Continuing from my last blog
post, I want to consider whether scientific knowledge is a contender for how
Shepherd seemed so confident that foetal consciousness was plausible. So far in
my research, I have looked into both early modern and contemporary science on
foetuses. I want to discover both whether there was sufficient interest in
foetuses in her era and just before her time and therefore whether she could
have come across the notion in science and also to uncover what science today
considers plausible. Here I shall share what I have found out so far about
knowledge of foetuses that may have been accessible to Shepherd around the
publication of her philosophical treatise ‘Essays on the Perception of an
External Universe and Other Subjects Connected with the Doctrine of Causation’
in 1827.
Historical background to
science about foetuses:
When I began trying to find out
what academic discussions about consciousness in foetuses had taken place and
what research scientists’ findings were in the early modern period, I realised
that the literature on this is not abundant or readily available. For instance,
overviews of embryology history do not explicitly mention consciousness and
many works cited on foetal brains are early 20th century1.
However, I eventually discovered things that particularly interested me.
A recent study has shown that
scientists were already specifically taking a keen interest in the anatomy of
foetuses during the 18th and 19th century2.
Stillborn babies in particular were relatively easy to obtain and study until
1838, which is 11 years after Shepherd publishes her 1827 treatise where she
mentions foetal consciousness3. This study shows that ‘bodies of
foetuses and babies were a “prized source of knowledge” by British scientists
of the 18th and 19th centuries, and were dissected more commonly than
previously thought…’4. So, figuring out exactly how much knowledge
Shepherd could acquire about foetuses is an open question given that we still
are unsure about the extent and depth of scientific knowledge about foetuses in
general during this era.
Given we are still learning about
scientists’ depth of interest and knowledge about foetuses around Shepherd’s
era, it is not inconceivable that Shepherd could also have more knowledge about
foetuses than we expect her to have, especially given that she met and had
academic discussions with eminent scientists in her day. McRobert points out
that Shepherd was friends with well-known scientists throughout her life,
including many who had links with the main universities in her day, including
the University of London5. This, I think, is important because some
of the very few drawings and studies of foetal brains I discovered were images
from a best-selling book by Jones Quain, professor of Anatomy and Physiology at
the University of London6. This book, entitled ‘Elements of Anatomy’
was first published in 1828, only a year after Shepherd’s mention of foetuses
in her 1827 treatise. So it is possible that Shepherd knew him and his work on
the foetal brain and could have discussed it with him because he may well have
attended her London salon. I’m not yet sure what his views were on
consciousness but this shows that knowledge in this field was developed enough
for Shepherd to either learn about it from others or draw on their work to form
her own views on the matter. Indeed, Quain was not the only scientist examining
foetal brains. In France, Jules Germain Cloquet was producing a 5 volume
anatomy atlas and included drawings of foetal brain development over time in
the last volume7, published in 1825, only a few years prior to
Shepherd’s 1827 treatise. As can been seen by the artist Jan van
Rymsdyk, who worked in the UK during the 18th century producing images
of foetuses, interest in producing images of foetal anatomy also stretches back
to the 18th century. So, given that Shepherd was born in 1777 and van Rymsdyk
worked in the UK between 1745 and 1780, it is possible that detailed pictures
and knowledge of foetuses would have been accessible to Shepherd throughout her
life.
So I think it is a strong
possibility that Shepherd may have learnt about foetal minds from scientists in
her era and that this led her to take the notion of foetal consciousness as
something she didn’t feel she needed to explain to her readers. Given that
Shepherd didn’t mention how foetal consciousness crossed her mind in her 1827
treatise, and given that studies are only now, very recently grasping the
extent of knowledge of and interest in foetuses in the 18th to 19th
century, we shall never know for sure how it occurred to her. Indeed, at times,
she belatedly mentions in a footnote that she learnt that, subsequent to
writing her 1827 treatise, her views unknowingly coincide with other thinkers. So
even if her ideas could be traced back to resembling something a scientist or
philosopher expressed about foetal consciousness, this would not be sufficient
evidence to suggest that she did not reach such conclusions through her own
independent thought despite this. Nevertheless, given the above, I still think,
as I did before9, that it is highly likely that Shepherd learnt about
foetal minds by discussing science with eminent scientists, family friends and
intellectuals who were part of her London circle, especially since science was
one of her favourite subjects and informed her philosophy10.
Consequently, I think her views on foetal consciousness probably sprung from
these discussions and her own reading, either by learning it from them or by
formulating her own thoughts on it based on knowledge available to her.
However, scientific discoveries
and theories progress all the time. So, in my next blog post, I want to explore
whether contemporary science can tell us if Shepherd is right in thinking
foetuses are capable of a consciousness of sorts.
3ibid
4ibid
5McRobert, J. (2002,
revised 2014). Mary Shepherd and the Causal Relation. P48-9, Retrieved from
philpapers.org: https://philpapers.org/archive/MCRMSA.pdf
9Question time after
my paper: see
10 “Many of those in
Lady Mary’s social circle shared a love of mathematics, science, and abstract
analysis — subjects that played an important role in the emerging philosophy
and science of the nineteenth century. They were subjects in which Lady Mary
had a keen philosophical interest.” In McRobert,
J. (2002, revised 2014). Mary Shepherd and the Causal Relation. P49, Retrieved
from philpapers.org: https://philpapers.org/archive/MCRMSA.pdf
Shepherd, M. (1827). ‘Essays on the Perception of an
External Universe and Other Subjects Connected with the Doctrine of Causation’ (first
edition ed.). Piccadilly, London, London, United Kingdom: John Hatchard and
Son. Retrieved from https://archive.org/stream/essaysonpercepti00shep/essaysonpercepti00shep_djvu.txt
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.