One part of his exercise in logomachy (Sutton 2014, chapter 4) was to find phrases in Matthew (1831) that were apparently never used before. Concluding that Matthew was first to coin and use these phrases (called Matthewisms), authors who used the same phrase afterwards were taken to have them from Matthew (1831). These authors were called first to be second.
The following authors were all taken to probably have the phrases in question from Matthew (1831), the implication being that they all read Matthew's book and, if they don't cite Matthew, betray this by the use of the phrases in question. The list below is list 2 from Sutton (2014, chapter 4) with comments added, were Sutton's premise is evidentially false.
- 1832 — Mudie: "rectangular branching"
- 1833 — Ellerby: "plants so far asunder"
Matthew (1831, p. 154), on the other hand wrote about the self thinning that occurs among tree seedlings in natural clearances in forests. Whether Ellerby got the inspiration for using the phrase "plants so far asunder" form a private reading of Matthew (1831), is a moot question. Nobody reading Ellerby's account of an anecdote about a pastor failing to teach his peasants proper potato cultivation, could therefrom have gotten wind of Matthew's book.
- 1835 — Main: "luxuriant growing trees"
- 1834 — Conrad: "admixture of species"
- 1834 — Roget: "living aggregates"
- 1834 — Low: "long continued selection"
- 1836 — Rafinesque: "evinced in the genus"
"To unite in the single Genus, Carex, plants with 2 or 3 stigmas or styles is still worse; and not to perceive that such a Genus of 300 Species is a fine Nat. family with many Genera distinguished by this and the seminal covering, proves that the absurd linnean principles evinced in the Genus Lichen now a Class! prevail as yet among us. Whoever preserves Carex entire ought to keep Lichen and Agaricus entire, and make a single Genus of Ombellifera."
Compare this with Matthew (1831, p. 107f):
"May we, then, wonder that our plantations are occupied by a sickly short-lived puny race, incapable of supporting existence in situations where their own kind had formerly flourished—particularly evinced in the genus Pinus, more particularly in the species Scots fir; so much inferior to those of Nature's own rearing, where only the stronger, more hardy, soil-suited varieties can struggle forward to maturity and reproduction?"
Why should Rafinesque take his phrase, used to rant against the Linnean system, from Matthew using the same phrase, in order to say something about the degeneration of cultivated plants. Even if he read the phrase in Matthew (1831) and it stuck to his sub-conscience, and it later re-emerged when writing, what's the point of such psychologizing? A phrase that is picked up somewhere and regurgitated in a different context. What can it signify? The phrase transports nothing. That, however, is exactly Sutton's logomachy that he claims that the phrase is the concept (e.g., here and here).
The slightly longer phrase: "proves that the absurd linnean principles evinced in the Genus Lichen now a Class! prevail as yet among us," however, is a very different concept from: "our plantations are occupied by a sickly short-lived puny race, incapable of supporting existence in situations where their own kind had formerly flourished—particularly evinced in the genus Pinus."
- 1837 —Wilson: "threatened ascendency"
"But in a country like Great Britain—where, with the universal diffusion of freedom, there is a deep and wide-spread interest throughout all ranks and classes in the stability of its institutions—the fear of change, when once it becomes prevalent, must have effects as wide and general as they are pernicious. Men of property cannot view without the greatest alarm the growing power and threatened ascendency of those fluctuating masses, who acting so often on the principle that they have nothing to lose and little to fear, would have every temptation to exert their legislative influence, as a means of plundering the wealthy. Men of high-minded and liberal spirits, cannot, without indignation, look forward to the subversion of all that is chivalrous and polished and cultivated in society— and the substitution of mean, coarse, and selfish vulgarities, that would undo the civilisation of centuries, and strip political and private intercourse of all its humanities, and half of its virtues. Men who love genuine and equal freedom, cannot sit still when those safeguards are sought to he removed, which, by controlling all, give liberty to all, and without which the caprices and violences of democracy would bear unresisted dominion, and the shifting mob-majority of the day would receive unbounded license for endless tyranny, and reciprocal retaliation." (p. 244)
So this was a rant about the political situation of the day. Compare this with Matthew's threatened ascendacy of races (or species) meaning a threat of extinction:
"Among the millions of specific varieties of living things which occupy the humid portion of the surface of our planet, as far back as can be traced, there does not appear, with the exception of man, to have been any particular engrossing race, but a pretty fair balance of powers of occupancy,—or rather, most wonderful variation of circumstance parallel to the nature of every species, as if circumstance and species had grown up together. There are indeed several races which have threatened ascendency in some particular regions, but it is man alone from whom any general imminent danger to the existence of his brethren is to be dreaded." (Matthew 1831, p. 387)
Matthew is not, here, talking politics, although he does elsewhere in his book. The above passage is not about election, revolution, equal rights of democracy or anything that Wilson is on about.
- 1837 — Anonymous: "nature's own rearing" [Endnote : Spectator Journal.
"It is this false system that makes mere puppets of so many actors; in particular, it has spoiled two clever young ladies of the Covent Garden company, Miss Helen Faucit, and Miss Taylor. Miss Taylor's Perdita was not the simple shepherdess, but a court lady assuming the character: instead of a flower of Nature's own rearing, we were presented with an artificial imitation—and not a very good one either."
Are we to believe that the author of this critique must have taken the phrase of "nature's own rearing" from a book on naval timber or that a reader of this critique somehow got wind of Matthew's book from this critique?
- 1837 — Dovaston: "sport in infinite varieties"
- 1838 — Anonymous translator: "portion of the surface of our planet"
Sutton's gives this reference in the list at the end of the book: Anonymous 1838. "Economical uses of the willow." The Penny Magazine of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. Firstly, this article is not in the 1838 volume of the Penny Magazine, but in the volume of 1842. This does not get clear, however, unless one scrolls through the whole thing that google has put online. The 1838 volume ends at page 508 and the 1842 volume commences with page 1. The article in question starts at page 434 and end at page 436, but it is better read following this link, because the scans are better than in the link given above and no volumes are concatenated.
Secondly, this article is not a translation. thirdly, the anonymous author of this article does cite and quote Matthew (1831) directly, but only on a practical use of willows. Fourthly, the phrase "portion of the surface of our planet" can nowhere be found in this article. Here's the quote of Matthew:
"Mr. Mathew [sic], in his 'Treatise on Naval Timber,' states, in reference to these properties of red-wood willow:—"Formerly, before the introduction of iron-hoops for cart-wheels, the external rim, or felloe, was made of willow; and when new, the cart or wain was drawn along a road covered with hard small gravel (and in preference, gravel somewhat angular); by which means the felloe shod itself with stone, and thus became capable of enduring the friction of the road for a long time, the toughness and elasticity of the willow retaining the gravel till the stone was worn away." (p. 435).
Hence, this is a case of shoddy referencing combined with misquotation and irrelevance to the topic.
- 1840 — Buel: "infirm progeny"
- 1840 — Swackhamer: "beat off intruders"
Matthew (1831, p. 303), however, discussed the influence of the soil on seeds, especially in the winter or wet season. He thought that many trees could, once established on certain soils, easily beat off intruders, but they are limited because their seeds will not survive these seasons in these soils.
What polite words can anybody find for someone suggesting that the American foreing minister, recounting a silly parour game, must have taken his phrase from Matthew?
- 1841 — Johnson: "adapted to prosper"
- 1841 — Hill: "deeper richer soil"
- 1842 — Selby: "greater power of occupancy"
"The soil upon which most if the Abietae prevail, is usually of a dry and cool quality; thus, the débris of granitic and other primitive rocks, and barren sandy districts, are very commonly occupied by Pine and fir forests, sometimes of enormous extent; the thick and close manner in which they grow, and the dense shade they produce, effectually preventing the vegetation of other species. Matthew, however, in his able treatise on naval timber seems to think that its indigenous location in such districts arises not so much from preference of soils of the nature above-mentioned, as from its having more power of occupancy in such soils than any other plant of the country; and this opinion he endeavours to support by stating that the Pinus sylvestris, planted in a good or rich soil, attains larger dimensions and its best timber properties, and that it is only driven from this superior soil by the greater power of occupancy, planted in a good or rich soil, attains larger dimensions and its best timber properties, and that it is only driven from this superior soil by the greater power of occupancy possessed by the oak and other deciduous trees, an opinion in which we cannot altogether acquiesce, as we see no reason why the fir, if it grows with such additional vigour in a richer soil, as Mr. Matthew asserts, should, at the same time, be unable to maintain a contest with the oak or other tree." (Selby 1842, p. 391)
Obviously, Selby did not understand the relativity of growth in a richer or poorer soil. That is if the pine does grow better in rich than in poor soil, but the oak grows still much better than the pine there, then the oak will oust the pine from the rich soil. If on the other hand, pine grows worse in poor than in rich soil, but still better than other trees, it will exclude the other trees from poor soil. In modern parlance, soil quality would be called a dimension of the ecological niche (/niːʃ/).
While it is obvious for us to see, in retrospective, that this insight about ecology (competitive exclusion) has been inspired by MAtthew's thinking interms of natural selection abd competition between trees, his contemporaries did not have our retrospective vantage. Selby obviously failed to get Matthew's idea, here. If this proves anything, then that Selby did not receive (read or understand) Matthew's exposition of the idea of natural selection in the appendix. It surely shows that Selby read Matthew (1831) as a work on technicl matters of tree planting, training etc., because 24 of 25 pages that cite Matthew, do so on technical matters.
- 1844 — Low: "overpowering the less"
- 1846 — Emmons: "habits of varieties"
- 1846 — Alabama Supreme Court: "Infirmity of their condition"
"Campbell, contra, contended, that the case was not varied since it was last here—the bills stood alone; no evidence of delivery to the plaintiff—no evidence of consideration, to relieve them from the infirmity of their condition. He cited 6 Wend. 644; 13 Mass. 158."
Whatever this means, it is about the poor condition of the case of a defendant in a lawsuit and does not have the slightest thing to do with Matthew (1831, p. 387) arguing about the degeneration of domesticated animals or cultivated plants being unable to survive without the help of humans, beacause of the infirmity of their condition:
"As far back as history reaches, man had already had considerable influence, and had made encroachments upon his fellow denizens, probably occasioning the destruction of many species, and the production and continuation of a number of varieties or even species, which he found more suited to supply his wants, but which, from the infirmity of their condition— not having undergone selection by the law of nature, of which we have spoken, cannot maintain their ground without his culture and protection."
Whatever slack you may have cut Sutton so far, as readerr of criminology should have done better than that on his own turf.
- 1848 — Charnock: "stiffest and most obdurate"
- 1849 — Emmons: "deteriorated by culture"
- 1852 — Wilkin: "figure is best accommodated"
- 1853 — Andrews: "impressions and habits acquired"
- 1854 — Mure: "dogmatical classification"
"I further maintain therefore, that any such tripartite classiﬁcation as that of Mr. Grote— who ﬁrst condemns in the mass the whole Greek tradition prior to the exact year of the Dorian conquest as pure ﬁction, because he has no means of demonstrating it to be true; who next suddenly admits Greek tradition from the Dorian conquest down to 776 to be Mythology founded on a broad basis of fact, although he has no means of demonstrating the existence of that fact; and who thirdly, admits Greek tradition from 776 downwards to be “true or objective history,” although there are no contemporary historians for about two centuries afterwards;—any such dogmatical classiﬁcation must be a fallacy." (p. 530)
Compare this with Matthew (1831, p. 381) airing doubts about the systematics/taxonomy of his time:
"Throughout this volume, we have felt considerable inconvenience, from the adopted dogmatical classification of plants, and have all along been floundering between species and variety, which certainly under culture soften into each other."
No reason to suppose that Mure must have taken the phrase from Matthew, but if he did, this will for ever remain a speculation that cannot be proven and would, even in that case, be completely irrelevant.
- 1855 — Fishbourne: "power to permeate"
"The ignorant always invent something strange but ridiculous, to account for what they do not understand; [...] Of their real position and character we have much to learn, and it may be of the most interesting, not to say important kind, for it may be that, like the Jews at Kae-fung-foo, they have a copy of the Old Testament scriptures, but have lost the knowledge of the character in which it is written; [...] and as a consequence, the people have only a general knowledge of their contents ; so that only such meagre portions of the truth as may have been embalmed in their customs and traditions is current amongst them, revolting them from idolatry like the Jew, and predisposing them so towards Christianity, that when it was presented to them they met it with acceptance."
That is, Fishbourne explains the failure to permeate the Miou-tze of the ruling Chinese race, which otherwise shows a great power to permeate other races, as a cultural/religious thing. Again, this has no connection whatever with Matthew (1831, p. 335) writing of the power of the roots of some tree species to permeate the stiffest and most obdurate soils.
- 1855 — Laycock: "mental or instinctive powers"
- 1856 — Gazlay: "adaptation to condition"
- 1858 — Powell: "restricted adaptation"
"He [Powell] begins by referring to the apostolic declaration in the Epistle to the Hebrews (chap. i. 1.) as presenting to us a brief but comprehensive view of the "nature, character, and connection of the successive Divine dispensations,” and as conﬁrming, according to our author, the restricted adaptation of all the older dispensations to the mere condition of the parties respectively addressed. “The view presented to us is that of successive revelations, systems, covenants, laws, given to
different individuals, families, or nations, containing gradual, progressive, and partial developments of spiritual truth, and intimations of the Divine will for their guidance, accompanied with peculiar positive institutions, adapted to the ideas of the age and the condition of the parties to whom they were vouchsafed.” (p. 501f)
That is, Powell and his reviewer were writing about the ways in which god adapted his rules and revelations to the different ilks of humans he sees himself confronted with. It would be utterly absurd to regard this as a case of evolution (of divine dispensations) through selective pressures exerty by humans. No connection to MAtthew (1831) whatever.the utmost, to suppose thisfrom
- 1858 — Floy: "law manifest in nature"
"The Road to Spiritualism, in four lectures delivered in the New York Lyceum, by Dr. Hallock, author of "The Child and the Man." [...] Dr Hallock, the high-priest of nature says: "Bring before the man who holds this key these empire-splitting and world-convulsing questions which have vexed it so long, and mark what he will do with them. Ask him: Ought I to starve my body to a skeleton, or mutilate any part of it, for the glory of God and the good of my soul? Should I be a Shaker, or a Mormon, in my relation to woman? He asks you, Are these practices physiologically and socially right? You answer, No. Then they are theologically wrong, and no authority can save them from ultimate disgrace. Physiological, theological, and every other law manifest in nature, must accord, if from no other necessity, then from this, that they have a common end, which is, the development of man."
That is, Hallock simply thought that both the polygamy of the Mormons and the celibacy of the Shakers were unnatural—against the law of physiology, theology and every other law manifest in nature.
This is an embarrassing context for Sutton, and it has absolutely nothing to do with Matthew's law of degeneration: "There is a law manifest in nature, that when the use of any thing is past, its existence is no longer kept up" (Matthew 1831, p. 367). Why should the fact that Floy (1858), in parroting Hallock's gibberish, happened to use the same phrase as Matthew did before, signify that Floy must have read Matthew (1831)?
- 1858 — Leidy: "impressions in insects"
At Feb. 15th., Dr. T. G. Richardson read an elaborate paper by Dr. George Patic, of Galt, Canada West, upon the Functions of the Spinal Cord, as illustrated by experiments on cold-blooded animals;* endeavouring to show occasion for some modification of the theory of reflex action of Marshall Hall, and for the opinion that perception is one of the attributes of the spinal cord, and especially of the medulla oblongata." (p. 676)
This already sets the stage as a discussion about the question, whether the spinal cord and especially the brain stem are mere autopilots or whether some kind of perception or consciousness can be attributed to them. The Marshall Hall mentioned is associated with the theory of the reflex arc that proposed an automatic reflex involving the spinal marrow only. Hence the contex of the deliberations of the society, here, is neurobiology. (The reference given for the asterisk says: "* See N. Amer. Medico-Chirurg. Review, May, 1858." This was a common practive, to first read a paper, then publish it, so that the members of the society would know in advance, in which issue it would end up and could cite it in advance, ht to Julian Derry.) Anyway, Dr. Leidy was not convinced and argued for the autopilot. This has been reported thus:
"Dr. Leidy remarked that the experiments narrated in the paper did not appear to him entirely conclusive, as the movements described might be automatic. [...] He believed that the conveyance of impressions, in insects, for instance, to the chain of ventral ganglion, should be expected, without supposing perception to produce the apparently voluntary movements."
Leidy even recounts an experiment of his, in which he kept a pigeon alive after removing the cerebrum (that's the big part of the brain with which we consciously think) and how the pigeon would, for warmth, walk into a fire and how he needed to repeatedly pick it out of the ash-pan, or else it would have grilled itself. Thereafter, a lively debate commenced—all neurophysiology.
Compare this with Matthew (1831, p 385f) struggling to unite his idea of natural selection (circumstance-adaptive law as he called it) with the Lamarckian idea of volition and sensation having an effect on evolution:
"This circumstance-adaptive law, operating upon the slight but continued natural disposition to sport in the progeny (seedling variety), does not preclude the supposed influence which volition or sensation may have over the configuration of the body. [...opaque passage omitted...]"
He then seems to say that instinctive behaviour is more likely to be found in insects with shorter life-cycles than in animals with longer ones. For some reason he then calls this lack of continuity of individuals greater continuity of existence and concludes:
"This greater continuity of existence, or rather continuity of perceptions and impressions, in insects, is highly probable [...opaque passage omitted...]."
The whole passage is very opaque and difficult to understand. Mike Weale, for example, thinks Matthew is hinting at racial memory (he does talk about human races in one of the passages I omitted) and swarm intelligence.
In conclusion, this is a case of shoddy referencing on Sutton's part, because the author reporting the Transactions is not Leidy, as he makes his readers believe, but Hartshorne. Leidy may never have used the phrase "impressions, in insects." Moreover, the contexts are neurobiology vs. a trial at uniting Lamarckism with natural selection (circumstance-adaptive law) that is really opaque (may include stuff about swarm intelligence or racial memory).
The question is: Why should the fact that Hartshorne, in reporting the deliberations of the members of his medical society during a session on neurophysiology, used the phrase "impressions, in insects," signify that he has read Matthew (1831) having previously used the same phrase in a different context? While both contexts are science, and this case is not as devastating as the Floy–spiritualism case or the anonymous–theatre-critique case, Sutton's credibility is all gone, as far as I am concerned.