Conclusion
The place of man in Darwin's development of a theory of transmutation has been obscured by his manner of disclosure. Comparing the 1837–1839 period to his entire career as a theorist suggests that it was Darwin's practice to present himself and his work only before the most select scientific audiences, and then in accordance with their expectations. The negative implications of this rule for his publication on man are clear enough: finding no general invitation in science to publish as a theorist and no contemporary scientific audience for the sorts of inquiries he was making on man, he was silent, at least until such time as he could publish on the strength of reputation alone. Now, with the availability of manuscripts from the early period, what was once hidden stands revealed. It is clear from Darwin's notebooks that man played a dual role in the formation of his theory: as a zoological species to be incorporated into the theory and as the primary vehicle for the study of behavior. On the first score, integrating man into the theory provoked Darwin to break with the traditional view of man's place in nature and to reject a major element in the scientific notion of progressive development. On the second score, the study of behavior led Darwin outside natural history and thence, unexpectedly, to Malthus and natural selection.
One is left with the certainty that the subject of man was a central element in Darwin's formulation of his species theory. To an extent, then, the public judgment of Darwin was right all along, for the public had always sensed that Darwin spoke to a larger audience than that formed around science. On the basis of new evidence, we can add that Darwin drew from that larger audience as well. There are of course ironies to this conclusion: that Darwin the professional drew so heavily from fields where he was the amateur, that as a transparent man his inner life should prove so at odds with the manner in which he presented himself, and that his arrival at a strong sense of himself—the revolutionary “I” of his notebooks—should occur just as he stepped beyond science to engage the general culture. But when one considers the inherent difficulties of Darwin's subject and the magnitude of his claims respecting man, these ironies are perhaps not surprising at all but those of a kind which might be anticipated.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
The best general works remain LorenEiseley,Darwin's Century: Evolution and the Men Who Discovered It (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1961), and John G. Greene,The Death of Adam (Ames, Iowa State University Press, 1959). For a recent survey of the field, see John C. Greene, “Reflections on the Progress of Darwin Studies,”J. Hist. Biol. 8, no. 2 (Fall 1975), 243–273.
Speaking of the period from October 2, 1836, the date of his return to England, to January 29, 1839, the date of his marriage, Darwin wrote, “As I was not able to work all day at science I read a good deal during these two years on various subjects, including some metaphysical books, but I was not at [all] well fitted for such studies.” NoraBarlow, ed.,The Autobiography of Charel Darwin (London: Collins, 1958), pp. 84–85. This statement, while not a literal falsehood, is misleading in that it does not suggest the extent of Darwin's involvement with “metaphysics” during this period or indicate the use it was to him.
JacquesBarzun,Darwin, Marx, and Wagner: Critique of a Heritage, 2nd ed. (Garden City, N.Y.: Anchor Books, 1958), p. 74.
For a presuasive presentation of Darwin's consistency in formulating and testing hypotheses, see MichaelGhiselin,The Triumph of the Darwinian Method (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969). For a different treatment of Darwin's method, see Martin Rudwick, “Darwin and Glen Roy: A ‘Great Failure’ in Scientific Method?”Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci., 5, no. 2 (1974), 97–185. Rudwick is also concerned with methodological consistency, but finds that consistency in repeated characteristic styles of argument rather than reliance on a standard method.
See, for example, MichaelRuse, “Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution: An Analysis,”J. Hist. Biol., 8, no. 2 (Fall 1975), 219–241.
NoraBarlow, ed.,The Autobiography of Charel Darwin (London: Collins, 1958), p. 119. For more positive expressions of Darwin's attitude toward theoretical work, see theAutobiography, pp. 140–141, and his letters to Henry Fawcett (Sept. 18, 1861) and John Scott (June 6, 1863) in Francis Darwin, ed.,More Letters of Charles Darwin, 2 vols. (New York: D. appleton, 1903), I, 195, and II, 323.
For an example of the difficulty in determining who should be counted as within science, see the discussion of William Webster, an interesting unknown, in SandraHerbert, “The Place of Man in the Development of Darwin's Theory of Transmutation, Part I to July 1837,”J. Hist. Biol., 7, no. 2 (Fall 1974), 249–257.
It should be pointed out that this characterization of the scientific audience in England during the 1830's is consistent with that drawn by J. B.Morrell in “Individualism and the Structure of British Science in 1830,”Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, III (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1971), 183–204.
NoraBarlow, ed.,The Autobiography of Charel Darwin (London: Collins, 1958), pp. 101, 103. There are cases where Darwin did take a public position on public issues. Early in his career he cosigned a letter with Robert Fitzroy, captain of theBeagle, defending missionary activities in Tahiti. See their joint contribution in theSouth African Christian Recorder, 2, no. 4 (Sept. 1836), cited in Nora Barlow, ed.,Charles Darwin and the Voyage of the Beagle (New York: Philosophical Library, 1946), p. 131. Later in his career, he was somewhat more free with the use of his name. For example, he actively and publicly opposed the anti-vivisectionists. On this see Richard D. French,Anti-Vivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975). But usually Darwin enschewed the public forum, relying instead on the internal development of science to serve as the instrument of public enlightenment. He made this point very clearly in 1880 when he denied an author permission to dedicate a book to him which dealt with the subjects of science and religion: “Moreover though I am a strong advocate for free thought on all subjects, yet it appears to me (whether rightly or wrongly) that direct arguments against Christianity and theism produce hardly any effect on the public, and freedom of thought is best promoted by the [“gradual” added] illumination of [“the” deleted, “men's” added] minds, which follow from the advance of science. It has, therefore, been always my object to avoid writing on religion, and I have confined myself to science”(letter of October 13, 1880). The recipient of the letter, once thought to be Karl marx, has been shown to be Edward Aveling. For a transcription of the letter, see Lewis S. Feuer, “Is the ‘Darwin-Marx Correspondence’ Authentic?”Annals of Science, 32 (1975), pp. 2–3. For a reconstruction of the correspondence and a re-examination of authorship see Feuer,ibid, pp. 3–10; also a group of complementary articles by Feuer, P. Thomas Carroll, Thaddeus J. Trenn, and Ralph Colp, Jr. published under the heading “On the Darwin-Marx Correspondence” inAnn. Sci., 33, no. 4 (1976), 383–394. These scholars have authenticated the first Darwin-Marx letter of October 1, 1873, wherein Darwin thanked Marx for a copy of the first volume ofDas Kapital, and have positively identified Edward Aveling as the recipient of the letter quoted above.
Erasmus Darwin's works, popular when published, came under severe attack in the conservative mood which swept England following the French Revolution. This reversal of opinion is discussed in NortonGarfinkle, “Science and Religion in England, 1790–1800: The Critical Response to the Work of Erasmus Darwin,”J. Hist. Ideas, 16 (June 1955), 376–388. Anticipating public sensitivities, Erasmus at one time considered publishing anonymously, though not for political reasons. While completingThe Botanic Garden, part 2, he wrote to his publisher, “I would not have my name affixed to this work on any account, as I think it would be injurious to me in medical practice, as it has been to all other physicians who have published poetry” (Erasmus Darwin to J. Johnson, May 23, 1784, Manuscripts Department, University of Virginia Library). But whateve his worry over the reception of his work, it did not occur to him to seek cover in the newly organizing societies devoted to natural history. Their botany was not his botany, despite his advocacy of the Linnean system, and they met in London besides. On his complete lack of interest in the Linnean Society, see A. T. Gage,A History of the Linnean Society of London (London: Taylor and Francis, 1938), p. 19.
Recent works which consider the broad tradition of science from the point of view of its audience include: Terry parssinen, “Mesmeric Performers and Their Audience,” paper delivered at the History of Science Society meeting in Atlanta, December 30, 1975; Steven Shapin, “the Audience for Science in Eighteenth Century Edinburgh,”Hist. Sci., 7 (1974), 95–121; Shapin, “Phrenological Knowledge and the Social Structure of Early Nineteenth-Century Edinburgh,”Ann. Sci., 32, (1975), 219–243; and Arnold Thackray, “Natural Knowledge in Cultural Context: The Manchester Model,”Amer. Hist. Rev., 79 (June 1974), 672–709. For an exemplary contribution which considers a single actor in an elite tradition from a similar perspective, see Richard W. Burkhardt, Jr., “Lamarck, Evolution, and the Politics of Science,”J. Hist. Biol., 3, no. 2 (Fall 1970), 275–298. How one characterizes the scientific audience is, of course, a difficult question. For suggestions on this topic, see Arnold Thackray and Steven Shapin, “Prosopography as a Research Tool in the History of Science: The British Scientific Community, 1700–1900,”Hist. Sci., 7 (1974), 1–28. Unlike Thackray and Shapin, however, I have considered the question of scientific audience not as a numerical one (for which prosopography is a method of obvious utility), but as one of human action. From this perspective, the theatrical metaphor, from which the concept of audience derives, is a rich one indeed. For its most adaptable expansion, see Erving Goffman,The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life (New York: Doubleday, 1959).
Steven Shapin, “The Audience for Science in Eighteenth Century Edinburgh,” p. 96: “If another metaphor is required, it would be that of charades, where performers and audience can reverse roles and are engaged in an activity with common goals, rather than, for example, the cinema, where the audience merely holds the options of attending or not; applauding, hissing or remaining silent.” While the audience of Shapin's concern were the landed classes of Edinburgh who patronized (and influenced) the doings of science in that city, the metaphor fits just as well, perhaps better, the situation of reciprocal influence and mutual dependence found within professional science.
For a discussion of the relationship of the new discipline to Darwin's work see DavidHull, “Charles Darwin and Nineteenth-Century Philosophies of Science,” in Ronald N.Giere and Richard S.Westfalls, eds.,Foundations of Scientific Method: The Nineteenth Century (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1973) pp. 115–132: and Alvar Ellegård,Darwin and the General Reader: The Reception of Darwin's Theory of Evolution in the British Periodical Press, 1859–1872 (Göteborg: Universitets Årsskrift 1958), chap. 9.
The Linnean Society of London was founded in 1788, the Geological Society of London in 1807, and the Zoological Society of London in 1825.
For a treatment of the larger question of the scientist's role within society, see Joseph Ben-David,The Scientist's Role in Society: A Comparative Study (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1971).
John Herschel is the only other candidate whom one might want to consider. But Whewell was aligned with Herschel in general approach and far more expansive. Michael Ruse fairly treated them together in “Darwin's Debt to Philosophy: An Examination of the Influence of the Philosophical Ideas of John F. W. Herschel and William Whewell on the Development of Charles Darwin[s Theory of Evolution,”Stud. Hist. Phil. Sci. 6, no. 2 (1975), 159–181. Ruse discusses Darwin's contacts with Herschel and Whewell in detail and suggests that Darwin's search for fundamental laws governing species was motivated by his reading of their works. While I am not opposed to crediting Herschel and Whewell with great influence over Darwin, I believe that the influence was not always positive, as, for example, with respect to Darwin's characterization of the nature of his own activity.
For Whewell each science developed sequentially in three stages: a period of preliminary exploration, an “inductive epoch” where the central idea of a science emerged, and a period of consolidation. While men's minds were active during all these periods (speculation being a permanently human characteristic), general or deductive reasoning was appropriate only after a science had passed through its inductive epoch. Out-of-sequence deduction led to what Whewell called “school philosophy,” which halted the progress of the science. WilliamWhewell,History of the Inductive Sciences, 3 vols. (London: John W. Parker, 1837), I, 12–13, 15–16, 18–19. See also Walter F. Cannon, “William Whewell, F.R.S., Part II; Contributions to Science and Learning,”Notes and Records Roy. Soc. London, 19, no. 2 (1964), 176–191.
WilliamWhewell,History of the Inductive Sciences, (London: John W. Parker, 1837), II, 621–622. “It has been stated, that when the Geological Society of London was formed, their professed object was to multiply and record observations, and patiently to await the result at some future time; and their favourite maxim was, it is added, that the time was not yet come for a general system of geology. This was a wise and philosophical temper, and a due appreciation of their position. and even now, their task is not yet finished; their mission is not yet accomplished. They have still much to do in the way of collecting facts; and in entering upon the exact estimation of causes, they have only just thrown open the door of a vast labyrinth, which it may employ many generations to traverse, but which they must needs explore, before they can penetrate to the oracular chamber of Truth.” Whewell expressed the same thought another way when he remarked that physical (i.e., in his terms theoretical) geology had not yet found its Newon (ibid., p. 596).
Whewell separated geology into three aspects: (1) descriptive or phenomenal geology, (2) geological dynamics, and (3) theoretical or physical geology. Whewell did not consider geology to have arrived at the third stage. Under this heading, he discussed unacceptable general theory, which, in keeping with his developmental schema, he labeled premature rather than false.
Whewell began publishing systematic works in the philosophy of science beginning in the 1840's, too late to have affected Darwin in the period under discussion. I mention points drawn from these works only as they explain positions taken in theHistory of the Inductive Sciences. Even here reference to Whewell's philosophical works is highly selective. In the interests of economy, I have not addressed directly the major issue of Whewell's inductionism, though I believe it would support my general line of argument if fully treated.
WilliamWhewell, “On the Fundamental Antithesis of Philosophy” (read Feb. 5, 1844,Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc., 8, pp. 170–181, in Robert E. Butts, ed.,William Whewell's Theory of Scientific Method (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1968), p. 59.
WilliamWhewell (London: John W. Parker, 1837),History of the Inductive Sciences, II, 180.
WilliamWhewell,On the Philosophy of Discovery; Chapters Historical and Critical Including the Completion of the Third Edition of the Philosophy of the Inductive Sciences (London: John W. Parker & Son, 1860). Robert E. Butts has characterized Whewell's theory of induction, the central feature of his system, “as a kind of process of discovery rather than of proof or argument.” See Butts, ed.,William Whewell's Theory of Scientific Method, p. 20.
For an excellent account of the Society's definition of itself as a repository for the cooperative collection of geological facts, see MartinRudwick, “The Foundation of the Geological Society of London: Its Scheme for Co-operative Research and Its Struggle for Independence,”Brit. J. Hist. Sci., 1, no. 4 (1963), 333–336. For the governing statement by the Society on its goals, see “Preface,”Trans. Geol. Soc. London, 1 (1811), v-ix. I have not used the term Baconian to describe the Society's intentions in order to avoid the question of the actual views of Bacon with respect to theory. If, however, one means by Baconian simply the organized gathering of relevant facts, the term fits the program of the Society quite nicely.
To wit, the opinion of W. D. Conybeare on the subject of the relationship of fossil species of identical formations in different parts of the world: “To India and to Australia, however, it is that we must look, no less than to America, with full confidence that we shall speedily thence obtain sufficient evidence on all these fundamental questions to afford us a basis of induction sufficiently extensive and firm to enable us, at no distant period, steadily to lay the foundation, and securely to raise the superstructure of an enduring and general geological theory.” W. D. Conybeare, “Report of the Progress, Actual State, and Ulterior Prospects of Geological Science,”Rep. Brit. Assoc. Adv. Sci. (York, 1831; Oxford, 1832), p. 413.
The instructions on this point in the first volume of the Society'sTransactions are significant: “In the present imperfect state of this science, it cannot be supposed that the Society should attempt to decide upon the merits of the different theories of the earth that have been proposed. In the communications, therefore, which are now submitted to the public, every latitude has been allowed to authors, with regard to their theoretical inferences from the observations which they record; it being understood, according to the rule of Literary and Philosophical Societies in general, that the writers alone are responsible for the facts and opinions, which their papers may contain.” “Preface,”Trans. Geol. Soc. London, 1 (1811), viii-ix. Elsewhere in the Preface, facts are represented to be the common property of the Society, in effect making only opinion an individual possession.
Darwin was aware that opinion in the Society leaned against the elaboration of general theory. For example, at the end of a long set of notes, probably written in 1837, on the subject of his theory of the earth's crustal movement, he remarked rather defensively that, “Those who do not think we are bound to endeavor to account for the structure of the earth by what they see, they will think this argument based on slight grounds, but I hope others will at least grant that it is necessary to offer some solution of so great a difficulty, [which] has been overlooked.” Darwin MSS, vol. 42, University Library, Cambridge. With respect to the Society's attitude toward theory, it is also interesting to note how one of Darwin's papers was treated by the Society when it was submitted for publication in theTransactions. Adam Sedgwick in reviewing the paper treated its theoretical component with respect but reminded the author in an offhand way, as though it were general knowledge, that theoretical opinions were the property of the individual. Sedgwick's comment reads: “The concluding or theoretical part is not all clearly brought out, and might be reconsidered by the author with some advantage: Not with any view of altering his theoretical opinions (for he only is responsible for them) but for the purpose of making them more definite and univocal.” Referees Reports, Geological Society of London Archives, Burlington House. Darwin's paper appeared in print as “On the Connexion of Certain Volcanic Phaenomena, and on the Formation of Mountain-Chains and the Effects of Continental Elevations,”Trans. Geol. Soc. London, 5 (1840), 601–632.
William Conybeare admitted as much by defining the “fundamental facts” of geology as those bearing a relation to certain “questions at the very root of any sound geological theory.” See his “Report on the Progress, Actual State, and Ulterior Prospects of Geological Sciences,” pp. 375, 376.
Criticizing those who sought to confine geology to factual description, Charles Lyell remarked in a lecture at King's College in 1833, “But they could not ... disconnect the ordinary language which they made use of from theoretical views, and hence there was a manifest inconsistency between their professions and their practice, [and] they added ... an additional source of prejudice — a determination to have no theory.” Quoted in Martin Rudwick, “Charles Lyell, F.R.S. (1797–1875) and His London Lectures on Geology, 1832–1833,”Notes and Records Roy. Soc. London, 29 (1975), 252. In 1833 Lyell was well situated to defend a protheoretical position in the Society since the first two volumes of hisPrinciples of Geology, a theory-laden work, had met with universal praise, if not acceptance, when published in 1830 (vol. I) and 1832 (vol. II). See Charles Lyell,Principles of Geology, 3 vols. (London: John Murray, 1830–1833). Also, Lyell had tacitly challenged the relegation of theory to individual opinion when he put himself forward in a lecture at King's as presenting a synthesis of current theoretical opinion. (See Rudwick, p. 241.)
For Darwin this meant publishing his theory of the earth's crustal movement piecemeal in a series of articles oriented around individual empirical researches rather than as a single coherent argument. The main articles in which the theory was developed were: “Observations of Proofs of Recent Elevation on the Coast of Chili, Made during the Survey of His Majesty's ship Beagle, Commanded by Capt. Fitzroy R. N.,”Proc. Geol. Soc. London, 2 (1833–1838), 446–449; “On Certain Areas of Elevation and Subsidence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as Deduced from the Study of Coral Formations,”Proc. Geol. Soc. London, 2 (1833–1838), 552–554; “On the connextion of certain volcanic phaenomena, and on the formation of mountain-chains and volcanos, as the effects of continental elevations,”Proc. Geol. Soc. London, 2 (1833–1838), 654–660; and “Observations on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, and of Other Parts of Lochaber, with an Attempt to Prove That They Are of Marine Origin,”Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., 1839, pp. 39–81. While my characterization of this style of theory presentation as “piecemeal” is intentionally negative (for the reason that it disguised the importance of the theory in generating the individual researches), it is interesting that Martin Rudwick has seen this approach in a more positive light. Indeed, he has suggested that it wasjust this “worked example” format, where theory appears imbedded in concrete researches, which allowed what is sometimes termed the Lyellian revolution in geology. He writes, “If there is a sense in which Lyell's geology embodied a new ‘paradigm’ for the science, it must be sought not so much in his large-scale theorizing — much of which was rejected both at the time and later — nor even his rhetorical advocacy of the elusive principle of uniformity, but rather in his presentation of a series of persuasive ‘exemplars’ which convinced others of the efficacy of actualistic explanations in geology.” See Rudwick, “Charles Lyell, F.R.S. (1797–1875),” pp. 256–257. Carrying these thoughts a bit further, one can also see how considerably the “exemplars” format differed from the deductive argumentation of theOrigin of Species, leaving one with yet another explanation for Lyell's resistance to the work.
Thomas Young recognized a modern division of labor in astronomy when he divided the discipline into theoretical (mathematical) and descriptive components. See Thomas Young,A Course of Lectures on Natural Philosophy and the Mechanical Arts, 2 vols. (London: Joseph Johnson, 1807), I, 487–488. I am grateful to Stephen Brush for this reference.
The differentiation between theoretical and experimental physics occurred in the last third of the nineteenth century. For a characterization of the personnel in the new discipline of theoretical physics, see PaulForeman, John L.Heilbron, and SpencerWeart, “Physicscirca 1900: Personnel, Funding, and Productivity of the Academic Establishments,” in RussellMcCormmach, ed.,Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, V (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), 30–33. Obviously, such differentiation within a field, as occurred in physics, promotes recognition of the theorist's role. However, since the differentiation within physics may be seen as a transposition of an earlier division between mathematically and experimentally oriented fields, exactly this sort of division cannot be expected to obtain in fields where nonmathematical theory predominates. For a discussion of the founding of modern physics with reference to earlier traditions in the physical sciences, see Thomas S. Kuhn, “Mathematical vs. Experimental Traditions in the Development of Physical Science,”J. Interdisciplinary Hist. 7, no. 1 (Summer 1976), 1–31.
JamesEdward Smith, “Introductory Discourse on the Rise and Progress of Natural History,”Trans. Linn. Soc. London, 1 (1791), 1–55. For Smith, Leeuwenhoek's errors on generation might serve as a “momento to future theorists” and “the jest of philosophers for many ages to come” (p. 20), while Buffon's hypotheses were “for the most part, the essence of futility” (p. 47).
GeorgeBentham, “Anniversary Address,”Proc. Linn. Soc. London, 4 (1859–1864), lxxxi. For a full discussion of the reception of Darwin's theory within the setting of professional societies, see Frederick Burkhardt, “England and Scotland: The Learned Societies,” in Thomas F. Glick, ed.,The Comparative Reception of Darwinism (Austin: University of Texas Press, 1974), pp. 32–74, especially pp. 47–53 on the Linnean Society. Following the pattern set by Thomas Bell, the previous president of the Linnean Society, Bentham refused to allow discussion of evolutionary theory at the Society's meetings. Since the theory had received its initial public presentation at a meeting of the Society (on July 1, 1858), Bentham's refusal suggests the considerable extent to which the leadership of the Society was prepared to go to prevent theoretical issues from becoming integral to the Society's business. It should be emphasized that this refusal was a principled one and not based on any animus toward Darwin or Wallace. Indeed, as Burkhardt points out, Bentham praised Darwin's concrete researches, discussed the state of opinion regarding evolutionary theory in his presidential addresses, and eventually became convinced himself of the mutability of species.
Journals included in this survey are theTransactions of the Linnean Society of London for the years 1791–1859, theProceedings of the same society for the years 1838–1859, theZoological Journal for the years 1824–1834, theProceedings of the Zoological Society of London for the years 1830–1859, and theTransactions of the same society for the years 1835–1866. I have included theZoological Journal in my survey because it was in effect the predecessor of the journals published by the Zoological Society of London. On the relationship between theZoological Journal and the Zoological Society of London, see John Bastin, “The First Prospectus of the Zoological Society of London: New Light on the Society's Origins,”J. Soc. Bibliog. Nat. Hist., 5, no. 5 (1970), 369–388, esp. 369–370. Surveying article titles in specialized journals gives one only a rough sense of the content and lines of development in a field. But titles do indicate what the author, or the editor, saw as the essential point of the article from his own perspective and that of the select readership of the journal. The way in which articles are titled thus provides one with a means for gauging the expectations of the audience and for inferring how these expectations might have been met by prospective contributors.
WilliamYarrell, “On the Laws that regulate the Changes of Plumage in Birds,”Proc. Zool. Soc. London 2 (1833–1835), 9–10, 56. This paper was published in full under the more qualified title “Observations on the Laws which appear to influence the Assumption and Changes of Plumage in Birds” inTrans. Linn. Soc. London, 1 (1835), 13–19.
For Darwin's contributions to the major scientific journals consult theRoyal Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers (19 vols.). One paper not titled to emphasize an object was Darwin's joint communication with alfred Russel Wallace to the Linnean Society, “On the Tendency of Species to Form Varieties; and on the Perpetuation of Varieties and Species by Natural Means of Selection,”Proc. Linn. Soc. London 3 (1855–1859), 45–62. While one may argue that the communication was titled so as to place it under the heading of papers on taxonomy (and it is interesting from this point of view that the familiar and acceptable terms “species” and “varieties” appear twice in the title and that the notion of the descent of species does not appear at all), no prudential wording of the title could disguise the exceptional nature of the contribution.
“Introduction,”Zool. J., 1 (1824–1825), vi. The comparable piece for botany, heavily influenced by the Linnean outlook of its author, is James Edward Smith, “Introductory Discourse on the Rise and Progress of Natural History,”Trans. Linn. Soc. London, 1 (1791), 1–56, see esp. 51–55. Again, on zoology, I am taking theZoological Journal to be the effectual predecessor of the publications of the Zoological Society. The initial volumes of the official publications of the Society do not contain a formal call for papers. The prospectus for the Zoological Society, widely circulated and printed in theZoological Journal, 2 (1825–1826), 284–288, proposed a research program combining scientific interests similar to those described in the “Introduction” to theZoological Journal with an ambitious and thoroughly utilitarian scheme to introduce new breeds of domestic animals into Britain. The practical aspects of the program, inviting cooperation between science and what amounted to a rationalized agriculture, were only very partly implemented by the Society. For more details on various versions of the prospectus see Bastin, “The First Prospectus of the Zoological Society of London.”
Mathias Schleiden's critical paper “Beiträge zur Phytogenesis” (1838), which established cell theory for plants, depended directly on Brown's observations of the cell nucleus. For a brief introduction to the history of cell theory see theDictionary of Scientific Biography entries on Schleiden and on Theodor Schwann, who extended the theory to the animal world. See also William Coleman,Biology in the Nineteenth Century: Problems of Form, Function, and Transformation (New York: John Wiley, 1971), pp. 23–24.
On Brown's dislike of speculation, see NoraBarlow, ed.,The Autobiography of Charel Darwin (London: Collins, 1958), pp. 84, 103. On his reluctance to speak in public, see Bishop Samuel Goodenough as quoted in A. T. Gage,A History of the Linnean Society of London, p. 31. For a more complete view of Brown, which emphasizes his theoretical abilities, see theDictionary of Scientific Biography entry by W. T. Stearn.
Brown's researches were grouped under the following headings in the standard edition of his collected works: Part I, Geographico-Botanical Memoirs; Part II, Structural and Physiological Memoirs; Part III, Systematic Memoirs; and Part IV, Contributions to Systematic Works. See John J.Bennett, ed.,The Miscellaneous Botanical Works of Robert Brown, 2 vols. (London: Robert Hardwick for the Ray Society, 1866–1867).
Anthropology was defined in England as a field in the late 1830's, psychology in the 1840's, and sociology, depending on whether one considers systematic treatment, which Herbert Spencer gave the subject, or ongoing formal organization, either in the last quarter of the nineteenth century or the first decade of the twentieth. For a discussion of these fields, see George W.StockingJr., “What's in a Name? The Origins of the Royal Anthropological Institute (1837–71),”Man, n.s.,5 (1971), 369–390; Leonard S. Hearnshaw,A Short History of British Psychology, 1840–1940 (New York: Barnes and Noble, 1964); and G. Duncan Mitchell,A Hundred Years of Sociology (London: Gerald Duckworth, 1968).
NoraBarlow, ed.,The Autobiography of Charel Darwin (London: Collins, 1958), p. 82.
See Rudwick, “Darwin and Glen Roy,” p. 118.
The Red Notebook, discussed in Part I of this article, is among the manuscripts at Down House, the Darwin Memorial in Kent. I would like to express my appreciation to Jon Hodge, who provided the evidence for the full name of the notebook. I am presently editing the Red Notebook and notebook A for publication. Notebooks A through N are among the Darwin manuscripts at the University Library, Cambridge. Of these notebooks B, C, D, and E appear as “Darwin's Notebooks on Transmutation of Species,” Parts I–IV, ed. Gavin de Beer, “Addenda and Corrigenda,” ed. Gavin de Beer and M. J. Rowlands; Part VI [excised pages] ed. Gavin de Beer, M. J. Rowlands, and B. M. Skaramovsky,Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Historical Series, 2, nos. 2–6, and3, no. 5 (1960–1967). De Beer's Parts I. II, III, and IV correspond to Darwin's B, C, D, and E. The transcription and photocopies of notebooks M and N which I used in preparing this article were done by Miss B. M. Skramovsky, formerly of the British Museum, to whom I would like to express my gratitude. Notebooks M and N, transcribed and annotated by Paul H. Barrett, are now available in Howard E. Gruber and Paul H. Barrett,Darwin on Man: A Psychological Study of Scientific Creativity (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1974). In most cases of conflict I have adopted Barrett's reading of the text. Citations of all notebook entries will be made to the notebook by name and to the page number in Darwin's pagination. Excised pages will be signified by a lower-casee after the page number.
For a catalog and brief description of the major collection of Darwin manuscripts, seeHandlist of Darwin Papers at the University Library, Cambridge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960). While the manuscript collection at Down House is not cataloged, most of the material there pertains to theBeagle voyage proper. Exceptions are the Red Notebook and a notebook labeled “St. Helena Model,” containing notes, mainly of a practical nature, on a variety of topics.
The method of content analysis has been applied by George J. Grinnell to a thematic study of the originally published (that is, unexcised) portions of notebooks B, C, D, and E. See George J. Grinnell, “The Darwin Case: A Computer Analysis of Scientific Creativity,” Ph.D. diss. University of California, Berkeley, 1969, chap. 2. In addition, a useful tool for identifying themes in the notebooks is the computer printout of vocubulary from notebooks B, C, D, and E prepared by Paul H. Barrett of Michigan State University and available directly from him.
NoraBarlow, ed.,The Autobiography of Charel Darwin (London: Collins, 1958), p. 120.
The following authors who have examined at least four notebooks (B, C, D, and E) in detail have each concluded that Darwin made a series of attempts to provide a mechanism for species change once he had converted to a transmutationist position. George Grinnell identified three successive theories: (1) geographical isolation, (2) habits changing structure, and (3) the domestic breeding model. This ordering, which emerged in his dissertation (Berkeley, 1969), was reaffirmed in “The Rise and Fall of Darwin's First Theory of Transmutation,”J. Hist. Biol., 7, no. 2 (Fall 1974), 272. Camille Limoges saw Darwin's work in the 1837–1839 period as moving from a biogeographical model to one based on natural selection, the two united by a common interest in adaption. See Limoges,La sélection naturelle (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1970). Sandra Herbert also recognized two major stages, the geologico-geographical model based on the distribution of species through space and time and the model based on natural selection. See Sandra Herbert, “The Logic of Darwin's Discovery,” Ph. D. diss. Brandeis University, 1968. Writing shortly after the others, Howard E. Gruber identified three separate theories of species change: (1) monads, (2) perpetual becoming, and (3) natural selection. See Gruber and Barrett,Darwin on Man, pp. 103–105.
Eighteen notebooks, numbered by an unknown cataloger and characterized as from theBeagle voyage, are stored at Down House. Of these, notebook “1” is entirely excised and bears a London address, notebooks “2” (the Red Notebook) and “5” (“St. Helena Model”) are mainly of post-voyage date, and the others are genuine field notebooks from the voyage. In addition, there are at Down House six notebooks, bound in two sets of three, listing specimens collected during the voyage. For selections from all of these notebooks see Barlow, ed.,Charles Darwin and the Voyage of the “Beagle.”
Red Notebook, pp. 72–73. The reference to Europe suggests Darwin's belief that its geology was more complicated than that of South America, owing to differences in crustal movements between the two continents.
For the sake of convenience and pending further evidence, I shall data the opening of the Red Notebook to June 1836 and of notebooks A and B to July 1837. The June 1836 date for the opening of the Red Notebook derives from references it contains to points on theBeagle's itinerary. The July 1837 data for the opening of notebook A is conjecture on my part. The first dateable reference of relevance in the notebook occurs on p.15e and is to the August 1837 issue ofL'Institut. Since notebook A filled fairly evenly and slowly, overall at the rate of less than 10 pages a month, the August data on p. 15e is consistent with a July data for the opening of the notebook. For notebook B the opening data of July 1837 is secured by Darwin's word. (See GavindeBeer, “Darwin's Journal,”Bull. Brit. Mus. (Nat. Hist.), Historical Series, 2, no 1 [1959], 7.)
The exact date of completion of notebook B is in doubt. Darwin referred in his heading for the notebook (probably added in 1844 when he was arranging his papers) that he had completed it at the beginning of the month. In fact, the notebook was completed somewhat later, for p. 235 refers to the February 24 issue of theAthenaeum. Since the notebook ran to another 29 pages of text, after p. 235, it was probably completed no earlier than the end of the month. The enthusiastic burst of entries toward the close of the notebook would also agree with the notation for February 25 in “Darwin's Journal” (p. 8) that he “also speculated much about ‘Existence of Species’ about that time.
See Charles Darwin,Questions about the Breeding of Animals [1840], with an introduction by Gavin de Beer (London: Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 1968). Correcting de Beer's dating, R. B. Freeman and P. J. Gautrey have shown that the pamphlet may have been composed and printed as early as the last quarter of 1838 and was first circulated sometime between January 1, 1839, and May 6, 1839, most likely earlier in that period. See Freeman and Gautrey, “Darwin'sQuestions about the Breeding of Animals, with a Note onQueries about Expression,” J. Soc. Bibliog. Nat. Hist., 5, no. 3 (1969), 220.
I am grateful to David Kohn for allowing me to read an important series of letters between Darwin and William Herbert from this period. Herbert's first reply to Darwin's inquiries was dated April 5, 1839, which suggests that Darwin was gathering information on plants and animals simultaneously.
Peter J.Vorzimmer, “An Early Darwin Manuscript: The ‘Outline and Draft of 1839,’”J. Hist. Biol., 8, no. 2 (Fall 1975), 191–217. See particularly p. 216, which may be compared with notebook E, p. 118, for the key outline for what became Darwin's finished argument. When the date of this manuscript is fully established, it will be of great help in reconciling Darwin's various and conflicting statements on the importance of artificial selection to him in forming his theory.
The division of labor in the notebooks was clearly intentional. Where Darwin wrote in one notebook what belonged in another, he noted as much, for example, in D,p. 25, which reads “Vide p. 63. Notebook M,” or N, p. 73, “V. [iz] E. p. 125. wrong entry.”
Charles Swisher has identified instinct as the subject of the notebooks. See his “Charles Darwin on the Origins of Behavior,”Bull. Hist. Med., 41, no. 1 (1967), 25.
See Lyell,Principles of Geology (1st ed.), II, chaps. 1–4, and Whewell,History of the Inductive Sciences, III, 573–576.
See Darwin's enthusiastic but unforthcoming remarks on his species work in his letter to Charles Lyell of September 13, 1838, in Francis Darwin, ed.,The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, 2 vols. (New York: Basic Books, 1959), I, 377.
Charles Darwin to Mrs. Emma Darwin, July 5, 1844, in F.Darwin, ed.,The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin, (New York: Basic Books, 1959), I, 377. Also see the letter to T. H. Huxley of November 25, 1859, where Darwin emphasized his reliance on the opinions of others (in this case Hooker, Lyell, and Huxley) for judging his work, ibid II, 27–28.
I am not suggesting that Darwin would never have published without Wallace. I am merely observing the circumstances under which he did. On this I may add two related points, first that Wallace was part of the potential audience for a transmutationist theory from 1855 on, by virtue of his well-read paper “On the Law Which Has Regulated the Introduction of New Species” (Ann. and Mag. Nat. Hist., 16, 2nd ser. [1855], 184–196) and, second, that before Wallace's communication of 1858 Darwin was contemplating publishing his theory as speaking to one side of the species question rather than as an assertion of the true state of affairs. See F. Darwin, ed.,Life and Letters, I, 394, 400, 406. Minimally, then, one must credit Wallace creating the audience for the book Darwin actually wrote.
In the drafts of the transmutation theory written in 1839 [?], 1842, and 1844, habit is treated in the first section of the argument under the heading of variation. See Peter J.Vorzimmer,J. Hist. Biol., 8, 1975 “An Early Darwin Manuscript: The ‘Outline and Draft of 1839’”, pp. 208–212; see also Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace,Evolution by Natural Selection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1958), pp. 54–58 (1842 version) and pp. 136–143 (1844 version). In the extant portion of the “long” version of theOrigin, as well as theOrigin itself, the related subject of instincts is treated primarily in the latter part of the argument as a difficulty to be overcome rather than as a supporting element in the whole scheme. Even with that, the subject was presented in reduced form in theOrigin. For the story of the delayed publication of the original chapter on instinct from the “long” version of theOrigin, see R. C. Stauffer, ed.,Charles Darwin's Natural Selection (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975), pp. 463–466.
NoraBarlow, ed.,The Autobiography of Charel Darwin (London: Collins, 1958), p. 120.
NoraBarlow, ed.,The Autobiography of Charel Darwin (London: Collins, 1958), p. 130.
NoraBarlow, ed.,The Autobiography of Charel Darwin (London: Collins, 1958), pp. 84–85.
H. E.Dale,The Higher Civil Service of Great Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1941), p. 105, as quoted in Goffman,The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life, pp. 62–63.
NoraBarlow, ed.,The Autobiography of Charel Darwin (London: Collins, 1958), p. 21. The original excisions from the autobiography were determined by family discussions in the spring of 1885 when Francis Darwin was considering the work for inclusion in theLife and Letters. Three positions were staked out on the issue. Emma, Darwin's wife, favored publication with omissions; George and Francis, two sons standing for science, favored complete publication; and Henrietta, an exceedingly proper and idiosyncratic daughter, argued for withholding the document entirely. Surprisingly, it was Henrietta who made some of the more interesting additions to what was a very heated family argument. In opposing her mother's position, for example, she touched on a point close to the center of this essay when she wrote her brother, “I never though the idea of cutting out sentences was a practicable one and I do not think that cutting out short sentences is honest-that kind of alteration of a man's writing gets very near to the point of deceiving the reader”. (Henrietta Darwin Litchfield to Francis Darwin, April 9, 1885, Darwin MSS, Black Box, University Library, Cambridge). As the senior party to the discussion, Emma Darwin won out, and the autobiography was published with the rawer remarks on religion and man excised. Appropriately, these excisions were restored by Nora Barlow, a Darwin grandchild. Her unexpurgated edition of the autobiography appeared in 1958.
Alfred Russel Wallace, review ofThe Expression of Emotions in Man and Animals, Quart. J. Sci. (January 1873), 117–118.
Robert M.Young, “The Role of Psychology in the Nineteenth-Century Evolutionary Debate”, in MaryHenle, JulianJaynes, and John J.Sullivan, eds.,Historical Conceptions of Psychology (New York: Springer, 1973), p. 187.
J. W.Burrow,Evolution and Society: A Study in Victorian Social Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1966).
GayWeber, “Science and Society in Nineteenth Century Anthropology”,Hist. Sci., 11 (1974), 264.
An example of such an attempt made recently on behalf of anthropology is DerekFreeman, “The Evolutionary Theories of Charles Darwin and Herbert Spencer,”Current Anthropology, 15, no. 3 (1974), 211–235. In order to make Darwin not at all a social scientist, Freeman minimizes Malthus's contribution to Darwin's theory. In contrast, Marvin Harris, Freeman's opponent, makes Darwin too much a social scientist by not recognizing the variety and independence of intellectual settings in which he operated. See Marvin Harris,The Rise of Anthropological Theory (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1968), chap. 5. A similar uncertainty over how much to regard Darwin as a social scientist exists in an otherwise informative article by James Allen Rogers, “Darwinism and Social Darwinism,”J. Hist. Ideas, 33, no. 2 (1972), 265–280. Like Freeman, Rogers minimizes Darwin's debt to Malthus (pp. 275–276), which leads him to separate Darwin from Spencer and the Social Darwinists on spurious grounds (p. 280).
See B, pp. 32–34, 68–69e, 179–182.
B, p. 244. Darwin positioned himself nicely between the monogenists and the polygenists on this matter. With the addition of new evidence he could move either way.
As a rough index to Darwin's new interest in the subject, we may note that the word “man” appears about forty times in notebook B, about eighty times in notebook C. Even within notebook B, the increase is marked, for nearly half of the references to man occur in the last third of the notebook.
See Lyell,Principles of Geology, II (1832), chap. 1.
See Martin J. S.Rudwick,The Meaning of Fossils: Episodes in the History of Paleontology, (New York: Macdonald and American Elsevier, 1972), chap. 3.
B, p. 49. The remainder of this statement is unfortunately excised. The sense of it is, however, reasonably clear from the existing fragment.
B, p. 74. In this particular entry, Darwin's bracketing of physical and mental attributes-cerebral structure/intellectual faculties-is also interesting since it is the first indication of attention in the notebooks to the mind-body problem.
See Lyell,Principles of Geology, II (1832), 12–14.
On this topic see B, pp. 101–102.
B, pp. 227–228. For his complete summation of his anticipated work, see B, pp. 224–229.
C, p. 39. From here on Darwin regularly countered Lyell's arguments against transmutation in his own copies of successive editions of thePrinciples of Geology. Unfortunately, since Darwin always had thePrinciples ready at hand, dating any of his marginal comments in the various editions is an uncertain business, a circumstance which has led to some scholarly disagreement over their proper dating. In my opinion, none of the external evidence brought forward thus far is sufficient to date precisely the important marginalia in Darwin's copy of the fifth edition of thePrinciples, published in 1837. Judging from the substance of these marginalia, however, I would place them in the period under discussion and would regard them as Darwin's “answer” to Lyell. During this time, Darwin was extremely self-confident, assertive on the subject of human orgins, but still working with a theory founded on geographical isolation rather than on Malthusian population pressure. These views also characterize Darwin's remarks in his copy of the fifth edition of thePrinciples. The latest I would date these marginalia is the end of September 1838, when Darwin did have Malthus to work from. For more on this subject, as well as direct quotations of Darwin's marginal commentary with respect to Lyell's view on man, see Part 1 of this article, pp. 257–258.
See NoraBarlow, ed.,The Autobiography of Charel Darwin (London: Collins, 1958), pp. 85–87. In discussing the change in Darwin's religious views, one should be careful to observe his own distinction (p. 87) between his loss of belief in traditional Christianity, which occurred in the 1837–1839 period, and his later speculations about the nature and existence of God. Darwin's work on transmutation prompted his departure from traditional religion; it did not thereby make him an atheist.
WilliamWhewell, presidential address, delivered February 16, 1838,Proc. Geol. Soc. London 2 (1833–1838), 641–642. In a similar vein, see Lyell,Principles of Geology (1st ed., 1830), I, 155–156; and Edward Blyth, “On the Psychological Distinctions between Man and All Other Animals; and the Consequent Diversity of Human Influence over the Inferior Ranks of Creation, from Any Mutual and Reciprocal Influence Exercisd among the Latter,”Mag. Nat. Hist., n.s.,1 (1837), 1–9, 77–85, 131–141.
ErasmusDarwin,The Temple of Nature (London: J. Johnson, 1803). See, for example, canto I, “Production of Life,” and canto III, “Progress of the Mind.” The point could be made from Erasmus's other works as well.
Because of the operational nature of this definition, it was often difficult to tell whether an act should be judged a rational or an instinctive one. Darwin cited the instance of a tit lark placing withered grass over a spied-on nest as being just such a difficult case (C, p. 189).
C, p. 242. In this entry Darwin recalls his first memory, which was of a holiday at the sea. He later expanded his account of his earliest memories in an autobiographical deposition; see n. 94.
See C, p. 70, and C, p. 236, on the instinct of sucking. Darwin began to make occasional observations on infants in the course of keeping notebook M, but his only fullscale study of infant behavior was done in 1840, following the birth of his first child. As with all his works on man, it was not published until much later. See Charles Darwin, “A Biographical Sketch of an Infant,”Mind: A Quarterly Review of Psychology and Philosophy, 2, no. 7 (July 1877), 285–294.
C, p. 243. The relevant works are Charles Bell,Essay on the Anatomy and Philosophy of Expressions, 2nd ed. (London: John Murray, 1824), and Erasmus Darwin,Zoonomia; or the Laws of Organic Life, 2 vols. (London: J. Johnson, 1794–1796).
De Beer, ed., “Darwin's Journal.” The cover of the original notebook held at University Library, Cambridge, is inscribed “Journal/Charles Darwin/August 1838.”
Ibid., p. 7
“An Autobiographical Fragment,” inMore Letters, 1, 5, 3. The manuscript at University Library, Cambridge, is titled “Life written August 1838.”
From the appendix “This Is the Question” in NoraBarlow, ed.,The Autobiography of Charel Darwin (London: Collins, 1958), pp. 233–234. For the letters between Charles and Emma, see Henrietta Litchfield, ed.,Emma Darwin: A Century of Family Letters, 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1915).
Charles to Catherine Darwin, undated but 1837 or 1838. Darwin MSS, vol. 92, University Library, Cambridge.
D, p. 37. See also M, p. 154e.
The list is taken from C, p. 270. Darwin's entries appear in the left-hand column, notations of references to these works in his notebooks in the right-hand column. “Vol. 91” refers to the location of a set of Darwin's reading notes at University Library, Cambridge. The list first appeared in print in Sydney Smith, “The Origin of the ‘Origin,’”Adv. Sci., 16, no. 64 (1959), 395.
Exact citation of works from the list would be misleadingly specific in most cases since Darwin did not read every work on the list (though he may have read others by the same author), and of those he did read the exact edition consulted is not always known. Full names of authors and brief titles of the works listed are as follows: Edward Gibbon,Autobiography; Walter Savage Landor,Imaginary Conversations; J. G. Lockhart, ed.,Memoirs of the Life of Sir Walter Scott, Bart.; John Abercrombie,Inquiries concerning the Intellectual Powers and the Investigation of Truth; Sir Thomas Browne,Religio Medici; Johann Casper Lavater,Essays on Physiognomy for the Promotion of the Knowledge and the Love of Mankind, trans. Thomas Holcroft; Herbert Mayo,The Philosophy of Living; David Hume,My Own Life andPrivate Correspondence of David Hume (1820); Thomas Malthus,An Essay on the Principle of Population; Harriet Martineau,How to Observe Morals and Manners.
De Beer, ed., “Darwin's Journal”, p. 8. In the original manuscript, the items listed in the left-hand column appear on p. 26, the items in the right-hand column on p. 27.
To wit: “Case of Shrewsbury gentleman, unnatural union with turkey cock, wasrestrained by remonstrances with him” (M, p. 18). Or: “We need not feel so much surprise at male animals smelling vagina of females. — when it is recollected that smell of one's own pud is not disagree[able]” (M, p. 85), “Pud” derives from the Latinpudenda, the private parts. See Gruber and Barrett,Darwin on Man, p. 317.
Emma Wedgwood to Jesse Sismondi, November 15, 1838, in Litchfield ed.,Emma Darwin, II, 6.
See D, pp. 134e–135e, dated September 28, 1838. Editors of this passage have identified the key sentence as being from Thomas R. Malthus,An Essay on the Principle of Population, 6th ed., 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1826), I, 6.
See SandraHerbert, “Darwin, Malthus, and Selection”,J. Hist. Biol. 4, no. 1 (Spring 1971), 209–217.
NoraBarlow, ed.,The Autobiography of Charel Darwin (London: Collins, 1958), p. 120.
Notes dated October 2, 1838. Darwin MSS, University Library, Cambridge, vol. 91. Cited by Barrett and Gruber,Darwin on Man, p. 390. The word which Barrett and Gruber read as “[named?]” has been read by Peter J. Gautrey as “married”, which appears to me more consistent with the sense of the passage.
[AdamSedgwick], “Objections to Mr. Darwins Theory of the Origin of Species” [1860], in David L. Hull,Darwin and His Critics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973), p. 160.
M, p. 81. See [David Brewster], review of Auguste Comte'sCours de philosophie positive, Edinburgh Rev., 67 (July 1838), 271–308.
Darwin MSS, University Library, Cambridge, vol. 91. Notes dated October 2, 1838.
M, p. 128. Barrett,Darwin on Man, reads “imaginary ideas” for Skramovsky's “necessary ideas”. Having consulted the original text, which shows a clear doubles in the middle of the first word, I prefer Skramovsky's reading.
The figure for notebook N may be somewhat low since a number of notes in Vol. 91 of the Darwin MSS date from this period. Even so, by including these notes the total number of pages on the subject of man written during this period would not be doubled.
NoraBarlow, ed.,The Autobiography of Charel Darwin (London: Collins, 1958), p. 85.
Darwin MSS, University Library, Cambridge, vol. 91. See [J. S. Mill], review of works by and about Samual Taylor Coleridge,London and Westminster Rev., 23, 2 (March 1840), 257–302.
Robert M.Young, “The Role of Psychology in the Nineteenth-Century Evolutionary Debate”, in MaryHenle, JulianJaynes, and John J.Sullivan, eds.,Historical Conceptions of Psychology (New York: Springer, 1973), p. 192.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Herbert, S. The place of man in the development of Darwin's theory of transmutation. Part II. J Hist Biol 10, 155–227 (1977). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00572643
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00572643