50:03 lllHllWIUIIHHWINIf"IHIIHIJIIWHIHHlllllHHl

THESlS

Date

LAIBR RARI IES

illllillllllllllll1Nlulll llllfllllll‘ IN”

1293 0140

 

 

\I

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Young Darwin: The Maturation of
a Romantic Scientist.
or
The Apprentice(ship)

presented by
Michael Ian Carignan

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. I‘listorY

degree in

 

 

flvm

Majorgrofessor

4/]/95

 

0-7639

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

 

LIBRARY
Mlchigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE II RETURN BOX to remove thte checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or bdore dete due.

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU Ie An Afflrmetlve ActioNEquel Opportunlty lnetitulon
Wane-m

Younq Darwin: The Maturation of a Romantic Scientist

 

or
The Apprentice(Ship)
BY

Michael Carignan

A Thesis

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS

Department of History

1995

ABSTRACT

YOUNG DARWIN: THE MATURATION OF A
ROMANTIC SCIENTIST

by

Michael Carignan

The "Beagle" voyage is viewed as Darwin’s apprenticeship to
the guild-like scientific community of 1830’s England. In
the course of the five—year voyage, Darwin was transformed
from an amateurish nature enthusiast into a formidable
natural scientist with a publishable theory on coral reef
formation. His maturation is viewed within the framework of
John Herschel's program for the advancement of the sciences,
and in terms of his relationship to his mentor, John
Henslow. Darwin's maturation also contained a Romantic
dynamic, as his worldview was influenced throughout the
voyage by the Bersonal flarratiye of the German Romantic
Scientist, Alexander von Humboldt. The Romantic aspect of
Darwin’s scientific outlook is then placed in the context of
the scientific community to which he was aspiring. All of
Darwin’s writings (diary, letters, notebooks) from the

period 1831-1836 were used in the research.

Copywrite by Michael Ian Carignan
1995

TABLE OF CONTENTS

KEY TO ABBREVIATIONS
INTRODUCTION

1. HUMBOLDTIAN ROMANTIC

2. DARWIN AS NATURE WRITER

3. DARWIN’S APPRENTICESHIP

4. CONCLUSION

ENDNOTES

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF PRIMARY SOURCES

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF SECONDARY SOURCES

iv

13

22

32

52

59

61

62

IE3

l8

lo
2

l8

[~19

Key to Abbreviations of Frequently Used Sources

The geagie Diary, by Charles Darwin ed. Richard
Darwin Keynes, 1988.

e or es on e ce C a les a win, vol. 1, 1821-
1836. eds. Frederick Burckhardt and Sydney Smith,
1985.

Persgaai Narrative at the Travels to tha Eguinoctial

Regiona or tha new ggatiaant during the years
1299-1804, by Alexander von Humboldt and Aimee

Bonpland, 3 vols., ed. and translated from French by
Thomasina Ross, 1881.

re i 'na Discours n the tud of a
Ehilgsgphy, by John F. W. Herschel, 1831.
The Bed flotaboot 9f gharies Darwin, ed. Sandra

Herbert, 1980.

I OD ON

In April of 1831, the spring of his graduation, Charles
Darwin was trying to generate interest within his social
network at Cambridge, which included professors and other
students interested in naturalizing, for a scientific
excursion to the Canary Islands. "At present, I talk,
think, & dream of a scheme I have almost hatched of going to
the Canary Islands. - I have long had a wish of seeing
tropical scenery & vegetation: & according to Humboldt
Tenerife is a very pretty specimen," he told his cousin and
close friend, w. D. Fox.(g£, 120)1 In preparation for this
projected trip, he spent the next few months reading and
rereading the Persona; Narrative? of the German naturalist
Alexander von Humboldt, and took a crash course in field
geology by way of a three-week expedition in Wales with
Cambridge geology professor Adam Sedgwick. But just as
Darwin realized that he was the only one among his friends
genuinely committed to the idea of a voyage to the Canary
Islands and that the trip would never materialize, John
Henslow, Darwin’s mentor, presented the opportunity to join
the H. M. S. Beagle as a personal guest of her captain,
Robert Fitzroy. In the last week of 1831 the "Beagle" set
sail.

Darwin left England an enthusiastic naturalist with a

particular affinity for the Romantic style of nature

description of Alexander von Humboldt, but with little
experience in formal scientific inquiry. Over the course of
the next five years, however, as Captain Fitzroy led the
"Beagle" on an expedition to chart the waters around South
America, Darwin emerged from an amateurish nature enthusiast
into a formidable natural scientist who had gathered data in
all the branches of natural science, exhibited some
expertise in geology, and had a publishable theory on the
formation of coral reefs. How did Darwin become transformed
into this mature scientist, who was ready to join the ranks
of the guild-like scientific community in England? What
implications did this transformation have on his earlier
affinity to the Romantic style of Humboldt?

To my knowledge, Darwin’s scientific maturation during
the "Beagle" voyage has been little explored.3 'The period
of the voyage, December 1831 - October 1836, has typically
been used in Darwin scholarship as a prelude to his
monumental work later in life. In "The Discovery of a
vocation," James Secord has discussed Darwin’s conversion to
Lyellian geology while in South America. Others have
attempted to describe the development of his theory of
evolution, and highlighted his observations of variant
species in the Galapagos Archipelago and the years of study
immediately following the voyage as the crucial time when he
began seriously to question the generally accepted

creationist viewu‘ IMichael Ruse has described the complex

combination of factors, (Lyellian geology, the Galapagos
experience, and the context of early Victorian science),
that contributed to the "Darwinian Revolution." However,
there seems to be very little detailed analysis of Darwin’s
development within the time boundaries of the voyage itself,
and perhaps no recognition of a potential Romantic twist to
Darwin’s worldview in the 1830’s.

This period was Darwin’s apprenticeship in the craft of
performing science. He began it at the age of twenty-two,
with enormous enthusiasm but little practical experience in
formal scientific investigation. Upon his return, Darwin
was a competent gatherer of data for a wide variety of
natural phenomena and an accomplished geologist. My
interpretaiton is that Darwin’s intellectual development
represented a synthesis of his early affinity for the
Romantic science of Humboldt with the hypothetico-deductive
method of scientific inquiry, as articulated by John
Herschel, which he acquired during the voyage.

Darwin boarded the "Beagle" with Humboldt's travel
narrative in hand. He found in it the inspiration to engage
a five year journey and the sensibility of a man whose view
of nature resonated with his own. Humboldt, along with
Goethe and Schelling, helped to shape the German Romantic
movement in its critique of the tradition of the
Newtonian/Baconian Enlightenment, which, in their

perception, lacked sufficient attention to the subjective

consciousness of the naturalist in nature. Humboldt’s
contribution to the Romantic response was literary, for he
believed that the truths of nature could only be revealed by
the poetic rendering of one's experience of his scientific
investigations. The central element of Humboldtian Romantic
Science was the essential oneness and unity of nature which
includes the observer. Darwin continually read the Persgaal
narratiya throughout his journey and even imitated
Humboldt’s style of nature description in the writing of his
own diary. He maintained his conviction throughout the
voyage to the essential element of Romantic Science, as
exemplified by Humboldt, which insists that nature
description must contain the subjective experience of the
observer.

Darwin also brought on board the "Beagle" Herschel's A

el'm' ' cou s t e Stud f a u ' ,5
and his own intellectual development would parallel the
tenets therein. Herschel’s hypothetico-deductive method,
which was an expansion of the Baconian vision of scientific
investigation, set forth a scheme for the advancement of
science in general. Herschel's method requires that every
naturalist achieve expertise in a particular branch of
science by the inductive process of attaining general
principles, via thorough data collection, and then apply
those principles to other branches of science. By applying

a theory derived in one branch of science to another, the

sensitive investigator (according to Herschel's scheme)
could test the universality of his theory by deducing
anticipated phenomena of another branch of science, prior to
actually observing them. Thereafter the naturalist should
approach subsequent investigations with a critical eye,
looking for the crucial data to support or refute his
theory.

Darwin was well disposed to follow this Herschelian
program during the voyage. Already a collector and observer
in a variety of branches of sciences, he had developed
general familiarity with a wide sc0pe of phenomena as a
youth and undergraduate at Cambridge. On the voyage itself
he gained particular expertise in geology with the help of
the new theory of gradual land formation advanced by Charles
Lyell. Lyell’s theory was, at the time of Darwin’s
departure from England, highly controversial, largely
speculative and in need of testing in new environments. In
his early geological observations on the voyage, Darwin
tested the effectiveness of Lyell’s theory in explaining the
geological features in South America. Darwin eventually
became a convinced Lyellian, and during the latter part of
the voyage, he began to speculate (with some success) on how
coral reefs might have been formed, based on Lyell's
principle of gradual land upheaval and subsidence. Such
zoological hypothesizing about the unseen, on the basis of

known geological principles, is a classic example of

Herschel's hypothetico—deductive method. As such, Darwin’s
scientific development occurred within the framework of
Herschel's conception of what is required of mature

scientific investigation.‘

In addition, I interpret Darwin’s intellectual
development in the context of the scientific community to
which he was aspiring as he left the "Beagle" in the Fall of
1836. His maturation within the Herschelian framework did
not bring about a rejection of Humboldtian Romantic
principles. Robert Preyer has persuasively argued that the
leaders of that community were also influenced by Romantic
principles.’ The generation of Darwin's professors had, in
their younger days, participated in a flowering of
scientific culture with a perspective that adhered to
principles of Romanticism, while rejecting the early forms
of Benthamite Utilitarianism (Preyer, 42). Since Herschel,
Sedgwick, Whewell, and Henslow maintained a scientific
vision inclusive of Romantic elements, then it is
understandable why Darwin came to share that vision while at
Cambridge. In fact, it was Henslow who had first
recommended that he read Humboldt. My interpretation of

Darwin's science on the "Beagle" builds on Preyer's argument

that the generation prior to Darwin’s manifested a trend
within English science during the 1820’s and 1830’s, when
Romantic principles were incorporated within the dominant
worldview.

At the end of the voyage Darwin's View of science still
contained an essential Romantic principle, that scientific
study should express the scientist's intimate connection the
object of one’s study. In the final entry of his shipboard
diary, Darwin attempted to reflect and draw some conclusions
about the voyage. He recalled his first encounters with the
scenery of the tropics, particularly the "sublimity of the
primeval forests," which were permanently impressed upon his
mind. "No one can stand unmoved in these solitudes, without
feeling that there is more in man than the mere breadth of
his body" (Baagie Diary, 444).“ Darwin refers to a
spiritual, extra-corporeal dimension of which he was acutely
aware in the presence of sublime nature. His decidedly
unmaterialistic view parallels the Humboldtian Romantic
science focus on the subjective experience of the natural
world.

Darwin's Humboldtian Romantic perspective, so clearly
articulated at the end of the voyage, was a significant part
of his outlook in the early stages of the voyage. During
the first few months in the tropics, Darwin relied heavily
on Humboldt's Eersanai flarrative to inform his perceptions.

His Diary is dominated by descriptions of the awe and

sublimity he experienced. For example, in the second month
of the voyage, when he was overwhelmed by the beauty of
tropical vegetation in Brazil, Darwin was "fit only to read
Humboldt; he like another Sun illumines everything I behold"
(DD, 42). Darwin considered Humboldt’s descriptions
unparalleled for he was the "rare union of poetry with
science" (DD, 42). Such high praise and reverence implies
that Darwin believed Humboldt was an example of a good
naturalist. From the early going, Humboldt was someone he
would strive to emulate, and he used the Baragnal_flarratiya
as means by which to experience his first encounters with
the tropics as a Romantic Scientist.

Darwin was not the only person of his time to be touched
by German Romantic thought. Preyer argues that the
"Romantic tide" of the early nineteenth-century also
influenced many other undergraduates at Trinity College,
Cambridge. Connop Thirlwall and Julius Hare, intimate
friends of Samuel Taylor Coleridge, were crucial, as tutors
during the 1810's, for exposing the young minds of Trinity
to Romanticism. These men cultivated an ardent interest in
German Idealism and infected the undergraduates with their
animated rejection of utilitarianism. While Thirlwall and
Hare are the central figures in Preyer’s analysis, Herschel,
Henslow, Sedgwick, and William Whewell, figure prominently
as well--and Darwin had contacts (one way or another) with

all of these latter men.

Whewell, an 1816 graduate of Trinity and later, Professor
of Minerology and eventually master of the college, was a
major spokesman in the scientific community when Darwin was
an undergraduate, who wrote on the history and philosophy of
inductive science (Ruse, 22). Preyer describes Whewell as a
leader in the idealist rejection of Benthamite
Utilitarianism and that he was particularly suited to do so
because he was one of few Englishmen who read and understood
Kant, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel in German. This unique
ability, according to Preyer, is owing to the Romantic
legacy at Trinity (Preyer, 45).

Whewell’s notion of how to create scientific knowledge
involved a balance between empirically observed data and the
intuitively perceived ideas. Although he was opposed to the
stoic materialism in the Utilitarianism, he thought that the
pure idealism of Schelling was equally divorced from reality
(Preyer, 49-50). The balance, or tempered Romanticism, that
Whewell espoused--and which characterizes the outlook of the
Cambridge scientific community of the 1830’s—- could be
found in Humboldt.

When young Darwin completed his undergraduate years at
Cambridge, which included extensive interaction with members
of the English scientific community, he had become an
adherent of tempered Romanticism himself. He mentions two

books in his parting reflections in the "Beagle" diary:

Humboldt's Earagna; Narrative, and Herschel’s graiiminary

10

Diacourae. His reference to "cravings" that are independent
of corporeal satisfaction, a spiritual hunger for intimate
contact with nature’s processes, shows how carefully he had
read Herschel, particularly the discussion of "cravings in
which the senses have no part." (2D, 3) Herschel asserted
that man is a speculative being who:

contemplates the world, and the objects around

him, not with a passive, indifferent gaze, as a

set. of phenomena. in. which. he has no further

interest than as they affect his immediate

situation, and can be rendered subservient to his

comfort, but as a system disposed with order and

design. (ED, 4)
This subtle condemnation of the utilitarian view of nature
is one that parallels Preyer’s characterization of Romantic
inclinations in the community of English scientists. But
there is balance, too, with the Baconian tradition via the
Enlightenment (including Benthamites). Note how Herschel’s
deism, evident in his assertion of a designed system, is
posited without conflict, along with a Romantic emphasis on
the importance of observer participation and impulses in the
quest to understand nature. The cravings that go beyond the
subservience of nature are, for Herschel, of a "higher rank"
(ED. 3)-

Herschel’s discussion, and Darwin’s remarks in reference
to it, suggest that neither man believed there to be an

inherent incompatibility of Enlightenment principles and

Romantic sensibilities. Herschel was Baconian enough not to

ll

reject the Enlightenment as such, yet he also recognized the
importance of non—material aspects in the human experience
for the practicing scientist. Darwin too, in his discussion
of the reasons and merits for taking a voyage such as he
did, insisted that imagination is as important to the
naturalist as a good foundation in botany.

[A] traveller must be a botanist, for in all

views plants form the chief embellishment. Group

masses of naked rocks, even in the wildest forms;

for a time they may afford a sublime spectacle,

but they will soon grow monotonous; paint them

with bright and varied colours, they will become

fantastick; clothe them with vegetation, they

must form, at least a decent, if not a most

beautiful picture. (DD, 443)
For Darwin, it was vegetation in particular which excited
his imagination. His description of the botanist-traveller,
not unlike a description of a painter, suggests that one’s
knowledge of the plant kingdom will aid in the painting, or
creation, of one’s experience of nature. Darwin believed
that the attainment of scientific understanding, e.g.
botany, directly served to enhance the intuitive, creative
faculties of the mind for a fuller experience of nature.

The predominant idea of balancing careful observation
with the attendant intuition of the observer constituted the
influence of Romantic science on the English scientific
community in the first half of the nineteenth-century, at

least. Their acceptance that non-material aspects of life

are essential in the way one experiences the world shows

12

that Romanticism--at Cambridge, the German tradition of
Romantic science in particular--had a key role in this
community's reaction against the reductionistic and
materialistic implications of utilitarianism. The balance
stressed by Whewell is suggested in the opening pages of
Herschel's Eraiimiaary Discaursa. For Darwin, the prime
exemplar of balanced science was Humboldt’s combination of
diligent empirical research by a researcher who was
constantly aware of his own emotional and spiritual
reactions to nature. Darwin's emerging sense of scientific
maturity on the "Beagle," and the idea that he would be an
active contributor to the scientific community upon his
return, was for him no cause to abandon his Romantic
sensibilities: Indeed, he shared these sensibilities with

the group of scientists he was striving to join.

13

Chaptar 1: Humbgidtian Romantic Science

 

Humboldt intended, in his Eeraonai Narrative, to give not
only detailed descriptions of the geological, botanical, and
zoological formations he observed, but also to infuse his
narrative style with the constant awareness of himself, as a
naturalist-observer encountering the tropics. In the
introduction to this immense work, Humboldt first tells the
reader that he hopes to contribute to the progress of
several branches of science by his painstaking observations,
descriptions, and measurements (EN, x). He then justifies
his narrative style in terms of what he thought readers
would want from a travelling naturalist. "It is the
traveller himself whom we continually desire to see in
contact with the objects which surround him; when a local
tint is diffused over the description of a country and its
inhabitants" (2N, xx). Humboldt tried to provide "local
tint" by describing the things that appeared to him on his
journeys in the order in which they appeared to him and in
relation to the sensations he felt when encountering them.
This style was essential, he thought, for the composition of
such a work; for if he had only offered page after page of
empirical data, the Earagaal_flarratiya would have been less
personal, less a work of literature, and more a resource of

tables and charts of information.

14

The work that Humboldt did write, however, was both a
work of literature--in the sense of something to read for
enjoyment--and a resource for the travelling naturalist.
Because Humboldt maintained the awareness of the presence
of the observer in contact with the objects of nature, any
naturalist following in his footsteps, after reading the
Eersonal Narrative, would have experienced a preliminary
sense of what it would be like to set foot in, for example,
the Canary Islands or to view for the first time the peak of
Tenerife. "The pumice-stone, illumined by the first rays of
the sun, reflected a reddish light, like that which tinges
the summits of the higher Alps. This light by degrees
becomes dazzlingly white: and deceived like most travellers,
we thought that the peak was still covered with snow" (EN.
47). Humboldt’s first impression of Tenerife is described
in terms of artistic appeal. He narrated the changing
appearance of the mountain over time, as the rising sun
transformed the peak from a "reddish tinge" to "dazzlingly
white," so as give an account of what the observer
experienced, rather than merely listing the types of stone
found on the face of the mountain. Humboldt chose to
represent his study of nature in the form of a personal

narrative because of the way that style enhanced the

15

awareness that there is always an observer on which the
wonders of nature are being impressed. In so doing he
joined the Romantic critique of the heavy empiricism
associated with the Enlightenment.

The context of Humboldt’s work is embedded in the German
Romantic movement, specifically the philosophy of nature, in
which the study of nature was elevated from a mechanistic
understanding to subjective speculation. The tradition of
the Newtonian Enlightenment, to which the early proponents
of Romantic science objected, embraced a mechanistic
interpretation of phenomena and assumed that things in
nature could be atomized and viewed in isolation. The
Romantic view of nature, as proposed by Humboldt, Friedrich
Schelling, and Johan Wolfgang von Goethe, was one that
viewed individual observers as bringing a perspective of
their own into the encounter with the natural world. In
other words, the subjective, spiritual experience was an
essential part of understanding the workings of nature in
Romantic Science because the individual observer was
considered an integral part of nature, too. We must look
inward, in the Romantic view, to make sense of the world
around us.

Natarphilosgphie, Schelling’s Romantic nature philosophy,
was an early response to the Enlightenment tradition of
"classical" (rigidly empirical) science and supported the

idea that the subjective experience of nature, which he

16

considered as a unified, organic whole, was an essential
part of knowing it. "Nature only charms and delights us by
that with which we have ourselves invested her" (quoted in
Bruhns, 194). The visible forms in nature were regarded as
merely one aspect in Naturphilosgphie, and the aesthetic
experience of the investigator, like the landscape painter,
could transcend Reason’s limitations and "grasp the
underlying unities of Nature" (Nicolson, 180). The
assumption is that nature is a unity, despite the
distinctions that present themselves to the senses. To
sense the sublime, via the intuition and imagination of the
observer, according to Naturphiiosgphie, was to have a more
meaningful encounter with nature than one could with the
Enlightenment approach. Naturphilosgphie was Schelling’s
orientation to nature whereby one views:

the holy of holies, where burns in eternal and

original unity, as if in a single flame, that

which in nature and history is rent asunder, and

in life and action no less than in thought, must

for ever fly apart. (Cunningham and Jardine, 3)
The spirit and the intellect are what fly apart in the
temporal realm of human history. For Schelling, it is the
experience of the sublime that gives the glimpse of the
original unity of all nature and the observer as a part of
it.

Though his overall orientation to the study of nature was

akin to Schelling’s, Humboldt’s methods of meticulous data

collection and experimentation had given him the reputation

17

for being an empiricist among the Romantic intellectual
community of Germany at the turn of the nineteenth-century.
Schelling sent Humboldt word of his new philosophy after
Humboldt’s return from the Americas in 1804. Calling him an
"empirical scientific investigator," Schelling wished to
convince Humboldt that their approaches were not
incompatible. (Bruhns, 203)

Reason and experience can never be more than

apparently opposed, and I have therefore a firm

conviction that you will not fail to notice the

most surprising agreement between theory and

experiment in many points of the new philosophy.

(quoted in Bruhns, 203)

By "reason" Schelling means the theoretical, Natar-
Dhiigagphia approach to nature via the intuitive capacities
of the observer. This, he believed, is no more than
"apparently" opposed to the "experience" of empirical
observations and experimentation, in which he considered
Humboldt to be grounded.

Humboldt could only agree. In his response to
Schelling’s letter, Humboldt clarified his emphasis on
experience, saying that pure abstract reasoning was often
prone to becoming divorced from reality. However, he was
committed to the overall Romantic vision of the role of the
imaginative faculties of the observer in nature: "Though
habitually contemplating nature in her external aspect,

there is no one possessed of greater admiration than myself

for the creations educed from the depth and fulness of human

18

thought" (quoted in Bruhns, 204). Humboldt’s view of
himself as "habitually" concerned with the external
appearances, hence empirical, aspect of nature, is tempered
by his appreciation of the intuitive capacities to inform
his encounters with nature. The Bersonai Narrativa, which
is loaded with charts and tables of measurements as well as
description, reflects this balance between the empirical and
the subjective approaches. It was not the data, however,
that was so appealing to a young naturalist like Darwin. It
was, rather, the prose of Humboldt's descriptions that
resonated within Darwin’s circle at Cambridge.

Goethe, another of Humboldt’s friends, shared his view of
a unified nature that guided his approach to scientific
investigation. Goethe emphasized the Ideal in nature and
the expression of his view is found in his concept of the
"Drptianaa." Drpttanaa, or "original plant," was his term
for the ideal form which permeates all of nature in
variations. This "original plant," or the primordial form
of all plants, was, for Goethe, a unity in nature that could
only be intuited, and imagined. One dramatic example of how
Goethe's orientation to Nature and scientific inquiry worked
is his discovery of the inter-maxillary bone in the human
skull. "This was not like finding a little bone which
nobody had noticed before, rather it was a matter of
identifying a part of our skull with something much more

prominent in other animals" (quoted in Cunningham and

19

Jardine, 16). Goethe’s perception of unity and harmony in
nature disposed him to notice a feature of the human skull
common among many animals. With a sense of an ideal form,
in this case the primordial ur-maxillary of the ur-animal,
Goethe was able to relate its variations among animals and
advance anatomical science. This is one example of Goethe’s
overall vision of science in which the sensitive observer
has the Ideal, (ur-animals and ur-plants), and with it will
be able to percieve interconnections in nature that remain
obscure to pure empiricists. The aspects of Goethe’s I
science which made it Romantic and related to Humboldt’s
science are that the Ideal is real and that it exists in the
spirit of the observer as the connection to nature.

Humboldt and Goethe's friendship and their shared passion
for scientific inquiry were complementary. Humboldt
considered Goethe a serious scientist and, above all, an
exemplary describer of nature. In his book Kosmos, written
in the years 1845-1859, Humboldt expressed his admiration
for the poet.

Where is the nation of the imaginative South who

might not envy us our great master of poetic art,

whose works are deeply imbued with an intense love
of nature displayed with equal fervor in the

"Sorrows of Werther," the "Reminiscences of
Italy," the Metamorphoses of Plants," and the
Miscellaneous Poems"? Who has so eloquently

incited kindred minds "To unravel the profound
mysteries of the universe," and renew the bond by
which, in the primitive ages of the world,
philosophy, physical science, and poetry, were
united? (Bruhns, 177)

20

Humboldt himself waxes poetic while praising Goethe’s belief
that philosophy and science are reunited in poetry. Goethe,
too, had high esteem for his friend and found Humboldt's
passion for scientific inquiry infectious. In a letter to
Schiller, Goethe wrote in 1797, "During Humboldt's visit my
time has been usefully and agreeably spent; his presence has
had the effect of arousing from its winter sleep my taste
for natural science" (quoted in Bruhns, 167). Their praise
of each other reflects their complementary strengths: Goethe
saw in Humboldt a zeal for careful scientific investigation
and experimentation, while Humboldt recognized Goethe’s
literary genius which he sought to cultivate in his own
writing.

Humboldt chose to use his literary skills to represent
his study of nature in the form of a "personal narrative" in
order to impart to the reader a sense of sublimity when
facing the vast beauty of natural surroundings. The sublime
was that sense, for Romantics, in which the observer
perceives the unity of nature and feels himself to be a part
of it. In his effort to give the reader a description of
the full scope of sensations, Humboldt found cause to warn
kindred spirits of being overwhelmed. In the context of the
tropical scenery of the Canary Islands, Humboldt expressed
his vexation with being unable to give full attention to

everything that attracted his eye and his mind.

21

Persons who are passionately fond of nature and

the arts feel the same sensations, when they

travel through Switzerland and Italy. Enabled to

see but a small portion of the objects which

allure them, they are disturbed in their

enjoyments by the restraints they impose on

themselves at every stop. (23, 60)

Humboldt is puzzling here, for one would expect an ardent
naturalist and philosopher to be in a state of bliss when
within the splendor of the tropics. But his uneasiness is
caused by the sense of the sublime which is perhaps
forbidding of the desire to focus on the particulars of
nature's abundance. It is significant that Humboldt grouped
nature and the arts together for it betrays his Romantic
view that, like the expressive arts, the study of nature is
dependent upon the subjective experience and interpretation
of one’s surroundings--recall that Darwin, too, likened his
own naturalizing to the painting of a picture.

Humboldt's success as a writer lay in his ability to
express the sublime, but more specifically, his talent as a
naturalist was in his ability to write about the sensations
peculiar to those "fond of nature and the arts." The
Eeragaal Narrativa drew admiration from Darwin and the
English scientific community of the 1820's and 1830's
because Humboldt successfully appealed to the affinities of
Romantically inclined naturalists there. All of Darwin’s

expectations, he admitted on the last day of the "Beagle"

voyage, were derived from Humboldt (DD, 443).

22

Chapter 2: Darwin as Nature Writer

 

From the first seasick days as the "Beagle" approached
the Canary Islands to the very last day on board, Darwin
never tired of Humboldt’s Parsgnal Narrativa. While it is
uncertain whether Darwin was explicitly aware of the
philosophical agenda of the Romantic Scientists in Germany
at the turn of the nineteenth—century, he often expressed
delight in the Eersonal Narrative and adopted Humboldt’s
style when writing his own diary. This style was
immediately recognized by members of his family to whom he
sent installments of the diary during the voyage. In spite
of occasional criticism that he was aping Humboldt, Darwin
continued to use the narrative form in which natural
surroundings are described from the perspective of his
subjective experiences.

One of Darwin’s significant developments over the course
of the five-year journey was his emergence as a naturalist
writer. Darwin began to think of his diary as a piece of
literature in the second year of the voyage when his sisters
made him aware that the installments were being read aloud
in the family parlor and sent further to his cousins for
their reading pleasure (CB, 253). By the end of the voyage
Darwin was beginning to consider publishing his diary,
either independently or as a part of Captain Robert

Fitzroy's account of the voyage. For his development as a

23

writer Darwin owed much to Humboldt, whose example of nature
writing Darwin thought unmatched, and to which he
continually referred in his excursions in and around the
tropics.

However, a problem arose in the last months of the voyage
when Darwin began to prepare his notes for the composition
of scientific manuscripts. He realized that the kind of
writing he had been doing, i.e., a Humboldtian Romantic
style of nature description, would not meet the expectations
of the English scientific community back home. Though the
Cambridge segment of that community had rejected Benthamite
Utilitarianism and had fostered interest in the German
Romantic movement, they were still steeped in the empirical
tradition of the Baconian/Newtonian Enlightenment. This
tradition called for something more like Herschel’s scheme
of scientific advancement rather than mere nature
description; it called for the empirical rigor of a
systematic presentation for the purpose of the establishment
of general principles and the application of such principles
to various branches of science. For Darwin, this was a new

intellectual challenge.

An early example of Humboldt’s influence on Darwin was a

direct one as the "Beagle" approached Darwin's long awaited

24

Canary Islands. It was Humboldt's description of the Canary
Islands, and specifically the volcanic mountain peak of
Tenerife, that had first stimulated Darwin's desire to visit
the tropics. Coincidentally, the "Beagle’s" first stop of
her voyage was the same Canary Islands. Whether Darwin
thought this was coincidence, providence, or destiny is
unimportant compared to the sense he had that he was
following in Humboldt's footsteps, and with high
anticipation. "I spent a very pleasant afternoon on the
sofa, either talking to the Captain or reading Humboldt’s
glowing accounts of tropical scenery. Nothing could be
better adapted for cheering the heart of a sea-sick man"
(DD, 20). This passage, from the tenth day of the voyage,
not only accounts the first impressions of ship-board life
of a personal guest of the captain, but also that Darwin was
preparing for his first glimpse of the tropics by re-reading
Humboldt. One week later the "Beagle" was within sight of
"this long wished for object of my ambition" (DD, 21).
Since his first reading of Humboldt, the peak of Tenerife
had been a mythical place that, because of Humboldt’s
descriptions, inspired the young naturalist to commit the
next five years of his life to a ship that would take him to
the tropics and around the world.’

During the voyage, and much to the historian's advantage,
Darwin kept elaborate notes and journals of his experiences

and explorations, the most valuable of which is his diary.

25

Significantly, he began to regularly send his diary home in
six-month installments, both to ensure its preservation, and
so that his family could enjoy the accounts of his
travels.(§2, 226-7) When writing to his sister Caroline,
Darwin ascribed great importance to his "journal" because it
was to be his most reliable record of his experiences.

Be sure you mention the receiving of my

journal, as anyhow to me it will [be] of

considerable future interest as it [is] an

exact record of all my first impressions, &

such a set vivid ones they have been, must

make this period of my life always one of

interest. to myself. - If ‘you speak. quite

sincerely, - I should be glad to have your

criticisms.(QD, 225-7)
That Darwin invited criticism from his sister suggests that
he was concerned not only for the journal’s safe-keeping,
but also for its literary value. His diary was of great
interest back home, and the portions he sent were read
aloud by his sisters to the family and forwarded to
cousins for their reading pleasure as well. His sister
Catherine responded to the first installment encouragingly,
saying that his descriptions were "most excellent, and gave
me most lively pleasure in reading them" (DD, 253-5). It
is unclear whom Darwin thought his audience was in the
first six months of journal writing. However, after reading
the first responses in November of 1832, there can be no

doubt that Darwin knew his writing would be read aloud:

Therefore, Darwin’s subsequent entries would require some

26

thought as to their composition if the "journal" was to be
a piece of literature.

Darwin's continued journal writing maintained a
Humboldtian flair in his nature description. If Humboldt
had such a charm on Darwin, perhaps the family would be
similarly affected by his attempts at poetical
descriptions. One year after sending home a second
instalment, Charles received the requested criticism from
Caroline.

I thought in the first part (of this last

journal) that you had, probably from reading

so much of Humboldt, got his phraseology &

occasionally made use of the kind of flowery

french expressions which he uses, instead of

your own simple straight forward & far more

agreeable style. I have no doubt you have

without perceiving it got to embody your ideas

in his poetical language. (92, 345)
Although we may not ascribe much credit to Caroline as a
literary critic, Charles may have done so, and he replied
that they were perfectly just criticisms. (QB, 392) But
Caroline was right about Darwin's absorption of not merely
Humboldt's style, but his way of looking at nature. Darwin
admitted at the end of the voyage that his impressions of
the tropics, in particular, were dependant on preconceptions
he held before he got there: "all mine were taken from the
vivid descriptions in the Personal Narrative" (DD, 443).

Both Charles and Caroline recognized the significance of the

impact on his writing about tropical nature. Darwin,

27

however, gave no indication that he thought the Humboldtian
influence was something inhibiting.

Darwin may have been paying lip-service to his sister
when he remarked that her criticism was valid, for he
remained committed to his new descriptive technique. In the
summer of 1834 the "Beagle" sailed down the Atlantic coast
of South America to its cold southern tip, Tierra del Fuego,
and was headed North on the Pacific side in July when Darwin
caught up with his mail, and Caroline's letter, in
Valparaiso. Darwin was cheered by his return to the tropics
after a less than pleasurable time in Tierra del Fuego. In
the first entry in his diary a day or two after receiving
Caroline’s letter, his Humboldtian Romantic style of viewing
nature was still strong.

I have taken several long walks, but I have
not ceased to be surprised to find one day
after another as fine as the foregoing, - what
a difference does climate make in the
enjoyment of life. - How opposite are the
sensations, when viewing black mountains half
enveloped in clouds, & seeing another range
through the light blue haze of a fine day: the
one for a time may be very sublime, the other
is all gayety & happy life. (DD, 249)
Darwin acknowledged the effect of nature on his emotional
state which presumes that he believed his audience wanted,
as Humboldt insisted in his work, to see the observer in his

environment. Specifically, Charles was making a distinction

between the kinds of feelings provoked by encounters with

28

different environments. Darwin, in the Humboldtian fashion,
strived to relate the experience of viewing the Cordillera
Mountains in terms of its effect on his emotions. That he
did this only days after reading Caroline’s letter suggests
that Charles did not sacrifice his acquired style of placing
himself in his nature description.

While he remained conscious of the task of naturalist
writing to the end of the "Beagle" voyage, during the last
four months Darwin’s thoughts, along with the ship, turned
homewarda ZNaturally, he was envisioning the projects he‘would
undertake after returning to England. In April 1836, while
rounding the southern tip of Africa on the last leg of the
trip, he wrote Caroline that he was arranging and rewriting
his geological notes from which he would publish a journal of

his research.

I am just now beginning to discover the
difficulty of expressing one’s ideas on paper.
As long as it consists solely of description
it is pretty easy; but where reasoning comes
into play, to make a proper connection, a
clearness & a moderate fluency, is to me, as I
have said, a difficulty of which I had no
idea.(QD, 495)

It seems remarkable to read from a man who had already
written 275 pages in his shipboard diary that he experienced
difficulty expressing his ideas. Perhaps Charles believed

his writing was inadequate in comparison to Humboldt’s

titanic example, which was his standard of good nature

29

description that made the "proper connections." It is also
possible that the writing Humboldt offered was not the kind
of writing for a scientific manuscript to submit to the
scientific community back home. Darwin’s scientific
activities and aspirations are taken up in the next chapter.
As the voyage wound down, Captain Fitzroy informed Darwin
of his intent to publish a travel narrative and requested
the use of Charles' diary to mingle with his own. Darwin
was, at this time, totally compliant with this idea for, it
seems, he underestimated the worth of his diary for any but
himself and his family. "Of course I have said I am
perfectly willing, if he wants materials; or thinks the
chit-chat details of my journal are any ways worth
publishing" (DD, 496). Darwin, in this remark to Caroline,
might have been politely dismissing his creative urges that
found expression in his nature description as "chit-chat"
details, because if he patterned his diary after Humboldt’s
example, then there is reason to believe that he was pleased
with the manner in which he had written the journal. His
diary was eventually published as a companion volume of a
set published with Fitzroy and the captain of the H.M.S.
Adventure, P. Parker King, in 1839.10 Subsequent editions
of Darwin's portion were published separately and came to be
called the agarnai of Beaearghes (1839 and 1845). Much
later in life he said of it: "The success of this my first

literary child always tickles my vanity more than that of

30

any of my other works" (Aatapiggraphy, 142).

Darwin's writing of his diary was a process influenced by
his reading of Humboldt's Persgaal Narrati a. It is
possible but not evident that he consciously chose to write
about nature from a personal, subjective perspective Decause
he was mindful of the Romantic Science agenda and wished to
be a critic of the Enlightenment perspective. It is more
plausible, however, that Charles was imitating Humboldt's
Personal Narrative when writing his diary, because Humboldt
had such a profound impact on the way he viewed the tropics
during the voyage. In the early going of the voyage, Darwin
intended the diary to be a record of his "impressions" to be
referred to after his return. After the first year of the
voyage, he was made aware of his family's delight in reading
the first portion of the diary and thereafter was conscious
of an audience as he wrote further entries. In 1833, sister
Caroline poignantly observed a Humboldtian influence in
Darwin's writing and criticized her brother's "flowery
French prose," yet no significant change in Darwin’s
subsequent journal writing occurs.

In the last year of the voyage Darwin was mindful of the
possible publication of his writing. Whether Darwin's
nature writing was to be in the footnotes to Captain
Fitzroy’s travel narrative or independently published, he
began to organize his notes from five years of observation

and collection only to realize the difficulty in connecting

31

his scientific ideas about the workings of nature with his
descriptive writing. Darwin's problem in 1836 regarding the
writing of "connected ideas" on nature, in the home stretch
of the long journey, raises questions about his
understanding of science in general and the connection of
its various branches in the narrative form. It also
reflects a maturity, for this type of problem does not
belong to an inexperienced freshman. Darwin considered his
primary purpose on the voyage to be geological observation,
although he collected large amounts of information and
specimens from the botanical and animal worlds. To the
extent that he was able to connect ideas about various
branches of science is due to a development that occurred

during the "Beagle" voyage.

32

Qhapter 3: Darwin’s Apprenticeship

When the "Beagle" left England in late 1831, Darwin was
an extremely enthusiastic observer of nature, but he was, as
yet, an unpracticed scientist. At the outset, Darwin
thought geology would be his chief pursuit during the
voyage, even though his only practical experience in the
field was a three-week crash course with the professor of
geology, Adam Sedgwick, on an expedition in Wales. What
Darwin offered in lieu of expertise, however, was data
collection. For five years he gathered enormous amounts of
geological information from South America, as well as
numerous cases of animal and botanical specimens which he
sent home, like his journal, in installments for
safe-keeping.

Henslow made Darwin aware that the "Beagle" voyage would
be a great opportunity to contribute to the body of
scientific knowledge. In addition to goading the young man
to avail himself of every Opportunity to collect data,
Henslow arranged for Darwin to accompany Sedgwick on the
Welsh expedition before the voyage, and also oversaw the
reception of the cases and bottles of specimens sent back
from the "Beagle." Darwin’s maturation into someone who
could contribute to various fields of science is given voice

in his letters to his mentor, which bear the character of an

33

apprentice seeking the approval of his master.

John Herschel’s Eraliminary_Di§pppr§g, which Darwin read
with great relish in the year before the voyage, provided
another way in which the young naturalist was made aware of
his opportunity to help expand scientific knowledge. This
book described a program for the advancement of science via
the hypothetico-deductive method, and how all naturalists,
regardless of expertise, could aid in the process of
expanding human knowledge of nature.

Throughout the journey Darwin continually collected
geological data and specimens of all kinds from every region
he visited. His view of nature and his own work in the
early part of the voyage, which can be characterized as a
kind of blind collecting, was dominated by the Humboldtian,
Romantic orientation that he had gleaned from reading the
Personal Narrative. As the voyage progressed, Darwin
changed from a merely enthusiastic gatherer of data into a
mature, speculative natural scientist in the way Herschel
outlined. Herschel's depiction of the more mature scientist
engaged in speculation and more directed observations, i.e.,
looking for particular phenomenon that would challenge a
given theory, paralleled Darwin’s experience on the
"Beagle." In particular, Darwin gained confidence as a
geologist during the voyage, principally because he had a
new and highly debated geological framework, a working

theory, with which he observed and interpreted the

34

formations of South America. Lyell's Bringipies g: Geplogy
(1830-3) argued that geological formations were created by
processes existing today and not by a diluvian catastrophe,
as was believed by many, including Henslow.n Darwin became
gradually convinced by his own observations during the
voyage that Lyell's framework conformed to what he observed
in South America. Darwin became increasingly comfortable
in describing and interpreting the geological formations he
saw and used his increasing understanding of geology as a
basis from which he speculated on the formation of coral
reefs in the South Pacific.

The three main and interdependent influences on Darwin as
a budding scientific investigator during the voyage,
therefore, were Herschel's book, Henslow's mentor status,
and Lyell's theory of geology. Herschel’s program for the
advancement of the sciences provided the framework by which
Darwin could chart his own progress as a scientist.
Darwin’s letters to Henslow indicate growing confidence and
competence, especially in geology, with each successive
letter. Lyell’s geological theory provided the theoretical
model by which Darwin made his observations, and through
which he eventually interpreted the geology of South
America. This Lyellian lens also became the basis of
Darwin’s successful speculations in other branches of
science. The maturity of his scientific activities, in the

Herschelian sense, was made possible by Darwin's use of

35

Lyell’s gradualistic theory of geological formations, and by
Henslow as a mentor who would comment (via letters) on

Darwin’s progress as his apprentice.

The boundless passion for the study of nature that Darwin
exhibited on the "Beagle" had its origins in his
enthusiastic curiosity for the outdoors as a child, when he
liked nothing more than to be on horseback, charging through
the bracken in pursuit of birds and insects. (Desmond and
Moore, 14-20) His early enthusiasm, however, should not be
mistaken for a romantic, pastoral sensibility; he was~
compelled mainly by the prospect of bagging as many birds as
possible, appropriate of a young gentleman-to-be. More akin
to the study of nature, however, was his considerable insect
collection begun in his tenth year to which he continually
added throughout his teens, his years at Cambridge, and on
board the "Beagle." At the age of twelve he joined his
older brother Erasmus in setting up a rather elaborate
chemistry lab in the tool shed. Throughout his teen years
Charles developed an obsession for chemistry, and after
Erasmus went away to Cambridge he was criticized by his
prep-school master for spending more time making gaseous

explosions in the shed than studying the classical

36

curriculum. (Desmond and Moore, 17-8)

Darwin's studies at Cambridge propelled him into science
much less than did his social associations with his cousin
William Darwin Fox and his mentor, John S. Henslow (Ruse,
33). Fox introduced Charles to the "sport" of
"entemologizing" which was sweeping Cambridge (Desmond and
Moore, 58). Not unfamiliar with insects, Darwin eagerly
joined the competition with other students and faculty to
possess and identify all of England's species.
Identification of one’s insects was essential, therefore
entomology manuals had to be consulted, and where those
failed to be conclusive one had to ask an expert. Fox began
taking Charles to the home of Professor Henslow, the
thirty-two year old professor of Botany who held soirees for
undergraduates with the common, and extra-curricular,
interest of nature and naturalizing. It was at these
socials that Darwin became friends with Henslow and, over
time, they began walking together on the fertile grounds
around Cambridge looking for insects and rare plants.12

By way of preparation for the voyage, Henslow arranged
for Darwin to join a geological expedition in Wales, led by
Adam Sedgwick, the Cambridge professor of Geology. The
significance of this three-week trek is immeasurable, for it
provided Darwin with field experience which he would use
frequently on his excursions in South America. But perhaps

of more importance is that the expedition charged Darwin

37

with the desire to geologize. He said in the first month

out to sea: "At present I consider my chief purpose to be

geology" (DD, 27). The training he received from Sedgwick
impacted Darwin to such an extent that he intended to make
it his primary field of study.

Another of Henslow’s influential contributions to
Darwin’s development was his gift of Lyell’s Bringipla§_at
gaglpgy. Principles was important for Darwin on the
"Beagle" because it provided a working theory of geological
formations which he could use in his observations. Whether
Lyell was right or not was relatively unimportant in terms
of Darwin's maturation as a scientist. The significance was
in that Darwin had a theory to test. We know that Henslow
did not believe Lyell was right, however, this did not stop
him from sending Darwin off to South America with a copy.
It is plausible that Henslow recognized the utility of a
working theory, right or wrong, for a young scientist. The
importance of a working theory for Darwin, however, must be
viewed within the context of his overall maturation during
the voyage.

Darwin's maturation as a scientist on board the "Beagle"
followed a prescription for the advancement of science and
scientists set forth by John Herschel. In the Eraliminary
Disaggraa, which Darwin read concurrently with Humboldt,
Herschel outlined the stages and means of progress for every

branch of science. At a time when Darwin was becoming

38

deliriously excited about the idea of an expedition to
tropical climes, the progressive temper of Herschel's

W was harmonious with his mood.

To what, then, may we not look forward, when

the spirit of scientific enquiry shall spread

through those vast regions in which the

process of civilization...is actually

commenced and in active progress? And what

may we not expect from powerful minds called

into action...far surpassing that which has

hitherto produced the whole harvest of human

intellect? (DD, 350-1)
Darwin scored this inspirational passage in his copy at the
time when he was trying to generate interest in the Canary
Islands expedition. The subsequent change in Darwin’s plans
to sail to South America with the "Beagle" only made the
idea of spreading the spirit of scientific research to
"those vast regions" more appropriate. Darwin eagerly
proceeded onto the voyage ready to engage in "active
progress" and contribute to Herschel's expansive project.

Herschel’s program for scientific advancement was a

combination of empirical inductive and hypothetico-deductive
methods. General laws governing natural phenomena, in the
inductive method, become apparent--they are induced-~during
the collection, classification and categorization of data.
"Progress" in a particular branch of science occurs when
general principles are shown to incorporate more and more

observations. The more general and simple, the more these

principles, or laws, explain. Herschel also advocated the

39

use of the hypothetico-deductive method which takes general
laws, arrived at by induction in one branch of science, and
applies them to another branch prior to observation. That
is, a speculative hypothesis is followed by directed
observations. Thus, observation and collection of
information is essential to both methods. In "immature
sciences" (lacking organizing principles and laws),
indiscriminant data collection is required as a prelude to
inducing generalizations. In mature sciences, observations
are directed to testing hypothetical deductions.

Herschel’s formulation of the progress of science was not
his own invention, but followed the Baconian tradition of
scientific inquiry.13 Herschel was particularly compelling
to Darwin, however, because of the inspiring way he enlisted
any and all to assist in the effort of amassing recorded
observations.

There is scarcely any well-informed person,

who, if he has but the will, has not also

the power to add something essential to the

general stock of knowledge, if he will only

observe regularly and methodically some

particular class of facts which may most

excite his attention, or which his situation

may best enable him to study with effect.

(212. 133)
Herschel gives the sense that concerted efforts are required
for progress in science, as well as the general expansion of

all knowledge. He calls upon the particular affinities of a

given observer who enjoys investigating phenomena from a

40

particular branch of science, i.e., "class of facts," and he
does so in a manner welcoming of the amateur, like the
twenty-two year old Darwin. But he also calls for a
"well-informed person" to conduct the recording of
information. Some experience is required, according to
Herschel, of any who would provide assistance. Darwin’s
background in insect collection and classification, and his
botanical jaunts with Henslow at Cambridge were experiences,
however informal, that made him somewhat sensitive to a
variety of classes of facts. He must have felt well-suited
to participate in the effort outlined by Herschel.

In the early part of the voyage Darwin’s activities, his
"naturalizing," fell within Herschel's framework of infant
science where "ransacking nature" (ED, 115) is required.
Darwin viewed his opportunity to visit South America on the
"Beagle" as an obligation to science: "It is a new &
pleasant thing for me to be conscious that naturalizing is
doing my duty, & that if I neglected that duty I should at
the same time neglect what has for some years given me so
much pleasure" (DD, 42). There is a sense here that Charles
had found his niche, for he recognized the harmony of his
own passions with the Herschelian program. There is a
posture of responsibility inherent in Darwin’s
self-awareness. By making naturalizing a "duty," Darwin
suggests a belief that he had joined the community of

science in Great Britain and intended to participate in its

41

advancement by exploiting the rare opportunity for an
English naturalist to visit the tropics.

Darwin began to capitalize on his opportunity right away,
and his early work at specimen collection reveals not only
his enthusiasm in the project of advancing science, but also
the influence of Humboldt on his early view of the study of
nature. The indiscriminant collection, which falls within
the "infant" stage of science in Herschel’s scheme, can be
executed by non-experts and is best characterized as
gathering. In the first week out to sea, Darwin rigged a
contraption, a kind of plankton net, to the back of the
"Beagle" with which he collected anything that happened to
float into it. He commented in his diary on the "exquisite"
forms and "rich colours," of the vast variety of sea
creatures he netted which gave him a "feeling of wonder,"
(DD, 22) indicating his reliance on the Romantic perspective
of Humboldt to bring meaning to his first encounters with
nature in the tropics. At this early stage in Darwin's
development, his reading of Humboldt was perfectly
compatible with his understanding of Herschel’s program and
his sense of duty to the mission of the English scientific
community.

Darwin’s primary contact with this scientific community
was Henslow, and Charles first letter to him, six months
into the voyage, reads like a report to one’s superior. In

the letter, Darwin expressed his commitment to being as

42

useful as possible, but he was also fully aware of his
relative immaturity.

The geology was preeminently interesting & I

believe quite new: there are some facts on a large

scale of upraised coast...that would interest Mr.

Lyell. One great source of perplexity to me is an

utter ignorance whether I note the right facts &

whether they are of sufficient importance to

interest others. In the one thing collecting, I

cannot go wrong. (DD, 236)
Darwin's attention is towards geology, and he reveals to
Henslow that he is using Lyell’s theory as a prism for what
to observe. Nevertheless, he admits uncertainty about which
"facts" are the essential ones for Lyell’s geological
theory. In other words, Darwin is not mature in the
Herschelian sense because his "ignorance" in geological
study keeps him from selectively observing the data that
directly tests Lyell's hypothesis. And he seems to be
prostrating himself before Henslow, wanting to be Herschel’s
"well-informed" observer. Darwin's default, however, is
"collecting," for he knows that there is a place in
Herschel’s framework for the relatively inexperienced
naturalist to merely gather as much information as possible.

Darwin’s posture towards Henslow changed decidedly over
the next four years. Through his continual work in geology,
both in his field excursions in South America and in his
studies of Lyell while on the "Beagle," Darwin gained

experience and became somewhat competent and rather

confident when discussing geology. This transformation

43

involved Darwin becoming convinced of Lyell’s argument that
the earth’s formations were caused by phenomena currently in
process. In fact, his confidence was such that he attempted

to convince Henslow that the diluvian model was wrong.

If when you see my specimens, sections & account,
you should think that there is pretty strong
presumptive evidence of the above facts: It
appears very important: for the structure, & size
of this chain (Cordilleras Mts. of the Andes) will
bear comparison to any in the world. And that this
all should have been produced in so very recent a
period is indeed wonderful. In my own mind I am
quite convinced of the reality of this. I can any
how most conscientiously say, that no previously
formed conjecture warped my judgement. As I have
described, so did I actually observe the facts.

(QB. 443)
Darwin had discovered a bed of shells on a high plateau in
the Cordilleras chain of mountains where the shells closely
resembled those he had seen down on the beaches of South
America. He concluded that the land had been forced up very
recently to account for the same kinds of shells in the two
places. This interpretation refutes the diluvian model
which insists that a catastrophic flood from the distant
past caused the formation of continents now in existence.
Lyell’s model allows for gradual land upheaval and can
account for the displaced bed of shells whereas the diluvian
model cannot. His devotion to the progress of science and
his own progress within Herschel's program has, in his mind,

borne fruit. He can now triumphantly offer evidence to

44

support conclusively - for his judgement was not "warped"
by subjective conjecture - the new Lyellian model. His
confidence is reflected by the fact that he was able to say
to Henslow that the "facts" were observed as they actually
existed, independently of any human construct that would
distort their meaning: He was suggesting that if Henslow had
been there, he could have only come to the same conclusion.
Charles Lyell’s theory, of which Darwin was firmly
convinced by the end of the voyage, challenged the dominant
geological view of the English scientific community of the
1820’s and 30’s. Principles pf gaoipgy suggested a model of
gradual and uniform formation of the Earth’s geology caused
by processes identical to those currently observable. This
view directly opposed the idea of a diluvian catastrophe as
the explanation of the existing state of the planet, held by
most of the Cambridge dons. The subtitle to the work
confirmed Lyell's opposition to the catastophist View from

the outset: P 'nci es 0 Ge 1 Be'n

explain tha Former Changas 9f tha Earth'a Sarfaga, by
Reference ta gapaaa now in Qperatiop. He argued that

formations developed uniformly, or without sudden,
supernatural degrees of tumult, whereas those holding the
catastrophist view looked for evidence of the Deluge.
Sedgwick and Henslow were among the catastophists.

Darwin’s forthright conversion to Lyellian geology should

be viewed within the context of the English scientific

45

community to which he wished to make contributions and gain
acceptance. The community, as represented by the Cambridge
professors and the Cambridge Philosophical Society, was a
fairly close group who wrote and published papers and books
for each other. Among its members with influence on Darwin
were Henslow, as well as Herschel. Also, Sedgwick was the
Royal Society president when he took Darwin on the Welsh
expedition in 1831, and Lyell was president when the
"Beagle" returned to England in 1836. Lyell's work was
highly respected even if his conclusions were ultimately
rejected by many within the community. So when Darwin wrote
home to Henslow, claiming that anybody who looked at the
Cordilleras would have to credit Lyell for developing a
plausible theory, he was in fact making a formal declaration
to the scientific community that he believed Lyell's model
worked.

Darwin’s confident letter to Henslow is also a sign of
his emerging maturity as a scientist in the Herschelian
program. Herschel highlighted the importance of observers
with a general awareness of natural phenomena for progress
in all the sciences. Given the "subtlety of nature," he
argued, only observers with general awareness would be able
to notice the relevance of observations in one field for
finding new laws in another field of science. "He will have
his eyes as it were opened, that they may be struck at once

with any occurrence which, according to received theories,

46

ought not to happen; for these are the facts which serve as
clews to new discoveries" (DD, 132). Darwin, by the fourth
year of the voyage, was becoming a well—practiced, general
observer with a specialized understanding of issues
pertinent to geology. This condition disposed him to better
notice things like the deposit of shells high in the
Cordilleras. With the Lyellian model, he had a tool to
explain their appearance.

Darwin's discovery fits well within the Herschelian model
for scientific advancement, and it may be evidence of
Darwin's close reading of Herschel’s book on the process of
scientific discovery. Darwin considered the shells
significant because prior observations had "opened his eyes"
to the possibility of recent land upheaval. On his ascent
to the bed of shells Darwin found petrified coniferous trees
in a bed inclined at 70 degrees. He determined from
sandstone layers at a smaller angle, deposited after the
trees had grown, that they had once been vertical (DD,
441-442). Thus was Darwin suspicious of the elevation of
this land, for it seemed to him that it had to have happened
since the life of the trees now petrified. Within the
diluvian model, the inclined strata with the petrified trees
"ought not to happen," and so Darwin selectively searched
out other "facts" to support the Lyellian theory he believed
would account for his findings.

Darwin's growing confidence was confirmed by Henslow, who

47

promptly distributed excerpts from Darwin’s letter to
members of the Cambridge Philosophical Society. Henslow had
already given Sedgwick Darwin’s letter concerning his
observations in the Cordilleras. Later, in the fall of
1835, Sedgwick read excerpts from the letter to the
Geological Society in London for he found Darwin's
observations "especially interesting to the Geological
Society" (Collacted Dapara, 17). In January 1836, the
excerpts were put into a pamphlet and distributed among
members of the Cambridge Philosophical Society (Cpliegted

Pa rs, 3-17). Darwin probably guessed that Henslow would
share with others what he had found in the Andes and what he
thought they meant. But formal presentations of extracts
from his letters was high praise indeed. Henslow also sent
a pamphlet to Darwin's father, with a prediction that Darwin
would one day "reap the reward of...perseverance and take
[a] position among the first Naturalists of the day..." (DD,
473). Apparently, Robert Darwin was delighted at this
prospect.

In the last year of the voyage, as the "Beagle," along
with its compliments' thoughts, turned towards home, Darwin
was planning for the publication of scientific manuscripts.
Although he kept many notebooks during the voyage, starting
in May of 1836 he began to keep the now famous "Red
Notebook."“ Attempts to date the entries in this notebook

indicate that Charles had used it for about one year, until

48

May or June of 1837, (RR, 6-7) and so its entries spanned
the time of his transition from life at sea to work back
home, and from collecting and observing to speculating and
writing. But the latter began at sea, such as Darwin’s
hypothesizing about coral formations around Australia. He
wondered, "How is Lime separated; is it washed from the
solid rock by the actions of Springs or more probably by
some unknown Volcanic process?" (RR, 38) His speculations
about the mingling of sediments on the ocean floor and the
phenomenon of lime separation leading to the formation of
coral, were oriented to the future: "These reflections
might be introduced either in note in Coral Paper or
hypothetical origin of some sandstones, as in Australia"
(RR, 38). That is, Darwin was posing a scientific problem
and offering a hypothetical deduction to include in an as
yet unwritten "Coral Paper." Elsewhere in the Red Notebook
Darwin also refers to a "Patagonia paper," (RR, 44) a "Rio
paper," (RR, 48) and a "Cleavage paper," (RR, 58) all of
which are hypothetico-deductive, wide-ranging projects for
the future.

It is useful to recall Herschel now, for his conception
of the advancement of science, based on the hypothetico-
deductive method, relied on the power of speculation.
Darwin, in his coral reef speculation, was carrying out the
important step for the expansion of knowledge, according to

Herschel's plan. Again, Herschel’s plan prescribed that the

49

naturalist concentrate his efforts on a particular branch of
science, "a class of facts which excite his attention" (RD,
38). When the theoretical constructs which organize the
phenomena of that branch have been understood, the
naturalist ought to try to apply those principles to other
branches and deduce facts from those principles.

Darwin’s speculations on coral reef formation conformed
to Herschel’s method of hypothetical deduction. He had
formulated a theory on coral reef formation based on
observations of South American geology--"a class of facts
which excite his attention" (RD, 38)--before he ever saw a
coral reef. He applied theoretical constructs and
observations from a branch of science he knew very
intimately by then to a little-known branch, and thus
deduced what ought to exist as a hypothesis for subsequent
confirmation. Darwin, in his autobiography, admitted that;
"No other work of mine was begun in so deductive a spirit as
this: for the whole theory was thought out on the west coast
of S. America before I had seen a true coral reef"
(Aptppipgraphy, 127). The "Beagle" left South America in
the Fall of 1835 and sailed across the Pacific to New
Zealand, Australia and some of the smaller islands of the
South Pacific. It was not until he reached the South
Pacific that Darwin could test his hypothesis.15

Darwin’s coral theory was based on the Lyellian

assumption of a steady-state globe. Lyell had argued that

50

there was no net change in the development of the earth's
geology; wherever their was elevation, somewhere else on the
globe there had to be a corresponding, compensatory
subsidence (Ruse, 41-2). Darwin, by 1835 a Lyellian
"zealot," (DR, 460) had been studying the elevation of South
America in great detail. That he was firmly convinced of
the continent's recent upheaval has already been discussed.
And in true Lyellian fashion, Darwin posited a corresponding
subsidence occurring somewhere in the Pacific ocean. There
he hypothesized that coral reef islands actually rested on
subsiding land formations compensating the elevation of
South America. He confirmed his hypothesis when he reached
the Keeting Islands, northwest of Australia, in April 1836.
He believed, after investigations, that the whole of all the
Keeting Islands had been arranged by many layers of coral
growth on top of a huge, volcanic mountain in subsidence
(DD, 418).16 Hence, Lyell's model provided a framework for
Darwin’s speculations. No matter that Darwin’s
interpretation of coral reef formations differed from
Lyell’s: Darwin was confident in his reasoning and the
soundness of Lyell's general principles. Shortly after his
return to England Darwin sent word of what he had found to
Lyell who immediately agreed with his young champion. (QR,
570-1)17

Darwin’s coral reef speculations represent his most

51

mature action as a scientist while on the "Beagle."

Darwin’s awareness of his own maturation manifested itself
in his relationship with Henslow. His willingness on
several occasions to suggest that Henslow was mistaken on
certain points indicates an emerging sense of equal standing
with his mentor and full participation in the English
scientific community. Darwin’s plans to publish manuscripts
upon his return also points to a growing confidence that he
had something to offer to the advancement of science.

Darwin had been transformed in the course of the
"Beagle" voyage. He left home in 1831 a fledgling
scientist, an enthusiast pushed out of the English nest to
gather all the information and data he came upon in the new
worlds visited by the "Beagle." He returned in 1836,
confident in the scientific significance of his
collections, already acknowledged as a promising geologist,
and eager to participate fully in the English scientific
community. He was untested upon his departure and resolute
upon his return. His transformation into a mature
scientist occurred within the framework of Herschel's

prescription for the advancement of science.

52

Chapter 4: Congluaion

When Mark Twain was a boy, growing up on the Mississippi
River, he dreamed of becoming a river-boat pilot. To him
gaining mastery of that majestic river would be the ultimate
accomplishment of his life. Life an the Missisaippi, Twain's
tribute to the river, is the story of a young man learning
the piloting trade. He received an unexpected shock,
however, when, after learning every square inch of the river,
every bend and shoal, the grand Mississippi loses its magic
for the maturing aspirant: "No, the romance and the beauty
were all gone from the river. All the value any feature of
it had for me now was the amount of usefulness it could
furnish toward compassing the safe piloting of a steamboat"
(Twain, 1191-2). For Twain, the process of dissecting the
river, and thereby reducing the beauty of the whole down to
its component parts for the purpose of safely steering a
steamboat through it, had ruined the sublime experience of
the river. Twain's story, among other things, is a classic
Romantic critique of the Enlightenment-Utilitarian View that
the value of all things is determined by their simple utility
to man’s needs.la

According to some of the Romantic critiques of the
Enlightenment, science tends to have a similar de-
sublimating effect on one’s experience of nature when its

beauty and unity are sacrificed for the purpose of

53

understanding its minute workings. William Blake’s "Newton"
depicted the father of the Enlightenment using a compass in
search of life’s meaning--only to miss entirely the spiritual
mystery of the universe surrounding him. Some Romantics,
however, thought Blake’s criticism of Enlightenment
practicality and empiricism too extreme. Both Goethe and
Humboldt made scientific inquiries and were attentive to
empirical details in spite of Schiller’s criticism that such
unimaginative methods desecrated nature (Bruhns, 189). In
Schiller's view one should always maintain the broad
perspective of nature so as to not distort its unity. This
debate represented a fundamental tension between the desire
for rational understanding and the spiritual desire to
experience sublimity and beauty in nature.

Alexander von Humboldt embraced both perspectives and
overcame the tension without sacrificing either the
understanding of detail or the essentiality of the subjective
experience. He was an especially meticulous attendant to the
details of nature's workings and strove to observe and record
as many phenomenon as possible. His was a more tempered
Romanticism which glorified nature, as well as its beholder,
by attempting to understand more of the details. As Darwin’s
constant companion during the voyage of the "Beagle,"
Humboldt’s Rersphai Rarratiya paralleled Darwin’s perspective
in a participatory role for naturalists in scientific

investigations of nature. Darwin's view contained elements

54

of the Romantic perspective, but in a tempered, Humboldtian
fashion. For him, studying the minute details of nature
served to enhance his appreciation of the whole--the sublime
awe experienced by an empirical naturalist who felt reverence

for nature’s mysteries.

Darwin had been charged with the desire to travel to the
tropics by reading the work of Humboldt. Humboldt
exemplified the German Romantic movement in its critique of
the Enlightenment tradition of studying nature. His Personal
Narratiya, which was widely acclaimed within the English
scientific community of the 1820's and 30’s, bore the
Romantic style of nature description that was mindful of the
subjective experience of the observer. Humboldt chose to
represent his study of nature in the narrative form because
he believed that the truths of nature could only be revealed
by invoking the subjective, intuitive encounter with a
meticulous, empirical approach. This orientation to the
study of nature resonated within the English scientific
community and impacted Darwin’s development into a mature
scientist.

During the voyage, Darwin kept an extensive diary

55

modeled after Humboldt’s travel narrative, which, as a safety
precaution, he sent back to England in six-month
installments. The positive responses to the installments
from his sisters, who read it aloud at home and sent it to
other members of the family, made Darwin aware that his
writing was being treated as a piece of literature. From the
outset, he maintained the Humboldtian style of Romantic
nature writing even though his sister, Caroline, criticized
him for it. For he revered Humboldt and considered his
approach to studying and writing about nature appropriate and
worthy of imitation.

In addition to becoming a developed nature writer,
Darwin emerged from the five year excursion a mature
scientist. The "Beagle" voyage served as a kind of
apprenticeship for a young man striving to become a
contributing member of the guild-like scientific community in
England. The evolving relationship with his "master," J.S.
Henslow, via written correspondence, gave expression to this
coming-of—age. Darwin left England a wide-eyed nature
enthusiast, of twenty-two years, with no particular
specialty, but with a knack for gathering natural specimens
of all kinds. He returned a directed scientist with
publishable theories on geology and coral reef formation.

The dynamic of Darwin’s maturation followed the program

for scientific advancement laid out in Herschel’s Rraiininary

56

Disconrsa. Herschel called upon naturalists to aide in the
amassing of data for the purpose of expanding knowledge. His
hypothetico-deductive method proposed that one become well
versed in a particular branch of scientific inquiry and then
attempt to apply principles learned in that branch to other
branches. For Darwin, geology was his primary interest
during the voyage, and he soon adopted the principles set
forth by Charles Lyell in Erincipiea pf gagipgy. There Lyell
argued that geological formations were caused gradually by
forces currently observable, and not, as most in Henslow’s
circle believed, by a diluvian catastrophe. Darwin’s
observations in South America supported Lyell’s theory.
Darwin then applied his version of the Lyellian model to the
phenomenon of coral reef formation, formulated a hypothesis
and deduced the facts necessary for its confirmation long
before he ever saw a coral reef himself.

Darwin's development as a mature, specializing scientist
in the course of the "Beagle" voyage did not diminish or
challenge his Romantic sensibilities, however. The community
to which he was aspiring was itself influenced by the German
Idealist movement. The generation of Darwin’s professors who
made up that community had, in the second decade of the
nineteenth-century, organized themselves in opposition to
adherents of extreme Benthamite Utilitarianism at Cambridge.

In so doing, they had embraced certain Romantic affinities

57

which endured into the 1830’s. Darwin’s Romanticism was a
non-combative expression of this general trend in early
Victorian Science.

Darwin's maturation as a scientist during the voyage, by
way of his increased competency in geology, did not have the
effect of demystifying nature in the way Twain’s piloting
expertise did for him. The danger of losing the sense of the
sublime by picking nature apart and analyzing it in detail,
never became a problem for Darwin. In fact, at the end of
the voyage he believed the converse, that by learning more
about the minute workings of nature, one is better disposed

to stand in awe of the whole.

...there is a growing pleasure in comparing the
character of scenery in different countries, which
to a certain degree is distinct from merely
admiring their beauty. It more depends on an
acquaintance with the individual parts of each
view: I am strongly induced to believe that as in
Music, the person who understands every note
will...more thoroughly enjoy the whole: so he who
examines each part of (a) fine view may also
thoroughly comprehend the full combined effect.
(22, 443)

For Darwin, the Baconian dream of thorough comprehension
through the meticulous examination of the individual parts
was in concert with connecting spiritually to nature.
Perhaps Darwin recognized a valid criticism of some forms of

Romanticism which, in the minds of scientists, relegated the

encounter with nature to "mere admiration of beauty." That

58

kind of encounter would be unfulfilling for Darwin. Just as
a symphony has a life of its own as a coherent whole, more
than a mere sum of the notes, so does nature have a harmonic
unity which is enjoyed all the more by those who understand
some of its minute workings. Darwin believed, in the same
way Humboldt did, that the scientific understanding of
natural phenomena enhances the intuitive or spiritual
experience of nature. The Darwin of the "Beagle" conducted
empirical studies of nature so that he could better revere

her.

59

mites

1. Quotations from Burckhardt and Smith eds., The
Qarreapondence of Charias Darwin, 1985; hereafter abbreviated

in citation as DR.

2. Quotations from Humboldt, Rarsonai Narrative, ed. and
trans. Ross, 1881: hereafter abbreviated in citation as D_.

3. One notable exception is Sandra Herbert's "Charles Darwin
as a prospective geological writer," ' on 1 or the
t o i , 1991, in which she effectively examines
Darwin’s development in the field of Geology, and his
preparation of scientific manuscripts, during the voyage.

4. See Kohn, "Theories to Work By: Rejected Theories,
Reproduction, and Darwin' 5 Path to Natural Selection." in

Studias in tha Diatory pt Dioipgy,1980.

5. Quotations from Herschel, Rreliminary Discgnrse, 1830;
hereafter abbreviated in citation as RD.

6. Michael Ghiselin has argued, in Tha Trinmph at the
Darwinian Method (1969) , that Darwin applied the hypothetico-

deductive method throughout his life, though he does not, as
I do, attribute Herschel's Rreiiminary Disgoursa as the pri-
mary transmitter of this method. Nevertheless, I emphatically
agree ‘with him ‘that "the superficially' attractive ’true
Baconian method' and induction by simple enumeration fail to
account for what scientists actually do" (Ghiselin, 4).

7. Preyer, R. "Romantic Tide Reaches Trinity." in Annais of

the New Xprh Academy of Dgiences, 1981.
8. Keynes, R. ed., ar ' ' i , 1988,

hereafter abbreviated in citation as D_.

9. It is, perhaps, ironic that Darwin was unable to climb
Tenerife, the longtime object of his desires, due to the
quarantine imposed on the ship by the Spanish consul
governing the island (DD, 19).

10. Darwin's narrative appeared as the third of a three

volume set, in 1839, entitled Ra arrativ a at the Survayin g

Vo ace o, ,_ 4. '-s ’ ,139, i! -;t e . d :-ao - :e --
ea 826 3 .

11. Henslow had given Lyell's Drincipies to Charles as a
parting gift, on the eve of the voyage. Henslow qualified
his recommendation to read it with the inscription: "But on

60

no account to accept the views therein advocated"

(Antobipgraphy, 127).

12. Darwin’s "role“ when he joined the "Beagle" was not as
ship's naturalist, but as the gentleman companion to the
Captain. The ship's naturalist was surgeon Robert McCormick
who quit the ship in the seventh month due to his diminished
status in the wake of the likeable young gentleman who had
won the Captain’s favor (Desmond and Moore, 123).

13. The frontis piece to the Rreiiminary Discourse is a

drawing of the bust of Francis Bacon.

14. The Red Rptehoph has become famous because those looking
for the first signs of evolutionary thinking in Darwin point
to some speculations made therein.

15. Ghiselin describes Darwin’s coral reef speculation as an
"almost ideal model" of the hypothetico—deductive method, and
persuasively demonstrates that Darwin applied the same method-
ological approach to his later work on natural selection.

16. Darwin speculated on the thickness of the lime bed that
would be needed to support his claim. Test borings
conducted a century later confirmed his speculations. See
Appendix V in Q2.

17. Darwin eventually published Tha Strnctnre an
Wests in 1842.

18. The idea of using Twain’s story as a possible allegory to
my topic was proposed by a classmate, Carol Barnes, in 1993.

61

 

Dibliography of Primary Sources
Darwin, Charles. t b' a of C a es Darwi . Ed.

Nora Barlow, appears in e ork f C a es Darw'
Eds. Paul H. Barrett and R.B. Freeman, v. 29, 1989.

---. gorrasppndenge pt gharies Darwin. 1809-
1882. Cambridge (Cambridgeshire): New York:

Cambridge University Press, 1985.

---. ghariea Darwin’s Deagie Diary. Ed. Richard Darwin

Keynes, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.

---. Qharlaa Darwin’s Diary 0: tha H.M,§. "Deagla". Ed.
Nora Barlow, New York: Cambridge University Press,
1933; Kraus Reprint Co., 1969.

---. gpiiactea Rapars at gharles Darwin. Ed. Paul H.

Barrett, Chicago and London: University of Chicago
Press, 1977.

---. t o o h e ' . Ed. Sandra
Herbert, Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1980.

Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. Dagei's Rhiigsophy gt
Natura; Being Part Tao at the Dngylppaedig at the

Rhiipspphigai Sciangas. (1830) Trans. A.V. Miller,
Cambridge: Clarendon Press, 1970.

Herschel, John F. W. A Rreliminary Disconrse an the
Stngy pf Natnral Rhilpspphy. Chicago & London:

University of Chicago Press, 1987, reprint facsimile
of 1830 edition, Dionysius Lardner’s Cabinet
Cyclopaedia (1832).

Humboldt, Alexander von. and Aimee Bonpland Rerspnal

Na_ - f 0_ - o 1‘ .0 9‘ _Ql.!¢C _. "°°OQS or
e N w ' en . 3 vols. London: G. Bell & Sons,
1881.
Paley, William. Ratnral_1hapiggy. Charlottsville,

Virginia: Ibis Publishing, reprint facsimile of 12th
edition, (lst edition, 1804).

Twain, Mark. Iiinatrated Worha pt hart Tnain. New York:
Avenel Books, 1979.

62

Bibliography of Secondary Sources

Baumer, Franklin L. Modern European Thought. New York:
Macmillan, 1977.

Bowler, Peter J. "Darwinism and the Argument from
Design: Suggestions for a Reevaluation." Journal of

tha Histgry pf Diplggy, v. 10, no.1, 1977, pp.
29-43.

Bruhns, Karl. Lite pf Aiaxander ypn Hunhpigt. Trans. Jane

and Caroline Lassell, 2 vols., London: Longmans,
Green and Co., 1873.

Cunningham and Jardine, "System of Transcendental

Idealism." Romantigism and tha Sgiancas. eds.

Andrew Cunningham and Nicholas Jardine. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Desmond, Adrian, and James Moore. Darnin. New York:
Warner Books, 1991.
Ghiselin, Michael. Tha Triunph pt tha Darwinian Method.

Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1984.

Gruber, H.E. "Going the Limit: Toward the Construction of
Darwin's Theory (1832-39)." in The Darwinian
heritage, ed. D. Kohn. Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1985.

Herbert, Sandra. "Charles Darwin as a prospective

geological author." Dritish Qpnrnal tar the histgry
pt Scianca, v. 24, 1991, pp. 159-192.

Kohn, David ed., Iha Darwinian Heritaga. Princeton,

Princeton University Press, 1985.

--- "Theories to work by: Rejected Theories,
Reproduction, and Darwin’s Path to Natural

Selection." Stadies in the history at Dioiogy, 1980,
pp. 67-[??].

Nicolson, Malcom. "Alexander von Humboldt and the
geography of Vegetation." m ' ' m d
Scienge . Ed. Andrew Cunningham and Nicholas
Jardine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1990.

63

Porter, Roy. "Gentlemen and geology: the emergence of a
scientific career, 1660-1920". histgrical Journal,
v. 21, 1978, pp. 809-36.

Preyer, Robert O. "The Romantic Tide Reaches Trinity."
Annals at the hay York Academy of Sciences, v.360

entitled, "Victorian Science and Victorian
Values," Ed. James Paradis and Thomas Postlewaite,
1981.

Ruse, Michael. Tha Darninian Ravglgtion. Chicago &
London: University of Chicago Press, 1979.

Secord, James A. "The Discovery of a vocation: Darwin’s

early geology." Dritish Journal of tha Histpry pf
Sgienga. v. 24, 1991, pp. 133-157.

Schwerber, 3.8. "John Herschel and Charles Darwin: A

Study in Parallel Lives." Journai of the history of
Dioiggy, v. 22, no. 1, 1989, pp.1-7l.

Sulloway, Frank J. "Darwin and the Galapagos."

Digipgical Jonrnal ot tha Linnean Sogiety, v. 21,
1984, pp.29-59.

--- "Darwin's Conversion: The Beagle Voyage and its

Aftermath." Jonrnai ot the Hiatory pt Diology, v.
16, 1982, pp. 327-398.

Van Duesen, Robert. The Literary Ambitiona and
Achiavaments 0: Alexander vpn hnmboigt. Frankfurt:
Herbert Lang Bern, 1971.

”illll'lllllllflllllTill“