XXVI 



his paper on Fungus of the Testis. The novel plan of treatment therein 

 proposed was generally accepted and adopted for many years. 



In 1814 he was appointed Surgeon to the London Infirmary for Diseases 

 of the Eye, now called the Royal London Ophthalmic Hospital, and in the 

 following year surgeon to the Royal Hospitals of Bethlehem and Bridewell. 

 These offices he held for many years. He devoted a very large share of 

 his attention to the study of diseases of the eye, and in 1833, after many 

 years of patient observation and reflection, he produced his celebrated trea- 

 tise on the subject, having previously (in 1830) published a smaller volume 

 on syphilitic diseases of the eye. A comprehensive work, written with all 

 the ability and skill which characterized his work on Hernia, it may be 

 said to have marked an epoch in ophthalmic surgery. It was translated 

 into many languages, a portion of it even into Arabic, and went through 

 many editions in English. The last was published in Philadelphia in 

 1854. 



In 1813 he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society, and subsequently 

 nominated a Vice-President. But it does not appear that he ever contri- 

 buted any paper. 



In 1815 Lawrence was appointed Professor of Anatomy and Surgery to 

 the College of Surgeons. There, during the years 1816, 1817, and 1818, 

 he delivered those famous lectures on Comparative Anatomy, Physiology, 

 Zoology, and the Natural History of Man, which astonished so many, and 

 aroused such animosity, that had their author been a man of less capa- 

 bility, he would, beyond doubt, have been ruined for life. 



The question at issue between the author and his assailants is not one 

 which can be discussed within the limits of this notice. But it may be 

 safely said, that were such a work to appear amongst us now, it would 

 evoke no censure beyond that which lies within the bounds of fair scientific 

 or literary criticism. The doctrine (if it can be so called) which then 

 prevailed concerning the nature of Life, and the weakness of which Law- 

 rence exposed with an unsparing hand, has long since become a dogma 

 of the past ; and in the discussion of this great question it is only fair 

 to state that he was far in advance of his time. And, again, his view 

 of the other chief subject, the relation of mind to brain, which was then 

 denounced so fiercely, is (whether right or wrong) identical with that of 

 many of the most enlightened physiologists of the present day. In scien- 

 tific argument, Lawrence was more than a match for his opponents, but 

 he was assailed by weapons which have happily been since discarded by 

 the champions of knowledge. It may, however, be urged in excuse for 

 the grievous misrepresentation to which he was subjected, that he was 

 not always sufficiently careful to guard against being misunderstood, and 

 proclaimed what he then, and to the last, believed to be the truth, with 

 disregard of, or indifference to, the convictions of those who were then 

 looked up to as the leaders of thought. 



In 1816 Lawrence published "An Introduction to Comparative Ana- 



