Provided for non-commercial research and educational use only. Not for reproduction, distribution or commercial use. This chapter was originally published in the book Progress in Brain Research, Vol. 205, published by Elsevier, and the attached copy is provided by Elsevier for the author's benefit and for the benefit of the author's institution, for non-commercial research and educational use including without limitation use in instruction at your institution, sending it to specific colleagues who know you, and providing a copy to your institution’s administrator. All other uses, reproduction and distribution, including without limitation commercial reprints, selling or licensing copies or access, or posting on open internet sites, your personal or institution’s website or repository, are prohibited. For exceptions, permission may be sought for such use through Elsevier's permissions site at: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/permissionusematerial From: Anne Stiles, Bram Stoker’s Brother, the Brain Surgeon. In Anne Stiles, Stanley Finger, François Boller, editors: Progress in Brain Research, Vol. 205, Amsterdam: The Netherlands, 2013, pp. 197-218. ISBN: 978-0-444-63273-9 © Copyright 2013 Elsevier B.V. Elsevier Author's personal copy CHAPTER Bram Stoker’s Brother, the Brain Surgeon 10 Anne Stiles1 Department of English, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, MO, USA Corresponding author: Tel.:þ1-310-254-5648; Fax.: þ(562) 391-1863, e-mail address: astiles1@slu.edu 1 Abstract This essay examines the life and work of Sir William Thornley Stoker, 1st Baronet (1845–1912), the eldest brother of Bram Stoker (1847–1912), the author of Dracula (1897). Sir William or “Thornley,” as he was commonly known, was one of Ireland’s leading physicians. He performed some of the first brain surgeries in Ireland using Sir David Ferrier’s maps of the cerebral cortex. From 1879 into the twentieth century, Thornley served as inspector for Ireland under the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act. In this role, Thornley was responsible for granting licenses to researchers who performed experiments on live animals. Due to his reservations about animal experimentation, Thornley eventually became an advocate for the antivivisection cause, testifying at the second Royal Commission on Vivisection (1906–1912). Thornley also influenced Irish literature, albeit indirectly. Bram Stoker’s composition notes for Dracula show that he consulted his older brother about the medical scenes in his novel. Thornley’s knowledge of cerebral localization and his animal rights advocacy both surface in Dracula. Keywords Stoker (Sir William Thornley), Stoker (Bram), vivisection, cerebral localization, Ferrier (Sir David), animal rights, Dracula, vampires 1 INTRODUCTION1 In the twenty-first century, Bram Stoker (1847–1912) is renowned for his Gothic vampire novel, Dracula (1897). But during his lifetime, Stoker’s successes were overshadowed by those of his distinguished older brother, Sir William Thornley 1 This essay expands upon material first presented in Stiles (2012, pp. 57–73). I am grateful to Cambridge University Press for permitting me to develop my earlier work in the present volume. Progress in Brain Research, Volume 205, ISSN 0079-6123, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-63273-9.00011-3 © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. 197 Author's personal copy 198 CHAPTER 10 Bram Stoker’s Brother Stoker (1845–1912), 1st Baronet, one of Ireland’s leading medical men.2 Sir William, or “Thornley,” as he was generally known, was his family’s professional success story, collecting numerous honors during his medical career.3 He served as President of the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland from 1894 to 1896, and was knighted for his accomplishments in 1895. From 1903 to 1906, Thornley served as President of the Royal Academy of Medicine in Ireland, a position considered “the most honourable prize of the profession of medicine in Ireland” (Anon., 1912, p. 1399). In 1911, he was made a Baronet. Thornley’s many contributions to science included advances in brain surgery. He performed some of the first brain surgeries in Ireland (Fleetwood, 1951). On account of his association with St. Patrick’s Hospital in Dublin, also known as Jonathan Swift’s hospital “for fools and mad,” Thornley specialized in “surgery of the cerebro-spinal cavity,” though he also published articles on hysterectomy, appendectomy, prostatectomy, and bowel obstruction (Anon., 1912, p. 1399). Using Sir David Ferrier’s cortical maps, Thornley was able to save the life of a patient suffering from brain hemorrhage in the late 1880s and to locate brain tumors and abscesses in patients he treated in the early 1890s. Thornley described these groundbreaking surgeries in a series of published articles in Annals of Surgery and Dublin Journal of Medical Science (see Stoker, 1888; Stoker et al., 1890). Additionally, Thornley advocated on behalf of animal rights, drawing on his authority as inspector for Ireland under the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act (sometimes referred to as the 1876 Antivivisection Act).4 This Act legalized vivisection, but required researchers to obtain licenses to perform experiments on live vertebrates. Certain types of licenses were more difficult to obtain than others, particularly Certificate B, which allowed a scientist to experiment on an animal without anesthetic or to keep an animal alive following an experimental surgical procedure; and Certificate C, which allowed vivisection for the purposes of medical instruction (Anon., 1901). The Act was enforced by a network of inspectors and Home Secretaries in England, Scotland, and Ireland. First-time violators paid a fee of £50; repeat offenders were subject to larger fines or short periods of imprisonment (Otis, 2007, p. 33). As inspector under the Act, Thornley’s job was to grant licenses to researchers he deemed competent, and whose research seemed scientifically valid. He could refuse to grant a license if he deemed an experiment unjustifiable or calculated to give unnecessary pain to animal subjects. He also visited research laboratories throughout Ireland in which animal experiments were conducted, in order to ensure compliance with the Act. 2 Nina Auerbach and David Skal remind us that “Stoker’s vampire story is far more important to us than it was to its contemporary Victorians, who relished it as a good potboiler but never made Bram Stoker or his monster famous.” Dracula “seemed commonplace in its time” but achieved its present fame thanks to cinematic adaptations during the twentieth century (“Preface” to Stoker, 1897/1997, p. ix). 3 Because I discuss several members of the Stoker family in this essay, I will refer to them by their first names in order to help the reader distinguish between them. 4 On the genesis of the Cruelty to Animals Act and the motives of its supporters and detractors, see Hamilton (2004) and Otis (2007). Author's personal copy 2 Thornley’s Early Life and Scientific Education Thornley’s experiences as inspector convinced him of the need to limit the types of animal experimentation allowed under British law. Specifically, he objected to experiments on “higher” animals, such as dogs and monkeys, because they allegedly felt more pain than less evolved species such as rabbits or mice. He also objected to using vivisection for educational purposes; for example, to demonstrate anatomical principles in medical school lectures (Anon., 1907e). In 1907, Thornley aided the antivivisection cause by serving as an expert witness at the second Royal Commission on Vivisection (1906–1912). Because most physicians supported vivisection, Thornley’s stance put him at odds with many of his medical peers. This essay provides an overview of the life and work of this once celebrated surgeon and shows how his medical knowledge and animal rights advocacy contributed to Dracula. Because Bram Stoker consulted with his older brother on Dracula’s medical scenes, the novel is very much informed by the neuroscience of the 1890s. The novel’s characters, especially physicians Dr. Abraham Van Helsing and Dr. John Seward, demonstrate knowledge of cerebral localization research. This becomes clear, for instance, when they operate on the madman Renfield after he suffers a traumatic brain injury. The novel also contains a potent critique of vivisection in the figure of Dracula, a vampire with a “mighty brain,” who is “creeping into knowledge experimentally,” using animals and people indiscriminately as subjects (Stoker, 1897/1997, pp. 212, 264). By treating human beings as callously as scientists treat animals, Dracula reveals the moral equivocation practiced by vivisectors, according to antivivisection propaganda of the period. Notably, Bram carries his critique of higher animal vivisection much farther than Thornley, literally demonizing experimental scientists in the figure of his vampire villain. While Dracula stands in for evil vivisectors, the novel’s hero, Van Helsing, combines an appreciation for scientific research with an interest in occult matters. Bram presents Van Helsing as the ideal man of science, rigorous but still open minded about unexplained phenomena. Intriguingly, some critics feel that Van Helsing’s character was loosely based on Thornley (Belford, 1996). Others have suggested that Seward and Van Helsing are both modeled on Thornley to some extent (Schaffer, 1994). In other words, Thornley served his brother not just as a source of medical advice, but also as a role model upon whom he based the novel’s two physician heroes. 2 THORNLEY’S EARLY LIFE AND SCIENTIFIC EDUCATION Thornley was born in 1845 to a middle-class Protestant family living in Dublin, Ireland. The Stokers originally hailed from the Netherlands, but settled in Ireland around 1690. There, they worked as tradesmen and minor bureaucrats, but “eventually distinguished themselves as physicians and medical researchers” (Belford, 1996, p. 20). Indeed, the Stoker family valued science, rational inquiry, and empirical research (Senf, 2002). Thornley’s grandfather, William Stoker, wrote a Treatise on Fever (1815) and worked at the Dublin House of Recovery and the Cork Street Fever Hospital in Dublin. Two of Thornley’s uncles were also physicians: Edward 199 Author's personal copy 200 CHAPTER 10 Bram Stoker’s Brother Alexander Stoker was a surgeon and one of the chief examiners at the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland, while William Stoker was affiliated with Dublin’s Fever Hospital (Senf, 2002). It was this William Stoker who nursed young Bram through his first 7 years, when the boy suffered from a mysterious illness that left him unable to walk or stand (Bram would later fully recover and become a successful college athlete). His treatment of Bram likely included bleeding him by attaching leeches to the skin (Belford, 1996). In Thornley’s generation, two of his four brothers and one brother-in-law became physicians. Richard Stoker was affiliated with the Royal College of Surgeons, Ireland, and the King’s and Queen’s College of Physicians, Ireland. He later became a surgeon for the Indian Medical Service, retired in 1897, and moved to British Columbia (Belford, 1996; Senf, 2002). George, the youngest Stoker brother, served as a surgeon with the Turkish Army before settling in London, where he became consulting physician to the Lyceum Theatre. There, he specialized in diseases of the throat that plagued the theater’s actors. George would also become the director of The Oxygen Home (later the Fitzroy Clinic) and the author of The Oxygen Treatment for Wounds, Ulcers, etc. (Senf, 2002). Bram’s sister Margaret married another distinguished physician, Sir William Thomson (1843–1910), who was knighted for his medical accomplishments in 1897. His research centered on the arteries and blood supply; he edited the third edition of Power’s Surgical Anatomy of the Arteries (1881) (Senf, 2002). The family misfit was Bram, who served as manager of the Lyceum Theatre from 1878 to 1898, and wrote 18 books, only one of which is now well remembered (Hopkins, 2007). Though he hailed from an illustrious medical background, Thornley’s father, Abraham Stoker, was a civil servant rather than a physician. He worked as a clerk at Dublin Castle, a government position that provided a steady wage. His wife, Charlotte, was a socially conscious, intelligent woman, who gave birth to seven children within 10 years’ time. Their oldest boy, Thornley, was born in 1845, a particularly disastrous year for Ireland. It was the beginning of the Irish Potato Famine (1845–1849), which killed a million and a half Irish people and caused an equal number to emigrate to the United States, Canada, and elsewhere (Belford, 1996, p. 17). The famine also contributed to outbreaks of diseases, including cholera, dysentery, scurvy, and typhus. Middle-class families like the Stokers did not go hungry, but they were surrounded by vivid examples of suffering. Starving, displaced people roamed the countryside. One observer, Josephine Butler, recalled seeing “a population of men women and children, squatting in rags; uncovered skeleton limbs protruding everywhere from their wretched clothing, and clamorous though faint voices uplifted for food” (qtd. in Smith, 2002, n.p.). It is possible that Thornley’s interest in medicine was sparked by the suffering he witnessed around him during these years of famine and disease. The Stokers fled Dublin during this period and sought refuge in the quiet coastal town of Clontarf (now a Dublin suburb). There, Thornley’s younger brother Bram was born in 1847. When her children were young, Charlotte terrified them with tales of “the cholera epidemic of 1832 in Sligo, where she was born; of how she heard the Banshee cry when her mother died; of how some during the famine drank blood extracted from the veins of cattle” (Belford, 1996, p. 18). Bram’s interest in horror Author's personal copy 3 Thornley as Brain Surgeon may have begun with his mother’s stories, which he asked her to transcribe and later incorporated into some of his lesser-known fiction. Of his siblings, Thornley was probably closest to Bram. Thornley brought his invalid brother insects, rocks, and other tokens of the outside world when Bram was too sick to leave his bedroom (Belford, 1996). Later in life, Bram would name his only son Irving Noel Thornley Stoker, commemorating his friendship with the celebrated actor Henry Irving, as well as his closeness with his most successful brother (Hopkins, 2007). Given their close relationship, it is not surprising that Bram would later consult Thornley for advice regarding the medical scenes in Dracula, or base certain aspects of his vampire-hunting heroes, Seward and Van Helsing, on his older brother. The five Stoker brothers received the best education available to men of their class, thanks in part to their socially ambitious, highly literate mother. Charlotte gave them their early education, taking advantage of the family’s fine library, then sent the boys to various college preparatory schools in England and Ireland. Thornley attended Wymondham Grammar, a public school in Norfolk, England, while Bram was sent to William Woods’s school in Dublin, perhaps staying closer to home due to lingering worries about his health. All five brothers attended Trinity College, Dublin, as befitted men of the Protestant middle class in Ireland (Irish Catholics typically attended University College, Dublin, whereas the upper-class Anglo-Irish normally sent their sons to Oxford or Cambridge; Belford, 1996). At Trinity, Thornley was more studious than his brother Bram, though what exactly each studied remains unclear. Bram claimed to have received his B.A. with honors in pure mathematics around 1870, but this is apparently not substantiated by Trinity College records (Murray, 2004). He also claimed to have received an M.A. from the institution in a scientific field. In any case, Bram appears to have been more interested in extracurricular activities, such as athletics and debating societies, than in his coursework. As Carol Senf notes, “[Bram Stoker’s] own memories of his college days include remarkably little about science and mathematics,” whatever he may have studied (2002, p. 54). While Thornley’s undergraduate career is even less well documented, he subsequently studied medicine at the Royal College of Surgeons, Dublin and Queen’s College, Galway. After earning his M.D. in 1866, Thornley worked as a surgeon at the City of Dublin Hospital and then at Richmond Hospital beginning in 1873 (Anon., 1912). Then, in May 1876, Thornley was appointed Professor of Practical Anatomy at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland. That same month, he also became a surgeon affiliated with St. Patrick’s Hospital in Dublin, commonly known as “Swift’s Hospital for Lunatics and Idiots” (Anon., 1876, p. 513). Due to his affiliation with St. Patrick’s, Thornley began to focus on surgery of the brain and spinal column. 3 THORNLEY AS BRAIN SURGEON In the late 1880s and early 1890s, Thornley published at least two articles describing brain surgeries he had performed at Dublin’s Richmond and Whitworth Hospitals (see Stoker, 1888; Stoker et al., 1890). In these case reports, Thornley praised Ferrier’s cortical maps and described how he applied Ferrier’s findings in order to locate 201 Author's personal copy 202 CHAPTER 10 Bram Stoker’s Brother brain abscesses, tumors, and skull fractures. Ferrier’s discoveries were revolutionary and controversial, and formed the basis of Thornley’s surgical practice. For these reasons, it is important to describe them at some length here. Ferrier developed his cortical maps during the early 1870s, in a series of animal experiments conducted at the West Riding Lunatic Asylum. In these experiments, Ferrier opened the skulls of monkeys, dogs, cats, rabbits, and other animals and applied faradic current to specific areas of their brains (Ferrier, 1873, p. 32).5 He then carefully observed the resulting movements and determined that stimulation of given brain regions reliably produced certain results. For instance, stimulation of region 5 of a macaque monkey’s cerebrum caused “extension forward of the opposite arm and hand,” while stimulation of region 13 caused contracture of the pupils and “closure of the eyelids, as if under the stimulus of a strong light” (Ferrier, 1876, pp. 143–144; see Fig. 1). In a few cases, Ferrier would surgically remove portions of animals’ brains and then wait until they awoke from anesthetic in order to observe the resulting behavioral dysfunctions. Ferrier published his initial groundbreaking results in the West Riding Lunatic Asylum Reports, The Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, The British Medical Journal, and in his classic book on the subject, The Functions of the Brain (1876), which earned him great acclaim within the scientific community. Like Thornley himself, Ferrier was eventually knighted for his scientific accomplishments (Finger, 2000). Ferrier’s discoveries were significant for several reasons. First, his findings proved beyond reasonable doubt that brain functions are localized in specific regions rather than distributed throughout the cerebral cortex, establishing cerebral localization as a part of “normal science” in the nineteenth century (Young, 1970, p. 234). Second, Ferrier’s cortical maps challenged human uniqueness by showing the numerous similarities between human and animal brains. Because Ferrier could not experiment on live humans, all of his results were extrapolated from experiments with monkey brains, yet his observations proved to be true of human brains as well. Ferrier asserted, “It will be my endeavor to show you that what is true of the monkey is strictly true also of man” (Ferrier, 1879, p. 21). Third, Ferrier’s findings had numerous clinical applications. His cortical maps saved lives by helping surgeons locate brain tumors and hemorrhages, especially when there were no obvious skull markers (e.g., deformities, discolorations) to aid in localization (Finger, 2000). Thornley was part of the first wave of physicians to use Ferrier’s cortical maps in human brain surgery. His brain surgeries of the late 1880s and early 1890s took place not long after 1884, when Drs. Alexander Hughes Bennett and Rickman Godlee performed what is generally considered to be the first operation for the removal of a brain tumor (Macmillan, 2004).6 Like Bennett and Godlee, Thornley used the most 5 Faradic current is produced from an interrupted direct current (DC) derived either from batteries or from a rectified mains current. 6 Bennett and Godlee’s claim to priority was disputed by Scottish surgeon William McEwan, who said he had performed antiseptic brain surgeries using Ferrier’s cerebral localization maps earlier than 1884. For more on this controversy, see Macmillan (2004, 2005). Author's personal copy 3 Thornley as Brain Surgeon FIGURE 1 “Upper surface of the hemispheres of the monkey” from Sir David Ferrier, Functions of the Brain (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1876, p. 176). The circled numbers indicate regions of the brain that Ferrier correlated with specific movements or behaviors. up-to-date cerebral localization data and antiseptic procedures. His (mostly) successful results helped to justify Ferrier’s findings and the controversial methods by which they were obtained. At the 1881 International Medical Conference in London, Ferrier exhibited several monkeys with damaged motor cortexes in order to demonstrate the principles of cerebral localization. He displayed a hemiplegic monkey whose left motor cortex had been damaged as part of an experimental surgery. The monkey could only use its left hand and was unable to move the limbs on its right side. Ferrier also displayed a deaf monkey whose auditory cortex had been damaged. Both animals were later sacrificed so that scientists could verify that their brains had been damaged in the manner Ferrier described (Finger, 2000). Ferrier’s demonstrations helped convince many scientists of his working hypothesis, that certain parts of the cerebral cortex have specific functions, and their clinical relevance was quickly appreciated. Animal rights activists, however, were horrified to learn that Ferrier had kept his monkeys alive for days, weeks, or months following their cranial surgery in order to witness the long-term effects of cerebral damage. Members of the Victoria Street 203 Author's personal copy 204 CHAPTER 10 Bram Stoker’s Brother Society (which later became the National Anti-Vivisection Society) decided to take Ferrier to court over an apparent violation of the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act. According to the Act, a researcher had to acquire a Certificate B in order to keep an experimental animal alive after anesthesia had worn off; Ferrier had failed to do so. The ensuing trial whipped up a frenzy of negative publicity for Ferrier in the popular press. One of Ferrier’s most vocal accusers was Frances Power Cobbe, the President of the Victoria Street Society. In her book, The Modern Rack: Papers on Vivisection (1889), Cobbe condemned scientists who “think of a brain which holds all the wondrous instincts and reasonings of the dog and the ape as a lump of grey matter to be scooped out and broken up . . . to note what happens after its mutilation” (p. 219). She decried the treatment of “Professor Ferrier’s monkeys,” whose brain surgeries were followed by “hours, days, and weeks of misery before the victim dies” (p. 172). Pitted against Cobbe were leading physiologists and neurologists, including Jean-Martin Charcot and John Hughlings Jackson, who rallied to Ferrier’s defense at his trial. They pointed out that Ferrier’s actions made sense from an experimental point of view; after all, one could not study the long-term effects of brain injury without keeping the animals alive after surgery. Moreover, the use of additional anesthetic could have compromised Ferrier’s experimental results. Scientists were also quick to note the life-saving potential of his discoveries. None of this mattered, however, when it was revealed that Ferrier’s colleague, physiologist Gerald Yeo, had performed the surgeries on monkeys and other animals, and that he had successfully applied for a Certificate B. The charges against Ferrier were dismissed leaving antivivisectionists like Cobbe furious about the “entire futility of the present Act and the hopelessness of any proceedings under it” (French, 1975, pp. 202–203). In fact, the antivivisection movement never entirely recovered from this well-publicized blow to its credibility. Neither did Ferrier’s reputation among the lay public. Despite his acquittal and the support of his scientific peers, Ferrier would long be associated with animal cruelty in the popular imagination.7 Thornley’s case studies draw on Ferrier’s cerebral localization research and attempt to justify Ferrier’s conclusions, as well as his use of animal experimentation. But as one might expect in this era of early brain surgery, Thornley was not always successful in saving his patients (on the low success rate of late-Victorian brain surgery, see Finger, 2000). In May of 1889, a 42-year-old boiler riveter, identified only as “J.B.,” arrived at Whitworth Hospital with symptoms including dizziness, leg spasms, and severe frontal headache. He was hospitalized until August, when his condition deteriorated and death seemed near. With no other alternative, Thornley and his colleagues decided to operate. Based on the man’s symptoms and their new knowledge of cerebral localization, the surgical team speculated that the tumor must be somewhere near the leg center of the cortex. But after trephining and exploring the leg center and finally the entire motor area, they failed to find a tumor. When 7 On late-Victorian popular fiction that engages with the Ferrier trials, see Otis (2007). Author's personal copy 3 Thornley as Brain Surgeon the man died three weeks later, postmortem examination revealed a malignant tumor (a spindle-cell sarcoma) one inch in diameter in the posterior portion of the parietal lobe (Stoker et al., 1890). This was behind where the surgeons expected to find it, suggesting that “the leg-centre extends further back than is usually taught into that part of the parietal lobule where its extension has been regarded as doubtful” (Stoker et al., 1890, p. 298). This surgery thus served as a means to test and refine existing knowledge of cerebral localization, even if Thornley and his colleagues failed to save their patient. Thornley took part in a somewhat more successful operation performed at Richmond Hospital in March of 1890. The patient, “E.W.,” was an 18-year-old tailoress whose symptoms included loss of appetite, “severe occipital headache,” muscular spasms of the neck, deafness in the right ear, and attacks of vomiting four to six times a day (Stoker et al., 1890, p. 488). Based on her symptoms and on late-Victorian knowledge of cerebral localization, Thornley and his colleagues guessed that an abscess “probably existed in the temporal lobe, and that if not found there it should be sought for below the tentorum” (Stoker et al., 1890, p. 488). Because their patient was declining rapidly, Thornley and his colleagues attempted a risky surgery. The surgeons trepanned and found the abscess close to where they expected it, at “the junction of the temporal and occipital lobes” (Stoker et al., 1890, p. 490). But despite the assistance of Ferrier’s cortical maps, they had some difficulty precisely locating the abscess and draining pus from the affected area. The patient’s postoperative recovery was long and slow. She suffered from high fevers, infections, and gangrene at the site of the operation, nearly dying on several occasions. The patient survived, but lost at least one ounce of brain matter due to her abscess and subsequent infections (Stoker et al., 1890). Although ultimately successful, this case illustrates the hazards of brain surgery at this early date, when carbolic acid spray, boric acid, and mercuric chloride solution were starting to be used to reduce the chances of infection (Finger, 2000).8 Because of the many risks involved, brain surgeries during the nineteenth century were still a last resort for a dying patient. Thornley also had more resounding successes, one of which has special significance for Dracula. In an article titled “On a Case of Subcranial Haemorrhage Treated by Secondary Trephining,” Thornley described a surgery he performed in June of 1887 that led to the patient’s full recovery. The patient, “a laborer, named Patrick Rourke, aet. 50,” arrived at the Richmond Hospital after a binge-drinking episode in which he had apparently fallen off a cart and suffered a head injury (Stoker, 1888, p. 401). The man’s condition deteriorated until, after seven days, he was 8 The published account of E.W.’s surgery indicated that boric acid was used at the site of the wound, but made no mention of other antiseptics (Stoker et al., 1890, p. 490). By contrast, Thornley’s case report for an earlier brain surgery included more elaborate antiseptic preparations: “Strict antiseptic measures were observed; the solutions were of corrosive sublimate [mercuric chloride], 1 to 3,000, and the spray carbolic acid” (Stoker, 1888, p. 406). 205 Author's personal copy 206 CHAPTER 10 Bram Stoker’s Brother “in a state of profound coma,” and “the face and extremities of the left side and bladder were completely paralyzed.” The patient also had difficulty swallowing and his breathing was “slow” and “stertorous” (Stoker, 1888, p. 402). Thornley thought that these symptoms likely stemmed from a “haemorrhage over the right motor area, between the bone and dura mater, probably due to laceration of the of the middle meningeal artery or one of its branches, most likely associated with fracture, and producing the partial left paralysis which at first existed” (Stoker, 1888, p. 403). When it became apparent that the patient was dying, Thornley decided to perform a risky operation in the hopes of saving him. Before operating, Thornley had to determine where to open the skull, and consider what sort of injury he was likely to find when he did so. In making these decisions, he consulted Ferrier’s maps. He determined that the Rourke’s injury must be somewhere in the right motor area, because his symptoms included left-side paralysis without apparent loss of sensation. The subsequent operation proved Thornley’s suspicions correct. Thornley decided to trephine near the fissure of Rolando. Beneath the skull, he found a “well-formed blood-clot, evidently reaching downward and forward over the parietal area” (Stoker, 1888, p. 405). After the clot was removed and the wound sutured, the patient at once showed “signs of returning brain power . . . before the patient was taken off the operating table he moved his left arm and leg with tolerable freedom, asked for a drink of water, which he readily swallowed, and gave vent to some rather bad language” (Stoker, 1888, p. 406). Postsurgical complications were minimal, and the patient recovered fully. This particular surgery was significant for several reasons. First, it likely served as a model for a surgery performed by Drs. Seward and Van Helsing in Dracula, as will be explained later in this essay. Second, it confirmed Ferrier’s research on localization of function, particularly as regards the specific areas of the brain that were injured in this patient (the right motor area). Third, cases like this one, in which “no defined bone lesion served to localize the haemorrhage,” had rarely recovered in the past, due to surgeons’ difficulties in locating the blood clot (Stoker, 1888, p. 408). Thornley could remember less successful cases, in which “a greater knowledge of localization than we then possessed” would have enabled surgeons to save the patient’s life (Stoker, 1888, p. 409). Finally, Thornley felt that this positive surgical outcome helped to justify Ferrier’s controversial research on animals: To what, I ask, do I owe [this] knowledge? . . . Largely to the humane and benevolent investigations of those biologists whom weak, credulous, or mistaken people are actively pelting with the verbal filth of prejudice and ignorance – people who would prefer that this man, formed in the image of his Maker, should die, rather than their feeble sentiment be offended by a painless experiment on an ape. Stoker, 1888, pp. 407–408 Despite this strongly worded defense of animal experimentation, Thornley would later change his mind and declare experiments on monkeys to be inhumane. He felt strongly enough on this point to testify at the second Royal Commission on Vivisection in 1907, arguing for stricter limits on animal experimentation. Author's personal copy 4 Thornley’s Animal Rights Advocacy 4 THORNLEY’S ANIMAL RIGHTS ADVOCACY How did Thornley evolve from an outspoken supporter of vivisection in the late 1880s to an equally outspoken critic of certain types of vivisection in the early twentieth century? In 1907, Thornley explained that his opinions on the subject had changed gradually, thanks to a “growing sense of humanity” and due to his years of experience as inspector of vivisection for Ireland (Anon., 1907e, p. 507). Thornley had held onto this position for almost three decades, despite the heavy workload and low pay of £50 per year, because, as he explained, “I am afraid it might fall into less careful hands. I have strong feelings about several points in connection with the [1876 Cruelty to Animals] Act” (qtd. in Anon., 1907a, p. 203). Thornley made several strongly worded critiques of the Act in his testimony before the second Royal Commission on Vivisection. This Commission was formed in 1906 to weigh evidence for and against the 1876 Cruelty to Animals Act and to produce a parliamentary report on the subject, which was completed in 1912. The Royal Commission was called to order following the publication of The Shambles of Science (1903), an exposé written by two female medical students that detailed violations of the 1876 Act that they had witnessed during their medical training. The proceedings were also influenced by the Brown Dog Riots of 1907, in which antivivisectionists and medical students clashed over the fate of a statue of a vivisected dog (Lansbury, 1985). While the second Royal Commission resulted in several minor administrative changes to the Act, it was generally considered a victory for experimental science, and a setback for the antivivisection cause (Hamilton, 2004). Weighing in on the losing side of this debate cost Thornley the support of some medical peers, but ensured his popularity with antivivisection activists. In his testimony, Thornley explained why he declined to give Certificate Cs, which were required under the Act in order to perform vivisection as part of an instructional lecture: I have always taken exception to the performance of experiments on living animals in illustration of lectures. They seem to me unnecessary, as the matters taught at the ordinary lectures in medical schools are almost, if not entirely, ones of established fact, and which can therefore be demonstrated by diagrams, models and such other means. For example, one of the phenomena which lecturers on physiology sometimes demonstrate on living animals is the circulation of the blood, a matter which can be thoroughly taught without any vivisection. Qtd. in Anon., 1907e, p. 507 He suspected that classroom vivisections “are used more for the purpose of interesting and attracting a class than for any direct teaching value they possess.” Because of their alleged cruelty, “such demonstrations cannot but be demoralizing to the young men and women who witness their performance. They seem to me to be an offence against humanity” (Anon., 1907e, p. 507). This argument resembles the rhetoric of antivivisectionists, who contended that doctors trained to disrespect animal life might also disrespect their human patients (Otis, 2007). On these grounds, Thornley 207 Author's personal copy 208 CHAPTER 10 Bram Stoker’s Brother categorically refused to give out Certificate Cs, although the Chief Secretary for Ireland occasionally overruled him in this matter (Anon., 1907e). He also recommended amending the Act so as to forbid vivisection in medical lecture courses. Thornley also recommended severely restricting the number of experiments that could be performed on “higher mammals” who “suffer[ed] in proportion to their elevation in the scale of life.” The higher mammals Thornley had in mind were dogs and monkeys: The witness [Thornley] said he thought experiments on dogs, and particularly on monkeys, ought to be allowed with the greatest possible reserve, because these creatures felt so much. The amount of terror that a dog felt even in being put under chloroform was rather painful to witness. Anon., 1907e, p. 507 The difficulty in experimenting on dogs, Thornley explained, lay in deciding how much chloroform to give them. A dog too deeply anesthetized could die, whereas a dog given insufficient chloroform would suffer pain during an experiment. Here again, the eminent doctor’s concerns echo those of antivivisectionists, who were particularly appalled by the vivisection of dogs and other animals kept as pets (Otis, 2007). Regarding monkeys, Thornley “had been told by reliable observers and physiologists . . . that a monkey evidenced the most acute sense of fear when it was brought into a room where it was going to be operated upon” (Anon., 1907e, p. 507). This was a significant about-face for the man who had condoned Ferrier’s “painless experiment[s]” on apes two decades earlier (Stoker, 1888, p. 408). As inspector for Ireland, Thornley seems to have upheld the values expressed in his testimony. In 1901, for instance, he granted licenses for research on rabbits, guinea pigs, mice, and cats, but no research on dogs or monkeys took place in Ireland. He also granted no Certificate Cs that year (Anon., 1901). Nonetheless, in his testimony before the Royal Commission, Thornley emphasized his dedication to experimental science. Although he disapproved of vivisection for educational purposes and vivisection on higher mammals, “he did not want to be taken for a moment as opposing research experiments” more generally (Anon., 1907e, p. 507). He was advocating a few changes to the existing Act rather than complete cessation of all animal experiments. In his testimony against the Act, Thornley left himself open to criticism from his medical peers by confessing his ignorance in certain areas. He admitted, for instance, that he had never performed experiments on live dogs or monkeys; in fact, he had never even witnessed experiments performed on monkeys. His observations about using chloroform on dogs were drawn from the few occasions when he had performed veterinary work. He also conceded that he was no expert on anesthetizing animals and had not kept up with the latest practices in this area. This admission undermined his observations about the difficulty, and alleged cruelty, of chloroforming dogs. Perhaps surprisingly, Thornley admitted to being cruel to animals in his youth (Anon., 1907e). But Thornley’s most egregious offense, in the eyes of his fellow medical professionals, was his suggestion that other inspectors were not doing their jobs. In his testimony, he characterized the inspectors and Home Secretaries in Author's personal copy 4 Thornley’s Animal Rights Advocacy England and Scotland as “irresponsible” in contrast to the “efficient” system in place in Ireland (Anon., 1907e, pp. 508–509). He also suggested that “the working of the Act at the present time is most unsatisfactory” and that “the inspection was absolutely inadequate” outside of Ireland (qtd. in Anon., 1907a, p. 202). Thornley’s opinions delighted the antivivisection community, who received little support from respected physicians. Leaders of the National Antivivisection Society (NAVS), such as Stephen Coleridge and Louise Lind-af-Hageby, cited Thornley’s statements to bolster their own arguments against vivisection. Lind-af-Hageby, a Swedish feminist and animal rights activist who co-authored The Shambles of Science, declared that Thornley “deserves admiration for the courage he has shown in standing alone and for thus daring to assert his right of judgment as an inspector” (Anon., 1907f, p. 14). Coleridge, the president of NAVS, stated that, “It was, indeed, pleasant to read the evidence given by Sir Thornly [sic] Stoker, and he wished that there were other inspectors like him” (Anon., 1907c, p. 9). Even outside of NAVS, Thornley’s remarks garnered praise from the public. The Western Morning News of Devon, for instance, emphasized the importance of Thornley’s testimony: It was a bombshell in the camp of the vivisectors when the Irish inspector, Sir William Thornley Stoker, a very eminent medical man, quite recently expressed his objections to experiments being carried out before students, particularly when they were merely to demonstrate facts already clearly laid down in the textbooks. Qtd. in Anon., 1907d, p. 5 Thornley’s views offended his medical peers, who overwhelmingly supported the use of animal experimentation and saw his testimony as a betrayal. In letters to the editor, public debates about vivisection, and at the Royal Commission itself, various physicians seized upon the weaknesses of Thornley’s statement and even made ad hominem attacks against the eminent surgeon. The hostility of these attacks suggests that members of the scientific community felt threatened by Thornley’s influence with the public and were anxious to discredit him however they could. At a public debate on vivisection in May 1907, for instance, Dr. William Halliburton (1860–1931), a professor of physiology at King’s College London, stated that a “few medical men . . . differed from the rest of their fellows in being antivivisectionists” (Anon., 1907b, p. 1258). Such medical men must be hypocrites or impostors, Halliburton alleged, since they ignored the long history of experimental medicine that informed their own practices. He supposed that a physician would only oppose vivisection out of “love of notoriety, or from the mere sake of being peculiar” (Anon., 1907b, p. 1258). Halliburton even charged Thornley with being a lazy inspector who made “hardly any” visits to laboratories in Ireland, and who misremembered certain quotations he had cited in his testimony before the Royal Commission (Anon., 1907b, p. 1256). Thornley’s other outspoken critics included acclaimed neurologist Sir Victor Horsley (1857–1916) and Professor W.H. Thompson of Trinity College, Dublin.9 9 Not to be confused with Thornley’s brother-in-law, Sir William Thomson, an eminent Dublin surgeon. 209 Author's personal copy 210 CHAPTER 10 Bram Stoker’s Brother Horsley himself testified in 1908 before the Royal Commission, arguing that opponents of vivisection were acting immorally by hindering potentially life-saving research. In his testimony, Horsley refuted Thornley’s claim that the educational use of vivisection demoralized medical students. In response, Horsley “unhesitatingly affirmed that there was no demoralization whatever,” and contended that students needed to witness and perform experiments on live animals in order to become good doctors. Taking up Thornley’s example of blood circulation, Horsley argued: [I]t is essential that the senior students should perform an experiment on the heart and the circulation in a warm-blooded animal. No one could acquire a proper knowledge of the action of the heart or of the real phenomena of the pressure of the blood within the vessels unless he had witnessed and, indeed, taken part in such an experiment. Anon., 1908, p. 1184 Because Thornley’s medical training was out of date, Horsley alleged, the inspector for Ireland had failed to recognize the importance of blood circulation and its demonstration. Horsley also seized upon Thornley’s admission of cruelty to animals in his youth, which showed “that his education as a student had been neglected” (Anon., 1908, p. 1184). W.H. Thompson’s letter to the editor, published in The British Medical Journal in March 1907, contained perhaps the most damning criticism of Thornley. Thompson argued that “it is hardly appropriate for a surgeon to say what is or is not necessary for the teaching of physiology at the present time, even though he may have been taught the subject well five-and-thirty or forty years ago” (Thompson, 1907, p. 596). Thompson also chastised Thornley for not knowing the latest methods of anesthetizing dogs. While Thornley had only discussed chloroform in his testimony, Thompson pointed out that modern investigators were more likely to use a mixture of ether and chloroform, A.C.E. mixture, a hypodermic injection of morphine, or some combination of these elements (Thompson, 1907). Thornley’s comments about the difficulty of anesthetizing dogs seemed less relevant in light of this oversight. Thompson’s letter, like Horsley’s testimony, implied that Thornley was no longer at the forefront of his field and was not well informed about the latest methods of research. Considering the hostile reaction from his medical peers, Thornley had little to gain professionally by siding with the antivivisection cause. Therefore, his testimony before the Royal Commission was likely sincere, despite Halliburton’s allegations to the contrary. While Thornley’s detractors and even his antivivisection supporters sometimes painted him as an extremist, he actually took a moderate position on vivisection. The most extreme antivivisectionists argued for the complete cessation of animal experiments. By contrast, Thornley supported many types of animal research, with the exceptions of classroom vivisection and experiments on dogs and monkeys. His brother Bram seemed to go much farther than this in his novel Dracula, in which he likened experimental scientists to the feared and conscienceless vampire villain. Author's personal copy 5 Thornley’s Influence on Dracula 5 THORNLEY’S INFLUENCE ON DRACULA There is ample evidence that Thornley influenced the composition of Dracula, both directly and indirectly. Thornley is sometimes said to have been the model for the novel’s lead vampire hunter, Dr. Abraham Van Helsing, since both study the workings of the brain (Van Helsing has “revolutionized therapeutics by his discovery of the continuous evolution of brain matter”; Stoker, 1897/1997, p. 215). Additionally, both have wives who suffer from mental illness. Thornley’s wife Emily, who was probably schizophrenic, was “sequestered in a distant wing of their Dublin residence,” but still managed to escape on one memorable occasion (Belford, 1996, p. 244). Thornley’s dinner guest, surgeon Oliver St. John Gogarty, described how one evening, a nude and elderly lady came in with a cry, ‘I like a little intelligent conversation!’ She ran around the table. We all stood up. She was followed by two female attendants, who seized whatever napery was available, and sheltering her with this and their own bodies, led her forth, screaming, from the room.10 Qtd. in Belford, 1996, p. 316 Van Helsing, meanwhile, briefly calls attention to “my poor wife dead to me, but alive by Church’s law, though no wits, all gone” (Stoker, 1897/1997, p. 158). Thornley likewise resembles the novel’s second vampire hunting physician, Dr. John Seward, in some respects; both are affiliated with madhouses, for instance, and familiar with the cerebral localization research of Ferrier (whom Seward mentions by name in Dracula). Thornley also directly participated in the composition of Dracula by providing its author with medical advice that rendered certain scenes more realistic. Bram Stoker’s composition notes for Dracula include a memorandum from Thornley, written sometime between 1890 and 1896. In this memo, Thornley provided his brother with the details for the description of the brain surgery performed on Renfield, the novel’s insect-eating madman. One of Dracula’s more interesting subplots centers on this character, who is a lunatic incarcerated in Dr. Seward’s asylum. Renfield’s strange actions—such as ingesting flies, spiders, and sparrows—serve as “a sort of index” to the movements of the Count (Stoker, 1897/1997, p. 199). When Renfield stands up to Dracula in an attempt to protect vampire hunter Mina Harker, the Count deals him a crushing blow to the head. Drs. Van Helsing and Seward operate upon the unfortunate lunatic, but cannot save him. The details of Renfield’s operation are informed by Thornley’s memo to his brother, which details some of the latest discoveries in neuroscience made by Ferrier and others. It features a diagram of the head that shows how injuries to different parts of the brain would inhibit motor ability in specific ways (Fig. 2). Thornley wrote: “An 10 This incident was published in 1933 in Gogarty’s book As I was Walking Down Sackville Street, to the embarrassment of the Stoker family (Belford, 1996, p. 323). 211 Author's personal copy 212 CHAPTER 10 Bram Stoker’s Brother FIGURE 2 Sir William Thornley Stoker’s “Memorandum on Head Injuries,” written to his brother Bram, ca. 1890–1896 (with permission of the Stoker family and the Rosenbach Museum and Library, Philadelphia). Author's personal copy 5 Thornley’s Influence on Dracula injury to the side of the head . . . would produce symptoms in the opposite side of the body.” Referring to his diagram, he added: “If the pressure began at 1, the leg would be paralyzed; if at 2, the arm: if at 3, half the face” (Stoker, ca. 1890–1896, n.p.). These notations echo those in Ferrier’s cortical maps, where certain regions of the cortex are correlated with specific movements and behaviors. The memo also describes a specific injury, namely, “a depressed fracture . . . haemorrhage. . . [and] blood clot” that necessitate “trephinning [sic] to remove the depressed bone” (Stoker, ca. 1890–1896, n.p.). This injury and the procedure used to treat it strongly resemble the case of Patrick Rourke discussed earlier in this essay, and in Thornley’s article, “On a Case of Subcranial Haemmorrhage Treated by Secondary Trephining” (1888). Rourke’s case, like the one outlined in the memo, involved a skull fracture followed by a trepanning operation in order to remove a blood clot and bone fragments. Both likewise involved an injury near the fissure of Rolando resulting in a hemorrhage over the right motor area, not to mention paralysis over the left side of the body (hemiplegia). In Dracula, Renfield’s symptoms and subsequent treatment sound nearly identical to that laid out in Thornley’s memo and in his treatment of Rourke. The main difference is that Rourke fully recovered, whereas Renfield dies following surgery, perhaps to suit the needs of the novel’s plot. After Renfield’s head injury, his doctors observe that “both his right arm and leg and the whole side of his face are paralyzed” (Stoker, 1897/1997, p. 241). Renfield’s diagnosis and treatment proceed as follows: The real injury was depressed fracture of the skull, extending right up through the motor area. The Professor [Van Helsing] thought a moment and said: – “We must reduce the pressure and get back to normal conditions, as far as can be; the rapidity of the suffusion shows the terrible nature of his injury. The whole motor area seems affected. The suffusion of the brain will increase quickly, so we must trephine at once or it may be too late. . . we may most quickly and perfectly remove the blood clot; for it is evident that the haemorrhage is increasing. Stoker, 1897/1997, p. 242 The scientific realism of this passage, and its nearly exact duplication of the details provided by Thornley, demonstrate Bram Stoker’s respect for his brother’s medical expertise, as well as his attempt to make his novel as scientifically accurate as possible. While Thornley’s memo does not specifically mention Ferrier, his cortical maps clearly play a role in Renfield’s surgery. In this scene and elsewhere, the great neurologist (and notorious vivisector) lurks as a shadowy presence in the background of Dracula. He is even mentioned by name at one point by Dr. Seward, who praises Ferrier’s “brain knowledge” as he considers Renfield’s case: Men sneered at vivisection, and yet look at its results today! Why not advance science in its most difficult and vital aspect – the knowledge of the brain? Had I even the secret of one such mind – did I hold the key to the fancy of even one lunatic – I might advance my own branch of science to a pitch compared with which BurdonSanderson’s physiology or Ferrier’s brain-knowledge would be as nothing. Stoker, 1897/1997, p. 7 213 Author's personal copy 214 CHAPTER 10 Bram Stoker’s Brother This is the only time that either Ferrier or vivisection is explicitly mentioned in the novel. But both inform the text, which could be read as a sustained critique of vivisection and experimental science more generally (Seward’s praise of vivisection notwithstanding). While Thornley supported animal experimentation with some reservations, Bram roundly condemned the practice in Dracula. Bram’s attitude toward vivisection was likely influenced both by his brother and by the popular press, where Ferrier’s allegedly cruel animal experiments loomed large well after his 1881 trial. Indeed, Ferrier’s “brain science”—and his notoriety in antivivisection circles—serve as important contexts for Dracula. Seward’s mention of Burdon-Sanderson is likewise significant in light of the ongoing controversy surrounding vivisection. Sir John Scott Burdon-Sanderson (1828– 1905), Professor of Physiology at Oxford, was, if possible, an even more polarizing figure than Ferrier. He edited the volume Handbook for the Physiological Laboratory (1873), which taught British scientists and medical students how to recreate experiments by Continental researchers, such as French physiologist Claude Bernard. The Handbook was so clear and easy to use that an intelligent schoolchild could learn how to bake a rabbit alive or rub caustic solution in its eyes. Burdon-Sanderson’s directions for these experiments often made no mention of an anesthetic, a fact decried by antivivisection activists. Although Seward heartily approves of these vivisectors and their work, he is a bumbling, narrow-minded character, whose opinions should not be confused with those of Stoker himself (see Greenway, 1986). Throughout the novel, the evil Count is compared to an experimental scientist who indiscriminately uses animals and human beings as his subjects. For instance, Van Helsing repeatedly praises Dracula’s cleverness and scientific acumen. These traits were already evident during his human lifetime: [Dracula] was no common man; for in that time, and for centuries after, he was spoken of as the cleverest and the most cunning, as well as the bravest of the sons of the ‘land beyond the forest’ [i.e., Transylvania]. That mighty brain and iron resolution went with him to his grave, and are even now arrayed against us. Stoker, 1897/1997, p. 212 As Van Helsing relates, members of the Dracula family attended “the Scholomance . . . where the devil claims the tenth scholar as his due” (Stoker, 1897/1997, p. 212). There the future vampire learned alchemy, which was “the highest development of the science knowledge of his time” (Stoker, 1897/1997, p. 263). Dracula even bears physical stigmata that many Victorians (still following in the footsteps of the scientifically discredited phrenologists) associated with scientific genius, such as a “lofty domed forehead” and large, vivid eyes (Stoker, 1897/1997, p. 23).11 11 On phrenology and its role in nineteenth-century culture and science, see Young (1970) and Finger (2000, pp. 119–136). On nineteenth-century theories about scientific genius, see Chapter four of Stiles (2012). Author's personal copy 5 Thornley’s Influence on Dracula Dracula’s methods occasionally resemble those of late-Victorian physiologists like Ferrier, Burdon Sanderson, and Charcot (who is mentioned twice in Dracula). This similarity is noticed by Van Helsing, who says that the Count is “experimenting, and doing it well . . . of late, this monster has been creeping into knowledge experimentally” (Stoker, 1897/1997, pp. 263–264). Dracula’s “experiments” include manipulating Renfield to gain access to more human victims. Like Ferrier and Burdon-Sanderson, the vampire also uses a wide range of lower animals as experimental subjects, including wolves, bats, and rats. At times, Dracula even poses as a gentleman scientist. When the Count brings coffins of consecrated earth to England to serve as his resting/hiding-places, he describes them on an invoice as “fifty cases of common earth, to be used for experimental purposes” (Stoker, 1897/1997, p. 200). Like Thornley, Bram was responsive to the arguments of late-Victorian antivivisectionists, who feared that physiologists who behaved cruelly toward animals would be more likely to mistreat human beings, especially preying on the poor (Otis, 2007). Dracula embodies this fear, since his predation gradually proceeds upwards along the evolutionary ladder. When readers of the novel first encounter Dracula, the vampire exerts his power over the animal kingdom by mesmerizing horses and wolves en route to his castle. He also commands the obedience of rats, dogs, and bats. But Dracula quickly moves on to human victims, first pursuing Jonathan Harker, and then attacking Lucy Westenra, Mina Harker, and Renfield. Dracula’s manipulation of his human victims involves techniques that mirror Ferrier’s in some ways. For instance, both Ferrier and Dracula usually administer some form of anesthesia prior to penetrating bodies.12 While Ferrier used chloroform or ether (Ferrier, 1873), Dracula hypnotizes his victims in order to dull the pain of his initial bite. The vampire’s victims later wake to pain and weakness from excessive blood loss, similar to how Ferrier’s animals regained consciousness following anesthesia. Further, both Ferrier and Dracula stimulate brains with electricity. Ferrier’s method was more direct; he applied faradic current to animals’ brains in order to elicit specific behaviors. Dracula, meanwhile, communicates telepathically with his victims in order to compel them to obey his wishes. In the 1880s, respected physicists such as Sir Oliver Lodge (1851–1940) and Sir William Barrett (1844–1925) felt they had proven the existence of mental telepathy between human brains, which they compared to electrical induction (Luckhurst, 2002). When Mina Harker and Renfield communicate telepathically with Dracula, then, their brains are responding to the vampire’s electric influence. Finally, both Ferrier and Dracula ultimately sacrifice their victims, whether for the sake of science or (in Dracula’s case) to satisfy vampiric bloodlust. 12 Ferrier wrote of his experiments at the West Riding Lunatic Asylum in 1873, “before and throughout all of the following experiments, ether or chloroform was administered” (1873, p. 35). In some cases, however, the animal was only partially narcotized rather than completely insensible. It is also uncertain whether Ferrier always used anesthetic prior to 1873, or whether he consistently anesthetized “lower” animals such as frogs and pigeons. Notably, some previous research into cerebral localization, including dog experiments by Gustav Fritsch and Eduard Hitzig, did not involve anesthetic (Finger, 2000). 215 Author's personal copy 216 CHAPTER 10 Bram Stoker’s Brother In his willingness to experiment on human beings, Dracula parts company with most nineteenth-century neurologists, including Ferrier, who never tested his theories on human subjects. But other neurologists—notably Charcot—were occasionally accused of exploiting human beings. Whether such accusations were valid or exaggerated, they had an impact on popular attitudes toward physicians, much as Ferrier’s trial evoked antiscientific hostility despite his acquittal. Charcot is today best remembered for labeling and classifying neurological diseases, for his pioneering cerebral localization research, and for his work on hysteria. An animal lover who owned a pet monkey named Rosalie, Charcot proudly displayed a sign at the entrance to his office stating, “You will find no dog laboratory here” (Finger, 2000, p. 182). But Charcot’s treatment of human subjects was more controversial, despite his efforts to improve conditions for his patients at the Salpêtrière hospital in Paris. Some of Charcot’s contemporaries criticized his exhibition of interesting cases at his Tuesday lectures, and his allegedly degrading examinations of nude patients. Léon Daudet, for example, accused Charcot of being abusive and insensitive (Finger, 2000). Charcot’s students and followers were sometimes called the Charcoterie, which was, as Stanley Finger explains, “a play on the French word charcuterie, meaning a butcher shop for pork products” (Finger, 2000, p. 191). Charcot’s name is mentioned twice in Dracula, when Seward and Van Helsing lament his recent passing (in 1893) and praise his scientific use of hypnotism. Bram Stoker probably met the famous neurologist, most likely when Charcot visited the Lyceum Theatre (Stoker, 1897/1997). Therefore, it is possible that Bram knew about Charcot’s Tuesday lectures and the controversy that surrounded them, although he does not specifically mention the lectures in Dracula. Antivivisection activists suspected that English physicians exploited their patients, much as Charcot was accused of doing. Many feared that poor people in hospitals might fall victim to enterprising physicians hoping to test new therapies. Anna Kingsford (1846–1888), a physician and antivivisectionist, noted that doctors performed some surgical operations on poor patients without the use of anesthetic: “Paupers are thus classed with animals as fitting subjects for painful experiment, and no regard is shown to the feeling of either” (qtd. in Lansbury, 1985, p. 87). Women were particularly sensitive to the plight of experimental animals and pauper patients, Coral Lansbury suggests, because they felt victimized by the invasive practices of nineteenth-century gynecology. For Victorian women involved in the animal rights movement, “every dog or cat strapped down for the vivisector’s knife, reminded them of their own condition in society” (Lansbury, 1985, p. 82). In this content, it is worth noting that most of Dracula’s victims are women, with the exception of Renfield and would-be victim Jonathan Harker (neither of whom are actually bitten). Dracula uses women for his own ends with no more compunction than he feels for his animal minions. Dracula’s vampire villain thus plays on the deepest fears of antivivisection activists, who contended that scientists, if left unchecked, would exploit animals and humans alike (particularly women) in their clinical and experimental work. Author's personal copy References By making his vampire villain an amateur scientist of sorts, and likening his predatory behaviors to the experiments of vivisectors, Bram Stoker made a more searing critique of animal experimentation than his brother Thornley ever would. In so doing, Bram drew on information relayed to him by his brother, including the memorandum explaining Ferrier’s cortical maps and their usefulness in certain types of brain surgery. But Bram also exploited the public furor surrounding the Ferrier trials, and the fears of antivivisection activists, in order to create a more fearsome and diabolical villain for his novel. This suggests that Dracula was influenced at least as much by the popular press as by Thornley’s medical advice and his relatively moderate stance on vivisection. Nonetheless, Thornley’s scientific expertise and his interest in cerebral localization do leave their mark on Dracula, particularly in the death scene of Renfield and in Dr. Seward’s references to prominent neurologists. Thornley deserves wider recognition for his contributions to Bram’s Gothic masterpiece and for his own accomplishments as a pioneer of late-Victorian brain surgery. His scientific work shows how Ferrier’s cortical maps were applied to surgery on human beings and refined in the process. Moreover, Thornley’s testimony before the second Royal Commission on Vivisection demonstrates the diversity of opinion on this controversial subject among physicians and physiologists (most of whom, admittedly, showed stronger support for animal experimentation). Finally, Thornley’s contributions to Dracula, and his influence among antivivisection activists, demonstrate the various ways in which scientists contributed to the broader intellectual culture of the late-Victorian and Edwardian eras. Like his brother Bram, Thornley was a multitalented individual with an impressive (but now underappreciated) range of accomplishments. References Anon., 1907a. Cork Division of national society formed. Zoophil. Anim. Defend. 26 (12), 203. Anon., 1907b. A debate on vivisection. Br. Med. J. 1 (2421), 1255–1258. Anon. 1876. Medical news. In: The Medical Times and Gazette: A Journal of Medical Science, Literature, Criticism, and News, May 6, pp. 511–513. Anon., 1907c. Meeting of the Irish Branch. Zoophil. Anim. Defend. 27 (1), 9. Anon., 1912. Obituary: Sir William Thornley Stoker, Bart., M.D. Br. Med. J. 1 (2685), 1399–1400. Anon., 1907d. Notes and notices. Zoophil. Anim. Defend. 27 (1), 4–6. Anon., 1908. Royal Commission on vivisection: fourth report. Br. Med. J. 1 (2472), 1183–1186. Anon., 1907e. Royal Commission on vivisection: inspection in Ireland. Br. Med. J. 1 (2409), 507–512. Anon., 1907f. Vivisection Commission: lecture by Miss Lind-af-Hageby. Zoophil. Anim. Defend. 27 (1), 14. Anon., 1901. Vivisection in the United Kingdom: reports of the inspectors. Br. Med. J. 1 (2110), 1437–1438. Belford, B., 1996. Bram Stoker: A Biography of the Author of Dracula. Knopf, New York. 217 Author's personal copy 218 CHAPTER 10 Bram Stoker’s Brother Cobbe, F.P., 1889. The Modern Rack: Papers on Vivisection. Swan Sonnenschein, London. Ferrier, D., 1873. Experimental researches in cerebral physiology and pathology. West Riding Lunatic Asylum Med. Rep. 3, 30–96. Ferrier, D., 1876. The Functions of the Brain. G.P. Putnam’s Sons, New York. Ferrier, D., 1879. The Localization of Cerebral Disease. G. P. Putnam’s Sons, New York. Finger, S., 2000. Minds Behind the Brain: A History of the Pioneers and Their Discoveries. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Fleetwood, J., 1951. History of Medicine in Ireland. The Richview Press, Dublin. French, R., 1975. Antivivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ. Greenway, J., 1986. Seward’s Folly: Dracula as a critique of ’normal science’. Stanford Lit. Rev. 3 (2), 213–230. Hamilton, S., 2004. Introduction. In: Hamilton, S. (Ed.), Animal Welfare and Anti-Vivisection 1870–1910: Frances Power Cobbe. Routledge, New York, pp. xiv–xlvii. Hopkins, L., 2007. Bram Stoker: A Literary Life. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. Lansbury, C., 1985. The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England. The University of Wisconsin Press, Madison. Luckhurst, R., 2002. The Invention of Telepathy. Oxford University Press, Oxford. Macmillan, M., 2004. Localisation and William Macewen’s early brain surgery. Part I: the controversy. J. Hist. Neurosci. 13 (4), 297–325. Macmillan, M., 2005. Localization and William Macewen’s early brain surgery. Part II: the cases. J. Hist. Neurosci. 14, 25–56. Murray, P., 2004. From the Shadow of Dracula: A Life of Bram Stoker. Jonathan Cape, London. Otis, L., 2007. Howled out of the country: Wilkie Collins and H.G. Wells Retry David Ferrier. In: Stiles, A. (Ed.), Neurology and Literature, 1860–1920. Palgrave Macmillan, Houndmills, pp. 27–51. Schaffer, T., 1994. ‘A Wilde Desire Took Me’: the homoerotic history of Dracula. ELH 61 (2), 381–425. Senf, C., 2002. Science and Social Science in Bram Stoker’s Fiction. Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut. Smith, C.W., 2002. Lord Lucan and the Irish Potato Famine. In: The Victorian Web: Literature, History and Culture in the Age of Victoria. Retrieved May 30, 2013 from http://www. victorianweb.org/history/famine2.html. Stiles, A., 2012. Popular Fiction and Brain Science in the Late Nineteenth Century. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Stoker, B. Dracula. (1897/1997). Ed. Nina Auerbach and David Skal. Norton, New York. Stoker, W.T. (ca. 1890–1896). Memorandum on Head Injuries. EL3 f.S874d MS, Dracula: Notes and Outline, Rosenbach Museum and Library, Philadelphia. Stoker, W.T., 1888. On a case of subcranial haemorrhage treated by secondary trephining. Ann. Surg. 7, 401–409. Stoker, W.T., Nugent, G.L., O’Carroll, J., 1890. A contribution to the surgery of the brain. Dublin J. Med. Sci. 90, 292–299 487–495. Thompson, W.H., 1907. Correspondence: demonstration experiments on live animals. Br. Med. J. 1 (2410), 596–597. Young, R., 1970. Mind, Brain, and Adaptation in the Nineteenth Century. Clarendon Press, Oxford.