Patrick Matthew

Patrick Matthew (20 October 1790–8 June 1874) was a Scottish landowner and fruit farmer. He published the principle of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution over a quarter-century earlier than Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace. However, Matthew failed to develop or publicise his ideas and Darwin and Wallace were unaware of Matthew's work when they published their ideas.

Life

Matthew was born to a prosperous farming family in 1790. The Matthew family estate was "Gourdiehill" in the Carse of Gowrie, between Perth and Dundee. He was educated at Perth Academy and the University of Edinburgh, though he did not earn a degree, and in 1807 he returned to manage his family's estate. Between 1807 and 1831 he travelled on the continent; later, between 1840 and 1850, he travelled in Germany and bought farms in Schleswig-Holstein.

Matthew married and had five sons and three daughters. One son took over the German estate, two others emigrated to New Zealand. New Zealand is the only place where Matthew's descendents have been identified. [Dempster W.J. 1983. "Patrick Matthew and natural selection: nineteenth century gentleman-farmer, naturalist and writer". Harris. Edinburgh.]

Work

"Naval Timber"

In managing his orchard of apple and pear trees, he became familiar with the problems of timber forestry, and in 1831 he published the book, "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture", [ [http://books.google.com/books?id=DmYDAAAAYAAJ&printsec=titlepage&dq=%22Matthew%22+%22On+Naval+Timber+and+Arboriculture:+With+Critical+Notes+...%22+&lr= "On Naval Timber and Arboriculture; with critical notes on authors who have recently treated the subject of planting"] Patrick Matthew, 1831. Black, Edinburgh & London.] focusing on how best to grow trees for the construction of the Royal Navy's warships. He considered the task to be of great importance, as the navy permitted the British race to advance. Matthew noted the long-term deleterious effect of dysgenic artificial selection—the culling of only the trees of highest timber quality from forests—on the quality of timber. In an appendix to the book, he elaborated on how eugenic artificial selection—the elimination of trees of poor timber quality—could be used to improve timber quality, and even create new varieties of trees. He extrapolated from this to what is today recognized as a description of natural selection:

quotation
There is a law universal in nature, tending to render every reproductive being the best possible suited to its condition that its kind, or organized matter, is susceptible of, which appears intended to model the physical and mental or instinctive powers to their highest perfection and to continue them so. This law sustains the lion in his strength, the hare in her swiftness, and the fox in his wiles. As nature, in all her modifications of life, has a power of increase far beyond what is needed to supply the place of what falls by Time's decay, those individuals who possess not the requisite strength, swiftness, hardihood, or cunning, fall prematurely without reproducing—either a prey to their natural devourers, or sinking under disease, generally induced by want of nourishment, their place being occupied by the more perfect of their own kind, who are pressing on the means of subsistence . . .

There is more beauty and unity of design in this continual balancing of life to circumstance, and greater conformity to those dispositions of nature which are manifest to us, than in total destruction and new creation . . . [The] progeny of the same parents, under great differences of circumstance, might, in several generations, even become distinct species, incapable of co-reproduction.

Although his book was reviewed in several periodical publications of the time, the significance of Matthew's insight was apparently lost upon his readers, as it languished in obscurity for nearly three decades. [However, a library in Perth banned the book, having no doubt spotted its hidden heresy. Dempster W.J. 1983. "op cit", Preface.] In 1860, Matthew read a review of Darwin's "Origin of Species" in the "Gardeners' Chronicle," including its description of the principle of natural selection. This prompted him to write a letter to the publication, calling attention his earlier explication of the theory. Subsequently, Darwin commented in a letter to Charles Lyell:

quotation
In last Saturday Gardeners' Chronicle, a Mr Patrick Matthews ["sic"] publishes a long extract from his work on "Naval Timber & Arboriculture" published in 1831, in which he briefly but completely anticipates the theory of Nat. Selection. — I have ordered the book, as some few passages are rather obscure but it is, certainly, I think, a complete but not developed anticipation!

Darwin then wrote a letter of his own to the "Gardener's Chronicle", stating,

quotation
I freely acknowledge that Mr. Matthew has anticipated by many years the explanation which I have offered of the origin of species, under the name of natural selection. I think that no one will feel surprised that neither I, nor apparently any other naturalist, has heard of Mr. Matthew's views, considering how briefly they are given, and that they appeared in the Appendix to a work on Naval Timber and Arboriculture. I can do no more than offer my apologies to Mr. Matthew for my entire ignorance of his publication.

Darwin here, as well as later commenters, erred by attributing Matthew's discussions solely to the Appendix, as the main text of the work also presents in sufficiently recognizable detail "this natural process of selection among plants" (see pages 307 to 308).

Notwithstanding Darwin's insistence on his ignorance of Matthew's work, Ronald W. Clark, a biographer of Darwin, suggested that even if Darwin had at some point encountered Matthew's work (of which there is no evidence whatsoever), it is possible that it simply did not register, but crept into his subconscious, only later serving as a forgotten basis of his ideas, which would not have been intellectual dishonesty.

In subsequent editions of "The Origin of Species", Darwin acknowledged Matthew's earlier work, stating that Matthew "clearly saw...the full force of the principle of natural selection." Later, Matthew would claim credit for natural selection and even had calling cards printed with "Discoverer of the Principle of Natural Selection." However, Darwin's citation has done little to garner Matthew recognition, since he is still generally unknown. Most modern historians of science do not consider Matthew a genuine precursor. The historian of biology Peter J. Bowler has gone so far as to say that:

quotation
Such efforts to denigrate Darwin misunderstand the whole point of the history of science: Matthew did suggest a basic idea of selection, but he did nothing to develop it; and he published it in the appendix to a book on the raising of trees for shipbuilding. No one took him seriously, and he played no role in the emergence of Darwinism. Simple priority is not enough to earn a thinker a place in the history of science: one has to develop the idea and convince others of its value to make a real contribution. Darwin's notebooks confirm that he drew no inspiration from Matthew or any of the other alleged precursors. (Bowler 2003, p.158)

Ernst Mayr's opinion was even more clear-cut:

quotation
Patrick Matthew undoubtedly had the right idea, just like Darwin did on September 28, 1838, but he did not devote the next twenty years to converting it into a cogent theory of evolution. As a result it had no impact whatsoever. (Mayr 1982)

Finally, it can be said that as Matthew had anticipated Darwin and Wallace, so Wells anticipated Matthew, and died so soon after publication that he, too, never developed the idea. Edward Blyth was another, the youngest of the three men who had a claim to have anticipated natural selection.

Natural theology

Writing to Darwin in 1871, Matthew enclosed an article he had written for "The Scotsman" and, as well as wishing that he had time to write a critique of "The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex", expressed the belief that there is evidence of design and benevolence in nature, and that beauty cannot be accounted for by natural selection. [cite web |url=http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-7576.html |title=Darwin Correspondence Project - Letter 7576 — Matthew, Patrick to Darwin, C. R., 12 Mar 1871 |accessdate=2008-01-13 |format= |work=] Such a belief is mainstream natural theology, and reveals how far Matthew was from Darwin in realising the potential of evolutionary explanations: for him as well as others, man was the sticking-point.

There is little or no evidence that Matthew held these views as a younger man: there is no discussion of a religious nature in "Arboriculture"; neither is there any discussion of man in the book. It seems that he moved towards a more traditional world-view in his old age.

Other views

Matthew's idea on society were radical for their times. Although he was a landowner, he was involved with the Chartist movement, and argued that institutions of "hereditary nobility" were detrimental to society. It has been suggested that these views worked against acceptance of his theory of natural selection, being politically incorrect at the time (see Barker (2001). The more likely reason is that the obscurity of the location hid the ideas from many who would have been interested. Only "after" Darwin's "Origin" did Matthew come forward in a popular journal, the "Gardeners' Chronicle". Matthew also published a book, "Emigration Fields", suggesting that overpopulation, as predicted by Malthus, could be solved by mass migration to North America and the Dominions.

Matthew supported the invasion of Schleswig-Holstein by Bismarck in 1864: his pamphlet on the event was denounced by the "Dundee Advertiser". He also supported the Germans against the French in the Franco-Prussian War 1870-71), a war which marked the final unification of the German Empire and the end of the Second French Empire.

In 1870 Matthew became aware of the terrible housing conditions of the workers in Dundee. In a letter to the "Dundee Advertiser" he told readers that the death rate of children under five in the town was 40%, and outlined a blueprint for the redevelopment of the city.

Matthew campaigned for years against proposals to build a bridge over the River Tay. By 1869 pressure for a bridge had built up, and Matthew opposed the ideas with a letter to the Prime Minister. William Gladstone, and another to the local paper. Letters to the Dundee Advertiser followed throughout 1870 continuing the campaign. The basis of his opposition was twofold, engineering and social.

The bridge would suffer from flaws in the casting of iron; the bridge would be in the wrong place – the foundations would be difficult where planned, and if erected upstream at Newstead the construction would be safer and cheaper. The money saved could be used to improve housing in Dundee. In the end, events followed like a Greek tragedy. No notice was taken of Matthew, who died in 1874; the bridge was built expensively, opened in June 1878, and was destroyed in a storm (December 1879) with great loss of life (Tay Bridge disaster). In the subsequent inquiry Matthew's foresight was not mentioned but apparently he had been right on all counts, and in addition the engineer Thomas Bouch had not tested the bridge for its stability under wind pressure. Not for nothing was Matthews known as the 'seer of Goudiehill'. [Appendix V in Dempster "op cit" reprints all Matthew's letters to the Dundee Advertiser.]

References

*Matthew, P. (1860) [http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=A143&viewtype=text&pageseq=1 Nature's law of selection.] "Gardeners' Chronicle and Agricultural Gazette" (7 April): 312-13, including extracts from "Naval Timber and Arboriculture," (1831) pages 364 and 365, 381 to 388; also 106 to 108

*Barker, John E. [http://www.lib.duke.edu/forest/Publications/barker.pdf "Patrick Matthew—Forest Geneticist (1790-1874),"] "Forest History Today" (Spring/Fall 2001).

*Bowler, Peter J. 2003. "Evolution: The History of an Idea", 3rd. revised edn. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

*Dempster W.J. 1996. "Natural selection and Patrick Matthew: evolutionary concepts in the nineteenth century." The Pentland Press, Edinburgh.

*Mayr, Ernst 1982. "The growth of biological thought". Harvard.

*Wells K.D. 1974. The historical context of natural selection: the case of Patrick Matthew. "J Hist Biol" 6, 225-258.

*Zirkle, Conrad 1941. Natural selection before the "Origin of Species". "Proc Am Phil Soc" 84, 71-123.

External links

* [http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/matthew.html Patrick Matthew Biography] - UC Berkeley
* [http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_selection.html Natural Selection as a Creative Force] - by Stephen Jay Gould