W. Pringle Morgan and Dyslexia

W. Pringle Morgan and Dyslexia*

John C. Howell

Abstract

W. Pringle Morgan (1861-1934), a British eye surgeon, is appropriately credited with being the first to recognize, describe, and label what today is called dyslexia. He reported his observations in an 1896 article of a single case, that of a youth he called "Percy F.” Examined herein are particulars pertaining to Morgan’s contribution and an examination of confusions in the rendering of the early history of the term.edited with being the first to recognize, describe, and label what today is called dyslexia. He reported his observations in an 1896 article of a single case, that of a youth he called "Percy F.” Examined herein are particulars pertaining to Morgan’s contribution and an examination of confusions in the rendering of the early history of the term.

The Case of "Percy F"

So apt and on target was W. Pringle Morgan's description of the case of “Percy F” that the clinical descriptors it contained are commonly found in today’s dyslexia literature and discourse. Morgan’s now famous report speaks for itself.

"PERCY F. a well-grown lad, aged 14 is the eldest son of intelligent parents, the second child of a family of seven. He has always been a bright and intelligent boy, quick at games, and in no way inferior to others of his age. His great difficulty has been-and is now-his inability to learn to read. This inability is so remarkable, and so pronounced, that I have no doubt it is due to some congenital defect… His eyes are normal, there is no hemianopia, and his eyesight is good. The schoolmaster who has taught him for some years says that he would be the smartest lad in the school if the instruction were entirely oral (Morgan, 1896)."

Morgan concluded "…cases of word blindness are always interesting, and this case is, I think, particularly so. It is unique, so far as I know, in that it follows upon no injury or illness, but is evidently congenital, and due most probably to defective development." It was this latter judgment that led Morgan to introduce his diagnostic term congenital word blindness for cases such as Percy’s In putting forward this term, Morgan acknowledged the prior work of Kussmaul (7) and of the latter’s diagnostic construct word blindness.

Congenital Word Blindness - Not Dyslexia

Notable is the fact that Morgan did not use the term dyslexia but rather introduced and applied to “Percy F” the diagnostic label congenital word blindness. Why was this, after all the term dyslexia had been introduced 13 years earlier by the German ophthalmologist Rudolf Berlin (Berlin, 1883)?

Why did Morgan put forward congenital word blindness and not the term dyslexia? The fact was that Morgan and Berlin were talking about different things. Dyslexia for Berlin referenced solely patients that today would be considered as having acquired dyslexia. (Acquired dyslexia (also called alexia) references adults of normal intelligence and sensory acuity who acquire basic reading and related literacy skills without difficulty. They subsequently experience some type of brain damage induced by such as stroke, accident, or infection that impeded these skills. What Morgan described in the case of “Percy F" had characteristics that differed notably from what Berlin was talking about. Morgan’s congenital word blindness was applicable to patients who today would be characterized as having developmental dyslexia, specific developmental dyslexia, or simply dyslexia. These terms reference those who experience no brain damage and have no visual, auditory, or mental deficits, but who exhibit unexpected difficulty in their efforts to learn to read, spell, and write. These learning difficulties are neurologically based and unfold over the developmental period during which most children successfully acquire literacy skills. (Crystal, 1987).

It was Morgan’s term, congenital word blindness, that became the most frequently used rubric under which dyslexia research and discourse was conducted for almost 60 years. Its usage began to fade, and its subject matter subsumed under the rubric dyslexia and related terms as the latter terms began their terminological inroads in the 1940s (Howell, 2019).

Other Contenders

Examination of the dyslexia literature produces two other names considered by some sources as being the first to “discover” dyslexia. These claims are judged to be misplaced but warrant review and correction which follows.

James Kerr

Some sources that address the matter of who was first to recognize the clinical characteristics of what today is called developmental dyslexia or simply dyslexia mention a contemporary of Morgan’s, another British physician, a school doctor, James Kerr. Kerr’s recognition was prompted by a comprehensive report he wrote several months prior to the publication of Morgan’s, but his essay was not published until the following year (Kerr, 1897). Kerr’s report included a review of different categories of students with reading and related problems. Therein he stated: "…besides the generally dull there are the mentally exceptional, many quite suitable for ordinary school provided the teacher knows their peculiarities." This judgment was buttressed by the mention of a case of a boy who could do arithmetic as long as it involved only Arabic numerals but whose spelling and reading were that of a boy with word blindness (Kerr, 1897). While clearly suggestive of dyslexia, Kerr did not describe a recognizable configuration of clinical characteristics and a diagnostic label as did Morgan (1896).

Oswald Berkhan

Oswald Berkhan, a German physician and educator of note, has been credited by some as being the first to recognize what is now called developmental dyslexia or simply dyslexia. Those who have accorded this credit typically have supported it by citing a single source (Berkhan, 1917) and by sometimes adding 1881 as the year this occurred. In his 1917 publication, Brechan called attention to early work he had done that he considered relevant to congenital word blindness. He drew upon observations that he had made of children over three decades earlier (Berkhan, 1885, 1886). Also, in his 1917 article, he provided updates on three males from the cohort of children he had observed in his early work.

Critchley (1964), Orton (1925), Anderson & Meier-Hedda (2001), and Howell (2020) noted and commented on Berkhan's work. Observations made included that Berkhan had focused on students characterized by articulation, stammering, and writing difficulties, not by reading problems; that he noted reading capabilities of students but provided no details; and that he drew his students from a population known for deficiencies in intelligence. None of these commentators credited Berkhan with having been the first to recognize dyslexia.

While there is reason to believe that the populations Berkhan worked with did include children who had dyslexia (Howell, 2020), this is not sufficient to support the claims for Berkhan. The best test available is whether his reports, particularly those published in the 1880s, provide evidence that he recognized and described the clinical characteristics of congenital word blindness (dyslexia). Howell (2020) examined the sources cited by his creditors (Berkhan, 1917, 1886, 1885) seeking an answer to this question. Evidence of such recognition and description was not found (Howell, 2020).

Summary

In treatments of the early history of dyslexia, it is not uncommon to encounter confusions about who did and said what. Where this involves content that has become embedded in the literature, tracking origins is difficult. Of special difficulty is when sources involve languages other than English (most commonly German). In these latter cases, often relevant information has not been examined, and the continuing replication of misinformation occurs because of the acceptance of secondary sources incorrectly assumed to be correct. This historically treatment of W. Pringle Morgan presents accurate information, correcting errors and clarifying confusions in the early dyslexia literature.

References

Anderson, P.& Meier-Hedde, R. (2001). Anderson, P.&

Meier-Hedde, R. (2001).Early case reports of dyslexia in United States

Berkhan, O. (1885). Ueber die Störung der Schriftsprache

bei Halbidioten und ihre Aehnlichkeit mit dem Stammeln, Arch. f. Psychiat.,16, 78-86.

Berkhan, O. (1886). Über die Störung der Schriftsprache

bei Halbidioten und ihre Ähnlichkeit mit dem Sprachgebrechen 2. Stammein und Stottern. Arch. f. Psychiat., 17, 897-900.

Berkhan, O. (1917). Uber die Wortblindheit, ein Stammeln

im Sprechen und Schreiben, ein Fehl im Lesen. Neurologisches Centralblatt, 36, 914–927.

Berlin, R. (1883). Uber dyslexie. Medicinisches

Correspondenz-Blatt des Wurttembergisohe arztlichen Landesvereins, 53, 209-10.

Critchley, M. (1964). Developmental dyslexia. London:

Whitefriars Press.

Howell, J. (2019). Dyslexia: A history of the term and

current challenges. (Rev.). Lansing, MI: Michigan. Dyslexia Institute, Inc. https://dyslexiacommentary.com/

Howell, J. (2020). Oswald Berkhan and dyslexia. Lansing,

MI: Michigan Dyslexia Institute, Inc. https://dyslexiacommentary.com/

Kerr, J. (1896). School hygiene, in its mental, moral, and

physical aspects. Howard Medical Prize Essay: June 1896. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, 60, 613- 680.

Morgan, W.P. (1896). A case of congenital wordblindness.

British Medical Journal, 2, 1378. Orton, S.T.

Orton, S.T. (1928). Specific reading disability

strephosymbolia. JAMA, 90, 1095-1099