Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Lyell and Evolution: An Account of Lyell's Response to the Prospect of an Evolutionary Ancestry for Man

  • Michael Bartholomew (a1)
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Lyell and Evolution: An Account of Lyell's Response to the Prospect of an Evolutionary Ancestry for Man
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Lyell and Evolution: An Account of Lyell's Response to the Prospect of an Evolutionary Ancestry for Man
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Lyell and Evolution: An Account of Lyell's Response to the Prospect of an Evolutionary Ancestry for Man
      Available formats
      ×
Abstract
Copyright
References
Hide All

1 Darwin F. (ed.), The life and letters of Charles Darwin (2nd edn., 3 vols., London, 1887), ii. 193. Hereafter cited as LLD.

2 Cannon W. F., ‘The uniformitarian-catastrophist debate’, Isis, li (1960), 3855; ‘The bases of Darwin's achievement: a revaluation’, Victorian studies, v (1961), 109–34; ‘The impact of uniformitarianism: two letters from John Herschel to Charles Lyell’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cv (1961), 301–14; ‘Charles Lyell is permitted to speak for himself: an abstract’, in Schneer C. J. (ed.), Toward a history of geology (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), pp. 78–9.

Hooykaas R., ‘The parallel between the history of the earth and the history of the animal world’, Archives internationales d'histoire des sciences, x (1957), 318; Natural law and divine miracle (Leyden, 1959), 2nd impression issued as The principle of uniformity (Leyden, 1963); ‘Geological uniformitarianism and evolution’, Archives internationales d'histoire des sciences, xix (1966), 319.

Rudwick M. J. S., ‘A critique of uniformitarian geology: a letter from W. D. Conybeare to Charles Lyell’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, cxi (1967), 373–87; ‘The strategy of Lyell's Principles of geology’, Isis, lxi (1970), 433; ‘Uniformity and progression; reflections on the structure of geological theory in the age of Lyell’, in Roller D. H. D. (ed.), Perspectives in the history of science and technology (Norman, Oklahoma, 1971), pp. 209–27.

Wilson L. G., ‘The development of the concept of uniformitarianism in the mind of Charles Lyell’, Actes de Xe Congrès International d'Histoire des Sciences; Ithaca, 1962 (Paris, 1964), ii. 993–6; ‘The origins of Charles Lyell's uniformitarianism’, Geological Society of America. Special paper no, 89 (1967), 3563; (ed.), Sir Charles Lyell's scientific Journals on the species question (New Haven and London, 1970), hereafter cited as Species journals, using Wilson's pagination; ‘Sir Charles Lyell and the species question’, American scientist, lix (1971), 4355; Charles Lyell. The years to 1841: the revolution in geology (New Haven and London, 1972).

3 Lyell C., Principles of geology (3 vols., London, 18301833). Hereafter cited as PG.

4 Hooykaas 1966, op. cit. (2), 7.

5 Eiseley L., Darwin's century (London, 1959), pp. 97115; ‘Charles Lyell’, Scientific American, cci (1959), 98106.Ellegård A., Darwin and the general reader (Göteborg, 1958), pp. 289–91.Greene J. C., The death of Adam (Iowa, 1959), pp. 249–57; ‘The Kuhnian paradigm and the Darwinian revolution’, in Roller, op. cit. (2), pp. 123 (1819). Gillispie C. C., Genesis and geology (1951; New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1959), pp. 131–3.Hodge M. J. S., ‘On the origins of Darwinism in Lyellian historical geography’, a paper read to the British Society for the History of Science, 10 July 1971. Irvine W., Apes, angels and Victorians (Meridian paperback edn., New York, 1959), pp. 47–9, 74–5, 86–7.Lovejoy A. O., ‘The argument for organic evolution before the Origin of species’, in Glass B., Temkin O., and Strauss W. (eds.), Forerunners of Darwin (Baltimore, 1959), pp. 356414 (366–73). McKinney H. L., ‘A. R. Wallace and the discovery of natural selection’, Journal of the history of medicine, xxi (1966), 333–57; Wallace and natural selection (New Haven and London, 1972). McKinney gives a full discussion of Lyell's thinking on evolution and, in particular, examines Lyell's response to Wallace's 1855 paper ‘On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species’.

6 For example, Wallace, Sedgwick, Hooker, Spencer, and Darwin himself. See notes 63–5.

7 Gillispie 1959, op. cit. (5), p. 131. Cf. Huxley, in LLD, ii. 190.

8 Hodge, op. cit. (5). McKinney 1966 and 1972, op. cit. (5).

9 Hodge, op. cit. (5), typescript p. 9.

10 Eiseley, Darwin's century, pp. 108–15; ‘Charles Lyell’, op. cit. (5), 101–2.Gillispie, op. cit. (5), 131.

11 As Cannon, Hooykaas, and Rudwick have made plain, we should be wary of accepting Lyell's own estimate of his scientific opponents. Lyell tended to make his ‘paroxysmalist’, ‘convulsionist’, or ‘cosmogonist’ opponents, as he scathingly called them, into straw men in order to score easy victories. But Cannon, Hooykaas, and Rudwick have demonstrated that Lyell's predecessors and contemporaries were substantial geologists in their own right, with a coherent and fruitful methodology at their service. They rarely deserved Lyell's scorn. See Cannon 1960, op. cit. (2); Hooykaas R., Catastrophism in geology (Amsterdam, 1970); Rudwick 1971, op. cit. (2).

12 Eiseley, Darwin's century, p. 105.Coleman W., ‘Lyell and the reality of species’, Isis, liii (1962), 325–38 (326). Irvine, op. cit. (5), 139, 142–8, 210–11.Wilson, Species journals, op. cit. (2), pp. xxvi, I. M. J. S. Hodge, review of Wilson, Species journals, in Isis, lxii (1971), 119–20.McKinney 1966, op. cit. (5), 351; McKinney 1972, op. cit. (5), pp. 97116.

13 PG (1st edn., 1832), ii. 21.

14 Lyell to Mantell G., 2 03 1827, in Lyell K. (ed.), Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell (2 vols., London, 1881), 168–9. Hereafter cited as LLJ. Dr Hodge has recently argued that Lamarck was not proposing a theory of ‘common descent’ at all. But for the purposes of my argument here, what Lyell thought Lamarck said is more important than what Lamarck actually said. It is clear that Lyell understood Lamarck to have been formulating a theory of species origination, and Lyell was not wrong in seeing that Lamarck's account allowed no special place for man. See Hodge M. J. S., ‘Lamarck's science of living bodies’, British journal for the history of science, v (1971), 323–52.

15 It is significant that it was Wallace's 1855 paper ‘On the law which has regulated the introduction of new species’, Annals and magazine of natural history, 2nd ser., xvi (1855), 184–97, that prompted Lyell to open a notebook on the species question. Wallace's conclusion, which assumed the general truth of organic progression, was that ‘Every species has come into existence coincident both in time and space with a pre-existing closely allied species’ (p. 196; Wallace's italics). Wallace's paper assumes that evolution has happened, although it does not provide a mechanism. In 1868 Lyell wrote to Wallace, outlining his own version of the history of evolutionary thought during the preceding thirty years. In this letter Lyell wrote: ‘When I first read your paper declaring that each new species had come into the world co-incident in time & space with closely, allied species, it struck me as true though not capable of geological demonstration, and it shook my confidence together with other arguments in the same paper in the independent creation theory more than anything I have read before’; copy of a letter dated 19 November 1868, in Lyell papers, University of Edinburgh Library; my italics. See Species journals, p. 3, and McKinney 1972, op. cit. (5).

16 PG (1st edn., 1832), ii. 22.

17 Cf. Cannon, ‘The bases of Darwin's achievement …’, op. cit. (2), 110. Cannon argues that the progressionist natural theologians were discomfited in 1859 because Darwin had ‘stolen’ their universe and fitted it out with a revolutionary mechanism. In one sense this may be true: the superficial similarity, yet underlying deep antagonism, between the Christian progressionists' account of the history of life and Darwin's goes a long way towards explaining the progressionists' wrath. But for reasons that this article aims to make clear, I believe that Darwin did not derive his ‘framework’ from the progressionist natural theologians, as against the framework of Principles. Lyell's anti-progressionism, for all his ingenuity, turned out to be a negligible obstruction to evolutionary thought; the line from Principles to the Origin is unimpeded.

18 Cannon 1960, op. cit. (2), 39.

19 Young R. M., ‘Darwin's metaphor: does Nature select?’, The monist, lv (1971), 442503 (444).

20 Rudwick 1970, op. cit. (2), 33.

21 PG (1st edn., 1833), iii. 384. This statement comes from the ‘Concluding remarks’ in the last volume of Principles, and Lyell retained it throughout all of the eleven editions that he personally supervised. See PG (11th edn., 1872), ii. 620.

22 Lyell, ‘Address to the Geological Society … 17 February, 1837’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, ii (1837), 479523 (517–21).

23 LLJ, i. 268.

24 LLJ, i. 271.

25 LLJ, i. 310.

26 PG (1st edn., 1833), iii. 271–4.

27 Lyell to the Bishop of Llandaff, 28 03 1831, quoted in Wilson 1972, op. cit. (2), p. 310. In this letter Lyell also affirms that he believes that species originated by ‘the direct intervention of the First Cause’. Professor Wilson comments: ‘one could wish that Lyell had not written this letter’ (p. 310), but the letter only corroborates what we can ascertain from Principles, the Species journals, and other sources. See, for example, the letter to Wallace quoted in note 15.

28 Lyell to DrFleming , 1 05 1833, in LLJ, i. 397.

29 See Wilson 1972, op. cit. (2), pp. 308–23, 353–60, 376; Hearnshaw F. J. C., The centenary history of King's College, London (London, 1929), pp. 91, 107–9.

30 LLJ, i. 382.

31 Copy of a letter from Lyell to Carpenter, 22 01 1866, enclosed in a letter to T. H. Huxley, same date; Huxley papers, 6, 120, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London. See also Carpenter W. B., Nature and man. Essays scientific and philosophical (London, 1888), pp. 86–8.

32 The suggestion is Dr Hodge's.

33 [Lyell], ‘Transactions of the Geological Society of London’, Quarterly review, xxxiv (1826), 507–40.

34 Ibid., 513.

35 Ibid., 518.

36 Lyell to Murchison R. I., 15 01 1829, in LLJ, i. 234. Lyell's emphasis.

37 See, for example, Rudwick 1970, op. cit. (2), 8; Hooykaas 1966, op. cit. (2), 7; Cannon 1960, op. cit. (2), 55.

38 Lyell to Murchison, 15 01 1829, in LLJ i. 234.

39 Unpublished letter from Lyell to C. Prévost, 20 April 1828; copy in Lyell papers, Edinburgh University Library.

40 LLJ, i. 234. Lyell's emphasis.

41 Rudwick 1970, op. cit. (2), 8.

43 Lyell 1826, op. cit. (33), 513.

44 Ibid., 538–9. Lyell's italics.

45 Butler J., The analogy of religion (1736), part one, chapters VII and VIII. In the Oxford University Press ‘World's Classics’ edn. (London, 1907), this section is on pp. 144–65.

46 Lyell 1826, op. cit. (33), 539.

47 Cf. PG (1st edn., 1830), i. 1. The first sentence runs: ‘Geology is the science which investigates the successive changes that have taken place in the organic and inorganic kingdoms of nature …’

48 Lyell to Mantell G., 2 03 1827, in LLJ, i. 168–9.

49 Ibid., 168.

50 Ibid., 169. In 1827 little was known of the strata below the carboniferous series.

52 Lyell to Darwin, 15 03 1863, in LLJ, ii. 365.

53 E.g. LLD, iii. 14, 15. See also: Huxley T. H. to Lyell, 17 08 1862, in Huxley L. (ed.), Life and letters of Thomas Henry Huxley (2 vols., London, 1900), i. 200; McKinney 1972, op. cit. (5), pp. 115–16.

54 In 1814 jaws of what Cuvier identified as marsupial mammals were found in the Secondary Oolite at Stonesfield, near Oxford. See Wilson's introduction to Species journals, pp. xxvxxvi.

55 Lyell 1826, op. cit. (33), 529–32.

56 Rudwick 1970, op. cit. (2), 24–5.

57 Lyell, ‘Anniversary address of the President’, Quarterly journal of the Geological Society of London, vii (1851), pp. xxvlxvii.

58 Species journals, op. cit. (2), p. 337. Cf. PG (10th edn., 2 vols., 18671868); Lyell there speaks of ‘a theoretical question of surpassing interest with which the palaeontologist has been busily engaged since the time of Lamarck, namely, whether it is conceivable that each fossil fauna and flora brought to light by the geologist may have been connected, by way of descent or generation, with that which immediately preceded it.’ (i. 167). In 1827 Lyell had resolved to show that there was no such connexion.

59 Dr Rudwick has rightly criticized historians who, in searching for Darwin's ‘forerunners’, have misleadingly isolated the section of Lyell's work that deals with the organic world from its context within the overall strategy of the Principles; see Rudwick 1970, op. cit. (2), 5. Nonetheless, having established the sense in which I think Lyell's attitudes towards species were integrated into his overall project, I believe I am justified in concentrating on just one or two aspects of Principles.

60 E.g. [Scrope G. P.], ‘Principles of geology … vol. i. (1830)’, Quarterly review, xliii (1830), 411–69 (467). Sedgwick A., ‘Presidential address to the Geological Society of London’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, i (1831), 281316 (305–6). Conybeare W. D. to Lyell, 02 1841, in Rudwick 1967, op. cit. (2), 281–2.

61 Whewell W.’, ‘Principles of Geology …. vol. ii. (1832)’, Quarterly review, xlvii (1832), 103–32 (117); Whewell's italics.

62 Wilson 1971, op. cit. (2), 43.

63 Spencer H., Autobiography (2 vols., London, 1904), i. 176.

64 For Wallace see: Darwin-Wallace celebration (London: Linnean Society, 1908), 118, and McKinney 1972, op. cit. (5), pp. 3243, 4950, 54–9. McKinney gives a detailed account of how Wallace used Lyell's work. For Hooker see Hooker J. D., ‘Presidential address to the 1868 Norwich British Association meeting’, Report of the 38th meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (London, 1869), pp. lixlxxv (lxxi). For Huxley see LLD, ii. 190–4, and Huxley T. H. to Lyell C., 25 06 1859, in Huxley, op. cit. (53), i. 173–4. Huxley urges Lyell to accept Darwin's forthcoming theory as ‘it is the logical development of Uniformitarianism and that its adoption would harmonise the spirit of Palaeontology with that of Physical Geology’. For Gray see Gray A., ‘Natural selection not inconsistent with natural theology’ (1860), reprinted in Dupree A. H. (ed.), Darwiniana. By Asa Gray (Cambridge, Mass., 1963), pp. 72145 (84–5, 90). For Darwin see: Darwin to Homer L., 29 08 1844, in Darwin F. and Seward A. (eds.), More letters of Charles Darwin (2 vols., London, 1903), ii. 117, hereafter cited as MLD; Darwin to Lyell, 6 03 1863, LLD, iii. 12. Darwin says: ‘… I respect you as my old honoured guide and master.’

65 Sedgwick to DrLivingstone , 16 03 1865, in Clarke J. W. and Hughes T. McK. (eds.), The life and letters of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick (2 vols., Cambridge, 1890), ii. 411–12.

66 Whewell 1832, op. cit. (61), 109.

67 E.g. Rudwick 1970, op. cit. (2), 28–9.Hooykaas 1963, op. cit. (2), pp. 28–9, 36–7.

68 PG (1st edn., 1830), i. 104.

69 PG (1st edn., 1830), i. 105. Dr Rudwick has pointed out that Lyell often misunderstood his opponents' arguments, choosing to see them as far more crude, miracle-laden, and unscientific than they truly were. This tendency is at work here: Lyell attempts to discredit, as ‘cosmogonists’, all those who employed cooling-earth theories in their explanation of geological or climatic change; see Rudwick 1971, op. cit. (2).

70 Lyell, Geological evidences of the antiquity of man (London, 1863), p. 470. Hereafter cited as Antiquity of man.

71 PG (1st edn., 1830), i. 104.

72 Ibid., i. chapters VII–VIII.

73 Ibid., i. 141–3. Lyell's italics.

74 Cannon 1960, op. cit. (2), 46.

75 PG (10th edn., 18671868), i. 143.

76 Rudwick 1970, op. cit. (2), 33.

77 PG (1st edn., 1830), i. 145.

78 Ibid., i. 150.

79 Rudwick 1967, op. cit. (2), 281–2.

80 Quoted in McKinney 1972, op. cit. (5), p. 41. Wallace's italics. Wallace changes Lyell's wording slightly. McKinney's whole discussion of Wallace's commentary on Lyell is of great interest.

81 Rudwick 1967, op. cit. (2), 282.

82 PG (1st edn., 1830), i. 154–5. Cf. PG, ii (1832), 253–71.

83 Scrope, op. cit. (60), 467.

84 PG (1st edn., 1830), i. 155–65.

85 An analysis of Lyell's discussion of species is given in Coleman W., ‘Lyell and the reality of species’, Isis, liii (1962), 325–38.

86 PG (1st edn., 1832), ii. 18.

87 Ibid., ii. 1–21.

88 Ibid., ii. 19.

89 Ibid., ii. 8–9.

90 Ibid., ii. 173–4. Cf. Coleman, op. cit. (85), 335.

91 See McKinney 1966, op. cit. (5), 346–7; McKinney 1972, op. cit. (5), pp. 37–8.

92 PG (1st edn., 1832), ii. 22–3.

93 Ibid., ii. 131.

94 See Coleman, op. cit. (85), 333–4; Greene 1959, op. cit. (5), pp. 252–3, 313–14.

95 PG (1st edn., 1832), ii. 159.

96 Ibid., ii. 42.

97 Ibid., ii. 125.

98 Ibid., ii. 136.

99 Ibid., ii. 41.

100 de Beer G.Darwin's notebooks on transmutation of species’, Bulletin of the British Museum (Natural History). Historical series, ii (19591963), 3200 (67).

101 Quoted in McKinney 1972, op. cit. (5), p. 38. See also p. 45, where Wallace makes similarly short work of demolishing the notion that small adaptive features in plants and animals prove God's wonderful design.

102 Lovejoy, op. cit. (5), p. 365.

103 Lyell to Herschel, 1 06 1836, in LLJ, i. 464–9.

104 Ibid., i. 467.

105 Lyell occasionally admitted that non-evolutionary species creations must be miraculous. See, for example, Species journals, p. 57; Antiquity of man, p. 421; letter to Wallace, op. cit. (15).

106 LLD, ii. 194. For a discussion of Whewell and species origination, see: Cannon W. F., ‘The problem of miracles in the 1830s’, Victorian studies, vi (19601961), 532; Ellegård, op. cit. (5), pp. 1217.

107 Whewell 1832, op. cit. (61), 117.

108 LLJ, ii. 468–9. The grammar of the passage indicates the presence of an agent who plans the details of species' structure, who ‘foresees’, ‘makes’, and ‘confers’ adaptive variations.

109 Ibid., ii. 467. I have not identified the German critics.

110 Lyell's own experience of the peculiarities of island floras and faunas, gained during a trip to the Canary Islands in 1853–4, seems to have shaken his confidence in this view. There, he found islands which had existed at least since Miocene times yet which had no indigenous land mammals. See Wilson, in Species journals, pp. xxxviixli.

111 PG (1st edn., 1832), ii. 60.

112 Lyell 1826, op. cit. (33), 513.

113 Lyell 1851, op. cit. (57).

114 Ibid., p. lii.

115 Ibid., p. xlii.

116 Ibid., p. lxvii.

117 Ibid., p. xxxix; my italics.

118 Ibid., pp. xxviii, lxx, lxxii, lxxiii.

119 Ibid., p. lxiii.

120 Lyell's address called forth a sarcastic and highly critical review from Richard Owen. See [Owen], ‘Lyell on life and its successive development’, Quarterly review, lxxxix (1851), 412–51.

121 McKinney 1972, op. cit. (5), gives an excellent discussion of aspects of Lyell's journals; see pp. 97–116.

122 Species journals, p. 238.

123 Ibid., pp. 292–3. Cf. pp. 222–3.

124 Ibid., p. 280.

125 Ibid., p. 57.

126 Ibid., p. 196.

127 de Beer, op. cit. (100), 106. See also p. 69 for another Statement of Darwin's ready acceptance of an evolutionary ancestry for himself.

128 Species journals, pp. 427, 449, 445.

129 Ibid., p. 168.

130 Ibid., pp. 458–9.

131 See, for example, ibid., pp. 88, 355, 358, 427–9.

132 Ibid., p. 348. This admission came as a response to a passage in Greg W. R.'s The creed of Christendom: its foundation and superstructure (London, 1851). In the passage that Lyell cites, Greg is not discussing the natural world at all; he is discussing the hypothetical case of a man who is trying to justify a particular belief. Greg writes: ‘erroneously conceiving that it [i.e. the belief] must be a product of reason, he diligently looks about to discover the logical processes which have generated it; and clings to the shallowest crudities rather than surrender (as he conceives) the title-deeds of his faith’ (pp. 300–1). Did Lyell recognize himself here?

133 Species journals, p. 233.

134 See Young, op. cit. (19), 442503, where Young gives an account of Darwin's response to various attempts, including Lyell's, to reconcile evolution with the tenets of natural theology.

135 Lyell to Darwin, 3 10 1859, in LLJ, ii. 325.

136 Darwin to Lyell, 11 10 1859, in LLD, ii. 210–11; cf. ii. 174, 176–7.

137 Darwin to Lyell, 15 04 1860, in LLD, iii. 303.

138 Darwin to Lyell, 10 01 1860, in LLD, ii. 266; cf. MLD, i. 191–4.

139 Darwin to Lyell, 4 05 1860, in LLD, ii. 262. Francis Darwin dates this letter 4 January 1860, but the American Philosophical Society Library dates it 4 May 1860. The latter date seems more likely.

140 Species journals, pp. 378–83.

141 Irvine, op. cit. (5), p. 142. Irvine's book contains a sensitive account of the relationship between Darwin and Lyell after 1859.

142 Huxley seems to have responded to Lyell's criticism by modifying the passage concerned; see Huxley to Lyell, 17 08 1862, in Life and letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, op. cit. (53), i. 200. The passage in question closes Huxley's essay ‘On the relations of man to the lower animals’. See Huxley's Man's place in nature and other anthropological essays (London, 1894), pp. 151–6.

143 Lyell to Huxley, 9 08 1862, Huxley papers, 6.66, Imperial College of Science and Technology, London. The line from Pope, which Lyell only slightly misquotes, is from Pope, Essay on man (1 733–4), epistle II, line 34.

144 Antiquity of man, op cit. (70), p. 395.

145 Ibid., pp. 405–6.

146 Ibid., pp. 412.

147 Ibid., p. 421.

148 Ibid., pp. 472–3.

149 Ibid., pp. 491–3.

150 Ibid., pp. 500–1, quoted from Hallam H., An introduction to the literature of Europe (4 vols., London, 18371839), iv. 162–3. What Lyell called Hallam's ‘profound reflections on “the thoughts of Pascal”’ (Antiquity of man, p. 500) are worth looking at, especially as they are the source of the phrase ‘the archangel ruined’ which Lyell uses to denote his old beliefs about man's place in creation (LLJ, ii. 362, 376; PG [10th edn., 1868], ii. 493). Hallam says, of Pascal's conception of fallen man: ‘it is not the sordid grovelling, degraded Caliban of [the vulgar Calvinist] school, but the ruined archangel that he delights to paint’ (Hallam, op. cit., iv. 158).

151 Sumner J. B., A treatise on the records of creation and on the moral attributes of the Creator (2 vols., London, 1816). Sumner's book was second prize-winner in a competition that had invited treatises on ‘the Evidence that there is a Being all-powerful, wise, and good, by whom every Thing exists; and particularly to obviate Difficulties regarding the Wisdom and the Goodness of the Deity; and this, in the first place, from Considerations independent of written Revelation; and in the second place, from the Revelation of the Lord Jesus: and from the whole, to point out the inferences most necessary for, and useful to Mankind’ (op. cit., i. p.v.). Sumner follows this specification exactly, emphasizing, in his section on natural theology, the reliability of the ‘Mosaic History’ and its lack of conflict with geological discovery, but going on to declare that ‘where Reason … leaves us, Revelation takes us up’ (volume i, p. xii).

152 Ibid., ii. 10.

153 Ibid., ii. 19.

154 See, for example, Lyell, ‘Memoir on the geology of Central France … by G. P. Scrope’, Quarterly review, xxxvi (1827), 437–83 (475), where Lyell speaks of man's ‘Capability of progressive improvement’. See also PG (1st edn., 1830), i. 156, where Lyell says that what especially marked the creation of man was ‘the union, for the first time, of moral and intellectual faculties capable of indefinite improvement, with the animal nature’. Perhaps the concept of ‘improvable reason’ was a commonplace, but the similarity between Lyell's and Sumner's presentation, and Lyell's decision to quote Sumner extensively, over thirty years later, in Antiquity of man, indicates a close connexion. Lyell knew Sumner personally; see LLJ, ii. 154–5.

155 For example: ‘if the ant has peculiar sagacity, it is but a compensation for its weakness; if the bee is remarkable for its foresight, that foresight is rendered necessary by the short duration of its harvest’ (Sumner, op. cit. [151], ii. 17).

156 Quoted in Antiquity of man, p. 497.

157 Lyell to Hooker J. D., 9 03 1863, in LLJ, ii. 362. See also note 150.

151 Antiquity of man, p. 505.

159 Darwin to Lyell, 6 03 1863, in LLD, iii. 12.

160 Herschel to Lyell, 13–14 04 1863; Herschel's emphasis. Copy in Herschel papers, Royal Society of London, whose permission to quote extracts is acknowledged.

161 Darwin to Lyell, 12 12 1859, in LLD, ii. 241.

162 Lyell to Darwin, 11 03 1863, in LLJ, ii. 363.

163 Darwin to Lyell, 6 03 1863, in LLD, iii. 11.

164 Darwin to Hooker, 24 02 1863, in LLD, iii. 9; Darwin to Gray, 23 02 1863, in LLD, iii. 10.

165 See McKinney 1972, op. cit. (5), pp. 95–6, 150.

166 Darwin to Hooker, 24 02 1863, in LLD, iii. 9.

167 Darwin to Lyell, 9 10 1866, in MLD, i. 272.

168 Wallace's response to Lyell's tenth edition was important. In his review for the Quarterly review Wallace first announced his new conviction that unaided natural selection could not exhaustively account for the emergence of man, though Wallace's reservations were different from Lyell's. See [Wallace], ‘Sir Charles Lyell on geological climates …’, Quarterly review, cxxvi (1869), 359–94. Wallace explained his new views to Lyell in a letter dated 28 April 1869. The original letter is in the American Philosophical Society's Darwin-Lyell papers, but Lyell quotes extensively from it in a letter of his own to Darwin dated 5 May 1869, in LLJ, ii. 442–3. For a discussion of Wallace's change of opinion concerning the evolution of man, see Smith R., ‘Alfred Russel Wallace: philosophy of nature and man’, The British journal for the history of science, vi (19721973), 177–99.

169 Darwin to Lyell, 18 07 1867, in LLD, iii. 72.

170 Darwin to Lyell, 4 05 1868, in LLD, iii. 117.

171 PG (10th edn., 18671868), i. 167–73.

172 Ibid, ii. 491–4. Lyell's position here is much the same as Asa Gray's. See Dupree, op. cit. (64), especially pp. 48, 106.

173 Lyell to Speeding T. S., 19 05 1863, in LLJ, ii. 376.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

The British Journal for the History of Science
  • ISSN: 0007-0874
  • EISSN: 1474-001X
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 75 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 123 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.