930s was dependent on technological innovations, notably the oscilloscope, microelectrodes and pharmacology. For the history of localization, see Robert M. Young, Mind, Brain, and Adaptation: Cerebral Localization and Its Biological Context from Gall to Ferrier, Oxford, 1970; Anne Harrington, Medicine, Mind, and the Double Brain: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Thought, Princeton, 1987; Michael Hagner, Homo cerebralis: der Wandel vom Seelenorgan zum Gehirn, Berlin, 1997.
31. Sherrington was always clear that in studying isolated spinal reflexes he was, strictly speaking, studying abstractions. On this, see Marc Jeannerod, The Brain Machine: The Development of Neurophysiological Thought (tr. David Urion), Cambridge, MA, 1985, 45-7. Sherrington thought that the complexity of the brain and its links with mind made it profitable, or even necessary, to simplify in this way. At the same time, by choosing the spinal reflexes as his subject he was able to work with decerebrate animals, animals in which - it was accepted - no pain could be experienced. His elucidation of the physiological effects of decerebration (functional separation of the cortex from the rest of the brain) in specific species made possible the standardization of the experimental subject and hence the standardization and consolidation of results as facts. This standardization was also important as it made it possible for students to undertake experiments and thus receive a 'hands-on' training. Sherrington instituted such training procedures in his Liverpool and Oxford laboratories and published what was regarded as a model text for students (many of whom went on to medical training after thus having learned at first hand the research basis of scientific medicine). See C. S. Sherrington, Mammalian Physiology: A Course of Practical Exercises, Oxford, 1919, Preface, and the notice in British Medical Journal (1919), ii, 355. For Sherrington's work on cortical localization, see Integrative Action (1906 edn.), op. cit. (3), Chapter 8, and A. S. F. Leyton and C. S. Sherrington, 'On the motor area of the cerebral cortex' (1917), reprinted abridged in Selected Writings, op. cit. (3), 397-439. The new brain science of the 1930s was dependent on technological innovations, notably the oscilloscope, microelectrodes and pharmacology. For the history of localization, see Robert M. Young, Mind, Brain, and Adaptation: Cerebral Localization and Its Biological Context from Gall to Ferrier, Oxford, 1970; Anne Harrington, Medicine, Mind, and the Double Brain: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Thought, Princeton, 1987; Michael Hagner, Homo cerebralis: der Wandel vom Seelenorgan zum Gehirn, Berlin, 1997.
32. Sherrington was always clear that in studying isolated spinal reflexes he was, strictly speaking, studying abstractions. On this, see Marc Jeannerod, The Brain Machine: The Development of Neurophysiological Thought (tr. David Urion), Cambridge, MA, 1985, 45-7. Sherrington thought that the complexity of the brain and its links with mind made it profitable, or even necessary, to simplify in this way. At the same time, by choosing the spinal reflexes as his subject he was able to work with decerebrate animals, animals in which - it was accepted - no pain could be experienced. His elucidation of the physiological effects of decerebration (functional separation of the cortex from the rest of the brain) in specific species made possible the standardization of the experimental subject and hence the standardization and consolidation of results as facts. This standardization was also important as it made it possible for students to undertake experiments and thus receive a 'hands-on' training. Sherrington instituted such training procedures in his Liverpool and Oxford laboratories and published what was regarded as a model text for students (many of whom went on to medical training after thus having learned at first hand the research basis of scientific medicine). See C. S. Sherrington, Mammalian Physiology: A Course of Practical Exercises, Oxford, 1919, Preface, and the notice in British Medical Journal (1919), ii, 355. For Sherrington's work on cortical localization, see Integrative Action (1906 edn.), op. cit. (3), Chapter 8, and A. S. F. Leyton and C. S. Sherrington, 'On the motor area of the cerebral cortex' (1917), reprinted abridged in Selected Writings, op. cit. (3), 397-439. The new brain science of the 1930s was dependent on technological innovations, notably the oscilloscope, microelectrodes and pharmacology. For the history of localization, see Robert M. Young, Mind, Brain, and Adaptation: Cerebral Localization and Its Biological Context from Gall to Ferrier, Oxford, 1970; Anne Harrington, Medicine, Mind, and the Double Brain: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Thought, Princeton, 1987; Michael Hagner, Homo cerebralis: der Wandel vom Seelenorgan zum Gehirn, Berlin, 1997.
33. Sherrington was always clear that in studying isolated spinal reflexes he was, strictly speaking, studying abstractions. On this, see Marc Jeannerod, The Brain Machine: The Development of Neurophysiological Thought (tr. David Urion), Cambridge, MA, 1985, 45-7. Sherrington thought that the complexity of the brain and its links with mind made it profitable, or even necessary, to simplify in this way. At the same time, by choosing the spinal reflexes as his subject he was able to work with decerebrate animals, animals in which - it was accepted - no pain could be experienced. His elucidation of the physiological effects of decerebration (functional separation of the cortex from the rest of the brain) in specific species made possible the standardization of the experimental subject and hence the standardization and consolidation of results as facts. This standardization was also important as it made it possible for students to undertake experiments and thus receive a 'hands-on' training. Sherrington instituted such training procedures in his Liverpool and Oxford laboratories and published what was regarded as a model text for students (many of whom went on to medical training after thus having learned at first hand the research basis of scientific medicine). See C. S. Sherrington, Mammalian Physiology: A Course of Practical Exercises, Oxford, 1919, Preface, and the notice in British Medical Journal (1919), ii, 355. For Sherrington's work on cortical localization, see Integrative Action (1906 edn.), op. cit. (3), Chapter 8, and A. S. F. Leyton and C. S. Sherrington, 'On the motor area of the cerebral cortex' (1917), reprinted abridged in Selected Writings, op. cit. (3), 397-439. The new brain science of the 1930s was dependent on technological innovations, notably the oscilloscope, microelectrodes and pharmacology. For the history of localization, see Robert M. Young, Mind, Brain, and Adaptation: Cerebral Localization and Its Biological Context from Gall to Ferrier, Oxford, 1970; Anne Harrington, Medicine, Mind, and the Double Brain: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Thought, Princeton, 1987; Michael Hagner, Homo cerebralis: der Wandel vom Seelenorgan zum Gehirn, Berlin, 1997.
34. Sherrington was always clear that in studying isolated spinal reflexes he was, strictly speaking, studying abstractions. On this, see Marc Jeannerod, The Brain Machine: The Development of Neurophysiological Thought (tr. David Urion), Cambridge, MA, 1985, 45-7. Sherrington thought that the complexity of the brain and its links with mind made it profitable, or even necessary, to simplify in this way. At the same time, by choosing the spinal reflexes as his subject he was able to work with decerebrate animals, animals in which - it was accepted - no pain could be experienced. His elucidation of the physiological effects of decerebration (functional separation of the cortex from the rest of the brain) in specific species made possible the standardization of the experimental subject and hence the standardization and consolidation of results as facts. This standardization was also important as it made it possible for students to undertake experiments and thus receive a 'hands-on' training. Sherrington instituted such training procedures in his Liverpool and Oxford laboratories and published what was regarded as a model text for students (many of whom went on to medical training after thus having learned at first hand the research basis of scientific medicine). See C. S. Sherrington, Mammalian Physiology: A Course of Practical Exercises, Oxford, 1919, Preface, and the notice in British Medical Journal (1919), ii, 355. For Sherrington's work on cortical localization, see Integrative Action (1906 edn.), op. cit. (3), Chapter 8, and A. S. F. Leyton and C. S. Sherrington, 'On the motor area of the cerebral cortex' (1917), reprinted abridged in Selected Writings, op. cit. (3), 397-439. The new brain science of the 1930s was dependent on technological innovations, notably the oscilloscope, microelectrodes and pharmacology. For the history of localization, see Robert M. Young, Mind, Brain, and Adaptation: Cerebral Localization and Its Biological Context from Gall to Ferrier, Oxford, 1970; Anne Harrington, Medicine, Mind, and the Double Brain: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Thought, Princeton, 1987; Michael Hagner, Homo cerebralis: der Wandel vom Seelenorgan zum Gehirn, Berlin, 1997.
35. Sherrington was always clear that in studying isolated spinal reflexes he was, strictly speaking, studying abstractions. On this, see Marc Jeannerod, The Brain Machine: The Development of Neurophysiological Thought (tr. David Urion), Cambridge, MA, 1985, 45-7. Sherrington thought that the complexity of the brain and its links with mind made it profitable, or even necessary, to simplify in this way. At the same time, by choosing the spinal reflexes as his subject he was able to work with decerebrate animals, animals in which - it was accepted - no pain could be experienced. His elucidation of the physiological effects of decerebration (functional separation of the cortex from the rest of the brain) in specific species made possible the standardization of the experimental subject and hence the standardization and consolidation of results as facts. This standardization was also important as it made it possible for students to undertake experiments and thus receive a 'hands-on' training. Sherrington instituted such training procedures in his Liverpool and Oxford laboratories and published what was regarded as a model text for students (many of whom went on to medical training after thus having learned at first hand the research basis of scientific medicine). See C. S. Sherrington, Mammalian Physiology: A Course of Practical Exercises, Oxford, 1919, Preface, and the notice in British Medical Journal (1919), ii, 355. For Sherrington's work on cortical localization, see Integrative Action (1906 edn.), op. cit. (3), Chapter 8, and A. S. F. Leyton and C. S. Sherrington, 'On the motor area of the cerebral cortex' (1917), reprinted abridged in Selected Writings, op. cit. (3), 397-439. The new brain science of the 1930s was dependent on technological innovations, notably the oscilloscope, microelectrodes and pharmacology. For the history of localization, see Robert M. Young, Mind, Brain, and Adaptation: Cerebral Localization and Its Biological Context from Gall to Ferrier, Oxford, 1970; Anne Harrington, Medicine, Mind, and the Double Brain: A Study in Nineteenth-Century Thought, Princeton, 1987; Michael Hagner, Homo cerebralis: der Wandel vom Seelenorgan zum Gehirn, Berlin, 1997.
36. The term 'neuroscience' was introduced in 1962 as part of a concerted effort at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to unite and hence transform research scattered across medical as well as scientific specialities. F. O. Schmitt, 'The neurosciences research program: a brief history', in Samson and Adelman, op. cit. (2), 1-21.
37. Lord Cohen of Birkenhead (op. cit. (3)) wrote as professor of medicine at the University of Liverpool, where Sherrington held the Chair of physiology (1895-1913); Granit (op. cit. (1)) was a Swedish collaborator with Sherrington towards the end of the latter's Oxford period, and he was subsequently director of the Nobel Institute of Neurophysiology in Stockholm; Eccles and Gibson (op. cit. (8)) were students and collaborators, also during the Oxford period, and they were later teachers and researchers, Eccles in Dunedin and Canberra and Gibson in Vancouver. For a summary of Eccles's view of Sherrington's relation to knowledge of the synapse, see John C. Eccles, 'Developing concepts of the synapses', Journal of Neuroscience (1990), 10, 3769-81. Liddell, Sherrington's first demonstrator after the First World War and later a holder of the same Chair, wrote a history (op. cit. (2)) of the reflex, culminating with Sherrington. The only seriously historical study is Judith P. Swazey, Reflexes and Motor Integration : Sherrington's Concept of Integrative Action, Cambridge, MA, 1969, which I have found invaluable, especially for the research up to 1906. See also Judith P. Swazey, 'Sherrington's concept of integrative action', Journal of the History of Biology (1968), 1, 57-89. The 1957 centenary of Sherrington's birth also produced assessments: Cohen of Birkenhead, op. cit. (3); D. Denny-Brown, 'The Sherrington school of physiology', Journal of Neurophysiology (1957), 20, 543-8; John C. Eccles, 'Some aspects of Sherrington's contribution to neurophysiology', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1957), 12, 216-25; Wilder Penfield, 'Charles Sherrington, poet and philosopher', Brain (1957), 80, 402-10. Gibson established a 'Sherrington Room' in the Woodward Biomedical Library of the University of British Columbia in which he collected memorabilia, letters and published material. The warmth of the relationships Sherrington established with younger collaborators, all men, is conspicuous. This warmth extended to wives and family. In Oxford, Sherrington and his wife ('Lady Sherrie') held Sunday teas which inspired and brought comfort to younger visitors. Gibson assembled in Vancouver xerox copies of correspondence to and from Sherrington and a variety of notebooks, scrapbooks and reviews. It is, however, very incomplete. This incompleteness is even more obvious in the file of material (partially, and idiosyncratically, catalogued by theme, and much of it copies of letters held in Vancouver, but including obituaries) in the Sherrington Library for the History of Neuroscience, University Laboratory of Physiology, University of Oxford. I am grateful to Lee Perry of the Woodward Biomedical Library for help and permission to quote. The Cushing Papers and Fulton Papers, Historical Library, Cushing/Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, include letters from Sherrington. I am grateful to Toby Appel for help and permission to quote. It is stated that Sherrington assembled twenty thousand offprints of scientific papers, catalogued by author and subject, in 1957 housed in the Instituto Vénézolane de Neurologica e Investigationes Cerebrales in Caracas. This collection, the existence of which I have not confirmed, would explain the extensive referencing in Sherrington's scientific work. See H. M. S., 'Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, O.M., G.B.E., F.R.S. 185-1952', House of Dawson (June 1957), 6-7.
38. Lord Cohen of Birkenhead (op. cit. (3)) wrote as professor of medicine at the University of Liverpool, where Sherrington held the Chair of physiology (1895-1913); Granit (op. cit. (1)) was a Swedish collaborator with Sherrington towards the end of the latter's Oxford period, and he was subsequently director of the Nobel Institute of Neurophysiology in Stockholm; Eccles and Gibson (op. cit. (8)) were students and collaborators, also during the Oxford period, and they were later teachers and researchers, Eccles in Dunedin and Canberra and Gibson in Vancouver. For a summary of Eccles's view of Sherrington's relation to knowledge of the synapse, see John C. Eccles, 'Developing concepts of the synapses', Journal of Neuroscience (1990), 10, 3769-81. Liddell, Sherrington's first demonstrator after the First World War and later a holder of the same Chair, wrote a history (op. cit. (2)) of the reflex, culminating with Sherrington. The only seriously historical study is Judith P. Swazey, Reflexes and Motor Integration : Sherrington's Concept of Integrative Action, Cambridge, MA, 1969, which I have found invaluable, especially for the research up to 1906. See also Judith P. Swazey, 'Sherrington's concept of integrative action', Journal of the History of Biology (1968), 1, 57-89. The 1957 centenary of Sherrington's birth also produced assessments: Cohen of Birkenhead, op. cit. (3); D. Denny-Brown, 'The Sherrington school of physiology', Journal of Neurophysiology (1957), 20, 543-8; John C. Eccles, 'Some aspects of Sherrington's contribution to neurophysiology', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1957), 12, 216-25; Wilder Penfield, 'Charles Sherrington, poet and philosopher', Brain (1957), 80, 402-10. Gibson established a 'Sherrington Room' in the Woodward Biomedical Library of the University of British Columbia in which he collected memorabilia, letters and published material. The warmth of the relationships Sherrington established with younger collaborators, all men, is conspicuous. This warmth extended to wives and family. In Oxford, Sherrington and his wife ('Lady Sherrie') held Sunday teas which inspired and brought comfort to younger visitors. Gibson assembled in Vancouver xerox copies of correspondence to and from Sherrington and a variety of notebooks, scrapbooks and reviews. It is, however, very incomplete. This incompleteness is even more obvious in the file of material (partially, and idiosyncratically, catalogued by theme, and much of it copies of letters held in Vancouver, but including obituaries) in the Sherrington Library for the History of Neuroscience, University Laboratory of Physiology, University of Oxford. I am grateful to Lee Perry of the Woodward Biomedical Library for help and permission to quote. The Cushing Papers and Fulton Papers, Historical Library, Cushing/Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, include letters from Sherrington. I am grateful to Toby Appel for help and permission to quote. It is stated that Sherrington assembled twenty thousand offprints of scientific papers, catalogued by author and subject, in 1957 housed in the Instituto Vénézolane de Neurologica e Investigationes Cerebrales in Caracas. This collection, the existence of which I have not confirmed, would explain the extensive referencing in Sherrington's scientific work. See H. M. S., 'Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, O.M., G.B.E., F.R.S. 185-1952', House of Dawson (June 1957), 6-7.
39. Lord Cohen of Birkenhead (op. cit. (3)) wrote as professor of medicine at the University of Liverpool, where Sherrington held the Chair of physiology (1895-1913); Granit (op. cit. (1)) was a Swedish collaborator with Sherrington towards the end of the latter's Oxford period, and he was subsequently director of the Nobel Institute of Neurophysiology in Stockholm; Eccles and Gibson (op. cit. (8)) were students and collaborators, also during the Oxford period, and they were later teachers and researchers, Eccles in Dunedin and Canberra and Gibson in Vancouver. For a summary of Eccles's view of Sherrington's relation to knowledge of the synapse, see John C. Eccles, 'Developing concepts of the synapses', Journal of Neuroscience (1990), 10, 3769-81. Liddell, Sherrington's first demonstrator after the First World War and later a holder of the same Chair, wrote a history (op. cit. (2)) of the reflex, culminating with Sherrington. The only seriously historical study is Judith P. Swazey, Reflexes and Motor Integration : Sherrington's Concept of Integrative Action, Cambridge, MA, 1969, which I have found invaluable, especially for the research up to 1906. See also Judith P. Swazey, 'Sherrington's concept of integrative action', Journal of the History of Biology (1968), 1, 57-89. The 1957 centenary of Sherrington's birth also produced assessments: Cohen of Birkenhead, op. cit. (3); D. Denny-Brown, 'The Sherrington school of physiology', Journal of Neurophysiology (1957), 20, 543-8; John C. Eccles, 'Some aspects of Sherrington's contribution to neurophysiology', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1957), 12, 216-25; Wilder Penfield, 'Charles Sherrington, poet and philosopher', Brain (1957), 80, 402-10. Gibson established a 'Sherrington Room' in the Woodward Biomedical Library of the University of British Columbia in which he collected memorabilia, letters and published material. The warmth of the relationships Sherrington established with younger collaborators, all men, is conspicuous. This warmth extended to wives and family. In Oxford, Sherrington and his wife ('Lady Sherrie') held Sunday teas which inspired and brought comfort to younger visitors. Gibson assembled in Vancouver xerox copies of correspondence to and from Sherrington and a variety of notebooks, scrapbooks and reviews. It is, however, very incomplete. This incompleteness is even more obvious in the file of material (partially, and idiosyncratically, catalogued by theme, and much of it copies of letters held in Vancouver, but including obituaries) in the Sherrington Library for the History of Neuroscience, University Laboratory of Physiology, University of Oxford. I am grateful to Lee Perry of the Woodward Biomedical Library for help and permission to quote. The Cushing Papers and Fulton Papers, Historical Library, Cushing/Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, include letters from Sherrington. I am grateful to Toby Appel for help and permission to quote. It is stated that Sherrington assembled twenty thousand offprints of scientific papers, catalogued by author and subject, in 1957 housed in the Instituto Vénézolane de Neurologica e Investigationes Cerebrales in Caracas. This collection, the existence of which I have not confirmed, would explain the extensive referencing in Sherrington's scientific work. See H. M. S., 'Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, O.M., G.B.E., F.R.S. 185-1952', House of Dawson (June 1957), 6-7.
40. Lord Cohen of Birkenhead (op. cit. (3)) wrote as professor of medicine at the University of Liverpool, where Sherrington held the Chair of physiology (1895-1913); Granit (op. cit. (1)) was a Swedish collaborator with Sherrington towards the end of the latter's Oxford period, and he was subsequently director of the Nobel Institute of Neurophysiology in Stockholm; Eccles and Gibson (op. cit. (8)) were students and collaborators, also during the Oxford period, and they were later teachers and researchers, Eccles in Dunedin and Canberra and Gibson in Vancouver. For a summary of Eccles's view of Sherrington's relation to knowledge of the synapse, see John C. Eccles, 'Developing concepts of the synapses', Journal of Neuroscience (1990), 10, 3769-81. Liddell, Sherrington's first demonstrator after the First World War and later a holder of the same Chair, wrote a history (op. cit. (2)) of the reflex, culminating with Sherrington. The only seriously historical study is Judith P. Swazey, Reflexes and Motor Integration : Sherrington's Concept of Integrative Action, Cambridge, MA, 1969, which I have found invaluable, especially for the research up to 1906. See also Judith P. Swazey, 'Sherrington's concept of integrative action', Journal of the History of Biology (1968), 1, 57-89. The 1957 centenary of Sherrington's birth also produced assessments: Cohen of Birkenhead, op. cit. (3); D. Denny-Brown, 'The Sherrington school of physiology', Journal of Neurophysiology (1957), 20, 543-8; John C. Eccles, 'Some aspects of Sherrington's contribution to neurophysiology', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1957), 12, 216-25; Wilder Penfield, 'Charles Sherrington, poet and philosopher', Brain (1957), 80, 402-10. Gibson established a 'Sherrington Room' in the Woodward Biomedical Library of the University of British Columbia in which he collected memorabilia, letters and published material. The warmth of the relationships Sherrington established with younger collaborators, all men, is conspicuous. This warmth extended to wives and family. In Oxford, Sherrington and his wife ('Lady Sherrie') held Sunday teas which inspired and brought comfort to younger visitors. Gibson assembled in Vancouver xerox copies of correspondence to and from Sherrington and a variety of notebooks, scrapbooks and reviews. It is, however, very incomplete. This incompleteness is even more obvious in the file of material (partially, and idiosyncratically, catalogued by theme, and much of it copies of letters held in Vancouver, but including obituaries) in the Sherrington Library for the History of Neuroscience, University Laboratory of Physiology, University of Oxford. I am grateful to Lee Perry of the Woodward Biomedical Library for help and permission to quote. The Cushing Papers and Fulton Papers, Historical Library, Cushing/Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, include letters from Sherrington. I am grateful to Toby Appel for help and permission to quote. It is stated that Sherrington assembled twenty thousand offprints of scientific papers, catalogued by author and subject, in 1957 housed in the Instituto Vénézolane de Neurologica e Investigationes Cerebrales in Caracas. This collection, the existence of which I have not confirmed, would explain the extensive referencing in Sherrington's scientific work. See H. M. S., 'Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, O.M., G.B.E., F.R.S. 185-1952', House of Dawson (June 1957), 6-7.
41. Lord Cohen of Birkenhead (op. cit. (3)) wrote as professor of medicine at the University of Liverpool, where Sherrington held the Chair of physiology (1895-1913); Granit (op. cit. (1)) was a Swedish collaborator with Sherrington towards the end of the latter's Oxford period, and he was subsequently director of the Nobel Institute of Neurophysiology in Stockholm; Eccles and Gibson (op. cit. (8)) were students and collaborators, also during the Oxford period, and they were later teachers and researchers, Eccles in Dunedin and Canberra and Gibson in Vancouver. For a summary of Eccles's view of Sherrington's relation to knowledge of the synapse, see John C. Eccles, 'Developing concepts of the synapses', Journal of Neuroscience (1990), 10, 3769-81. Liddell, Sherrington's first demonstrator after the First World War and later a holder of the same Chair, wrote a history (op. cit. (2)) of the reflex, culminating with Sherrington. The only seriously historical study is Judith P. Swazey, Reflexes and Motor Integration : Sherrington's Concept of Integrative Action, Cambridge, MA, 1969, which I have found invaluable, especially for the research up to 1906. See also Judith P. Swazey, 'Sherrington's concept of integrative action', Journal of the History of Biology (1968), 1, 57-89. The 1957 centenary of Sherrington's birth also produced assessments: Cohen of Birkenhead, op. cit. (3); D. Denny-Brown, 'The Sherrington school of physiology', Journal of Neurophysiology (1957), 20, 543-8; John C. Eccles, 'Some aspects of Sherrington's contribution to neurophysiology', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1957), 12, 216-25; Wilder Penfield, 'Charles Sherrington, poet and philosopher', Brain (1957), 80, 402-10. Gibson established a 'Sherrington Room' in the Woodward Biomedical Library of the University of British Columbia in which he collected memorabilia, letters and published material. The warmth of the relationships Sherrington established with younger collaborators, all men, is conspicuous. This warmth extended to wives and family. In Oxford, Sherrington and his wife ('Lady Sherrie') held Sunday teas which inspired and brought comfort to younger visitors. Gibson assembled in Vancouver xerox copies of correspondence to and from Sherrington and a variety of notebooks, scrapbooks and reviews. It is, however, very incomplete. This incompleteness is even more obvious in the file of material (partially, and idiosyncratically, catalogued by theme, and much of it copies of letters held in Vancouver, but including obituaries) in the Sherrington Library for the History of Neuroscience, University Laboratory of Physiology, University of Oxford. I am grateful to Lee Perry of the Woodward Biomedical Library for help and permission to quote. The Cushing Papers and Fulton Papers, Historical Library, Cushing/Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, include letters from Sherrington. I am grateful to Toby Appel for help and permission to quote. It is stated that Sherrington assembled twenty thousand offprints of scientific papers, catalogued by author and subject, in 1957 housed in the Instituto Vénézolane de Neurologica e Investigationes Cerebrales in Caracas. This collection, the existence of which I have not confirmed, would explain the extensive referencing in Sherrington's scientific work. See H. M. S., 'Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, O.M., G.B.E., F.R.S. 185-1952', House of Dawson (June 1957), 6-7.
42. Lord Cohen of Birkenhead (op. cit. (3)) wrote as professor of medicine at the University of Liverpool, where Sherrington held the Chair of physiology (1895-1913); Granit (op. cit. (1)) was a Swedish collaborator with Sherrington towards the end of the latter's Oxford period, and he was subsequently director of the Nobel Institute of Neurophysiology in Stockholm; Eccles and Gibson (op. cit. (8)) were students and collaborators, also during the Oxford period, and they were later teachers and researchers, Eccles in Dunedin and Canberra and Gibson in Vancouver. For a summary of Eccles's view of Sherrington's relation to knowledge of the synapse, see John C. Eccles, 'Developing concepts of the synapses', Journal of Neuroscience (1990), 10, 3769-81. Liddell, Sherrington's first demonstrator after the First World War and later a holder of the same Chair, wrote a history (op. cit. (2)) of the reflex, culminating with Sherrington. The only seriously historical study is Judith P. Swazey, Reflexes and Motor Integration : Sherrington's Concept of Integrative Action, Cambridge, MA, 1969, which I have found invaluable, especially for the research up to 1906. See also Judith P. Swazey, 'Sherrington's concept of integrative action', Journal of the History of Biology (1968), 1, 57-89. The 1957 centenary of Sherrington's birth also produced assessments: Cohen of Birkenhead, op. cit. (3); D. Denny-Brown, 'The Sherrington school of physiology', Journal of Neurophysiology (1957), 20, 543-8; John C. Eccles, 'Some aspects of Sherrington's contribution to neurophysiology', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1957), 12, 216-25; Wilder Penfield, 'Charles Sherrington, poet and philosopher', Brain (1957), 80, 402-10. Gibson established a 'Sherrington Room' in the Woodward Biomedical Library of the University of British Columbia in which he collected memorabilia, letters and published material. The warmth of the relationships Sherrington established with younger collaborators, all men, is conspicuous. This warmth extended to wives and family. In Oxford, Sherrington and his wife ('Lady Sherrie') held Sunday teas which inspired and brought comfort to younger visitors. Gibson assembled in Vancouver xerox copies of correspondence to and from Sherrington and a variety of notebooks, scrapbooks and reviews. It is, however, very incomplete. This incompleteness is even more obvious in the file of material (partially, and idiosyncratically, catalogued by theme, and much of it copies of letters held in Vancouver, but including obituaries) in the Sherrington Library for the History of Neuroscience, University Laboratory of Physiology, University of Oxford. I am grateful to Lee Perry of the Woodward Biomedical Library for help and permission to quote. The Cushing Papers and Fulton Papers, Historical Library, Cushing/Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, include letters from Sherrington. I am grateful to Toby Appel for help and permission to quote. It is stated that Sherrington assembled twenty thousand offprints of scientific papers, catalogued by author and subject, in 1957 housed in the Instituto Vénézolane de Neurologica e Investigationes Cerebrales in Caracas. This collection, the existence of which I have not confirmed, would explain the extensive referencing in Sherrington's scientific work. See H. M. S., 'Sir Charles Scott Sherrington, O.M., G.B.E., F.R.S. 185-1952', House of Dawson (June 1957), 6-7.
43. Lord Cohen of Birkenhead (op. cit. (3)) wrote as professor of medicine at the University of Liverpool, where Sherrington held the Chair of physiology (1895-1913); Granit (op. cit. (1)) was a Swedish collaborator with Sherrington towards the end of the latter's Oxford period, and he was subsequently director of the Nobel Institute of Neurophysiology in Stockholm; Eccles and Gibson (op. cit. (8)) were students and collaborators, also during the Oxford period, and they were later teachers and researchers, Eccles in Dunedin and Canberra and Gibson in Vancouver. For a summary of Eccles's view of Sherrington's relation to knowledge of the synapse, see John C. Eccles, 'Developing concepts of the synapses', Journal of Neuroscience (1990), 10, 3769-81. Liddell, Sherrington's first demonstrator after the First World War and later a holder of the same Chair, wrote a history (op. cit. (2)) of the reflex, culminating with Sherrington. The only seriously historical study is Judith P. Swazey, Reflexes and Motor Integration : Sherrington's Concept of Integrative Action, Cambridge, MA, 1969, which I have found invaluable, especially for the research up to 1906. See also Judith P. Swazey, 'Sherrington's concept of integrative action', Journal of the History of Biology (1968), 1, 57-89. The 1957 centenary of Sherrington's birth also produced assessments: Cohen of Birkenhead, op. cit. (3); D. Denny-Brown, 'The Sherrington school of physiology', Journal of Neurophysiology (1957), 20, 543-8; John C. Eccles, 'Some aspects of Sherrington's contribution to neurophysiology', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1957), 12, 216-25; Wilder Penfield, 'Charles Sherrington, poet and philosopher', Brain (1957), 80, 402-10. Gibson established a 'Sherrington Room' in the Woodward Biomedical Library of the University of British Columbia in which he collected memorabilia, letters and published material. The warmth of the relationships Sherrington established with younger collaborators, all men, is conspicuous. This warmth extended to wives and family. In Oxford, Sherrington and his wife ('Lady Sherrie') held Sunday teas which inspired and brought comfort to younger visitors. Gibson assembled in Vancouver xerox copies of correspondence to and from Sherrington and a variety of notebooks, scrapbooks and reviews. It is, however, very incomplete. This incompleteness is even more obvious in the file of material (partially, and idiosyncratically, catalogued by theme, and much of it copies of letters held in Vancouver, but including obituaries) in the Sherrington Library for the History of Neuroscience, University Laboratory of Physiology, University of Oxford. I am grateful to Lee
44. This is a judgement difficult to defend in a short space and without a biography. It is indeed necessary to be wary of the continuity implicated in the very nature of writing the narrative of a life. Sherrington's scientific research was certainly continuous. His personal life, though taking different paths at the beginning - his first permanent position came only when he was in his thirties - settled down after his appointment (1891) as physician-superintendent to the Brown Institution, University of London and after his marriage. He followed and responded to external events with a concerned eye but those events did not disrupt his pattern of life or thought.
45. See K. J. Franklin, 'A short history of the International Congresses of Physiology', Annals of Science (1939), 3, 241-335. Mrs Sherrington compiled a scrapbook of the congresses. Woodward Biomedical Library, II.B.1.
46. To do justice to this administrative activity would require another paper. There are no systematic records at the Royal Society, apart from the Council Minutes, of Sherrington's presidency. The Royal Society holds a number of letters and his reports as a referee. His attitude to Germany and role in accepting German scientists as participants in international scientific activity after 1918 is of interest. He had spent significant periods of time in Germany (especially from 1884 to 1887), with Friedrich Goltz in Strassburg, but also in Berlin. He spoke German. But his response to war in 1914 was deeply patriotic and anti-German, and as an Oxford don he saw students and the sons of colleagues decimated on the western front. It is reported that when Sherrington arrived in Oxford, he expected to have a class of ninety students; in October 1914 he had seven (four women). Cohen of Birkenhead, op. cit. (3), 11. His own young son, Carr Sherrington, was called up in late 1915, aged 18, but survived - one surmises because severe illness kept him from active service for many months. The war led to a change in the son's name from Carl to Carr: occasional references to the son in earlier letters refer to Carl, e.g. Sherrington to Cushing, 9 December 1910, Cushing Papers, C-87. On the response of British academics (though not scientists) to war, see Stuart Wallace, War and the Image of Germany: British Academics 1914-1918, Edinburgh, 1988. As president, Sherrington also gave the Royal Society's Anniversary Addresses.
47. On the MRC, see Joan Austoker and Linda Bryden (eds.), Historical Perspectives on the Role of the MRC, Oxford, 1989.
48. He chaired the BAAS Committee appointed to inquire into 'the conditions of health essential to the carrying on of the work of instruction in schools'. British Association for the Advancement of Science Reports (1903), 483-96, (1904), 455-64, (1905), 348-52, (1907), 433-8, (1908), 421-2, (1909), 458-63. He also contributed chapters on physiology to a new edition of a manual: Edgar W. Hope, Edgar A. Browne and C. S. Sherrington, A Manual of School Hygiene, 2nd edn., Cambridge, 1913. While professor in Liverpool, he gave lectures to teachers, e.g. : [Report of lecture to teachers on 'fatigue'], British Medical Journal (1902), ii, 1371. While Fullerian Professor of Physiology at the Royal Institution (1914-17), he joined a committee on industrial fatigue, later expanded into the Industrial Fatigue Research Board, of which he was the first chairman. See Helen Jones, 'Industrial health research under the MRC', in Austoker and Bryder, op. cit. (17), 137-61; and for his shop-floor experience, see H. M. Sinclair, 'Sherrington and industrial fatigue', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1984), 39, 91-104. As president of the Royal Society, he supported applied psychology and the National Institute of Industrial Psychology established by C. S. Myers. See notice in Nature (1923), 111, 439; L. S. Hearnshaw, A Short History of British Psychology 1840-1940, London, 1964, 347-8.
49. He chaired the BAAS Committee appointed to inquire into 'the conditions of health essential to the carrying on of the work of instruction in schools'. British Association for the Advancement of Science Reports (1903), 483-96, (1904), 455-64, (1905), 348-52, (1907), 433-8, (1908), 421-2, (1909), 458-63. He also contributed chapters on physiology to a new edition of a manual: Edgar W. Hope, Edgar A. Browne and C. S. Sherrington, A Manual of School Hygiene, 2nd edn., Cambridge, 1913. While professor in Liverpool, he gave lectures to teachers, e.g. : [Report of lecture to teachers on 'fatigue'], British Medical Journal (1902), ii, 1371. While Fullerian Professor of Physiology at the Royal Institution (1914-17), he joined a committee on industrial fatigue, later expanded into the Industrial Fatigue Research Board, of which he was the first chairman. See Helen Jones, 'Industrial health research under the MRC', in Austoker and Bryder, op. cit. (17), 137-61; and for his shop-floor experience, see H. M. Sinclair, 'Sherrington and industrial fatigue', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1984), 39, 91-104. As president of the Royal Society, he supported applied psychology and the National Institute of Industrial Psychology established by C. S. Myers. See notice in Nature (1923), 111, 439; L. S. Hearnshaw, A Short History of British Psychology 1840-1940, London, 1964, 347-8.
50. He chaired the BAAS Committee appointed to inquire into 'the conditions of health essential to the carrying on of the work of instruction in schools'. British Association for the Advancement of Science Reports (1903), 483-96, (1904), 455-64, (1905), 348-52, (1907), 433-8, (1908), 421-2, (1909), 458-63. He also contributed chapters on physiology to a new edition of a manual: Edgar W. Hope, Edgar A. Browne and C. S. Sherrington, A Manual of School Hygiene, 2nd edn., Cambridge, 1913. While professor in Liverpool, he gave lectures to teachers, e.g. : [Report of lecture to teachers on 'fatigue'], British Medical Journal (1902), ii, 1371. While Fullerian Professor of Physiology at the Royal Institution (1914-17), he joined a committee on industrial fatigue, later expanded into the Industrial Fatigue Research Board, of which he was the first chairman. See Helen Jones, 'Industrial health research under the MRC', in Austoker and Bryder, op. cit. (17), 137-61; and for his shop-floor experience, see H. M. Sinclair, 'Sherrington and industrial fatigue', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1984), 39, 91-104. As president of the Royal Society, he supported applied psychology and the National Institute of Industrial Psychology established by C. S. Myers. See notice in Nature (1923), 111, 439; L. S. Hearnshaw, A Short History of British Psychology 1840-1940, London, 1964, 347-8.
51. He chaired the BAAS Committee appointed to inquire into 'the conditions of health essential to the carrying on of the work of instruction in schools'. British Association for the Advancement of Science Reports (1903), 483-96, (1904), 455-64, (1905), 348-52, (1907), 433-8, (1908), 421-2, (1909), 458-63. He also contributed chapters on physiology to a new edition of a manual: Edgar W. Hope, Edgar A. Browne and C. S. Sherrington, A Manual of School Hygiene, 2nd edn., Cambridge, 1913. While professor in Liverpool, he gave lectures to teachers, e.g. : [Report of lecture to teachers on 'fatigue'], British Medical Journal (1902), ii, 1371. While Fullerian Professor of Physiology at the Royal Institution (1914-17), he joined a committee on industrial fatigue, later expanded into the Industrial Fatigue Research Board, of which he was the first chairman. See Helen Jones, 'Industrial health research under the MRC', in Austoker and Bryder, op. cit. (17), 137-61; and for his shop-floor experience, see H. M. Sinclair, 'Sherrington and industrial fatigue', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1984), 39, 91-104. As president of the Royal Society, he supported applied psychology and the National Institute of Industrial Psychology established by C. S. Myers. See notice in Nature (1923), 111, 439; L. S. Hearnshaw, A Short History of British Psychology 1840-1940, London, 1964, 347-8.
52. He chaired the BAAS Committee appointed to inquire into 'the conditions of health essential to the carrying on of the work of instruction in schools'. British Association for the Advancement of Science Reports (1903), 483-96, (1904), 455-64, (1905), 348-52, (1907), 433-8, (1908), 421-2, (1909), 458-63. He also contributed chapters on physiology to a new edition of a manual: Edgar W. Hope, Edgar A. Browne and C. S. Sherrington, A Manual of School Hygiene, 2nd edn., Cambridge, 1913. While professor in Liverpool, he gave lectures to teachers, e.g. : [Report of lecture to teachers on 'fatigue'], British Medical Journal (1902), ii, 1371. While Fullerian Professor of Physiology at the Royal Institution (1914-17), he joined a committee on industrial fatigue, later expanded into the Industrial Fatigue Research Board, of which he was the first chairman. See Helen Jones, 'Industrial health research under the MRC', in Austoker and Bryder, op. cit. (17), 137-61; and for his shop-floor experience, see H. M. Sinclair, 'Sherrington and industrial fatigue', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1984), 39, 91-104. As president of the Royal Society, he supported applied psychology and the National Institute of Industrial Psychology established by C. S. Myers. See notice in Nature (1923), 111, 439; L. S. Hearnshaw, A Short History of British Psychology 1840-1940, London, 1964, 347-8.
53. He chaired the BAAS Committee appointed to inquire into 'the conditions of health essential to the carrying on of the work of instruction in schools'. British Association for the Advancement of Science Reports (1903), 483-96, (1904), 455-64, (1905), 348-52, (1907), 433-8, (1908), 421-2, (1909), 458-63. He also contributed chapters on physiology to a new edition of a manual: Edgar W. Hope, Edgar A. Browne and C. S. Sherrington, A Manual of School Hygiene, 2nd edn., Cambridge, 1913. While professor in Liverpool, he gave lectures to teachers, e.g. : [Report of lecture to teachers on 'fatigue'], British Medical Journal (1902), ii, 1371. While Fullerian Professor of Physiology at the Royal Institution (1914-17), he joined a committee on industrial fatigue, later expanded into the Industrial Fatigue Research Board, of which he was the first chairman. See Helen Jones, 'Industrial health research under the MRC', in Austoker and Bryder, op. cit. (17), 137-61; and for his shop-floor experience, see H. M. Sinclair, 'Sherrington and industrial fatigue', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1984), 39, 91-104. As president of the Royal Society, he supported applied psychology and the National Institute of Industrial Psychology established by C. S. Myers. See notice in Nature (1923), 111, 439; L. S. Hearnshaw, A Short History of British Psychology 1840-1940, London, 1964, 347-8.
54. He chaired the BAAS Committee appointed to inquire into 'the conditions of health essential to the carrying on of the work of instruction in schools'. British Association for the Advancement of Science Reports (1903), 483-96, (1904), 455-64, (1905), 348-52, (1907), 433-8, (1908), 421-2, (1909), 458-63. He also contributed chapters on physiology to a new edition of a manual: Edgar W. Hope, Edgar A. Browne and C. S. Sherrington, A Manual of School Hygiene, 2nd edn., Cambridge, 1913. While professor in Liverpool, he gave lectures to teachers, e.g. : [Report of lecture to teachers on 'fatigue'], British Medical Journal (1902), ii, 1371. While Fullerian Professor of Physiology at the Royal Institution (1914-17), he joined a committee on industrial fatigue, later expanded into the Industrial Fatigue Research Board, of which he was the first chairman. See Helen Jones, 'Industrial health research under the MRC', in Austoker and Bryder, op. cit. (17), 137-61; and for his shop-floor experience, see H. M. Sinclair, 'Sherrington and industrial fatigue', Notes and Records of the Royal Society (1984), 39, 91-104. As president of the Royal Society, he supported applied psychology and the National Institute of Industrial Psychology established by C. S. Myers. See notice in Nature (1923), 111, 439; L. S. Hearnshaw, A Short History of British Psychology 1840-1940, London, 1964, 347-8.
55. Swazey (Reflexes, op. cit. (13), 2) cites a colleague of Sherrington's who described him as 'ridiculously unassuming'. See also Sherrington's reference to himself (Man on His Nature, (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 228 and 232) as 'the man in the street' in relation to mind and brain.
56. Swazey (Reflexes, op. cit. (13), 2) cites a colleague of Sherrington's who described him as 'ridiculously unassuming'. See also Sherrington's reference to himself (Man on His Nature, (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 228 and 232) as 'the man in the street' in relation to mind and brain.
57. Gerald L. Geison, 'Social and institutional factors in the stagnancy of English physiology, 1840-1870', Bulletin of the History of Medicine (1972), 46, 30-58; Richard D. French, 'Some problems and sources in the foundations of modern physiology in Great Britain', History of Science (1971), 10, 28-55; S. V. F. Butler, 'Centers and peripheries: the development of British physiology, 1870-1914', Journal of the History of Biology (1988), 21, 473-500; W. J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885, Manchester, 1988;
58. Gerald L. Geison, 'Social and institutional factors in the stagnancy of English physiology, 1840-1870', Bulletin of the History of Medicine (1972), 46, 30-58; Richard D. French, 'Some problems and sources in the foundations of modern physiology in Great Britain', History of Science (1971), 10, 28-55; S. V. F. Butler, 'Centers and peripheries: the development of British physiology, 1870-1914', Journal of the History of Biology (1988), 21, 473-500; W. J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885, Manchester, 1988;
59. Gerald L. Geison, 'Social and institutional factors in the stagnancy of English physiology, 1840-1870', Bulletin of the History of Medicine (1972), 46, 30-58; Richard D. French, 'Some problems and sources in the foundations of modern physiology in Great Britain', History of Science (1971), 10, 28-55; S. V. F. Butler, 'Centers and peripheries: the development of British physiology, 1870-1914', Journal of the History of Biology (1988), 21, 473-500; W. J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885, Manchester, 1988;
60. Gerald L. Geison, 'Social and institutional factors in the stagnancy of English physiology, 1840-1870', Bulletin of the History of Medicine (1972), 46, 30-58; Richard D. French, 'Some problems and sources in the foundations of modern physiology in Great Britain', History of Science (1971), 10, 28-55; S. V. F. Butler, 'Centers and peripheries: the development of British physiology, 1870-1914', Journal of the History of Biology (1988), 21, 473-500; W. J. O'Connor, Founders of British Physiology: A Biographical Dictionary, 1820-1885, Manchester, 1988;
61. idem, British Physiologists 1885-1914, Manchester, 1991.
62. On the general organization of science, see D. S. L. Cardwell, The Organization of Science in England, revised edn., London, 1972;
63. F. M. Turner, Contesting Cultural Authority: Essays in Victorian Intellectual Life, Cambridge, 1993, Chapter 8.
64. Gerald Geison, Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of Physiology: The Scientific Enterprise in Late Victorian Society, Princeton, 1978.
65. In addition to Swazey, Reflexes, op. cit. (13), for factual details of Sherrington's early career, see [Sherrington], Letter of Application for the Waynflete Professorship of Physiology, University of Oxford [Privately published, 1895], Royal Society MS 764-2.
66. Reported in John F. Fulton, Harvey Cushing: A Biography, Springfield, IL, 1946, 606-7.
67. The locus classicus is Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy (first published in book form 1869), (ed. J. Dover Wilson), Cambridge, 1966. The debates are placed in wide perspective in Raymond Williams, Culture and Society 1780-1850, Harmondsworth, 1963, and idem, The Long Revolution, Harmondsworth, 1965.
68. The locus classicus is Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy (first published in book form 1869), (ed. J. Dover Wilson), Cambridge, 1966. The debates are placed in wide perspective in Raymond Williams, Culture and Society 1780-1850, Harmondsworth, 1963, and idem, The Long Revolution, Harmondsworth, 1965.
69. The locus classicus is Matthew Arnold, Culture and Anarchy (first published in book form 1869), (ed. J. Dover Wilson), Cambridge, 1966. The debates are placed in wide perspective in Raymond Williams, Culture and Society 1780-1850, Harmondsworth, 1963, and idem, The Long Revolution, Harmondsworth, 1965.
70. F. M. Turner, Between Science and Religion: The Reaction to Scientific Naturalism in Late Victorian England, New Haven, 1974, and idem, op. cit. (20) ; T. W. Heyck, The Transformation of Intellectual Life in Victorian England, London, 1982.
71. F. M. Turner, Between Science and Religion: The Reaction to Scientific Naturalism in Late Victorian England, New Haven, 1974, and idem, op. cit. (20) ; T. W. Heyck, The Transformation of Intellectual Life in Victorian England, London, 1982.
72. F. M. Turner, Between Science and Religion: The Reaction to Scientific Naturalism in Late Victorian England, New Haven, 1974, and idem, op. cit. (20) ; T. W. Heyck, The Transformation of Intellectual Life in Victorian England, London, 1982.
73. Anna-Katherina Meyer, 'Moralizing science: the uses of science's past in national education in the 1920s', BJHS (1997), 30, 51-70.
74. Placed in intellectual context in Wolf Lepenies, Between Literature and Science: The Rise of Sociology, (tr. R. J. Hollingdale), Cambridge, 1988.
75. E.g. the sarcastic comment made by E. A. Bennett, a Fellow of Gonville and Cains College (Sherrington's college as a Cambridge student), in a letter about Shelley to Sherrington, 31 July 1946 (Woodward Biomedical Library, 1.2. [23]): Caius is full of physicists 'who are doubtless concerned in devising new methods of destroying the world as quickly as possible!' Sherrington's predecessor in the Gifford Lectures, W. Macneile Dixon (a last-minute replacement for Emile Meyerson, who died) wrote, 'These notable victories of the mind [i.e. science], from which so much was hoped, have had for result not so much increased happiness as disquiet, have made for dejection rather than rejoicing', and 'the failure of science, as anyone can see, is its failure to minister to the needs of the soul', The Human Situation, London, 1937, 34 and 36.
76. See Christopher Lawrence and George Weisz (eds.), Greater than the Parts: Holism in Twentieth-Century Western Biomedicine, Oxford, 1998, especially Christopher Lawrence's 'Still incommunicable: classical holists and medical knowledge in interwar Britain', 94-111;
77. Paolo Palladino, 'Writing histories for life: between the existential struggles of the surgeon and the historian', forthcoming.
78. Terrie M. Romano, 'Gentlemanly versus scientific ideals: John Burdon Sanderson, medical education, and the failure of the Oxford school of physiology', Bulletin of the History of Medicine (1997), 71, 224-48. For the medical school later, see Charles Webster, 'Medicine', in The History of the University of Oxford (ed. Brian Harrison), Oxford, 1994, 317-43.
79. Terrie M. Romano, 'Gentlemanly versus scientific ideals: John Burdon Sanderson, medical education, and the failure of the Oxford school of physiology', Bulletin of the History of Medicine (1997), 71, 224-48. For the medical school later, see Charles Webster, 'Medicine', in The History of the University of Oxford (ed. Brian Harrison), Oxford, 1994, 317-43.
80. Jack Morrell stresses Sherrington's importance as an advocate of 'pure science' in the university. Morrell, op. cit. (9), 164-81.
81. Harvey Cushing, The Life of Sir William Osler (reprinted in one volume, with Foreword by J. F. Fulton and W. W. Francis), London, 1940.
82. C. S. Sherrington [contributor], 'A discussion of the scientific education of the medical student', British Medical Journal (1908), ii, 374-82, 380.
83. C. S. Sherrington, 'An address on the provincial school of medicine and the provincial university', British Medical Journal (1913), ii, 845. See also 'An address on science and medicine in the modern university', British Medical Journal (1903), ii, 1193-6, 1194.
84. C. S. Sherrington, 'An address on the provincial school of medicine and the provincial university', British Medical Journal (1913), ii, 845. See also 'An address on science and medicine in the modern university', British Medical Journal (1903), ii, 1193-6, 1194.
85. Sherrington, 'William Harvey celebration: reception of the delegates, Royal College of Physicians, London', typescript, 1928, Royal Society Tracts, RS 1.17; published version: 'Eulogy of Harvey. The Harvey Tercentenary Celebrations, Royal College of Physicians, May 14, 1928', British Medical Journal (1928), i, 866-8.
86. Sherrington, 'William Harvey celebration: reception of the delegates, Royal College of Physicians, London', typescript, 1928, Royal Society Tracts, RS 1.17; published version: 'Eulogy of Harvey. The Harvey Tercentenary Celebrations, Royal College of Physicians, May 14, 1928', British Medical Journal (1928), i, 866-8.
87. C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures (first published 1959), Cambridge, 1993; James Patrick, The Magdalen Metaphysicals: Idealism and Orthodoxy at Oxford 1901-1945, [Macon, GA], 1985. Patrick's book, however, gives little hint of the relations between 'the metaphysicals' and other members of the college. I found no significant reference to Sherrington's relations with the college, and perhaps - given his many other commitments and the time he spent every week in London - Sherrington had little contact with college life. There is no suggestion, for example, that Sherrington read Collingwood.
88. C. P. Snow, The Two Cultures (first published 1959), Cambridge, 1993; James Patrick, The Magdalen Metaphysicals: Idealism and Orthodoxy at Oxford 1901-1945, [Macon, GA], 1985. Patrick's book, however, gives little hint of the relations between 'the metaphysicals' and other members of the college. I found no significant reference to Sherrington's relations with the college, and perhaps - given his many other commitments and the time he spent every week in London - Sherrington had little contact with college life. There is no suggestion, for example, that Sherrington read Collingwood.
89. As told in Cohen of Birkenhead, op. cit. (3), 65; emphases added.
90. M. F. Ashley-Montagu, [Review of Man on His Nature], Isis (1941), 33, 544-5, 544. Chauncey D. Leake, in 'Recent books on the history of medicine', Science (1941), 93, 424-7, 426, described Man on His Nature as an 'awesome tapestry of philosophy' and concluded that Sherrington showed that 'man's values for truth may be supplied by natural science, but for values in beauty and goodness man still relies on natural religion, which also values truth'.
91. M. F. Ashley-Montagu, [Review of Man on His Nature], Isis (1941), 33, 544-5, 544. Chauncey D. Leake, in 'Recent books on the history of medicine', Science (1941), 93, 424-7, 426, described Man on His Nature as an 'awesome tapestry of philosophy' and concluded that Sherrington showed that 'man's values for truth may be supplied by natural science, but for values in beauty and goodness man still relies on natural religion, which also values truth'.
92. I plan to discuss this further in another paper. Ashley-Montagu's beliefs were close to those of Julian Huxley, who advocated 'Humanism' as a comprehensive belief system for modern people unable to reconcile reason and religion. See, for example, Julian Huxley (ed.), The Humanist Frame, New York, 1961. In using the word 'humanism' in connection with Sherrington, however, I imply no judgement that his world view was anti-Christian (as it clearly was for many self-styled humanists).
93. George Sarton, The History of Science and the New Humanism, Cambridge, MA, 1937.
94. Sarton wrote (ibid., 54): 'The most ominous conflict of our time is the difference of opinion, of outlook, between men of letters, historians, philosophers, the so-called humanists, on the one side, and scientists on the other.' See Arnold Thackray, 'The pre-history of an academic discipline: the study of the history of science in the United States, 1891-1941', in Everett Mendelsohn (ed.), Transformation and Tradition in the Sciences: Essays in Honor of I. Bernard Cohen, Cambridge, 1984, 395-420.
95. Sherrington's close correspondent, Fulton, shared much of Sarton's outlook and supported research and teaching in the history of science and medicine in order to underwrite the humanist values of these occupations. John Farquhar Fulton, Humanism in an Age of Science, New York, 1950.
96. C. S. Sherrington, 'Marginalia', in Science, Medicine and History: Essays on the Evolution of Scientific Thought and Medical Practice Written in Honour of Charles Singer (ed. E. A. Underwood), 2 vols., Oxford, 1954, ii, 545-53 ;
97. these notes are about his boyhood. Charles Singer, 'The role of the history of science' (first published 1948), reprinted in BJHS (1997), 30, 71-3, 71.
98. See G. Cantor, 'Charles Singer and the early years of the British Society for the History of Science', BJHS (1997), 30, 5-23.
99. Gary Werskey, The Visible College, London, 1978. Werskey says little about 'establishment' science where I locate Sherrington. Joseph Needham, a member of the 'Visible College', reviewed Man on His Nature and paid it a generous tribute: 'It is...[the book] of an old man wise and fearless, from whom life has taken away illusions but left no cynicism, and to whom physiology has given freedom from sentimentality without destroying sympathy'. 'Man's world', The Spectator (27 December 1940), 703.
100. Gary Werskey, The Visible College, London, 1978. Werskey says little about 'establishment' science where I locate Sherrington. Joseph Needham, a member of the 'Visible College', reviewed Man on His Nature and paid it a generous tribute: 'It is...[the book] of an old man wise and fearless, from whom life has taken away illusions but left no cynicism, and to whom physiology has given freedom from sentimentality without destroying sympathy'. 'Man's world', The Spectator (27 December 1940), 703.
101. Sherrington, letter to Fulton, 26 January 1934, Fulton Papers, F-9. To his daughter-in-law, Margaret Sherrington, he wrote about current English, 'But it behoves us to look well at it; thus having lost so many inflexions it is more difficult than ever for condensed lucidity'. 2 October 1929, Woodward Biomedical Library, I.1.iii.
102. Any discussion of Sherrington's politics must be inferential. Almost nowhere in private, let alone in public, did he make a statement that could be construed as party political. But see Sherrington, letter to Fulton, 12 May 1926, on the General Strike: 'it began largely in ignorance by the strikers (even by their leaders for the most part) of the serious step they were entering on. Now I hope they are wiser'; Fulton Papers, F-8. My judgement is based on reading the correspondence and published work. Thus, for example in his lecture on Goethe there is a most unusual passage - unusual for Sherrington because of its overt moralism - which criticizes Goethe for spoiling his genetic inheritance by having children with the woman he chose. Charles Sherrington, Goethe on Nature 6~ on Science, 2nd edn., Cambridge, 1949, 31-3. (The second edition of the lecture amended and extended the version published in 1942.) Compare Sherrington, letter to Eccles, 18 November 1945, after the birth of Eccles's eighth child: 'Our "Eugenics Society" could award you its Gallon medal.' Woodward Biomedical Library, 1.1.i. The social import of Sherrington's frequent use of classical allusions is well suggested by Gillian Beer, 'Parable, professionalization, and literary allusion in Victorian scientific writing', in her Open fields: Science in Cultural Encounter, Oxford, 1996, 196-215, 210: First, such reference breathes effortless (and perhaps helpless) class and gender claims : it makes an appeal to the cohesion of those who have shared an education. Further, classical allusion establishes the accretive and benign power of scientific enquiry, emphasizing its continuity with the past. Classical reference and quotation serve to place the current scientific text close to the ancient philosophers and poets, then still at the authoritative centre of the written culture. Such cross-reference presents not only a professional but a human spaciousness.
103. Any discussion of Sherrington's politics must be inferential. Almost nowhere in private, let alone in public, did he make a statement that could be construed as party political. But see Sherrington, letter to Fulton, 12 May 1926, on the General Strike: 'it began largely in ignorance by the strikers (even by their leaders for the most part) of the serious step they were entering on. Now I hope they are wiser'; Fulton Papers, F-8. My judgement is based on reading the correspondence and published work. Thus, for example in his lecture on Goethe there is a most unusual passage - unusual for Sherrington because of its overt moralism - which criticizes Goethe for spoiling his genetic inheritance by having children with the woman he chose. Charles Sherrington, Goethe on Nature 6~ on Science, 2nd edn., Cambridge, 1949, 31-3. (The second edition of the lecture amended and extended the version published in 1942.) Compare Sherrington, letter to Eccles, 18 November 1945, after the birth of Eccles's eighth child: 'Our "Eugenics Society" could award you its Gallon medal.' Woodward Biomedical Library, 1.1.i. The social import of Sherrington's frequent use of classical allusions is well suggested by Gillian Beer, 'Parable, professionalization, and literary allusion in Victorian scientific writing', in her Open fields: Science in Cultural Encounter, Oxford, 1996, 196-215, 210: First, such reference breathes effortless (and perhaps helpless) class and gender claims : it makes an appeal to the cohesion of those who have shared an education. Further, classical allusion establishes the accretive and benign power of scientific enquiry, emphasizing its continuity with the past. Classical reference and quotation serve to place the current scientific text close to the ancient philosophers and poets, then still at the authoritative centre of the written culture. Such cross-reference presents not only a professional but a human spaciousness.
104. See Roger Smith, 'Physiology and psychology, or brain and mind, in the age of C. S. Sherrington', in A History of British Psychology in the Twentieth Century (ed. Geoff Bunn, A. D. Lovie and Graham Richards), Leicester, forthcoming.
105. Lashley, letter to John B. Watson, 27 October 1955, quoted in Nadine Weidman, Constructing Scientific Psychology: Karl Lashley's Mind-Brain Debate, Cambridge, 1999, 171. The three other people similarly castigated by Lashley - Penfield, F. A. Walshe and Eccles - had all been associates of Sherrington. By the end of the 1930s, owing in part to the impact of Lashley's own research, some scientists thought that 'the classical Sherringtonian model of central nervous integration' was simplistic, that some model other than that of linear neuron connections had to be found in order to explain brain action. This conclusion followed from the collapse of hopes in the United States that pathways might be mapped to explain conditioned reflexes, and hence the basis of learning and memory. See Roger W. Sperry, 'In search of psyche', in Worden, Swazey and Adelman, op. cit. (2), 424-34, 425-7.
106. Lashley, letter to John B. Watson, 27 October 1955, quoted in Nadine Weidman, Constructing Scientific Psychology: Karl Lashley's Mind-Brain Debate, Cambridge, 1999, 171. The three other people similarly castigated by Lashley - Penfield, F. A. Walshe and Eccles - had all been associates of Sherrington. By the end of the 1930s, owing in part to the impact of Lashley's own research, some scientists thought that 'the classical Sherringtonian model of central nervous integration' was simplistic, that some model other than that of linear neuron connections had to be found in order to explain brain action. This conclusion followed from the collapse of hopes in the United States that pathways might be mapped to explain conditioned reflexes, and hence the basis of learning and memory. See Roger W. Sperry, 'In search of psyche', in Worden, Swazey and Adelman, op. cit. (2), 424-34, 425-7.
107. Eccles, letter to Sherrington, 2 May 1951, Woodward Biomedical Library, I.1.i. For the offending lecture, see John Carew Eccles, The Neurophysiological Basis of Mind: The Principles of Neurophysiology, Oxford, 1953, last chapter.
108. W. Russell Brain, Mind, Perception and Science, Oxford, 1951.
109. Quoted in Horace W. Magoun, 'Development of brain research institutes', in Frontiers in Brain Research (ed. John D. French), New York, 1962, 1-40, 17.
110. John C. Eccles, 'Under the spell of synapse', in Worden, Swazey and Adelman, op. cit. (2), 158-79, 160.
111. Letters to and from Eccles, Woodward Biomedical Library, I.1.i. These are particularly rich for the last years of Sherrington's life, which Sherrington spent in a Catholic nursing home as he suffered severely from rheumatoid arthritis. Letters to Fulton, Fulton Papers, F-8 and F-9.
112. This suggests that it might be possible to claim that Sherrington's science exhibited a distinctive 'conservative style', in the manner that Jonathan Harwood has described for part of the German genetics community in Styles of Scientific Thought: The German Genetics Community 1900-1933, Chicago, 1993. It is possible to discern something of a conservative 'mandarin' ethos. The idea of the academic 'mandarin' derives from Fritz K. Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890-1933, reprinted Hanover, NH, 1990. For a discussion of 'the conservative style' in British science, see Donald A. MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge, Edinburgh, 1981, especially 142-50, on William Bateson.
113. This suggests that it might be possible to claim that Sherrington's science exhibited a distinctive 'conservative style', in the manner that Jonathan Harwood has described for part of the German genetics community in Styles of Scientific Thought: The German Genetics Community 1900-1933, Chicago, 1993. It is possible to discern something of a conservative 'mandarin' ethos. The idea of the academic 'mandarin' derives from Fritz K. Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890-1933, reprinted Hanover, NH, 1990. For a discussion of 'the conservative style' in British science, see Donald A. MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge, Edinburgh, 1981, especially 142-50, on William Bateson.
114. This suggests that it might be possible to claim that Sherrington's science exhibited a distinctive 'conservative style', in the manner that Jonathan Harwood has described for part of the German genetics community in Styles of Scientific Thought: The German Genetics Community 1900-1933, Chicago, 1993. It is possible to discern something of a conservative 'mandarin' ethos. The idea of the academic 'mandarin' derives from Fritz K. Ringer, The Decline of the German Mandarins: The German Academic Community, 1890-1933, reprinted Hanover, NH, 1990. For a discussion of 'the conservative style' in British science, see Donald A. MacKenzie, Statistics in Britain 1865-1930: The Social Construction of Scientific Knowledge, Edinburgh, 1981, especially 142-50, on William Bateson.
115. Eccles was a member of the Catholic Church. His many publications on dualism include Karl R. Popper and John C. Eccles, The Self and Its Brain, London, 1984. Sherrington (along with Rutherford and other scientists) was named a member of the newly created Pontifica Academia Scientarium in 1936; see Swazey, Reflexes, op. cit. (13), 26. What Sherrington might have thought about the Catholic faith was, like much else, never stated, even in correspondence.
116. Eccles was a member of the Catholic Church. His many publications on dualism include Karl R. Popper and John C. Eccles, The Self and Its Brain, London, 1984. Sherrington (along with Rutherford and other scientists) was named a member of the newly created Pontifica Academia Scientarium in 1936; see Swazey, Reflexes, op. cit. (13), 26. What Sherrington might have thought about the Catholic faith was, like much else, never stated, even in correspondence.
117. The pivotal importance of Fulton in the history of biomedicine is made clear in Jack D. Pressman, Last Resort: Psychosurgery and the Limits of Medicine, Cambridge, 1997, Chapter 2;
118. idem, 'Sufficient promise: John F. Fulton and the origins of psychosurgery', Bulletin of the History of Medicine (1988), 62, 1-22, 6: 'Fulton was self-consciously extending to the entire central nervous system Sherrington's depiction of the hierarchical, integrated systems found in the spinal cord reflexes. An immediate implication of this model was the need to experiment on animals more advanced on the evolutionary scale than the cat or the dog.' Sherrington had his Chair of physiology offered to Fulton in 1935, but the latter declined, believing that he could have more influence at Yale (ibid., 18).
119. Fulton's standard textbook, Physiology of the Nervous System (London, 1938), began with an epigraph from Sherrington, confirming Sherrington's status to vast numbers of medical and science students.
120. Thus the style is remarked in Marcus Jacobson, Foundations of Neuroscience, New York, 1993, 262-89, but the comments are 'off the cuff'. It would be profitable to compare the style with that of John Hughlings Jackson, which was also complex and regarded by others as 'deep'. Jackson's work was easily accessible after the publication of Selected Writings of John Hughlings Jackson, 2 vols., London, 1931-2, and his significance was argued for by Sherrington's friend, Henry Head, especially in Aphasia and Kindred Disorders of Speech, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1926, i. See L. S. Jacyna, Lost Words: Narratives of Language Loss, 1825-1926, forthcoming. Also see (71) below.
121. Thus the style is remarked in Marcus Jacobson, Foundations of Neuroscience, New York, 1993, 262-89, but the comments are 'off the cuff'. It would be profitable to compare the style with that of John Hughlings Jackson, which was also complex and regarded by others as 'deep'. Jackson's work was easily accessible after the publication of Selected Writings of John Hughlings Jackson, 2 vols., London, 1931-2, and his significance was argued for by Sherrington's friend, Henry Head, especially in Aphasia and Kindred Disorders of Speech, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1926, i. See L. S. Jacyna, Lost Words: Narratives of Language Loss, 1825-1926, forthcoming. Also see (71) below.
122. Thus the style is remarked in Marcus Jacobson, Foundations of Neuroscience, New York, 1993, 262-89, but the comments are 'off the cuff'. It would be profitable to compare the style with that of John Hughlings Jackson, which was also complex and regarded by others as 'deep'. Jackson's work was easily accessible after the publication of Selected Writings of John Hughlings Jackson, 2 vols., London, 1931-2, and his significance was argued for by Sherrington's friend, Henry Head, especially in Aphasia and Kindred Disorders of Speech, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1926, i. See L. S. Jacyna, Lost Words: Narratives of Language Loss, 1825-1926, forthcoming. Also see (71) below.
123. Thus the style is remarked in Marcus Jacobson, Foundations of Neuroscience, New York, 1993, 262-89, but the comments are 'off the cuff'. It would be profitable to compare the style with that of John Hughlings Jackson, which was also complex and regarded by others as 'deep'. Jackson's work was easily accessible after the publication of Selected Writings of John Hughlings Jackson, 2 vols., London, 1931-2, and his significance was argued for by Sherrington's friend, Henry Head, especially in Aphasia and Kindred Disorders of Speech, 2 vols., Cambridge, 1926, i. See L. S. Jacyna, Lost Words: Narratives of Language Loss, 1825-1926, forthcoming. Also see (71) below.
124. Granit, op. cit. (1), 19.
125. This may be exaggerated, though it is certainly hard to imagine an audience, few of whom would have had acquaintance with the field, sitting through the lectures. See Eccles and Gibson, op. cit. (8), 45-6. There is no record of the lectures actually delivered, as opposed to the published text.
126. The only notebooks I have seen, however, in the Woodward Biomedial Library, II.A, are very fragmentary; they include, for example, lists of observations after experimental intervention in decerebrate animals.
127. Sherrington, Integrative Action (1906 edn.), op. cit. (3), 237-8.
128. Sherrington, Integrative Action (1906 edn.), op. cit. (3), 2.
129. Judith Swazey attempted to determine the circumstances of Sherrington's agreement to give the Silliman Lectures, which in fact had no religious content, but was unable to find out more. Swazey, Reflexes, op. cit. (13), 236-7.
130. Especially the openings of Lecture I (1-5) and Lecture XII (360-5) in the 1940 edition. He distinguished natural science and natural theology (Sherrington, Man on His Nature, op. cit. (4), 3): 'what however...[Natural Science] does not include within its scope and does not set itself to ask is whether that "how" [it does investigate] is "good" or "bad", or whence that "how" may ultimately derive. On the other hand, Natural Theology when it enquires into Nature does enter into both these questions'. This passage was altered in the second edition.
131. Sherrington, Integrative Action (1961 edn.), op. cit. (3), p. ix.
132. See R. S. Creed, D. Denny-Brown, J. C. Eccles, E. G. T. Liddell and C. S. Sherrington, Reflex Activity of the Spinal Cord, London, 1932, a standard text which excluded not only mind but brain for the same reason. Also, Cohen of Birkenhead, op. cit. (3), 51.
133. See R. S. Creed, D. Denny-Brown, J. C. Eccles, E. G. T. Liddell and C. S. Sherrington, Reflex Activity of the Spinal Cord, London, 1932, a standard text which excluded not only mind but brain for the same reason. Also, Cohen of Birkenhead, op. cit. (3), 51.
134. Sherrington, Integrative Action (1961 edn.), op. cit. (3), pp. xvi and xviii.
135. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 253-4.
136. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1940 edn.), op. cit. (4), 292; passage cut in second edition.
137. As in Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), Lecture VIII, 'The organ of liaison', especially 190, and Sherrington, Integrative Action (1961 edn.), op. cit. (3), Foreword.
138. As in Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), Lecture VIII, 'The organ of liaison', especially 190, and Sherrington, Integrative Action (1961 edn.), op. cit. (3), Foreword.
139. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 247.
140. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 257.
141. C. S. Sherrington, 'Inhibition as a coordinative factor. Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1932', in Nobel Lectures, Including Presentation Speeches and Laureates' Biographies. Physiology or Medicine 1922-1941, Amsterdam, 1965, 278-89; idem, The Brain and Its Mechanism, Cambridge, 1933.
142. C. S. Sherrington, 'Inhibition as a coordinative factor. Nobel Lecture, December 12, 1932', in Nobel Lectures, Including Presentation Speeches and Laureates' Biographies. Physiology or Medicine 1922-1941, Amsterdam, 1965, 278-89; idem, The Brain and Its Mechanism, Cambridge, 1933.
143. On 'synapse' see Sherrington, letter to Fulton, 25 December 1937, Fulton Papers, F-8; Richard D. French, 'Some concepts of nerve structure and function in Britain, 1875-1885: background to Sir Charles Sherrington and the synapse concept', Medical History (1970), 14, 154-65. Some other letters discuss the correct choice of roots and suffixes. See also Sherrington, 'Note on the history of the word "tonus" as a physiological term', in Contributions to Medical and Biological Research Dedicated to Sir William Osler...By his Pupils and CoWorkers, 2 vols., New York, 1919, i, 261-8; Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 201-2.
144. On 'synapse' see Sherrington, letter to Fulton, 25 December 1937, Fulton Papers, F-8; Richard D. French, 'Some concepts of nerve structure and function in Britain, 1875-1885: background to Sir Charles Sherrington and the synapse concept', Medical History (1970), 14, 154-65. Some other letters discuss the correct choice of roots and suffixes. See also Sherrington, 'Note on the history of the word "tonus" as a physiological term', in Contributions to Medical and Biological Research Dedicated to Sir William Osler...By his Pupils and CoWorkers, 2 vols., New York, 1919, i, 261-8; Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 201-2.
145. On 'synapse' see Sherrington, letter to Fulton, 25 December 1937, Fulton Papers, F-8; Richard D. French, 'Some concepts of nerve structure and function in Britain, 1875-1885: background to Sir Charles Sherrington and the synapse concept', Medical History (1970), 14, 154-65. Some other letters discuss the correct choice of roots and suffixes. See also Sherrington, 'Note on the history of the word "tonus" as a physiological term', in Contributions to Medical and Biological Research Dedicated to Sir William Osler...By his Pupils and CoWorkers, 2 vols., New York, 1919, i, 261-8; Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 201-2.
146. Sherrington dedicated The Assaying of Brabantius (op. cit. (4)), to Head. Compare Henry Head, Destroyers, and Other Verses, London, 1919. For Head's complex personality, poetry and values see L. S. Jacyna, 'Questions of identity: science, aesthetics, and Henry's Head', in Lawrence and Weisz, op. cit. (28), 211-33. The radiation chemist, E. N. da C. Andrade, was another writer of poetry - and a cultural conservative; see his praise for Sherrington's verse in letter to Sherrington, 6 June 1951, Woodward Biomedical Library, I.2.(9).
147. Sherrington dedicated The Assaying of Brabantius (op. cit. (4)), to Head. Compare Henry Head, Destroyers, and Other Verses, London, 1919. For Head's complex personality, poetry and values see L. S. Jacyna, 'Questions of identity: science, aesthetics, and Henry's Head', in Lawrence and Weisz, op. cit. (28), 211-33. The radiation chemist, E. N. da C. Andrade, was another writer of poetry - and a cultural conservative; see his praise for Sherrington's verse in letter to Sherrington, 6 June 1951, Woodward Biomedical Library, I.2.(9).
148. Sherrington dedicated The Assaying of Brabantius (op. cit. (4)), to Head. Compare Henry Head, Destroyers, and Other Verses, London, 1919. For Head's complex personality, poetry and values see L. S. Jacyna, 'Questions of identity: science, aesthetics, and Henry's Head', in Lawrence and Weisz, op. cit. (28), 211-33. The radiation chemist, E. N. da C. Andrade, was another writer of poetry - and a cultural conservative; see his praise for Sherrington's verse in letter to Sherrington, 6 June 1951, Woodward Biomedical Library, I.2.(9).
149. In Sherrington's Assaying of Brabantius (1940 edn.), op. cit. (4), 'Green and black', 'Mother and son' and 'Mus hortensis' convey youthful emotions; 'The leaf', 'If love were all...' and 'Lo, life, life mine...' carry emotions prompted by the war.
150. Such judgements must be surmises. It is remarkable that nowhere, even in private, did Sherrington discuss the composition of the lectures. He made no mention of them in correspondence at the time. There is a hint that they were written at speed, almost in a state of inspiration; certainly, the way he quoted and cited suggests that he worked mainly from memory (his memory was outstanding) and drew upon material as it came to mind. The lectures were also repetitive, which he himself acknowledged when he revised and cut them for the second edition. It seems likely that Sherrington was embarrassed about 'waxing philosophical' in front of his scientific peers and kept as private as possible on the matter. Eccles (Eccles and Gibson, op. cit. (8), 155) observed that 'Sherrington was secretive about the Gifford Lectures, as if he feared some critical reaction'. This is likely, given the adverse opinion in academic circles of those who strayed outside the boundaries of disciplines.
151. All the same, Sherrington's readers in 1940 may have regarded what I call a 'poetic' voice as a 'philosophical' voice, being more at home with philosophy as the 'amateur' discussion of values rather than as the 'professional' activity of analysis. Reviewers identified the lectures as philosophy. It is hard to guess at Sherrington's own reading. While he read some philosophers, or nodded in the direction of some, such as F. H. Bradley or A. N. Whitehead, there is no evidence that he systematically used their work. It was another matter with poets. Shortly after the appearance of Robert Bridges's The Testament of Beauty (Oxford, 1929), he quoted long passages from the poet laureate by heart while at work in the laboratory. Liddell, cited in Cohen of Birkenhead, op. cit. (3), 65.
152. All the same, Sherrington's readers in 1940 may have regarded what I call a 'poetic' voice as a 'philosophical' voice, being more at home with philosophy as the 'amateur' discussion of values rather than as the 'professional' activity of analysis. Reviewers identified the lectures as philosophy. It is hard to guess at Sherrington's own reading. While he read some philosophers, or nodded in the direction of some, such as F. H. Bradley or A. N. Whitehead, there is no evidence that he systematically used their work. It was another matter with poets. Shortly after the appearance of Robert Bridges's The Testament of Beauty (Oxford, 1929), he quoted long passages from the poet laureate by heart while at work in the laboratory. Liddell, cited in Cohen of Birkenhead, op. cit. (3), 65.
153. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 178. See, for example, Pietro Corsi (ed.), The Enchanted Loom: Chapters in the History of Neuroscience, New York, 1991; Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, New York, 1981; Rodney Cotterill, Enchanted Looms: Conscious Networks in Brains and Computers, Cambridge, 1998. Gillian Beer (op. cit. (42)) has drawn attention to the world of periodicals and literature shared in common by educated Victorians, including scientists, and this suggests the richness of the background to Sherrington's poetic use of language. The Victorian periodicals culture persisted into the twentieth century, but it was in decline.
154. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 178. See, for example, Pietro Corsi (ed.), The Enchanted Loom: Chapters in the History of Neuroscience, New York, 1991; Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, New York, 1981; Rodney Cotterill, Enchanted Looms: Conscious Networks in Brains and Computers, Cambridge, 1998. Gillian Beer (op. cit. (42)) has drawn attention to the world of periodicals and literature shared in common by educated Victorians, including scientists, and this suggests the richness of the background to Sherrington's poetic use of language. The Victorian periodicals culture persisted into the twentieth century, but it was in decline.
155. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 178. See, for example, Pietro Corsi (ed.), The Enchanted Loom: Chapters in the History of
156. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 178. See, for example, Pietro Corsi (ed.), The Enchanted Loom: Chapters in the History of Neuroscience, New York, 1991; Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, New York, 1981; Rodney Cotterill, Enchanted Looms: Conscious Networks in Brains and Computers, Cambridge, 1998. Gillian Beer (op. cit. (42)) has drawn attention to the world of periodicals and literature shared in common by educated Victorians, including scientists, and this suggests the richness of the background to Sherrington's poetic use of language. The Victorian periodicals culture persisted into the twentieth century, but it was in decline.
157. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 178. See, for example, Pietro Corsi (ed.), The Enchanted Loom: Chapters in the History of Neuroscience, New York, 1991; Robert Jastrow, The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, New York, 1981; Rodney Cotterill, Enchanted Looms: Conscious Networks in Brains and Computers, Cambridge, 1998. Gillian Beer (op. cit. (42)) has drawn attention to the world of periodicals and literature shared in common by educated Victorians, including scientists, and this suggests the richness of the background to Sherrington's poetic use of language. The Victorian periodicals culture persisted into the twentieth century, but it was in decline.
158. Sherrington himself had poems (reprinted in 1940, op. cit. (4)) published in the Cornhill Magazine in the 1930s:
159. (1936), 154, 140;
160. (1937), 155, 38 and 701.
161. Granit, op. cit. (1), 176.
162. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), preface to the second edition.
163. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 259; lines not otherwise published.
164. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 30. Many of the poems, however, speak of 'God'. It is hard to judge how far this represented belief or expressed a poetic (but deeply felt) trope. See, for example, Sherrington, Assaying of Brabantius (1940 edn.), op. cit. (4), 'Look at the stars'.
165. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 30. Many of the poems, however, speak of 'God'. It is hard to judge how far this represented belief or expressed a poetic (but deeply felt) trope. See, for example, Sherrington, Assaying of Brabantius (1940 edn.), op. cit. (4), 'Look at the stars'.
166. Sherrington, Goethe, op. cit. (42), 30.
167. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 291.
168. Eccles and Gibson, op. cit. (8), 58.
169. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 259, quoting John Keats, 'Endymion', Book IV, lines 167-9, in The Complete Poems (ed. John Barnard), Harmondsworth, 1973, 194.
170. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 259, quoting John Keats, 'Endymion', Book IV, lines 167-9, in The Complete Poems (ed. John Barnard), Harmondsworth, 1973, 194.
171. C. S. Sherrington, 'Experiments on animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1416-17; 'Experiments on living animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1533; 'The sensitiveness of the peritoneum', Lancet (1893), i, 221. In these letters to the editor, Sherrington displayed a biting sarcasm, which he was never to do again, in attacking the views of the physician W. Lawson Tait. Tait touched a raw nerve as he opposed vivisection from within the scientific camp, and Sherrington took the opportunity to nail him for gross errors (as he saw them). For Tait's position, see British Medical Journal (1892), ii, 1198; Lancet (1892), ii, 1138, 1302-3, 1468, and (1893), i, 125-8. Sherrington refused any more correspondence. There was a local context to Sherrington's concern. The Brown Institution was a veterinary hospital funded by people concerned with animal welfare, and Sherrington had gained precious personal authority which permitted him to conduct experiments on animals anaesthetized before being put down. See John F. Fulton, 'Sherrington's impact on neurophysiology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 807-10, 808. For the vivisection debate, see Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society, Princeton, 1975. Little attention has been given to the anthropology of scientists' relations with experimental animals, but see Michael E. Lynch, 'Sacrifice and the transformation of the animal body into a scientific object: laboratory culture and ritual practice in the neurosciences', Social Studies of Science (1988), 18, 265-89. Sherrington's other public dispute, in 1894, was with Victor Horsley, his predecessor at the Brown Institution, over property rights and the correct explanation of research on the degeneration of the pyramidal tracts in the brain. Very upset - I surmise that he felt his status as a gentleman had been impugned - Sherrington dropped the topic until after Horsley's death. See Sherrington, 'Note on experimental degeneration of the pyramidal tract', Lancet (1894), i, 265, and the exchange of letters to the editor on 370-1, 439 and 571; also Fulton, op. cit. (3), 173.
172. C. S. Sherrington, 'Experiments on animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1416-17; 'Experiments on living animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1533; 'The sensitiveness of the peritoneum', Lancet (1893), i, 221. In these letters to the editor, Sherrington displayed a biting sarcasm, which he was never to do again, in attacking the views of the physician W. Lawson Tait. Tait touched a raw nerve as he opposed vivisection from within the scientific camp, and Sherrington took the opportunity to nail him for gross errors (as he saw them). For Tait's position, see British Medical Journal (1892), ii, 1198; Lancet (1892), ii, 1138, 1302-3, 1468, and (1893), i, 125-8. Sherrington refused any more correspondence. There was a local context to Sherrington's concern. The Brown Institution was a veterinary hospital funded by people concerned with animal welfare, and Sherrington had gained precious personal authority which permitted him to conduct experiments on animals anaesthetized before being put down. See John F. Fulton, 'Sherrington's impact on neurophysiology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 807-10, 808. For the vivisection debate, see Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society, Princeton, 1975. Little attention has been given to the anthropology of scientists' relations with experimental animals, but see Michael E. Lynch, 'Sacrifice and the transformation of the animal body into a scientific object: laboratory culture and ritual practice in the neurosciences', Social Studies of Science (1988), 18, 265-89. Sherrington's other public dispute, in 1894, was with Victor Horsley, his predecessor at the Brown Institution, over property rights and the correct explanation of research on the degeneration of the pyramidal tracts in the brain. Very upset - I surmise that he felt his status as a gentleman had been impugned - Sherrington dropped the topic until after Horsley's death. See Sherrington, 'Note on experimental degeneration of the pyramidal tract', Lancet (1894), i, 265, and the exchange of letters to the editor on 370-1, 439 and 571; also Fulton, op. cit. (3), 173.
173. C. S. Sherrington, 'Experiments on animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1416-17; 'Experiments on living animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1533; 'The sensitiveness of the peritoneum', Lancet (1893), i, 221. In these letters to the editor, Sherrington displayed a biting sarcasm, which he was never to do again, in attacking the views of the physician W. Lawson Tait. Tait touched a raw nerve as he opposed vivisection from within the scientific camp, and Sherrington took the opportunity to nail him for gross errors (as he saw them). For Tait's position, see British Medical Journal (1892), ii, 1198; Lancet (1892), ii, 1138, 1302-3, 1468, and (1893), i, 125-8. Sherrington refused any more correspondence. There was a local context to Sherrington's concern. The Brown Institution was a veterinary hospital funded by people concerned with animal welfare, and Sherrington had gained precious personal authority which permitted him to conduct experiments on animals anaesthetized before being put down. See John F. Fulton, 'Sherrington's impact on neurophysiology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 807-10, 808. For the vivisection debate, see Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society, Princeton, 1975. Little attention has been given to the anthropology of scientists' relations with experimental animals, but see Michael E. Lynch, 'Sacrifice and the transformation of the animal body into a scientific object: laboratory culture and ritual practice in the neurosciences', Social Studies of Science (1988), 18, 265-89. Sherrington's other public dispute, in 1894, was with Victor Horsley, his predecessor at the Brown Institution, over property rights and the correct explanation of research on the degeneration of the pyramidal tracts in the brain. Very upset - I surmise that he felt his status as a gentleman had been impugned - Sherrington dropped the topic until after Horsley's death. See Sherrington, 'Note on experimental degeneration of the pyramidal tract', Lancet (1894), i, 265, and the exchange of letters to the editor on 370-1, 439 and 571; also Fulton, op. cit. (3), 173.
174. C. S. Sherrington, 'Experiments on animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1416-17; 'Experiments on living animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1533; 'The sensitiveness of the peritoneum', Lancet (1893), i, 221. In these letters to the editor, Sherrington displayed a biting sarcasm, which he was never to do again, in attacking the views of the physician W. Lawson Tait. Tait touched a raw nerve as he opposed vivisection from within the scientific camp, and Sherrington took the opportunity to nail him for gross errors (as he saw them). For Tait's position, see British Medical Journal (1892), ii, 1198; Lancet (1892), ii, 1138, 1302-3, 1468, and (1893), i, 125-8. Sherrington refused any more correspondence. There was a local context to Sherrington's concern. The Brown Institution was a veterinary hospital funded by people concerned with animal welfare, and Sherrington had gained precious personal authority which permitted him to conduct experiments on animals anaesthetized before being put down. See John F. Fulton, 'Sherrington's impact on neurophysiology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 807-10, 808. For the vivisection debate, see Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society, Princeton, 1975. Little attention has been given to the anthropology of scientists' relations with experimental animals, but see Michael E. Lynch, 'Sacrifice and the transformation of the animal body into a scientific object: laboratory culture and ritual practice in the neurosciences', Social Studies of Science (1988), 18, 265-89. Sherrington's other public dispute, in 1894, was with Victor Horsley, his predecessor at the Brown Institution, over property rights and the correct explanation of research on the degeneration of the pyramidal tracts in the brain. Very upset - I surmise that he felt his status as a gentleman had been impugned - Sherrington dropped the topic until after Horsley's death. See Sherrington, 'Note on experimental degeneration of the pyramidal tract', Lancet (1894), i, 265, and the exchange of letters to the editor on 370-1, 439 and 571; also Fulton, op. cit. (3), 173.
175. C. S. Sherrington, 'Experiments on animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1416-17; 'Experiments on living animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1533; 'The sensitiveness of the peritoneum', Lancet (1893), i, 221. In these letters to the editor, Sherrington displayed a biting sarcasm, which he was never to do again, in attacking the views of the physician W. Lawson Tait. Tait touched a raw nerve as he opposed vivisection from within the scientific camp, and Sherrington took the opportunity to nail him for gross errors (as he saw them). For Tait's position, see British Medical Journal (1892), ii, 1198; Lancet (1892), ii, 1138, 1302-3, 1468, and (1893), i, 125-8. Sherrington refused any more correspondence. There was a local context to Sherrington's concern. The Brown Institution was a veterinary hospital funded by people concerned with animal welfare, and Sherrington had gained precious personal authority which permitted him to conduct experiments on animals anaesthetized before being put down. See John F. Fulton, 'Sherrington's impact on neurophysiology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 807-10, 808. For the vivisection debate, see Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society, Princeton, 1975. Little attention has been given to the anthropology of scientists' relations with experimental animals, but see Michael E. Lynch, 'Sacrifice and the transformation of the animal body into a scientific object: laboratory culture and ritual practice in the neurosciences', Social Studies of Science (1988), 18, 265-89. Sherrington's other public dispute, in 1894, was with Victor Horsley, his predecessor at the Brown Institution, over property rights and the correct explanation of research on the degeneration of the pyramidal tracts in the brain. Very upset - I surmise that he felt his status as a gentleman had been impugned - Sherrington dropped the topic until after Horsley's death. See Sherrington, 'Note on experimental degeneration of the pyramidal tract', Lancet (1894), i, 265, and the exchange of letters to the editor on 370-1, 439 and 571; also Fulton, op. cit. (3), 173.
176. C. S. Sherrington, 'Experiments on animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1416-17; 'Experiments on living animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1533; 'The sensitiveness of the peritoneum', Lancet (1893), i, 221. In these letters to the editor, Sherrington displayed a biting sarcasm, which he was never to do again, in attacking the views of the physician W. Lawson Tait. Tait touched a raw nerve as he opposed vivisection from within the scientific camp, and Sherrington took the opportunity to nail him for gross errors (as he saw them). For Tait's position, see British Medical Journal (1892), ii, 1198; Lancet (1892), ii, 1138, 1302-3, 1468, and (1893), i, 125-8. Sherrington refused any more correspondence. There was a local context to Sherrington's concern. The Brown Institution was a veterinary hospital funded by people concerned with animal welfare, and Sherrington had gained precious personal authority which permitted him to conduct experiments on animals anaesthetized before being put down. See John F. Fulton, 'Sherrington's impact on neurophysiology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 807-10, 808. For the vivisection debate, see Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society, Princeton, 1975. Little attention has been given to the anthropology of scientists' relations with experimental animals, but see Michael E. Lynch, 'Sacrifice and the transformation of the animal body into a scientific object: laboratory culture and ritual practice in the neurosciences', Social Studies of Science (1988), 18, 265-89. Sherrington's other public dispute, in 1894, was with Victor Horsley, his predecessor at the Brown Institution, over property rights and the correct explanation of research on the degeneration of the pyramidal tracts in the brain. Very upset - I surmise that he felt his status as a gentleman had been impugned - Sherrington dropped the topic until after Horsley's death. See Sherrington, 'Note on experimental degeneration of the pyramidal tract', Lancet (1894), i, 265, and the exchange of letters to the editor on 370-1, 439 and 571; also Fulton, op. cit. (3), 173.
177. C. S. Sherrington, 'Experiments on animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1416-17; 'Experiments on living animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1533; 'The sensitiveness of the peritoneum', Lancet (1893), i, 221. In these letters to the editor, Sherrington displayed a biting sarcasm, which he was never to do again, in attacking the views of the physician W. Lawson Tait. Tait touched a raw nerve as he opposed vivisection from within the scientific camp, and Sherrington took the opportunity to nail him for gross errors (as he saw them). For Tait's position, see British Medical Journal (1892), ii, 1198; Lancet (1892), ii, 1138, 1302-3, 1468, and (1893), i, 125-8. Sherrington refused any more correspondence. There was a local context to Sherrington's concern. The Brown Institution was a veterinary hospital funded by people concerned with animal welfare, and Sherrington had gained precious personal authority which permitted him to conduct experiments on animals anaesthetized before being put down. See John F. Fulton, 'Sherrington's impact on neurophysiology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 807-10, 808. For the vivisection debate, see Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society, Princeton, 1975. Little attention has been given to the anthropology of scientists' relations with experimental animals, but see Michael E. Lynch, 'Sacrifice and the transformation of the animal body into a scientific object: laboratory culture and ritual practice in the neurosciences', Social Studies of Science (1988), 18, 265-89. Sherrington's other public dispute, in 1894, was with Victor Horsley, his predecessor at the Brown Institution, over property rights and the correct explanation of research on the degeneration of the pyramidal tracts in the brain. Very upset - I surmise that he felt his status as a gentleman had been impugned - Sherrington dropped the topic until after Horsley's death. See Sherrington, 'Note on experimental degeneration of the pyramidal tract', Lancet (1894), i, 265, and the exchange of letters to the editor on 370-1, 439 and 571; also Fulton, op. cit. (3), 173.
178. C. S. Sherrington, 'Experiments on animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1416-17; 'Experiments on living animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1533; 'The sensitiveness of the peritoneum', Lancet (1893), i, 221. In these letters to the editor, Sherrington displayed a biting sarcasm, which he was never to do again, in attacking the views of the physician W. Lawson Tait. Tait touched a raw nerve as he opposed vivisection from within the scientific camp, and Sherrington took the opportunity to nail him for gross errors (as he saw them). For Tait's position, see British Medical Journal (1892), ii, 1198; Lancet (1892), ii, 1138, 1302-3, 1468, and (1893), i, 125-8. Sherrington refused any more correspondence. There was a local context to Sherrington's concern. The Brown Institution was a veterinary hospital funded by people concerned with animal welfare, and Sherrington had gained precious personal authority which permitted him to conduct experiments on animals anaesthetized before being put down. See John F. Fulton, 'Sherrington's impact on neurophysiology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 807-10, 808. For the vivisection debate, see Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society, Princeton, 1975. Little attention has been given to the anthropology of scientists' relations with experimental animals, but see Michael E. Lynch, 'Sacrifice and the transformation of the animal body into a scientific object: laboratory culture and ritual practice in the neurosciences', Social Studies of Science (1988), 18, 265-89. Sherrington's other public dispute, in 1894, was with Victor Horsley, his predecessor at the Brown Institution, over property rights and the correct explanation of research on the degeneration of the pyramidal tracts in the brain. Very upset - I surmise that he felt his status as a gentleman had been impugned - Sherrington dropped the topic until after Horsley's death. See Sherrington, 'Note on experimental degeneration of the pyramidal tract', Lancet (1894), i, 265, and the exchange of letters to the editor on 370-1, 439 and 571; also Fulton, op. cit. (3), 173.
179. C. S. Sherrington, 'Experiments on animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1416-17; 'Experiments on living animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1533; 'The sensitiveness of the peritoneum', Lancet (1893), i, 221. In these letters to the editor, Sherrington displayed a biting sarcasm, which he was never to do again, in attacking the views of the physician W. Lawson Tait. Tait touched a raw nerve as he opposed vivisection from within the scientific camp, and Sherrington took the opportunity to nail him for gross errors (as he saw them). For Tait's position, see British Medical Journal (1892), ii, 1198; Lancet (1892), ii, 1138, 1302-3, 1468, and (1893), i, 125-8. Sherrington refused any more correspondence. There was a local context to Sherrington's concern. The Brown Institution was a veterinary hospital funded by people concerned with animal welfare, and Sherrington had gained precious personal authority which permitted him to conduct experiments on animals anaesthetized before being put down. See John F. Fulton, 'Sherrington's impact on neurophysiology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 807-10, 808. For the vivisection debate, see Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society, Princeton, 1975. Little attention has been given to the anthropology of scientists' relations with experimental animals, but see Michael E. Lynch, 'Sacrifice and the transformation of the animal body into a scientific object: laboratory culture and ritual practice in the neurosciences', Social Studies of Science (1988), 18, 265-89. Sherrington's other public dispute, in 1894, was with Victor Horsley, his predecessor at the Brown Institution, over property rights and the correct explanation of research on the degeneration of the pyramidal tracts in the brain. Very upset - I surmise that he felt his status as a gentleman had been impugned - Sherrington dropped the topic until after Horsley's death. See Sherrington, 'Note on experimental degeneration of the pyramidal tract', Lancet (1894), i, 265, and the exchange of letters to the editor on 370-1, 439 and 571; also Fulton, op. cit. (3), 173.
180. C. S. Sherrington, 'Experiments on animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1416-17; 'Experiments on living animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1533; 'The sensitiveness of the peritoneum', Lancet (1893), i, 221. In these letters to the editor, Sherrington displayed a biting sarcasm, which he was never to do again, in attacking the views of the physician W. Lawson Tait. Tait touched a raw nerve as he opposed vivisection from within the scientific camp, and Sherrington took the opportunity to nail him for gross errors (as he saw them). For Tait's position, see British Medical Journal (1892), ii, 1198; Lancet (1892), ii, 1138, 1302-3, 1468, and (1893), i, 125-8. Sherrington refused any more correspondence. There was a local context to Sherrington's concern. The Brown Institution was a veterinary hospital funded by people concerned with animal welfare, and Sherrington had gained precious personal authority which permitted him to conduct experiments on animals anaesthetized before being put down. See John F. Fulton, 'Sherrington's impact on neurophysiology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 807-10, 808. For the vivisection debate, see Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society, Princeton, 1975. Little attention has been given to the anthropology of scientists' relations with experimental animals, but see Michael E. Lynch, 'Sacrifice and the transformation of the animal body into a scientific object: laboratory culture and ritual practice in the neurosciences', Social Studies of Science (1988), 18, 265-89. Sherrington's other public dispute, in 1894, was with Victor Horsley, his predecessor at the Brown Institution, over property rights and the correct explanation of research on the degeneration of the pyramidal tracts in the brain. Very upset - I surmise that he felt his status as a gentleman had been impugned - Sherrington dropped the topic until after Horsley's death. See Sherrington, 'Note on experimental degeneration of the pyramidal tract', Lancet (1894), i, 265, and the exchange of letters to the editor on 370-1, 439 and 571; also Fulton, op. cit. (3), 173.
181. C. S. Sherrington, 'Experiments on animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1416-17; 'Experiments on living animals', Lancet (1892), ii, 1533; 'The sensitiveness of the peritoneum', Lancet (1893), i, 221. In these letters to the editor, Sherrington displayed a biting sarcasm, which he was never to do again, in attacking the views of the physician W. Lawson Tait. Tait touched a raw nerve as he opposed vivisection from within the scientific camp, and Sherrington took the opportunity to nail him for gross errors (as he saw them). For Tait's position, see British Medical Journal (1892), ii, 1198; Lancet (1892), ii, 1138, 1302-3, 1468, and (1893), i, 125-8. Sherrington refused any more correspondence. There was a local context to Sherrington's concern. The Brown Institution was a veterinary hospital funded by people concerned with animal welfare, and Sherrington had gained precious personal authority which permitted him to conduct experiments on animals anaesthetized before being put down. See John F. Fulton, 'Sherrington's impact on neurophysiology', British Medical Journal (1947), ii, 807-10, 808. For the vivisection debate, see Richard D. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society, Princeton, 1975. Little attention has been given to the anthropology of scientists' relations with experimental animals, but see Michael E. Lynch, 'Sacrifice and the transformation of the animal body into a scientific object: laboratory culture and ritual practice in the neurosciences', Social Studies of Science (1988), 18, 265-89. Sherrington's other public dispute, in 1894, was with Victor Horsley, his predecessor at the Brown Institution, over property rights and the correct explanation of research on the degeneration of the pyramidal tracts in the brain. Very upset - I surmise that he felt his status as a gentleman had been impugned - Sherrington dropped the topic until after Horsley's death. See Sherrington, 'Note on experimental degeneration of the pyramidal tract', Lancet (1894), i, 265, and the exchange of letters to the editor on 370-1, 439 and 571; also Fulton, op. cit. (3), 173.
182. Quoted in John Middleton Murry, Keats and Shakespeare: A Study in Keats' Poetic Life from 1816-1820, London, 1925, 42. Keats scholarship has moved away from Murry's inspirational reading, but I found Murry suggestive about what Sherrington thought so special in Keats's work. See Sherrington, Assaying of Brabantius (1940 edn.), op. cit. (4), 'At Keats' grave'. Murry argued for the truth of the soul separate from the truth of science, and he interpreted Keats as the great poetic exponent of this position.
183. Quoted in John Middleton Murry, Keats and Shakespeare: A Study in Keats' Poetic Life from 1816-1820, London, 1925, 42. Keats scholarship has moved away from Murry's inspirational reading, but I found Murry suggestive about what Sherrington thought so special in Keats's work. See Sherrington, Assaying of Brabantius (1940 edn.), op. cit. (4), 'At Keats' grave'. Murry argued for the truth of the soul separate from the truth of science, and he interpreted Keats as the great poetic exponent of this position.
184. Murray, op. cit. (85), 11.
185. Sherrington, Integrative Action (1906 edn.), op. cit. (3), 388.
186. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 240.
187. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 59.
188. Sherrington, Jean Fernel, op. cit. (4). Compare the concluding paragraph to his lecture on Goethe (Sherrington, Goethe, op. cit. (42), 50): 'In the shadow of...[his death], among thoughts which lent him courage, one which seems to have grown to conviction was that the human spirit had Earth for its nursery. Our planet had cradled Mozart, Raphael, Shakespeare...In them the human spirit had achieved what the divine spirit had desired of it.' Readers who wish will find in this evidence for Sherrington's religious belief; others will find his humanism.
189. Sherrington, Jean Fernel, op. cit. (4). Compare the concluding paragraph to his lecture on Goethe (Sherrington, Goethe, op. cit. (42), 50): 'In the shadow of...[his death], among thoughts which lent him courage, one which seems to have grown to conviction was that the human spirit had Earth for its nursery. Our planet had cradled Mozart, Raphael, Shakespeare...In them the human spirit had achieved what the divine spirit had desired of it.' Readers who wish will find in this evidence for Sherrington's religious belief; others will find his humanism.
190. For the complex background of this value in British ethical and political thought, see Stefan Collini, Public Moralists: Political Thought and Intellectual Life in Britain 1850-1930, Oxford, 1991, especially Chapter 2. Sherrington's long didactic poem, 'The Assaying of Brabantius', described altruism transcending selfishness in a heroic life: calmness of self comes from working for others. 'Impulsion stirred me, resolute/with heart-a-search and hastened feet/to work men service' (Sherrington, Assaying of Brabantius (1940 edn.), op. cit. (4), 31). According to Penfield (op. cit. (13), 404), this poem was written at the time Sherrington's son, Carr, married and left for a position at Cornell University in the United States, but I have seen no evidence to confirm this.
191. For the complex background of this value in British ethical and political thought, see Stefan Collini, Public Moralists: Political Thought and Intellectual Life in Britain 1850-1930, Oxford, 1991, especially Chapter 2. Sherrington's long didactic poem, 'The Assaying of Brabantius', described altruism transcending selfishness in a heroic life: calmness of self comes from working for others. 'Impulsion stirred me, resolute/with heart-a-search and hastened feet/to work men service' (Sherrington, Assaying of Brabantius (1940 edn.), op. cit. (4), 31). According to Penfield (op. cit. (13), 404), this poem was written at the time Sherrington's son, Carr, married and left for a position at Cornell University in the United States, but I have seen no evidence to confirm this.
192. For the complex background of this value in British ethical and political thought, see Stefan Collini, Public Moralists: Political Thought and Intellectual Life in Britain 1850-1930, Oxford, 1991, especially Chapter 2. Sherrington's long didactic poem, 'The Assaying of Brabantius', described altruism transcending selfishness in a heroic life: calmness of self comes from working for others. 'Impulsion stirred me, resolute/with heart-a-search and hastened feet/to work men service' (Sherrington, Assaying of Brabantius (1940 edn.), op. cit. (4), 31). According to Penfield (op. cit. (13), 404), this poem was written at the time Sherrington's son, Carr, married and left for a position at Cornell University in the United States, but I have seen no evidence to confirm this.
193. In the first edition, he gave the lecture the title 'Conflict with Nature'; without comment, he renamed it 'Altruism' in the second edition, though the content of the lecture was left virtually unchanged. Swazey, Reflexes, op. cit. (13), 217 note 83, appears to have been misled in stating that Sherrington added the chapter on altruism as 'his final credo' to the second edition. Eccles (Eccles and Gibson, op. cit. (8), 145) reported that, owing to the impending coronation of George VI, the lecture was not actually delivered in Edinburgh.
194. In the first edition, he gave the lecture the title 'Conflict with Nature'; without comment, he renamed it 'Altruism' in the second edition, though the content of the lecture was left virtually unchanged. Swazey, Reflexes, op. cit. (13), 217 note 83, appears to have been misled in stating that Sherrington added the chapter on altruism as 'his final credo' to the second edition. Eccles (Eccles and Gibson, op. cit. (8), 145) reported that, owing to the impending coronation of George VI, the lecture was not actually delivered in Edinburgh.
195. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1940 edn.), op. cit. (4), 5; passage cut in second edition.
196. Sherrington did not refer to Huxley, though the parallel is striking and it is likely that at one time he was familiar with Huxley's much-discussed lecture. The lecture was reprinted by Julian Huxley in Touchstone for Ethics 1893-1943, New York/London, 1947, also reprinted, with introduction by James Paradis, in James Paradis and George C. Williams (eds.), Evolution and Ethics. T. H. Huxley's Evolution and Ethics: With New Essays on Its Victorian and Sociobiological Context, Princeton, 1989.
197. Sherrington did not refer to Huxley, though the parallel is striking and it is likely that at one time he was familiar with Huxley's much-discussed lecture. The lecture was reprinted by Julian Huxley in Touchstone for Ethics 1893-1943, New York/London, 1947, also reprinted, with introduction by James Paradis, in James Paradis and George C. Williams (eds.), Evolution and Ethics. T. H. Huxley's Evolution and Ethics: With New Essays on Its Victorian and Sociobiological Context, Princeton, 1989.
198. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 269 and 272.
199. Sherrington, Integrative Action (1906 edn.), op. cit. (3), 393.
200. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 273.
201. For Keats, see Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 272.
202. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 279.
203. Sherrington, Man on His Nature (1963 edn.), op. cit. (4), 279.
204. Sherrington, Integrative Action (1906 edn.), op. cit. (3), 235-6.
205. Conversation with Eccles, reported in Eccles and Gibson, op. cit. (8), 111-12.
206. See Sherrington, letter to Fulton, 7 January 1941, Fulton Papers, F-9. The letter suggests how this perspective on time helped Sherrington emotionally to treat Nazism as a passing phase: The writing of the book [Man on His Nature] gave me one reaction which I shall not easily forget, namely the cramped time-scale human history accustoms us to. I set the zodiac as headings of the chapters in order to help the reader to that...How 'cheap' and unimpressive all this 'sound and fury' of Nazi Germany seems looked at under the old zodiac...
207. Sherrington and his wife, Ethel, were close to the Oslers in Oxford. William Osler's life was written by Harvey Gushing (op. cit. (30)), who visited Sherrington in Liverpool and remained a correspondent. Fulton, who wrote Cushing's life (Fulton, op. cit. (22)), was Sherrington's student and junior colleague in the 1920s and thereafter (with his wife, Lucia) a devoted correspondent, obituarist and bibliographer of Sherrington (Fulton, op. cit. (31)).
208. Sherrington and his wife, Ethel, were close to the Oslers in Oxford. William Osler's life was written by Harvey Gushing (op. cit. (30)), who visited Sherrington in Liverpool and remained a correspondent. Fulton, who wrote Cushing's life (Fulton, op. cit. (22)), was Sherrington's student and junior colleague in the 1920s and thereafter (with his wife, Lucia) a devoted correspondent, obituarist and bibliographer of Sherrington (Fulton, op. cit. (31)).
209. Sherrington and his wife, Ethel, were close to the Oslers in Oxford. William Osler's life was written by Harvey Gushing (op. cit. (30)), who visited Sherrington in Liverpool and remained a correspondent. Fulton, who wrote Cushing's life (Fulton, op. cit. (22)), was Sherrington's student and junior colleague in the 1920s and thereafter (with his wife, Lucia) a devoted correspondent, obituarist and bibliographer of Sherrington (Fulton, op. cit. (31)).
210. These men exchanged books with each other and drew each other's attention to their bibliographic discoveries. See also Charles Rosenberg, 'Holism in twentieth-century medicine', in Lawrence and Weisz, op. cit. (28), 335-55, 344; and also 353, note 28: 'Humanistic learning, like clinical wisdom, was also historically allied with assertions of status: an interest in history, the classics, and rare books was a conventional part of the gentlemanly practitioner's social self - the visible external stigmata of a reassuring inner wisdom.'
211. There are hints of Sherrington's disquiet with the modern world: see conclusion to the Rede Lecture (Sherrington, The Brain, op. cit. (69), 34-5). The lecture was not actually delivered by Sherrington hut read by E. D. Adrian as Sherrington was unwell: Adrian, letter to Sherrington, 19 December 1933, Woodward Biomedical Library, I.2.(4). This disquiet was widely shared in the educated company in which he moved. For a scathing critique of the literary snobbery of that culture, see John Carey, The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice among the Literary Intellingentsia, 1880-1939, London, 1992. See also D. L. LeMahieu, A Culture for Democracy: Mass Communication and the Cultivated Mind in Britain between the Wars, Oxford, 1988. For contemporary German-language values of 'wholeness' in the brain sciences, see Anne Harrington, Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler, Princeton, 1996.
212. There are hints of Sherrington's disquiet with the modern world: see conclusion to the Rede Lecture (Sherrington, The Brain, op. cit. (69), 34-5). The lecture was not actually delivered by Sherrington hut read by E. D. Adrian as Sherrington was unwell: Adrian, letter to Sherrington, 19 December 1933, Woodward Biomedical Library, I.2.(4). This disquiet was widely shared in the educated company in which he moved. For a scathing critique of the literary snobbery of that culture, see John Carey, The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice among the Literary Intellingentsia, 1880-1939, London, 1992. See also D. L. LeMahieu, A Culture for Democracy: Mass Communication and the Cultivated Mind in Britain between the Wars, Oxford, 1988. For contemporary German-language values of 'wholeness' in the brain sciences, see Anne Harrington, Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler, Princeton, 1996.
213. There are hints of Sherrington's disquiet with the modern world: see conclusion to the Rede Lecture (Sherrington, The Brain, op. cit. (69), 34-5). The lecture was not actually delivered by Sherrington hut read by E. D. Adrian as Sherrington was unwell: Adrian, letter to Sherrington, 19 December 1933, Woodward Biomedical Library, I.2.(4). This disquiet was widely shared in the educated company in which he moved. For a scathing critique of the literary snobbery of that culture, see John Carey, The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice among the Literary Intellingentsia, 1880-1939, London, 1992. See also D. L. LeMahieu, A Culture for Democracy: Mass Communication and the Cultivated Mind in Britain between the Wars, Oxford, 1988. For contemporary German-language values of 'wholeness' in the brain sciences, see Anne Harrington, Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler, Princeton, 1996.
214. There are hints of Sherrington's disquiet with the modern world: see conclusion to the Rede Lecture (Sherrington, The Brain, op. cit. (69), 34-5). The lecture was not actually delivered by Sherrington hut read by E. D. Adrian as Sherrington was unwell: Adrian, letter to Sherrington, 19 December 1933, Woodward Biomedical Library, I.2.(4). This disquiet was widely shared in the educated company in which he moved. For a scathing critique of the literary snobbery of that culture, see John Carey, The Intellectuals and the Masses: Pride and Prejudice among the Literary Intellingentsia, 1880-1939, London, 1992. See also D. L. LeMahieu, A Culture for Democracy: Mass Communication and the Cultivated Mind in Britain between the Wars, Oxford, 1988. For contemporary German-language values of 'wholeness' in the brain sciences, see Anne Harrington, Reenchanted Science: Holism in German Culture from Wilhelm II to Hitler, Princeton, 1996.
215. C. S. Sherrington, 'Some aspects of animal mechanism' [Presidential Address, 1922], British Association for the Advancement of Science Reports (1923), 1-15, 13.