CHARLES LYELL AND GIDEON MANTELL, 1821 - 1852: THEIR QUEST FOR ELITE STATUS IN ENGLISH GEOLOGY.

Alan John Wennerbom

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Unit for the History University of Sydney and Philosophy of Science

May 1999 SYNOPSIS

An analysis of the correspondence between Charles Lyell and Gideon Mantell from 1821 to 1852, in conjunction with other manuscript material, highlights the contrasting backgrounds and geological careers of the two men. It is also characterised by two underlying themes: the nature and timing of their geological work; and the influence of various social factors on their career plans and desire to achieve high social and scientific status. In turn, these points raise several wider issues and inter-related questions concerning the following aspects of English geology in the first half of the nineteenth century.

· When, why and how did an elite group of geologists emerge in England during this period? Who were its members and what were their characteristics in common? · What was the nature and scope of the geological work carried out by the identified elite? In what way did it differ from Mantell’s? · What social and other barriers did Mantell encounter in his search for scientific and social status? What were the critical factors?

In this thesis these issues are examined on a decade-by-decade basis, in three main chapters, as a prelude to examining the central question of why Mantell, unlike Lyell, did not achieve the status of an elite geologist. First, an elite group of English geologists is identified through a series of prosopographic and ‘screening’ analyses of all members of council of the Geological Society of London (GSL). Geologists who did not meet the prescribed criteria are taken into account. Thirteen geologists are identified in the penultimate and final stages of screening over the four decades. Mantell was the only provincial identified, but he did not attain a position in the final list, which consisted exclusively of a distinctive group of ‘gentleman-specialists’. Second, the concept of a geological ‘domain’ is introduced to analyse the nature and scope of the geological work carried out by the identified group. A critical finding is that all members identified in the final ‘screening’ list established a ‘domain’ in one of four categories of the concept and were recognised as the leading authority or exponent of the domain they had fashioned. Finally, the impact and relative importance of specific social and other factors on the careers of Lyell and Mantell are examined. When the findings from each decade of the three chapters are brought together it is shown that by the end of the 1820s it was necessary for a future elite geologist to be so ‘positioned’ in terms of basic geological experience, location, income and available time that he was able to identify and subsequently fashion an appropriate geological ‘domain’. ‘Gentleman-specialists’, such as Lyell, who were able to follow this strategy, constituted a

ii clearly defined elite that dominated the GSL in the 1830s and 1840s. Mantell’s failure to achieve elite geological status stemmed from the fact that he placed too much emphasis on fashioning his image and social status, rather than his scientific career. In doing so, he let the opportunity slip of establishing a major domain – British fossil reptiles – in the early 1830s.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I take this opportunity to acknowledge the encouragement and assistance that I have been given during the preparation of this thesis. First and foremost, I am particularly grateful for the guidance and support I have received from my supervisor, Associate Professor Alan Chalmers, who has also been my main mentor in the history and philosophy of science. I also thank Dr. Michael Shortland for his enthusiastic encouragement and supervision during the early stages of the project. Additionally, I have received considerable help from Emeritus Professor Leonard G. Wilson from Minnesota, Professor Hugh Torrens at the University of Keele, Professor David Oldroyd at The University of N.S.W., Professor Dennis R. Dean from Illinois, John C. Thackray at the Natural History Museum, London, Doctor John C. Cooper at the Booth Museum, Brighton, and Julian Holland at the Macleay Museum, University of Sydney. I am especially indebted to Julian for his role in proof-reading my final drafts and for his many excellent suggestions. Particular thanks are due to the librarians in the Manuscripts and Archives Section at the Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand, to Ms. Virginia Murray of John Murray (Publishers) Limited, and to Ms. Jill Brown at the Fisher Library, University of Sydney. I am also grateful to Mrs H. Vallance for kindly providing me with various notes and papers on Mantell that were compiled by her late husband, Associate Professor T.G. Vallance of Sydney University. Associate Professor D. F. Branagan also assisted in this regard. I have also been greatly encouraged by the support of my post-

iii graduate colleagues Carolyn Hayes, Bronwyn Maelzer and Bruce Storey. Finally, I wish to acknowledge the ongoing support of my wife, Joy, and Andrew, Cate and Hugh throughout the project.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES vi FOOT-NOTE AND TEXT ABBREVIATIONS viii DRAMATIS PERSONAE ix LOCATION MAP - SOUTH EAST ENGLAND xi

1. INTRODUCTION 1

2. PROSOPOGRAPHIC AND SCREENING ANALYSES 13 OF MEMBERS OF THE GSL COUNCIL, 1807-1850.

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW 13 2.1.1 Social classes and stratifications 14 2.1.2 The Reform movement in the 1820s and 1830s 16 2.1.3 Origins of the GSL and the nature and motivations 17 of its members 2.1.4 The concepts of the ‘gentleman-amateur’, ‘gentleman- 25 geologist’, ‘gentlemen of science’, and ‘gentleman- specialist’ 2.1.5 Professionalisation of English geology 26 2.1.6 The emergence and nature of an English geological elite. 29 2.1.7 Prosopographic analyses 32

2.2 METHODOLOGY 35 2.2.1 Time span and scope of analyses 35 2.2.2 Factors analysed 36 2.2.3 Sources of information 42 2.2.4 Procedures 43

iv 2.3 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 44 2.3.1 Overall trends in membership of the GSL council 44 2.3.2 Trends in GSL membership of council who served on the 51 council for a minimum period of three years and who also held senior office in that decade 2.3.3 Identification of a geological elite 53 2.3.4 Social characteristics of the councillors identified 57 in final list 3 2.3.5 Exclusions 58

2.4 CONCLUSIONS 60

3. THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK CARRIED OUT BY MANTELL, LYELL, AND MEMBERS OF THE IDENTIFIED ELITE 62

3.1 THE CONCEPT OF A GEOLOGICAL DOMAIN 63 3.1.1 Literature review 66 3.1.2 Categories of geological domains 70

3.2 1820 to 1830 74 3.2.1 The status of English geology in 1820-22 74 3.2.2 The geological work of Mantell in the 1820s 81 3.2.3 The geological work of Lyell in the 1820s 89 3.2.4 The nature of the geological work completed by 102 the other identified geologists in the 1820s 3.2.5 Review of the geological work completed by 120 the identified geologists in the 1820s

3.3 1830 to 1840 122 3.3.1 The geological work of Mantell in the 1830s 122 3.3.2 The geological work of Lyell in the 1830s 126 3.3.3 The nature of the geological work completed by 132 the other identified geologists in the 1830s 3.3.4 Review of the geological work completed by 150 the identified geologists in the 1830s

v 3.4 1840 to 1850 152 3.4.1 The geological work of Mantell, 1840-1852 152 3.4.2 The geological work of Lyell in the 1840s 157 3.4.3 The nature of the geological work completed by 160 the other identified geologists in the 1840s 3.4.4 Review of the geological work completed by 169 the identified geologists in the 1840s

3.5 CONCLUSIONS 171

4 SOCIAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE GEOLOGICAL CAREERS OF LYELL AND MANTELL 175

4.1 LITERATURE REVIEW 175 4.1.1 Lyell and Mantell 176 4.1.2 Sociological themes 184 4.2 METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION 200

4.3 ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIAL FACTORS THAT AFFECTED 201 THE GEOLOGICAL CAREERS OF LYELL AND MANTELL

4.3.1 The years to 1820: Overcoming initial handicaps 201 4.3.2 1820-1830: Positioning for scientific status 214 4.3.3 1830-1840: The decade for achievement 224 4.3.4 1840-1850: Beginning ‘De novo’ and maturity 240

4.4 CONCLUSIONS 250

5 CONCLUSION 254

5.1 1807 - 1820 254 5.2 1820 - 1830 256 5.3 1830 - 1840 258 5.4 1840 - 1850 261 5.5 OVERALL SUMMARY 263 5.5.1 Methodology 263

vi 5.5.2 Mantell 265

BIBLIOGRAPHY 266

MANUSCRIPT SOURCES 266 PRIMARY PRINTED SOURCES 267 SECONDARY LITERATURE 288

APPENDIX 1 – GSL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL 1807-1850: 299 SUMMARY PROSOPOGRAPHIC DATA

SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUME THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CHARLES LYELL AND HIS FAMILY AND GIDEON ALGERNON MANTELL: 1821 – 1852

GLOSSARY OF GEOLOGICAL AND PALAEONTOLOGICAL TERMS 377

LIST OF TABLES

Page(s)

Table 2.1 Social composition of the first GSL council 23 Table 2.2 Trends in social status of members of council 44 Table 2.3 Occupational status of GSL members of council 45 Table 2.4 Sub-group status trends of GSL members of council 46-47 Table 2.5 Trends in membership of the Royal Society of 48 London by members of the GSL council Table 2.6 Domestic base of members of the GSL council 49 Table 2.7 Geological publications of council members 50 Table 2.8 Social status trends of members of council who 51

vii served for a minimum period of three years and who also held senior office Table 2.9 Occupational trends of members of council who 51 served for a minimum period of three years and who also held senior office Table 2.10 Provincials and Royal Society status of members 52 of council who served for a minimum period of three years and also held senior office Table 2.11 Screening criteria for identifying a geological elite 53 Table 2.12 Members of council identified after screening criteria 54 No. 4 Table 2.13 Members of council identified after screening criteria 55 No. 5 Table 2.14 Members of council identified after the final screening 56 criteria Table 2.15 Social characteristics of the members of council 57 identified in the final screening analysis Table 2.16 Members of council excluded from the final list 58 Table 3.1 Domains established by the identified geologists 151 in the 1830s Table 3.2 Domains established by the identified geologists 170 in the 1840s Table 3.3 Summary of domains established by the identified 172 geologists

Table 4.1 Annual budgets of gentleman-specialists 226-227 Table 4.2 Lyell’s earnings from writing, 1830-1840 238 Table 4.3 Unit production costs of Lyell’s Principles of Geology 239 (first and second editions) Table 5.1 Founders of major geological domains 264

viii FOOT-NOTE AND TEXT ABBREVIATIONS

APS American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia

ix ATL-NZ Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand

BAAS British Association for the Advancement of Science

BMS The British Mineralogical Society

CL Charles Lyell

DAB Dictionary of American Biography

DNB The Dictionary of National Biography

DSB Dictionary of Scientific Biography

ENPJ The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal

GAM Gideon Algernon Mantell

GAM-PJ Private Journal of G.A. Mantell, ATL -NZ.

GSL The Geological Society of London

PTRSL Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London

PGSL Proceedings of the Geological Society of London

QJGSL Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London

TGSL Transactions of the Geological Society of London

DRAMATIS PERSONAE

In this thesis the nature of the geological work carried out by 15 identified English geologists during the first half of the nineteenth century is reviewed, including that of Lyell and Mantell. Relevant data concerning the careers of these geologists are summarised below. This information has been obtained

x from The Dictionary of National Biography, The Dictionary of Scientific Biography, and H.B. Woodward’s The History of the Geological Society of London, published in 1908.

BUCKLAND, William, Rev. (1784-1856). Educated at St. Mary’s College, Westminster and Christ Church, Oxford. Reader in Mineralogy and Geology, University of Oxford, from 1813 and 1818 respectively until 1845. Also appointed Canon of Christ Church Cathedral in 1825 and Dean of Westminster in 1845. Elected GSL 1813, FRS 1818. Member of GSL council 1818-20, 1821-26, 1828-47 and 1849-50. President of GSL 1824-26 and 1839-41. Recipient of the Wollaston Medal in 1848 and the Royal Society’s Copley Medal in 1822.

CONYBEARE, William Daniel, Rev. (1787-1857). Educated at Westminster and Christ Church, Oxford. Married in 1814. In 1823 removed to the vicarage of Sully in Glamorganshire. Subsequently held the curacy of Banbury near Bristol. In 1836 presented himself to the family living at Axminster, Devonshire. Elected GSL 1811. FRS 1832. Member of GSL council 1826-29 and 1831-35. Served as GSL vice-president 1826-27. Awarded the Wollaston Medal in 1844.

DARWIN, Charles Robert. (1809-1882). Edinburgh and Cambridge educated naturalist. Elected GSL 1836, FRS 1839. Member of GSL council 1837-51, secretary 1838-41. Awarded the Wollaston Medal in 1859 and the Copley Medal in 1864.

DE LA BECHE, Henry Thomas. (1796-1855). Entered military school at Great Marlowe in 1810. Son of a military officer with estates in Jamaica. Elected GSL 1817, FRS 1819. Member of GSL council 1826- 28, 1830-52. GSL secretary 1831-32, foreign secretary 1835-47, president 1847-49. Awarded the Wollaston Medal in 1855. Appointed first Director of the Geological Survey of Great Britain in 1835. Knighted in 1842.

EGERTON, Philip de Malpas Grey, Sir. (1806-1881). Ninth baronet. Educated Eton and Christ Church, Oxford. Elected GSL 1829, FRS 1831. Member of GSL council 1831-40, 1841-52, 1854-57, 1860-61, 1862-64, 1865-72, 1873-78, and 1879-81. Served as vice-president. Awarded the Wollaston Medal in 1873.

FITTON, William Henry. (1780-1861). Educated Trinity College, Dublin, and Universities of Edinburgh and Cambridge. After his marriage in 1820, Fitton gave up medicine and devoted himself to geology. Elected GSL 1816, FRS 1815. Member of GSL council 1822-30, 1831-46. GSL secretary 1822-24, president 1827-29. Awarded the Wollaston Medal in 1852.

GREENOUGH, George Bellas. (1778-1855). Educated at Eton and St. Peter’s College, Cambridge but did not take a degree. Inherited a ‘patent medicine’ fortune. A founder member of the GSL. FRS 1807. GSL councillor 1807-1855. GSL president 1807-13, 18-20, and 33-35.

xi LYELL, Charles. (1797-1875). Educated at Midhurst and Exeter College, Oxford. Elected GSL 1819, FRS 1826. Member of GSL council 1823- 46, 1847-54, 1855-65, and 1866-75. GSL secretary 1823-26, foreign secretary 1829-35, president 1835-37 and 1849-51. Awarded the Wollaston Medal in 1866 and the Royal and Copley Medals in 1834 and 1858 respectively by the Royal Society. Married Mary Elizabeth Horner in 1832. No children.

MANTELL, Gideon Algernon. (1790-1852). Educated at small schools at Westbury and Swindon, Wiltshire. Surgeon. Elected GSL 1818, FRS 1825. Member of GSL council 1825-26, 1841-44, and 1847-52. GSL vice-president 1848-50. Awarded the Wollaston Medal in 1835 and the Royal Medal in 1849. Married Mary Ann Woodhouse in 1816. Separated 1838. Four children.

MURCHISON, Roderick Impey. (1792-1871). Educated Great Marlowe Military College. Elected GSL 1825, FRS 1826. Member of GSL council 1826-63, 1864-69. GSL secretary 1826-28, 1829-31, foreign secretary 1828-29, president 1831-33 and 1841-43. Awarded the Wollaston Medal in 1864 and the Copley Medal in 1849.

OWEN, Richard. (1804-1892). Educated Heversham Grammar School, Lancaster. Comparative anatomist. Appointed assistant conservator, Hunterian Museum in 1827. Hunterian professor of comparative anatomy and physiology 1836-56. Elected FRS 1834. Member of GSL council 1838-40, 1844-48, 1853-54, 1857-58. GSL vice-president 1846-47. Awarded the Wollaston Medal in 1838, and the Royal and Copley Medals in 1846 and 1851 respectively.

PHILLIPS, John. (1800-1874). Nephew of William Smith. Keeper of the York Museum 1825-40 and assistant secretary BAAS 1832-59. Joined the Geological Survey 1840 and was successively appointed professor of geology, King’s College London in 1834, Trinity College Dublin in 1844 and Oxford University 1853. Elected GSL 1828, FRS 1834. Member of GSL council 1853-57 and 1858-62. GSL president 1858- 60. Awarded the Wollaston Medal in 1845.

SEDGWICK, Adam, Rev. (1785-1873). Educated Sedbergh School near Dent and Trinity College Cambridge. Woodwardian professor of geology, Cambridge, 1818-73. Elected GSL 1818, FRS 1821. Member of GSL council 1824-25, 1827-44, and 1845-48. GSL president 1829-31. Awarded the Wollaston Medal in 1851 and the Copley Medal in 1863.

WHEWELL, William, Rev. (1794-1866). Educated Heversham Grammar School, Westmoreland. In 1812 he obtained an Exhibition to Trinity College Cambridge, becoming Master of that college in 1841. Elected FRS 1819 and member of the GSL council 1830-33 and 1836-42. GSL president 1837-39. Received the Royal Medal in 1837.

WOLLASTON, William Hyde. (1766-1828). Educated Charterhouse and Caius College Cambridge. Physiologist and metallurgist. Elected FRS 1793, GSL 1812. Member of GSL council 1813-24. GSL vice-

xii president 1821-23. Recipient of the Copley Medal in 1802.

LOCATION MAP – SOUTH EAST ENGLAND

xiii CHARLES LYELL AND GIDEON MANTELL, 1821 - 1852: THEIR QUEST FOR ELITE STATUS IN ENGLISH GEOLOGY.

Alan John Wennerbom

A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Unit for the History University of Sydney and Philosophy of Science

May 1999

xiv xv CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

On 4 October 1821, a 24 year old Oxford graduate, Charles Lyell, soon to be admitted to the bar, called at the Lewes home in Sussex of a 31 year old surgeon and part-time geologist, Gideon Algernon Mantell.1 The two men ‘geologised’ until midnight and began a friendship and correspondence that lasted until Mantell’s death, 31 years later, in 1852. Their known correspondence, comprising 232 letters from Lyell to Mantell, and 31 from Mantell to Lyell, is mainly unpublished.2 Transcribed and annotated copies of these letters are submitted as a supplementary volume to this thesis and comprise one of its key reference sources. One of the features of the correspondence and allied manuscript material is that it reveals the contrasting backgrounds and geological careers of the two men. Mantell was the son of a radical, non-conformist Lewes shoemaker – Lyell came from the minor Scottish gentry; Mantell was precluded from attending the local grammar school – Lyell went up to Oxford as a gentleman-commoner; Mantell did not resolve his career choice clash between medicine and science – Lyell dropped law in 1827 to pursue geology; Mantell was financially naive with no private means – Lyell was commercially shrewd with a moderate private income; Mantell’s domestic life was chaotic – Lyell’s wife proved a major social asset; Mantell was plagued by poor health – Lyell only suffered weak eyes, which aided his decision to forsake law; Mantell was an emotional man with varied interests – Lyell was ruthlessly single minded; Mantell was a Sussex provincial – Lyell was London based. However, a key trait that both men shared was a yearning for scientific fame. Both were recipients of major awards from the Geological

1 “Mr Lyell of Bartley Lodge, Hants, called on me: he is a pupil of Professor Buckland, of Oxford, and is enthusiastically devoted to Geology. He has travelled much, both in England and on the Continent….Mr L. drank tea with us, and we sat chatting on geological matters till now – midnight” GAM-PJ, entry 4 October 1821. 2 Extracts from 36 of the 230 letters that Lyell wrote to Mantell are contained in K.M. Lyell (ed.), Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell Bart. author of ‘Principles of Geology &c, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1881, while extracts from 43 of Lyell’s letters are quoted in L.G. Wilson, Charles Lyell, The Years to 1841: The Revolution in Geology, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1972. There is considerable overlap in the extracts quoted in these two publications.

1 Society of London (GSL) and the Royal Society of London,3 both held senior positions in these societies, and both made notable contributions to the development of geology. Nevertheless, Mantell died an embittered and frustrated man without his ‘due honours’. In contrast, Lyell’s self-fashioned career glided on with few set-backs. He was knighted in 1848 and received a baronetcy in 1864. In addition to highlighting the contrasting nature of the two men’s careers, the correspondence, in conjunction with allied Mantell manuscript material at the Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand, is characterised by two ongoing and underlying themes: first, the nature, timing, and circumstances of the geological work of Lyell and Mantell, and second, the influence of various social factors on the career plans of the two men, and their desire to achieve high social and scientific status. In turn, these points raise several wider issues and inter-related questions concerning the following aspects of English geology in the first half of the nineteenth century.

· What was the status and scope of English geology when Mantell commenced his investigations in the 1810s, and Lyell in the 1820s? How could an unknown, provincial surgeon like Mantell establish a reputation in this new discipline? · Under what circumstances did an ‘elite’ group of geologists emerge in England during this period? Who were its members and what were their characteristics in common? · What was the nature of the geological work carried out by the ‘elite’ geologists and how can it be categorised? In what way did it differ from Mantell’s? · What social and other barriers did Mantell encounter in his search for scientific and social status? What were the critical factors?

In this thesis the above issues are examined as a prelude to focusing on

3 In 1835 Mantell was the second recipient of the GSL’s Wollaston Medal, which was also awarded to Lyell in 1866. In 1849 Mantell received the Royal Medal from the Royal Society of London, which had been awarded to Lyell in 1834. Lyell was also the recipient of the Royal Society’s Copley Medal in 1858.

2 the key question of why Mantell, unlike Lyell, did not achieve the status of an elite geologist in England during the first half of the nineteenth century. In doing so, use is made of two methodologies. First, prosopographic and ‘screening’ techniques are used on a decade-by-decade-basis to detect changes in the composition of members of the GSL council, to demonstrate the emergence of a distinctive group of ‘gentlemen and clergyman-specialists’ who came to dominate the GSL in the 1830s, and to identify members of a geological elite. Second, the concept of a geological ‘domain’ is developed as a key means of distinguishing and evaluating the work of the identified elite geologists. No suitable definition of the concept occurs in the literature, and accordingly, the term is defined as follows:

A geological domain refers to a specific area or segment of geology, including distinctive methodologies and practices, in which a geologist, or a small group of geologists, are regarded as the leading authorities, or exponents, by their peers.

The concept also provides an explanatory basis for identifying those geologists who attained elite status. Additionally, the importance of ‘positioning’ in regard to the attainment of geological fame is examined in greater detail than in previous studies. An aspiring elite geologist needed to so position himself in terms of geological experience, available time, location, and personal circumstances, that he was able to recognise a potential ‘domain’ and be in position to exploit the ‘opportunity’ that it presented. In practice, this meant the resolution of any career choice dilemma and having sufficient income to support the required life-style and necessary geological investigations. The unpublished correspondence between Lyell and Mantell provides particularly apposite material to explore these issues in detail. As an example, the following extract from a letter to Mantell from Lyell, in March 1829, illustrates what Mantell needed to do in order to exploit a major ‘taxonomic’ domain that Lyell had identified for him:

But from this moment resolve to bring out a general work on ‘British fossil reptiles & fish’….You must run up often to town. After you have worked quietly to the point for a year & ½ or more,

3 then out with a prodromus a la Adolphe B[rongniart]. Fish & reptiles will then be sent & lent in abundance from all Museums. You must purchase some from Lyme Regis & many books & say nothing for a while. By this you may render yourself truly great which without much travelling you will never become in general geoly. The field is yours – but might not remain open many years. It is worthy of ambition & the only one which in an equally short time you could make your own in England for ever.4

The various, but interconnected issues examined in this thesis have been discussed to varying extents in the literature, which encompasses four main areas. First, relevant social, political, and economic factors pertaining to the formation of the GSL, and the subsequent emergence of an elite group of geologists; second, the categorisation of geological work generally, and that of the identified elite geologists in particular; third, the relative importance of more specific social factors that could affect the geological careers of ‘outsiders’, like Mantell, as well as ‘gentleman-geologists’, like Lyell; and finally, studies concerning the careers of Lyell and Mantell. The basic factors relating to the establishment of the GSL in 1807 tend to be broad in scope, since they are also pertinent to most facets of English society during the first half of the nineteenth century. These factors include industrialisation; the development of a class-based society, as distinct from the earlier acceptance of hierarchical social orders; professionalisation; and the overall reform movement that reached its zenith in the early 1830s. One of the outcomes of these major developments was the growth of new, specialist societies, such as the GSL, that fulfilled a diverse range and combination of needs – personal economic benefit, increased social utility of the nation, intellectual curiosity, enhanced occupational prospects, the attractions of a romantic engagement with nature, social legitimisation, and personal advancement. These aspects are generally well covered in the literature and are reviewed in chapter two. The emergence of an acknowledged group of elite geologists in England during the first half of the nineteenth century has also been examined by historians of science. In his account of how geology emerged as a separate discipline during the period 1775 to 1815, Porter assigned a key

4 CL to GAM, 23 March 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 55). This letter is quoted more fully on pp. 64-65.

4 role to the wealthy land-owners who established a gentlemanly, amateur tradition in geology and who over-rode the aspirations of the new breed of ‘practical’ men such as land surveyors, canal builders and coal mine operators.5 He subsequently used the term ‘elite’ to describe the coterie of gentlemen-geologists6 who exercised control over British geology, because they came “to dominate its institutions and judge standards of work competence”.7 Morrell, Heyck and Secord have made similar observations.8 Rudwick amplified the term in his book The Great Devonian Controversy,9 by introducing the concept of ‘gradients’ of attributed geological competence to differentiate between ‘elite’, ‘accomplished’, and ‘amateur’ geologists. In short, Rudwick deployed varying degrees of perceived geological proficiency as a means of demarcation. Porter’s earlier description of a geological elite was power-orientated and essentially based on high social status. Rudwick’s concept introduced the element of technical meritocracy. His concept of attributed degrees of competence relates, in turn, to regionality and transportability of geological knowledge. For example, the geological knowledge of ‘amateurs’ tends to be restricted to their local district, while the expertise of the elite is national, if not international, in applicability and scope. Rudwick’s analysis of the elite geologists necessarily focuses on the time frame of the ‘Devonian controversy’ and therefore does not explore such aspects as when an elite emerged and the nature and extent of any changes in the composition of its members during the first half of the nineteenth century. Although the concept of scientific and geological ‘domains’ or ‘territories’ has been generally understood, the relevant literature is sparse, since their existence was usually implicitly acknowledged, but not codified. To some extent this results from the ‘proprietorial’ nature of most geological domains, a feature contrary to the idealised norms of science. Another factor

5 R. Porter, The Making of Geology: Earth Science in Britain 1660-1815, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977, pp. 136-147. 6 The geologists, whose work and careers are examined in this thesis, were all male, and hence account for the masculine gender that is normally adopted. 7 R. Porter, ‘Gentlemen and Geology: The Emergence of a Scientific Career, 1660-1920’, The Historical Journal, 1978, 21, p. 821. 8 J.B. Morrell, ‘London Institutions and Lyell’s Career: 1820-41’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 32, p. 139;iT.W. Heyck, The Transformation of Intellectual Life in Victorian England, Croom Helm Ltd., London, 1982, p. 59.iJ.A. Secord, Controversy in Victorian Geology: The Cambrian-Silurian Dispute, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986, pp. 19-20. 9 M.J.S. Rudwick, The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Gentlemanly Specialists, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1985, p. 29 and pp.418-428.

5 is the temporary nature and relatively short ‘life-cycle’ of such intellectual ‘properties’. Nevertheless, the concept is indirectly pervasive throughout the literature, because any account of a geological investigation must relate to at least one domain. Rudwick’s10 and Secord’s11 studies on the establishment of the Devonian, Silurian, and Cambrian Systems, for example, are case- histories of disputes over stratigraphic domains. By itself, however, the concept of a geological domain is too broad for the requirements of the thesis. Domains differ in both kind and degree of importance. Consequently there was a need to establish suitable sub- classifications. In regard to different types of domain Rudwick provided a useful frame-work in his 1982 paper ‘Cognitive Styles in Geology’,12 in which he outlined four different styles of geological work: the ‘concrete’, ‘abstract’, ‘agnostic’ and ‘binary’. Each of these styles was then examined, in conjunction with Rudwick’s assessment of the social environment of practitioners of that style, to ascertain its degree of correspondence with the social anthropological grid/group theory of Mary Douglas. Although Rudwick was able to demonstrate a certain degree of correspondence between the cognitive nature of his four geological styles and their accompanying social formation and working environment, he did not proceed with any subsequent investigations. In 1986, Oldroyd concluded that there were considerable problems for historians of science in applying Douglas’s concept,13 mainly because of the general imprecision involved and lack of any perceived causal connection. Grid/group theory has not been utilised as such in this thesis as a basis for classifying different types of geological domain, but three of Rudwick’s four geological styles have been modified to this end. His ‘agnostic’ style, however, has been replaced with a broader based, ‘modal’ category of domain. When describing the characteristics of the elite geologists by relating attributed degrees of geological competence to regionality and transportability, Rudwick also provided a means of gauging the relative importance of

10 Ibid. 11 Secord, op. cit. (note 8). 12 M.J.S. Rudwick, ‘Cognitive Styles in Geology’, in : M. Douglas (ed.), Essays in the Sociology of Perception, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London, 1982, pp. 219-242. 13 D.R. Oldroyd, ‘Grid/Group Analysis for Historians of Science ?’, History of Science, 1986, 24, pp. 145-171.

6 stratigraphic, palaeontological and causal domains. However, regionality and transportability are not suitable classificatory tools for other types of domain. These are developed in the thesis. Because Lyell and Mantell were so different in many respects, their case histories provide an excellent platform to examine the effect of various social and other factors on their respective geological careers. Some of these factors, such as the disadvantages of a provincial base, and the emergence, in the 1830s, of a distinctive group of upper-class geologists termed ‘gentleman-specialists’, are highlighted in the prosopographic and screening analyses. Other factors, including a socially disadvantaged family background, limited educational opportunities, the importance of social networks, patronage, the limited role assigned to a provincial geologist, and ‘acceptable’ occupational opportunities in geology, feature in the Lyell - Mantell correspondence and especially in Mantell’s Private Journal.14 On a wider level, these factors are generally covered in the literature, as is the theme of how an ambitious and intelligent young man from humble circumstances could ‘advance’ his station in life by securing a surgical apprenticeship, subsequently working long hours to build up a medical practice, concurrently establishing a reputation in local antiquities or natural history, and finally, enlisting a patron’s support for nomination to the GSL or even the Royal Society. Mantell used this route to overcome most of the prevailing social barriers he encountered as a young man. However, the significance of Mantell’s case history lies in the fact that he was not content to be a successful country medical practitioner with a moderate reputation for scientific achievement – a position he reached in the 1820s. His social and scientific aspirations were much higher. Consequently, an examination of the obstacles that Mantell encountered after 1830, when he had an opportunity to attain elite geological status, constitutes a more singular case history and provides explicit insights into the difficulties an ‘outsider’ faced in achieving scientific eminence in the first half of the nineteenth century. Biographical studies on Lyell and Mantell have not probed the ‘positioning’ problems faced by either of the two men. The two major sources of information on Lyell, by Katherine Lyell and Wilson,15 exhibit a ‘benign’

14 Private Journal of Gideon Algernon Mantell, 1819-1852, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ. 15 K. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2), and Wilson, op. cit. (note 2).

7 attitude to his motives and actions. However, a comparison of the quoted extracts of letters from Lyell to Mantell in the frequently cited Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, reveals a considerable number of carefully edited deletions, all designed to enhance a favourable image. For example, under Katherine Lyell’s editorship, Lyell is depicted as a gentleman, properly unconcerned with monetary matters. By contrast, Lyell’s letters to Mantell reveal that he was financially astute and commercially orientated. Although Mantell’s humble origins and intense ambition have been long recognised, there have been no detailed accounts of how he overcame his various social handicaps in his search for fame. In fact, he was a largely neglected figure until 1984, when Vallance re-appraised his career and highlighted the importance of the G.A. Mantell Collection of manuscripts in Wellington, New Zealand.16 Further awareness of Mantell’s work resulted from a symposium held at Brighton in 1990, to celebrate the bicentenary of his birth, and where Cleevely and Chapman read an important paper on Mantell’s fossil collection.17 In analysing Mantell’s career, Vallance focused on the importance of financial independence, while Cleevely and Chapman emphasized Mantell’s social ambitions. The importance of ‘positioning’ has not been directly mentioned in the literature. Dean, who was one of the first scholars to note the importance of the G.A. Mantell manuscript papers, has advised that his book on Mantell will be published in 199918 and may be expected to advance Mantell studies considerably. The question of why Mantell, unlike Lyell, did not achieve elite geological status, is explored here in three main chapters. In each chapter the analyses are carried out on a decade-by-decade basis, enabling trends to be detected and related to findings from the other chapters. In the first of these chapters prosopographic and screening techniques

16 T.G. Vallance, ‘Gideon Mantell (1790-1852): A Focus for Study in the History of Geology at the Turnbull Library’, in M.E. Hoare and L.G. Bell (eds), “In Search of New Zealand’s Heritage”, Bulletin of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 1984, 21, pp. 91-100. 17 R.J. Cleevely and S.D. Chapman, ‘The accumulation and disposal of Gideon Mantell’s fossil collections and their role in the history of British palaeontology’, Archives of Natural History, 1992, 19, pp. 307-364. 18 Private communication with D.R. Dean, dated August 1998, who advised that the title of his forthcoming book is Gideon Mantell and the Discovery of Dinosaurs. ISBN 0-521-42048-2. It is understood that Dean’s focus of attention will be significantly different from that developed in this thesis.

8 are used to highlight significant factors concerning the attainment of elite geological status in England from 1807, when the Geological Society of London was founded, until 1850, two years before Mantell’s death. More specifically, these techniques have been adopted to explore three interlinked aspects of this aim:

· to highlight changes in the nature, background and composition of office- bearers and members of the GSL council during this period. · to identify members, or potential members, of an emergent English geological elite, and to ascertain any common and relevant characteristics. · to detect any social, educational, or economic factors that may have affected Mantell, in particular, in his quest for high scientific and social status.

The starting point for the various prosopographic and screening analyses has been restricted to the 169 GSL members who served for at least one year on the council during the period 1807 to 1850. The basic procedure adopted consists of a succession of straightforward, screening processes; the social backgrounds of all members of council are juxtaposed against increasingly rigorous criteria relating to institutional power and contemporary geological achievement. Most of the more significant findings of the prosopographic and screening analyses concern developments that occurred in the late 1820s and early 1830s. Of particular importance is the emergence of a distinct and pronounced group of members of council who are best described as ‘gentleman and clergyman-specialists’, and who dominated most aspects of the GSL’s activities during the last two decades of the period. In fact, members of this upper class stratum comprise all members of council identified as members of a geological elite. Lyell is revealed as belonging to both groups. Mantell did not belong to either, but came close to achieving a final listing in the identified elite. He is also differentiated as the most singular, provincial member of council during the first 50 years of the GSL’s existence.

9 In the second main chapter the nature, scope and timing of the geological work of the members of council identified in the penultimate and final screening tests are examined in order to discern the distinctive cognitive features of their work. More specifically, the primary objective of this chapter is to show that the principal geological work carried out by each elite geologist encompassed a distinct, cognitive ‘domain’, broad in scope, and regarded proprietorially. Consequently, the analysis of each geologist’s work focuses on an assessment of the nature and extent of the ‘domain’ he fashioned and whether that geologist was regarded by his peers as the leading authority or exponent of that particular field of geology. Four basic categories of geological ‘domain’ are adopted, appropriate to the period in question – the ‘taxonomic’, ‘causal’, ‘scriptural’, and ‘modal’, each of which can be sub-classified by both kind and degree of importance. In these decade- by-decade analyses, particular emphasis is given to the geological investigations of Lyell and Mantell. Other geologists whose work is examined are the six members of Council, besides Lyell, identified in the final screening analysis: namely Buckland, De la Beche, Fitton, Murchison, Sedgwick, and Whewell; the five geologists, besides Mantell, highlighted by the penultimate screening criteria: namely Wollaston, W.D. Conybeare, Darwin, Egerton and Owen; and finally, the two selected exceptions, J. Phillips and Greenough. The nature, scope and timing of the work of these early nineteenth- century geologists provides an explanatory basis for identifying members of the English geological elite that emerged in the 1830s. Additionally, the conclusions from this and the previous chapter provide a suitable framework for examining the relative influence that various social factors had on the geological careers of Mantell and Lyell. The main emphasis in the third major chapter focuses on Mantell, since his case history epitomises that of an ambitious, provincial ‘outsider’, in contrast to the more orthodox case of Lyell. Nevertheless, Lyell also faced some career obstacles, which further illustrate aspects of early nineteenth- century geological life. The analysis covering the years to 1820 is subtitled ‘Overcoming Initial Handicaps’, and shows how Mantell used medicine and geology to climb the social ladder in provincial Lewes. The following decade is subtitled ‘Positioning for Scientific Status’, and demonstrates why

10 aspiring ‘elite’ geologists during the 1820s needed to position themselves appropriately in terms of income, time, location, resolution of career clashes, and basic geological experience, in order to exploit any identified, new geological opportunities. Many of the ‘gentleman-specialists’ fashioned such opportunities into major geological domains in the 1830s, and consequently the period 1830 to 1840 is subtitled ‘Decade for Achievement’. However, the theme of appropriate positioning is still pursued in the analysis of this decade, with particular attention being given to acceptable employment possibilities in geology, and the income required to maintain the life-style of a ‘gentleman-specialist’. The final decade of the first half of the nineteenth century is termed ‘Beginning “De novo” and Maturity’, and examines Mantell’s ‘resurrection’ following his Brighton debacle in the 1830s, as well as the consolidation phase of Lyell’s career. Because the three main chapters differ markedly in subject matter and context, conclusions from each of these chapters are set out at the end of that particular chapter. The concluding chapter of the thesis draws these conclusions together on a decade-by-decade basis and demonstrates their interlinked nature. As a final introductory point, it is pertinent to note the assessments of each other that Lyell and Mantell gave to interested third parties. Prior to Lyell’s departure for his first visit to the U.S.A. in 1841, he was described by Mantell in the following terms in a letter to Benjamin Silliman of Yale College:

In person Mr. Lyell presents nothing remarkable, except a broad expanse of forehead. He is of the middle size, a decided Scottish physiognomy, small eyes, fine chin, and a rather proud or reserved expression of countenance. He is very absent, and a slow but profound thinker. He was Professor in King’s College, London, and gave lectures there and at the Royal Institution, but it so happened that I never heard him lecture. He always takes part in the discussion at the meetings of the Geological Society, but he has not facility in speaking; there is hesitation in his manner, and his voice is neither powerful nor melodious, nor is his action at all imposing. As a popular lecturer he would stand no chance with Buckland or Sedgwick….There is a hauteur or reserve about Mr. Lyell to strangers that prevents his being so popular among our society as he deserves to be. I believe him to have an excellent heart, and he is very kind and affectionate when his better feelings are called upon. I have had some reason to complain on points

11 relating to authorship, but that, perhaps, is mere weakness of human nature. I am very much attached to him. I have only to regret that he has not that warmth of feeling which I hoped to find in him, and which would have rendered him an invaluable friend to me.19

Although Lyell did not have occasion to provide a comparable pen- picture of Mantell to an overseas friend, he described Mantell’s move to Brighton as follows in a letter to John Fleming, professor of natural philosophy, King’s College, Aberdeen:

Mantell, whom I visited lately at Brighton, has made a bold professional stroke in removing there, which you will be glad to hear is likely to succeed, in spite of the misgivings of many of his friends, who had not the confidence which I always had in his genius. He is, in fact, a man of great medical skill, and tact so great, as to triumph over the drawback of his having so fine a museum and so much fame in certain branches of geology.20

A more insightful appreciation of the characteristics of the two men, and of Lyell in particular, is gained from reading their correspondence in the accompanying supplementary volume.

19 GAM to B. Silliman, 14 June 1841. Quoted in S. Spokes, Gideon Algernon Mantell, L.L.D., F.R.C.S., F.R.S.: Surgeon and Geologist, John Bale, Sons & Danielsson, London, 1927, pp. 125- 126. 20 CL to J. Fleming, 7 January 1835. Quoted in K. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 1, p. 446.

12 CHAPTER TWO

PROSOPOGRAPHIC AND SCREENING ANALYSES OF MEMBERS OF THE GSL COUNCIL: 1807 - 1850

Following a review of the relevant literature, prosopographic and associated screening techniques are used here to highlight changes and trends in the composition and nature of members of the GSL council during the first half of the nineteenth century; to identify members of an emergent geological elite, and ascertain any relevant characteristics in common; and finally, to detect any factors that may have had a significant influence on Mantell’s career.

2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

The scope, approach and nature of this chapter is essentially sociological, since any analysis of members of the GSL council in the first half of the nineteenth century must take into account the changing nature and structure of English society during that period, the reasons for the formation of the GSL in 1807, the perceived role of such societies by the various class and special interest groups involved, and the trend from an amateur ethos to one of professionalisation. Consequently, the following main themes are reviewed:

· English social classes and status stratifications during the first half of the nineteenth century. · The Reform movement in the 1820s and 1830s. · The status and nature of English geology, and the role of specialist natural history societies, before 1807. · The origins of the GSL and the motivations of its founder members. · The concepts of the ‘gentleman-amateur’, ‘gentleman-geologist’, ‘gentlemen of science’ and ‘gentleman-specialist’.

13 · The professionalisation of English geology. · The emergence and nature of an English geological elite. · The use of prosopographic techniques by historians of science. 2.1.1 SOCIAL CLASSES AND STRATIFICATIONS

In order to identify and highlight specific social trends and patterns in the prosopographic and screening analyses, it is first necessary to assign a social status categorisation to each of the 169 members of the GSL council elected before 1850. But as Morris1 has pointed out, fundamental changes in social relationships occurred between 1780 and 1850, due to political, economic, and technological changes associated with the industrial revolution. After 1780, the language and customs of ‘ranks’ and ‘orders’, with its acknowledgment and acceptance of hierarchical inequality, was slowly replaced by the language of class and social conflict. In many respects Mantell’s situation epitomises these changing relationships. He was born in 1790 in the market town of Lewes in the south of England, the son of a politically radical shoe-maker, and in a local society where each rank and station knew its place, duties and rights. During the 1820s, Mantell was a successful and highly ambitious surgeon-accoucheur, still living at Lewes, but his social class and status at that time is best described as marginal. Twenty years later, when based in London, Mantell was indisputably a member of an acknowledged, professional middle-class. According to Laslett2 there was effectively only one class in the eighteenth century, the aristocracy, capable of exercising collective political and economic power. The rest of society comprised a large number of status rankings, not to be confused with social class. By the 1830s, however, the terms ‘working-class’ and ‘middle-class’ were part of the language and reflected social tension within English society at that time.3 Neale4 described these social classes as essentially conflict groups; they were based on authority and subjection, and concerned with the distribution of wealth and power.

1 R.J. Morris, Class and Class Consciousness in the Industrial Revolution 1780-1850, The Macmillan Press Ltd., London, 1979, p. 9. 2 P. Laslett, The World We have Lost, Methuen, London, 1971, pp. 23-54. 3 Morris, op. cit. (note 1), p. 9. 4 R.S. Neale, Class and Ideology in the Nineteenth Century, Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1972, pp. 19-20.

14 In 1828 MacKinnon5 classified the population of Great Britain into three main classes. The upper class was defined as those individuals who had the means of supporting at least one hundred men fit for labour, which equates to a minimum annual income of 3,000 pounds for each member of this class. The middle class was separated into two sub-divisions; the first part consisting of those who could command the labour of from twenty to one hundred labourers, and the second to those constantly demanding the labour of two to twenty labourers at 12 shillings a week. Consequently, the income ranges of the two divisions of the middle class were 3,000 to 600 pounds and 600 to 60 pounds.6 Likewise, the lower class was broken down into two sub- divisions based on those individuals who could demand the constant labour of two labourers. MacKinnon’s contemporary class classification was therefore based solely on economic criteria. Most literature concerned with class analysis after 1800 accepts or implies a three-class model. In 1972, Neale7 proposed a five-class model for the period by introducing two new classes, namely those portions of the middle and lower classes that did not have a developed class consciousness, and were deferential to the class above them. Morris8 was critical of this approach, since it confused class divisions with status or stratum divisions. Class groups are basically conflict groups and are not necessarily synonymous with the more numerous stratums or levels of status within a society. In this regard the work of Weber9 is relevant. He distinguished between class, status, and party as three types of competing social organizations.10 For Weber, classes are determined by economic criteria and are not communities, but categories of population. On the other hand, people identify themselves with status groups that comprise distinct communities, distinguished by common life-styles and values. Each person and group can be placed according to the degree of ‘social honour’ accorded them by the rest of society. In doing so, the more important determinate factors are family background, occupation, size and nature of wealth and income,

5 W.A. MacKinnon, On the Rise, Progress and Present State of Public Opinion in Great Britain and Other Parts of the World, Saunders and Otley, London, 1828, reprinted Irish University Press, Shannon, 1971. 6 Ibid., pp. 3-4. 7 Neale, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 29-34. 8 Morris, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 33-34. 9 Max Weber (1864-1920). German sociologist and economist. H.H. Gerth and C.W. Mills (trans. and eds.), From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd., London, 1948.

15 religion and type of education.11 Above all, the concept of social status is comparative, and its dimension is prestige. It consists of points along a vertical continuum.12 Although there is a wealth of twentieth-century literature concerning contemporary social status gradings and classifications, there is relatively little explicit material relating to the first half of the nineteenth century. Such knowledge was usually taken for granted, as in the novels of Jane Austen, in which the gradations in county society were known precisely.13 Most of the sociological literature pertaining to the history of geology and specialist scientific societies uses the language of class and an explanatory basis of class interests. For example, Porter’s account of the respective roles of the rich land-owners and the canal engineers and surveyors in the development of geology in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries is a class-based analysis.14 In a broader context, Berman15 has argued that the evolution of the English scientific community can only be understood when seen within the framework of the cultural imprint of an upper class. The concept of class divisions is thus pertinent to an understanding of both the changing structure of English society in the early nineteenth century and the motivations of the different groups involved in the development of geology. However, the three basic class divisions of upper, middle, and lower are not sufficiently specific or distinctive for use in the prosopographic analyses. Three social status stratifications, within each of the upper and middle classes, are adopted here as a basis for social differentiation. The increased number of sub-categories enables less obvious trends to be discerned, and changes in the status of a particular individual, such as Mantell, and Lyell’s father-in law, Leonard Horner,16 to be monitored.

10 Ibid., pp. 180-195. 11 Morris, op. cit. (note 1), p. 63. 12 T.A. Lasswell, Class and Stratum: An Introduction to Concepts and Research, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 1965 p. 48. 13 Jane Austen’s novel, Pride and Prejudice, was first published in 1813. 14 R. Porter, ‘Gentlemen and Geology: The Emergence of a Scientific Career, 1660-1920’, The Historical Journal, 1978, 21, pp. 814-816. 15 M. Berman, ‘ “Hegemony” and the Amateur Tradition in British Science’, The Journal of Social History, 1978, 8(2), pp. 30-50 on p. 34. 16 Leonard Horner (1785-1864). Scottish-born businessman, educationalist and amateur geologist. F.R.S. 1813. Member of GSL council 1809-10, 1810-14, 1828-32 and 1837-64. GSL President 1845- 47 and 1860-62. DNB and H.B. Woodward, The History of the Geological Society of London, Longmans, Green and Co., London, 1908, pp. 289-291 and 303.

16 2.1.2 THE REFORM MOVEMENT IN THE 1820s AND 1830s

The changes in social relationships that began in the late eighteenth century, and continued well into the nineteenth century, reflected basic changes throughout English society. In particular, political and economic tensions increased markedly in the 1820s and culminated in the passing of the Reform Act in June 1832 and the consequent introduction of more democratic voting rights. This legislation also eased fears of a political revolution, and was a prelude to a wide range of further reforms.17 During this period the recognised need for general reform affected geology in several ways. On an individual level it created a more amenable environment for the recognition and encouragement of able and ambitious men from relatively humble backgrounds, such as Mantell. As Dean has noted, “upward social mobility based upon meritorious accomplishment became significantly commoner thereafter”.18 Scientific institutions also experienced change. The dominant role of the Royal Society of London was questioned. In 1831, the British Association for the Advancement of Science (BAAS) was established.19 Secord has argued that the establishment of the Geological Survey of Great Britain in the mid-1830s, and its rapid growth and drive for professionalisation in the 1840s, is best understood in the context of a whole series of contemporary reform movements.20 One of the outcomes of these developments was the creation of new career opportunities. The upper-class, but impoverished De la Beche, was confirmed in his appointment as director of the Geological Survey; Owen, a professional comparative anatomist received a BAAS study-grant to report on fossil reptiles in 1837; John Phillips, who came from a modest background, was employed by both BAAS and the Geological Survey. Each of these men played key roles in the development of English geology in the first half of the

17 Other measures that arose from the 1832 Reform Act were the 1833 Factory Act, the 1834 Poor Law Amendment Act, the 1835 Municipal Corporations Act and the establishment of the Ecclesiastical Commission in 1836. 18 D.R. Dean, ‘Review of M.J.S. Rudwick, The Great Devonian Controversy’, Annals of Science, 1986, 5, pp. 504-507 on p. 506. 19 These points are made by H.S. Torrens, ‘Politics and Palaeontology: Richard Owen and the invention of Dinosaurs’, in : J.O. Farlow and M.K. Brett-Surman (eds), The Complete Dinosaur, Indiana University Press, Indiana, 1997, pp. 175-190 on p. 176-177. 20 J.A. Secord, ‘The Geological Survey of Great Britain as a Research School, 1839-1855’, History of Science, 1986, 24, pp. 223-275 on p. 224.

17 nineteenth century. The indirect flow-on effects of the Reform Act were a continuing feature of English life during the 1830s and 1840s and constitute significant and pervasive elements throughout this thesis.

2.1.3 ORIGINS OF THE GSL AND THE NATURE AND MOTIVATIONS OF ITS MEMBERS

Since the prosopographic and screening analyses are concerned with detecting changing trends in the composition of members of the GSL council during the first half of the nineteenth century, the relevant literature encompasses the following aspects:

· The motivations of the various interest groups involved in the development of English geology before 1807. · The role of specialist natural history societies in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. · The reasons for the formation of the GSL in 1807 and the nature of its aims and research programmes. · The motivations and class interests of the founding GSL members.

Most of the relevant literature on the above topics was written during the period 1976 to 1983, when there was a surge of interest by social historians of science in the origins of British scientific societies, and in the social factors associated with their formation. Subsequent literature concerning nineteenth-century geology has tended to focus on more specific geological issues.

(1) ENGLISH GEOLOGY AND SPECIALIST SOCIETIES BEFORE 1807

In his 1977 publication, The Making of Geology,21 Porter gave a largely sociological account of how geology emerged as a separate discipline during the period 1775 to 1815. In brief, he argued that separate, but long- established aspects of geology such as mineralogy, the classification of fossils, and the nature of the earth’s strata, were re-constituted into geology

21 R. Porter, The Making of Geology: Earth Science in Britain 1660-1815, Cambridge University

18 by the early nineteenth century. Porter identified several strands of English society responsible for the effective integration of these different specialties. First, there was an occupational group requiring a better knowledge of the nature of the earth at a time of increasing industrialisation. Men in this ‘practical’ category included land surveyors, canal builders, and coal prospectors. In the main they were men of humble origins and limited education. Another strand comprised a group of London-based Quakers and dissenters who tended to be occupied in skilled proprietorial enterprises, such as publishing, and chemical and technical manufacturing. Excluded from the political and social mainstream because of their religion, this group “fostered zealous commitment to the progress of utility, wealth, knowledge and talent”.22 The third group identified by Porter comprised leisured and wealthy gentlemen from the upper class, whose motivations were mixed. In some cases the new interest in geology stemmed directly from economic and mining interests. Another suggested motivation was the attraction of a “passionate Romantic engagement” that followed “the Enlightenment ideal of a cosmopolitan stoicism”.23 Conybeare’s attitude was cited as an example of this fresh, adventurous spirit:

I partake more largely of the spirit of the Knight of La Mancha than of his craven squire and prefer the enterprise and adventure of geological errantry to rich castles and luxurious entertainments.24

Such romantic sensibilities towards geology fostered travel, which in itself was another attraction of the new discipline for wealthy young men. Porter’s analysis illustrates the heterogeneous nature of the various class groups that practised and promoted geology at the end of the eighteenth century. In fact, he suggested that this diversity in social base, style, and content probably constituted an ideal environment to foster growth of the subject. Nevertheless, Porter assigned a key role to the wealthy land-owners who established an ongoing, gentlemanly amateur tradition and who over- rode the aspirations of the new breed of practical engineers.25

Press, Cambridge, 1977. 22 Ibid., p. 141. 23 Ibid. 24 W.D. Conybeare in a letter to G.B. Greenough, 18 June 1811 (University of Cambridge Library, Greenough mss); quoted in Porter, op. cit. (note 21), p. 141. 25 Porter, op. cit. (note 14), pp. 814-817.

19 Coincident with the emergence of geology as a new discipline was the growth of several new specialist societies that were wholly or partly concerned with aspects of earth science. One example is The Royal Institution, founded in London in 1799 by a group of utilitarian minded, upper class land-owners, with the goal of “bending science to entrepreneurial and professional purposes”.26 Inkster provided further insights into the nature of specialist London societies in his 1977 analysis of the Askesian Society of London,27 members of which played a key role in the subsequent formation of the GSL. After noting that many new societies were formed in London after 1790, he suggested that:

these groupings reflected the social needs of those individuals whose emergence was an integral part of London’s changing economic and social structure.28

The Askesian Society was one such organisation. It was founded in 1796 and consisted of “a select number of gentlemen, associated for their mutual improvement in the different branches of natural philosophy”.29 However, the membership structure of the society was restricted, since the active core consisted predominantly of a group of Quakers engaged in chemical activities, specialist manufacturing and publishing. The scope of the society’s interests focused on chemistry and mineralogy, disciplines pertinent to many of the Quakers’ business activities. Inkster concluded that the attraction of science at this time was a direct reflection of its utility, and distinguished three such levels in his analysis of the Askesian Society. First, it was an appropriate form of cultural legitimation for those classes or groups denied their fair share of political and social power.30 Second, the application of science, and particularly the disciplines of chemistry, mineralology and geology, offered practical utility in the form of commercial improvements and new opportunities. Finally, science opened up new income

26 M. Berman, Social Change and Scientific Organization: The Royal Institution, 1799-1844, Heinemann, London, 1978, p. 21. 27 I. Inkster, ‘Science and Society in the Metropolis: A Preliminary Examination of the Social and Institutional Context of the Askesian Society of London, 1796-1807’, Annals of Science, 1977, 34, pp. 1-32. 28 Ibid., p. 14. 29 Statement by A. Tilloch, a member of the Askesian Society in Philosophical Magazine, 1800, 7, on p. 355; quoted in ibid., p. 16. 30 S. Shapin and A. Thackray made this point in ‘Prosopography as a Research Tool in History of

20 earning opportunities, such as lecturing and writing. A more specialist group than the Askesian, The British Mineralogical Society (BMS), was founded in 1799 and restricted membership “to such as are able and willing to undertake a chemical analysis of a mineral substance”.31 Members of the BMS comprised middle-class chemists, physicians, and proprietors of businesses subject to technological change, such as iron-makers and instrument manufacturers. The objects of the society were utilitarian and reflected the commercial needs of this particular London- based group at a time of rapid industrialisation. Weindling32 followed a similar, but broader-based theme, arguing that the mineral history of Great Britain has been an overlooked, but an important economically orientated factor in the foundation of the GSL. To this end Weindling examined the connection between the foundation of the GSL and a preceding scheme for a national school of mines, backed by two prominent, upper class mineral collectors,33 that was proposed as an auxiliary establishment to the Royal Institution. Although the scheme foundered, its planned formation supports Weindling’s argument that geology was seen as a means of broad social improvement by some members of the upper classes. Members of the Askesian or the BMS were hardly mentioned by Weindling in this study. Five years later, however, Weindling34 examined the activities and membership of the two societies and rejected Inkster’s assessment that members of both the Askesian Society and the BMS were marginal men seeking social legitimisation. He suggested that Inkster had overlooked the established financial base enjoyed by most of the Askesian Quakers. In the case of the BMS, Weindling argued that although occupational concerns explain the members’ interest and competence in mineralogy, these members then participated in more general scientific associations. He concluded that science was used by such well established groups to maintain their social

Science: The British Scientific Community 1700-1900’, History of Science, 1974, 12, pp.1-28. 31 Woodward, op. cit. (note 16), p. 7. 32 P.J. Weindling, ‘Geological Controversy and its Historiography: The Prehistory of the Geological Society of London’, in L.J. Jordanova & R.S. Porter (eds), Images of the Earth: Essays in the History of the Environmental Sciences, The British Society for the History of Science, Chalfont St. Giles, 1978, pp. 248-271. 33 Sir John St Aubyn Bt., M.P., F.R.S. (1758-1839) and Sir Abraham Hume Bt., F.R.S. (1749-1838). Both were appointed to the GSL council in 1810. Woodward, op. cit. (note 16), p. 33. 34 P.J. Weindling, ‘The British Mineralogical Society: a case study in science and social improvement’, in: I. Inkster and J. Morrell (eds), Metropolis and Province: Science in British Culture, 1780 -1850, Hutchinson, London, 1983, pp. 120-150.

21 standing by reinforcing established, occupational interests. A more novel explanation for the surge of interest in geology from 1790 to 1840 was advanced by Shortland in 1994.35 In exploring this theme, Shortland examined two contrasting contexts: those of Romanticism and mining – within the research domain of cave investigations. He suggested that during this alleged ‘Golden Age of geology’, the Romantics were not directly concerned with geology; its attraction was that it was a hard, masculine science: “a science for men, by men, about the activities of men”.36 To a limited extent this explanation is supported by Fitton’s statement in The Edinburgh Review:

Geology has this great advantage, which not even Botany partakes more largely, – that it leads continually to healthful and active exertion, amidst the grandest and most animating scenery of Nature, – and that, demanding indispensably, the combination of labour, and the interchange of acquirements, it gives rise to a frankness and warmness of communication amongst its cultivators, which renders the collateral results of friendship and association some of the most delightful of its fruits.37

However, Shortland’s evidence for extolling the masculine attractions of geology is not compelling. Active and companionable field-work can well be regarded as a pleasurable consequence of geological investigations, rather than its primary initial attraction. The main conclusion that can be drawn from the relevant literature is that the upsurge in interest in geology in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries occurred in a wide range of social groups for diverse reasons. The various motivations of groups within the upper class included personal economic benefit, increased social utility of the nation, the attractions of combining travel with a new spirit of romantic engagement with nature, and finally, intellectual curiosity. Middle class motivations were also varied. Besides encompassing the above factors, their motives also included social legitimation and advancement, enhancing occupational prospects, and using mineralogical developments, in particular, as a means of maintaining their

35 M. Shortland, ‘Darkness Visible: Underground Culture in the Golden Age of Geology’, History of Science, 1994, 32, pp. 1-61. 36 Ibid., p. 5. 37 W.H. Fitton, ‘Art. IV. Transactions of the Geological Society, established November 1807. Vol. III. 4 to., pp. 444, W. Phillips, London, 1816’, The Edinburgh Review or Critical Journal, 1818, 29, p. 74.

22 social and economic interests. There has been no one study that has assessed the overall relative importance of these various explanations. Indeed, such an analysis would encounter several difficulties. First, the relative significance of each of the identified factors changed with time, and changes were especially frequent during this period of reform and industrial growth. Furthermore, a particular mix of motivations can only effectively apply to a specific entity or organisation and not to a heterogeneous mix of individuals, societies, and institutions situated in different counties, towns, and cities.

(2) THE ORIGINS, AIMS AND FOUNDING MEMBERS OF THE GSL

The activities of the BMS essentially petered out by 1804 and it was incorporated into the Askesian Society in December 1806. The next step was the founding of the GSL by eleven of its thirteen original members at a dinner at the Freemason’s Tavern on 13 November 1807.38 Additionally, the group decided that they would dine together monthly, from November to June inclusive, at the not inconsequential cost of fifteen shillings per head. At its inception, therefore, the GSL was conceived as a specialist-interest, dining club. Woodward’s centennial history of the GSL does not probe the motivations and aspirations of the various groups involved in the formation of the GSL, but one of the book’s strengths is that it contains data on the backgrounds of early members. One of the features to emerge from Woodward’s descriptions of the thirteen original members of the GSL is their heterogeneity. Eight of the thirteen were ex-Askesians, four of whom were Quakers. The twenty-nine-year-old Greenough was the only original member who could be described as an independent gentleman, but he was also a Unitarian whose fortune was derived from patent medicines. Besides Greenough, the occupational categories of the founding group comprised four physicians, five chemists, a French emigré mineralogist, an instrument- maker, and a publisher. On 1 January 1808 the following statement concerning the Society’s objects was promulgated:

23 This Society is instituted for the purpose of making geologists acquainted with each other, of stimulating their zeal, of inducing them to adopt one nomenclature, of facilitating the communication of new facts, and of contributing to the advancement of Geological Science, more particularly as connected with the Mineral History of the British Isles.39

The first council of the Society, as distinct from the previous committees, was formed on 14 June, 1810,40 and the heterogeneous nature of its membership is illustrated below.

38 Woodward, op. cit. (note 16), pp. 9-18. 39 Woodward, op. cit. (note 16), pp. 18-19. 40 Ibid., p. 33.

24 TABLE 2.1 - SOCIAL COMPOSITION OF THE FIRST GSL COUNCIL

( Ex-members of the Askesian Society are marked *)

OCCUPATIONAL NUMBER MEMBERS OF COUNCIL CATEGORY

Sir John St. Aubyn, Wealthy landed gentry 3 Sir Abraham Hume, R. Ferguson G.B. Greenough, Independent 3 R. Chenevix, ‘gentleman-amateurs’ J.G. Children41 W. Babington*, J. Laird, Physicians 5 J. Macculloch, A. Marcet, P.M. Roget. A. Aikin*, W. Lowry*, London based chemists, 7 W.H. Pepys*, R. Phillips* business proprietors W. Phillips*, S. Woods*, L. Horner. J.L. Count de Bournon*, Various 4 S. Davis, M. Raine, D. Ricardo

In 1963, Rudwick42 re-examined and amplified several important events in the early history of the GSL, using Greenough’s papers that had been unavailable to Woodward. Rudwick’s analysis highlights the key role that the Society’s first president, Greenough, played in 1808-09, when he was largely instrumental in shaping the GSL’s future research programme, and in ensuring its independence from the Royal Society of London. In 1808, Greenough and Aikin were mainly responsible for preparing and distributing to all members, including the more numerous honorary members, a small

41 Children was the son of a wealthy Tonbridge banker who became bankrupt in 1816, which necessitated his obtaining employment after that date. DNB. 42 M.J.S. Rudwick, ‘The Foundation of the Geological Society of London: Its Scheme for Co operative Research and Its Struggle for Independence’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1963, 4(1), pp. 325-355.

25 booklet entitled Geological Inquiries that contained a series of questions relating to the more essential points of geology. Of particular importance is the following sentence from its introduction:

The knowledge of the general and grand arrangements of nature must be collected from a number of particular and minute instances, and on this ground the slightest information relating to the structure of the earth is to be regarded as of some importance.43

As Rudwick noted: “This ‘Baconian’ view of the nature of geology was fundamental to the Society’s plan for launching an ambitious scheme for co- operative research”.44 In short, Greenough’s Baconian policy was promulgated in the 1810s, together with the necessary, accompanying objectives of enlarging the Society’s membership and ensuring independence from the Royal Society of London. The GSL was no longer a dining club, though a GSL dining group was re-constituted in 1824.45 The view that the methodological stance of the GSL was strongly, if not radically, empirical during the 1810s was further supported by Rachel Laudan in 197746 when she argued that Greenough’s ‘Baconian’ research programme, with its atheoretical and outmoded methodology, impeded the progress of English geology. However, in a subsequent analysis of the method discourse associated with the early years of the GSL, Miller47 has pointed out that the GSL was not so rigidly anti-theoretical and single- minded in its methodology as sometimes supposed. In fact, Miller concluded that during the 1810s there was no uniformity of method, but rather continuing struggles between various sub-groups, such as the Wernerian and Cuvierian stratigraphers, and those primarily interested in geology as a search for knowledge of the earth, and those with a narrower and utilitarian focus. Each of these sub-groups tried to establish their skills as being the most appropriate basis for geological investigations. The literature pertaining to the origins of the GSL thus highlights two

43 Ibid., p. 334. 44 Ibid., pp. 334-335. 45 Woodward, op. cit. (note 16), p. 65. 46 R. Laudan, ‘Ideas and Organizations in British Geology: A Case Study in Institutional History’, Isis, 1977, 68, pp. 527-538. 47 D.P. Miller, ‘Method and the “Micropolitics” of Science: The Early Years of the Geological and Astronomical Societies of London’, in: J.A. Schuster and R.R. Yeo (eds), The Politics and Rhetoric

26 aspects germane to this thesis. First, the mix of early council members reflected the varied motivations and aspirations of those participating in English geology during the first two decades of the nineteenth century. Second, a fixed research programme for the Society had not been achieved by the late 1810s, when Lyell and Mantell became members. Both men joined the Society when there was considerable scope for further change.

2.1.4 THE CONCEPTS OF THE ‘GENTLEMAN-AMATEUR’, ‘GENTLEMAN-GEOLOGIST’, ‘GENTLEMEN OF SCIENCE’ AND ‘GENTLEMAN-SPECIALIST’.

These four inter-related terms have been used frequently by historians of science to describe a particular stratum of upper-class English society involved in specialist societies during the first half of the nineteenth century. This stratum or group is of particular relevance, since it came to assume a dominant role in the activities of the GSL after 1830. Reference has been made to Porter’s48 identification of the important role that wealthy land-owners played in establishing a gentlemanly, amateur tradition in regard to geology in the late eighteenth century. Such men “embraced geology as an enriching avocation”,49 and their interest in the subject was pursued in a liberal, gentlemanly manner. Morrell and Thackray adapted and broadened the concepts of the ‘gentleman-amateur’ and the ‘gentleman-geologist’ in their 1981 study, Gentlemen of Science: Early Years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,50 in which they used the term ‘Gentlemen of Science’ to describe the coterie of men who effectively controlled the Association in the 1830s. This group, which shared many common features and membership with the ‘gentleman-geologists’, was described by Morrell and Thackray in the following terms:

The group, our Gentlemen of Science, consisted primarily of liberal Anglicans who possessed secure status, income and property. Their familiar haunts were in metropolitan and academic of Scientific Method: Historical Studies, D. Reidel Publishing Co., Holland, 1986, pp. 227-258. 48 Porter, op. cit. (note 14), pp. 814-819. 49 Porter, op. cit. (note 14), p. 818. 50 J. Morrell and A. Thackray, Gentlemen of Science: Early Years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1981.

27 centres. The Gentlemen of Science had predominant interests in geology and the physical sciences, and in an intellectual definition of vocation and calling. Their concerns lay not with professional advancement in any narrow, financial sense, but rather with a religious and moral vision. To pursue knowledge of God’s created order in a rigorous and disciplined way was a proper calling for gentlemen in an age of evangelical seriousness.51

The concept was further adapted by Rudwick,52 in 1982, when he referred to the active members of the major London specialist societies during the 1830s as ‘gentleman-specialists’. Rudwick’s adaptation of the term is used in this thesis instead of ‘gentleman-geologists’, because it incorporates such GSL members of council as Whewell and Herschel,53 whose scientific interests extended well beyond geology. In fact, this thesis uses a further variation of the term. In order to distinguish between members of the clergy who were active GSL councillors, such as Buckland and Sedgwick, from those who exhibited an essentially minor interest in geology, the companion term ‘clergyman-specialist’ has been adopted. This modified term has been chosen in preference to the alternative of ‘academic-specialist’ for this small but influential sub-group, since their teaching and academic roles were a consequence of their position in the Established Church. A further point is that the prosopographic and screening analyses illustrate the growth in numbers of the ‘gentleman-specialist’, besides indicating when this group emerged as a dominant force in the affairs of the GSL.

2.1.5 PROFESSIONALISATION OF ENGLISH GEOLOGY

The emergence of a dominant group of ‘gentleman-specialists’ after 1830, can be regarded as a significant, but paradoxical stage in the professionalisation of English geology. Both Porter54 and Secord55 point out that the ‘gentleman- specialists’, as typified by Greenough, Fitton, Lyell, and Murchison, pursued

51 Ibid., p. 101. 52 M.J.S. Rudwick, ‘Charles Darwin in London: The Integration of Public and Private Science’, Isis, 1982, 73, pp. 186-206 on p. 189, note 10. 53 J.F.W. Herschel (1792-1871). Eminent astronomer and son of Sir William Herschel. GSL member of council 1827-29 and 1831-32. DNB and Woodward, op. cit. (note 16), p. 302. 54 Porter, op. cit. (note 14), p. 825. 55J.A. Secord, Controversy in Victorian Geology: The Cambrian-Silurian Dispute, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986, p. 204.

28 their chosen career in geology on a virtual full-time vocational basis, but without the emoluments of a paid profession. In doing so, they maintained their gentlemanly independence and many of the aspects of the earlier, amateur ethos. Nevertheless, the zealousness and single-mindedness that they exhibited in pursuing their geological activities, plus their high level of technical competence, are characteristics of successful professional practitioners. In this context it is worth noting Porter’s comment that the pejorative term ‘amateur’ dates only from the 1860s,56 when the professionalisation of geology had advanced to a further stage in its development. Both Lyell and Mantell commenced their geological activities in what can be described as the last phase of the amateur tradition, and just before the advent of the dominant ‘gentleman-specialists’. This latter stage encompassed the most consequential years of their geological careers, although their later years also incorporated the arrival of the professional geologist. Consequently, it is necessary to recognise the various stages of professionalisation that geology underwent during the first half of the nineteenth century, in order to gain a better understanding of the careers of both Lyell and Mantell, as well as the changing nature of the GSL council. In a recent doctoral dissertation, Moser has reviewed the literature concerning theories of professionalisation that have been developed in sociology, political science, and more recently, in the history of science. She defined the process in this way:

Professionalisation is a dynamic social process involving the production and sanction of disciplinary knowledge. It refers to the construction of disciplinary boundaries, the delineation of certain norms or modes of practice and behaviour, and the creation of a sense of professional identity. Professionalisation also refers to the social process of constructing an institutional infrastructure which serves to shape the production of disciplinary knowledge. Above all, however, it is a highly selective and exclusionary process, which involves demarcating who is and who is not entitled to be a member of the professional group. It is this ‘gatekeeping’ aspect of professionalisation that is fundamental to the formation of disciplinary cultures.57

56 Porter, op. cit. (note 14), p. 822. 57 S. Moser, ‘Archaeology and its Disciplinary Culture: The Professionalisation of Australian Prehistoric Archaeology’, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, University of Sydney, 1995, p. 34.

29 Moser concluded that professionalisation is characterised by various phases, within which certain strategies are undertaken to define the field. These phases can be summarised as follows: · The first phase is concerned with constructing the foundational knowledge. Strategies revolve around establishing a cognitive identity for the subject and calls for standardisation of terms and concepts. · In the next phase methodologies are delineated and research strategies outlined. · The third phase of professionalisation revolves around the creation of an institutional or structural base for the subject. · In the final phase a disciplinary culture is created. It is here that the distinctive qualities associated with the practice of the subject are defined and a mechanism established for binding the professional community together.

Moser also pointed out that the various phases of the professionalisation process can proceed concurrently. More pertinently, in the case of English geology a case can be made that there has been more than one cycle in the overall professionalisation process. The first such cycle commenced with the crystallisation of geology as a separate discipline during the period 1780 to 1800. The second phase, involving the delineation of methodologies and the advocacy of various research programmes, effectively took place during the period 1810 to 1820. The GSL provided the required institutional base, supplemented to some extent by Sedgwick’s and Buckland’s lectures at Cambridge and Oxford. The formation of a bonding, disciplinary culture was also developed and fostered during these years through such means as geological dinners and field excursions. The final phase of the professionalisation process involves the creation of a disciplinary culture of which a key aspect is social closure and exclusion or, more bluntly, ‘gatekeeping’. In the early years of the GSL, exclusion was essentially based on social factors, such as gentlemanly status. Geological competence then became an increasingly important factor in the exclusion process, as an inner coterie of geologists decided who could arbitrate and participate in the fashioning of geological knowledge. In essence, a small number of ‘gentleman-specialists’ fulfilled this role after

30 1830, thus completing the first cycle of the professionalisation process. The next cycle was largely dominated by the emergence and growth of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, which provided opportunities for the full-time employment of geologists. In this regard Secord raised a relevant point in his 1986 paper, ‘The Geological Survey of Great Britain as a Research School, 1839-1855’,58 where he persuasively argued that De la Beche the first Director of the Survey, was intent on creating a new research school in geology based on palaeoecology. This illustrates and ties in with the characteristics of the second phase of the professionalisation cycle, the delineation of new methodologies and research programmes. During the second half of the nineteenth century frictions naturally developed between the ‘professional’ surveyors and the ‘gentleman-specialists’, a factor Oldroyd noted in The Highlands Controversy.59 Oldroyd also makes the point that coincident with these increasing tensions, geological work was dividing into specialties of ever increasing narrowness.60 This was another significant factor in the second cycle of the professionalisation of geology. But, as O’Connor and Meadows61 have pointed out, there was no absolutely clear differentiation between professional and amateur in British geology until after the Second World War. An opportunity exists for further work to be done in analysing and fleshing out the details concerning the second cycle of the professionalisation process in English geology, and also to investigate whether other disciplines have undergone two such cycles.

2.1.6 THE EMERGENCE AND NATURE OF AN ENGLISH GEOLOGICAL ELITE

In his article ‘Gentlemen and Geology: The Emergence of a Scientific Career, 1660-1920’, Porter used the term ‘elite’ to describe the coterie of ‘gentleman-geologists’ who exercised control over British geology because they came “to dominate its institutions and judge standards of work

58 Secord, op. cit. (note 20). 59 D.R. Oldroyd, The Highlands Controversy: Constructing Geological Knowledge through Fieldwork in Nineteenth-Century Britain, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1990, p. 9. 60 Ibid., p. 15. 61 J.G. O’Connor and A.J. Meadows, ‘Specialization and Professionalization in British Geology’,

31 competence”.62 This point was also made by Morrell,63 when he referred to the domination of the GSL by an oligarchy of gentlemen of secure income, but based on merit and not rank. In this context Morrell named Lyell, Murchison, Broderip,64 Fitton, Greenough, and Darwin, aided by the ‘clergyman- specialists’ Sedgwick, Buckland, and Whewell. Secord also referred to the same list of leading GSL members (with the exception of Broderip), stating that they constituted “an urban social and scientific elite”65 during the 1830s and 1840s. Another author to use the term ‘elite’ was Heyck, in 1982, when he observed that an elite based on technical merit dominated the London- based Geological, Astronomical, Zoological and Chemical Societies.66 There are no references in the literature to an English geological elite, as distinct from a social elite engaged in geology, before the late 1820s, and one of the aims of this thesis is to show how and when such a group arose. The only contemporary use of the term ‘elite’ that has been identified by the author was by John Phillips in a letter to Charles Babbage, dated 7 June 1837, in which he explained that the General Committee BAAS had to be restricted to “the elite of our corps scientifique”.67 In the previous section dealing with the professionalisation of English geology, mention was made of an inner coterie of geologists who discharged the critical function of ‘gatekeeping’ in the final phase of the professionalisation cycle. In a 1982 paper,68 and later in The Great Devonian Controversy,69 Rudwick made a significant contribution to understanding the nature of this group. In developing his definition of a geological elite Rudwick introduced the concept of gradients of attributed geological competence. Porter’s earlier description of a geological elite, although power orientated, was essentially based on social status. Rudwick brought in the necessary ingredient of technical meritocracy:

Social Studies of Science, 1976, 6, pp. 77-89. 62 Porter, op. cit. (note 14), p. 821. 63 J.B. Morrell, ‘London Institutions and Lyell’s Career: 1820-41’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 32, pp. 132-146 on p. 139. 64 William John Broderip (1789-1859). Lawyer and naturalist. Magistrate at Thames police-court, 1822-1846. GSL member of council 1826-38 and 1855-57. DNB. 65 Secord, op. cit. (note 55), pp. 19-20. 66 T.W. Heyck, The Transformation of Intellectual Life in Victorian England, Croom Helm Ltd., London, 1982, p. 59. 67 Quoted in a footnote by Morrell and Thackray, op. cit. (note 50), p. 304. 68 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 52), pp. 190-194. 69 M.J.S. Rudwick, The Great Devonian Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Gentlemanly Specialists, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1985, on pp. 29

32

Scientific status was primarily expressed in terms of the competence of any individual geologist to deliver reliable information or ideas of specific kinds…it was attributed to the individual at the time, by himself and by others.70

Differences in competence were sorted out along a tacit gradient and might be regarded as akin to changing vegetation zones on a mountainside. Rudwick classified the different levels of competencies into three broad groups: the amateurs at the bottom, rising to the accomplished in the middle zones, and with the elite group at the top. The characteristics of those at the peak were described as follows:

They were men with a strong, indeed primary, commitment to geology rather than any other branch of science. They were highly active in the affairs of its institutions and in practical fieldwork, and usually highly productive in publication. They interacted intensely with each other, whether in cooperation or in rivalry and antagonism. Above all they regarded themselves, and were generally regarded by others, as competent arbiters of the most fundamental matters of both theory and method within the science.71

In amplifying his ideas on geological competence, Rudwick explained the concept in terms of regionality. The geological competence of the amateurs is essentially confined to their local area. Although the expertise of the accomplished group is much broader, it still tends to be somewhat restricted and specialised, for example, confined to fossil fish from the Scottish Devonian, or focused on a particular geographic region or group of strata. On the other hand, the competence of the elite is international in scope, and hence ‘transportable’ by nature. Another aspect of Rudwick’s concept is that the attributed grades of geological competence are never static; at any one time able and younger geologists can move into the zone of the elite because of the acknowledged quality of their work, whilst older and less active members may be on their way out. During the 1830s, for example, Rudwick included Sedgwick, Murchison, De la Beche, Greenough, Buckland, Lyell and Whewell as members of the elite, noted that Phillips and Darwin were and 418-428. 70 Ibid., p. 419. 71 Ibid., p. 420.

33 approaching this inner circle and that Conybeare was slipping from it. A final and important feature of Rudwick’s concept concerns the location and nature of a ‘core-set’ in relation to any particular major theoretical problem. The concept of the ‘core-set’ in modern science has been proposed by Collins,72 and relates to those scientists actively involved in a particular experimental controversy and whose decision decides its outcome. In Rudwick’s assessment, the ‘core-set’ in a specific geological controversy can be identified by superimposing zones, indicating the relative involvement of individuals in the controversy, over the zones of attributed competence. The resulting common area delineates the ‘core-set’. Dean, who has done considerable work on the life and work of Mantell, disagreed with some aspects of Rudwick’s concept in his review73 of The Great Devonian Controversy. In particular, Dean questioned whether outsiders strove incessantly to become members of the inner elite circle, and also whether Rudwick fully considered the impact of Reform pressures on elitism generally. However, Dean’s comments essentially relate to social mobility and the position of Mantell, whom Dean believed had been cursorily treated by Rudwick.74 Although Rudwick’s work on the nature of the geological elite in the nineteenth century provides an excellent base, there are some minor gaps and uncertainties. First, Rudwick essentially restricted his explanatory concept of ascribed degrees of competence to the ‘gentleman-specialists’, and effectively ignored talented and highly competent outsiders, such as Anning75 and Smith.76 In fact, the notion can be applied to several geological sub-groups, such as fossil collectors and identifiers, and the socially inferior, ‘practical’ men of geology.77 Additionally, Rudwick’s classifications of the various geologists into elite, accomplished and amateur categories are essentially qualitative value judgments, based on the nature of their work and the degree

72 H.M. Collins, ‘The Place of the “Core-Set” in Modern Science: Social Contingency with Methodological Propriety in Science’, History of Science, 1981, 19, pp. 6-19. 73 D.R. Dean, op. cit. (note 18), pp. 504-507. 74 Ibid., p. 506, note 2. 75 Mary Anning (1799-1847). Fossil collector and dealer of Lyme Regis. DNB. 76 William Smith (1769-1839). Canal surveyor and geologist. DNB. 77 This point was kindly brought to the author’s attention by H.S. Torrens in an informal communication dated 5 October 1997. Furthermore, M.A. Taylor and H.S. Torrens raised the question of where figures such as Anning, in her role as a professional working class female collector of fossils would be located in any map of ascribed competence in their joint paper, ‘Saleswoman to a New Science: Mary Anning and the Fossil Fish Squaloraja, from the Lias of Lyme Regis’, Proceedings of the Dorset Natural History and Archaeological Society, 1987, 108, pp. 135-148 on p. 135.

34 of respect and deference that they bestowed on each other in their geological correspondence. Here an attempt is made to obtain the same results using different and more objective techniques. Finally, Rudwick’s analysis of the English geological elite is necessarily focused on the time frame of the ‘Great Devonian Controversy’. By contrast, the analysis carried out in this thesis covers the first half of the nineteenth century on a decade-by-decade basis, with the aim of indicating when an identified elite emerged, and the extent of any changes in its composition.

2.1.7 PROSOPOGRAPHIC ANALYSES

Stone has defined prosopography as “the investigation of the common background characteristics of a group of actors in history by means of a collective study of their lives”.78 His paper also outlined the advantages and limitations of prosopographic research in historical work generally. Three years later, in 1974, the particular advantage of using prosopography in the history of science was highlighted by Shapin and Thackray79 – its application helps to minimise the problem of studying historical figures with present day perspectives. The authors further argued that the technique is especially applicable to studies of British science during the period 1760 to 1850, when developments such as rapid industrialisation, urbanization, religious dissent, increased social mobility, and the formation of new specialist societies led to a more broadly based, and pluralistic, scientific community. As a suggested starting point for future prosopographic analyses of the British scientific community, the two authors subdivided this broad grouping into three categories, based on levels of involvement. On the first level are those who have published a paper on natural history; a second level comprises those who have not published, but were active in the affairs of a particular scientific community; and finally, in a third and outer category, are the cultivators and patronisers. Thackray focused on the latter two categories in a prosopographic analysis of the 588 members of the Manchester Literary and Philosophical Society who joined this Society from its inception in 1781, until 1852.80

78 L. Stone, ‘Prosopography’, Daedalus, 1971, 100, pp. 46-79 on p. 46. 79 Shapin and Thackray, op. cit. (note 30), pp. 1-28. 80 A. Thackray, ‘Natural Knowledge in Cultural Context: The Manchester Model’, The American

35 Groups of new members were adjusted to a comparable size by varying the interval of their joining dates, and the key social characteristics analysed were religion, occupation and social status. This selection enabled membership trends, such as an increase in the relative number of manufacturers and a decline in the percentage of Unitarians, to be highlighted for comment and study. The results supported Thackray’s finding that:

An adequate understanding of the society hinges on the question of the social legitimation of marginal men, on the adoption of science as the mode of cultural self-expression by a new social class, and on generational patterning in intellectual life.81

A feature of Thackray’s Manchester study is that it broke away from the earlier prosopographic analyses that tended to focus on social and scientific elites, such as early members of the Royal Society of London.82 Shapin83 also used prosopographic analysis effectively to demonstrate the marked differences in occupational status between members of the Edinburgh Phrenological Society and the Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh, in connection with his sociological analysis of the conflict between phrenologists and their opponents in the 1820s. An overall review of the use of prosopography in the history of science, including the two papers just discussed, has been carried out by Pyenson.84 One of his conclusions was that the ‘little men’ of science have been ignored by historians of science, and that “to study the ideology of science as a cultural system we need especially to consider the ordinary scientist”.85 In making this point he also advocated that such studies should be based on prosopographic techniques. However, in the subsequent 20 years prosopography has tended to be used to highlight particular characteristics of specific groups, rather than provide the basis of a major study in its own right. For example, in Morrell and Thackray’s Gentlemen of Science,

Historical Review, 1974, 79, pp. 672-709. 81 Ibid., p. 678. 82 H. Kragh, An Introduction to the Historiography of Science, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1987, p. 178. 83 S. Shapin, ‘Phrenological Knowledge and the Social Structure of Early Nineteenth-Century Edinburgh’, Annals of Science, 1975, 32, pp. 219-243. 84 L. Pyenson, ‘ “Who the Guys Were”: Prosopography in the History of Science’, History of Science, 1977, 15, pp. 155-188.

36 prosopography was used in the first chapter to emphasize the common educational, ecclesiastical, and political characteristics of the twenty or so ‘Gentlemen of Science’ who comprised the inner core of the BAAS during the 1830s and 1840s.86 In this case, prosopography was not used to identify the members of this inner core, but to highlight the close-knit nature of a scientific clerisy. In a different context Berman87 examined the governors of the Royal Institution to show how and when members of the professional middle class came to power in place of the landed aristocracy. Weindling analysed the founding members of the British Mineralogical Society and the Askesian Society,88 in order to give a profile of the occupational status of members of the former society, and to highlight the dominance of Quakers in the Askesian. Of more recent relevance, Rudwick89 used the results of a prosopographic analysis of the 644 non-foreign members of the Geological Society of London in 1835 to illustrate the life and times of Adam Sedgwick. Since the sample is large, Rudwick’s analysis gave an excellent, broad picture of the membership of the society at that time; for example, 25% were Fellows of the Royal Society, 6% members of the aristocracy, 5% M.’sP., 13% clergymen, 6% academics and 52% lived outside London. However, these data have limited usefulness, since they pertain only to a specific year, and therefore cannot indicate trends. Moreover, the nature of the sample warrants comment. In Rudwick’s case the prosopographic analysis was based on all non-foreign members, most of whom would have belonged to Shapin and Thackray’s outer category of ‘cultivators and patronisers’.90 The characteristics of this group were not necessarily common to those of Sedgwick’s peers and colleagues on the GSL council, nor to the small group carrying out the more significant geological investigations of the day. No prosopographic analysis has been carried out that explores the changing nature of these two groups in the English geological community during the first half of the nineteenth century. Although the prosopographic and screening analyses in this chapter do

85 Ibid., p. 179. 86 Morrell and Thackray, op. cit. (note 50), pp. 23-24. 87 M. Berman, op. cit. (note 26). 88 Weindling, op. cit. (note 34), pp. 138-143. 89 M.J.S. Rudwick, ‘A Year in the Life of Adam Sedgwick and company, geologists’, Archives of Natural History, 1988, 15, pp. 243-268. 90 Shapin and Thackray, op. cit. (note 30), p.13.

37 not examine the changing pattern of all members of the GSL in the first half of the nineteenth century, they do investigate the changing nature of the GSL members of council in terms of their social and occupational status, as well as their geological contributions. Furthermore, by juxtaposing both institutional power and geological achievement criteria over ten-year time periods, the analyses indicate when significant changes occurred, as well as providing a logical basis for identifying an emergent geological elite.

2.2 METHODOLOGY

2.2.1 TIME-SPAN AND SCOPE OF ANALYSES

The time-span selected for the prosopographic and screening analyses of GSL members of council is 1807 to 1850. This period begins with the founding of the Society in November, 1807,91 and concludes two years before Mantell’s death in 1852. In order to detect changing trends, these formative years in the development of English geology have been divided into four periods, the first of which is 1807 to 1820, followed by the three succeeding decades. The starting point for these investigations has been restricted to those members who served on the GSL council or committee92 for a minimum term of one year. To a large extent those excluded comprise Shapin and Thackray’s outer circle of ‘cultivators and patronisers’,93 and hence fall outside the scope of this analysis. Nevertheless, a later section of this chapter (2.3.5) examines the situation of those GSL members who had not been elected to the Society’s council before 1850, but who still made a substantial contribution to English geology. The only significant exception was John Phillips, who was elected to the GSL council in 1853.94 Following the granting of a Royal Charter to the Society in 1825, one fifth or more of the GSL council were removed annually by ballot95 or resignation. In practice, this meant that five new members were elected each

91 Woodward, op. cit. (note 16), p. 10. 92 Until June 1810 the Society was governed by a committee, three members of which (W. Allen, Sir H. Davy, and the Rt. Hon. C.F. Greville) were not elected to the new council. Ibid., on p. 10 and pp. 28-33. For the sake of completeness these three early committeemen have been included in the analyses. 93 Shapin and Thackray, op. cit. (note 30), p. 13. 94 Woodward, op. cit. (note 16), p. 305.

38 year to a 23 member council. The number of members of council analysed in each of the four periods is set out in the following table.

Decade 1807-1820 1820-1830 1830-1840 1840-185096 Number of GSL members 61 71 60 58 of council

Although the above figures total 250, the number of individual members elected to the council was only 169 in the years to 1850. A significant number served on the council over a period encompassing two or even three decades. No maximum period is specified in the Society’s Charter. In 1815, and in 1845, the number of ordinary GSL members was 240 and 810 respectively.97 Consequently, the percentage of members of council in the ordinary membership during these years was 25·4% and 7·2% respectively. Although the latter figure, in particular, represents a relatively small percentage of the Society’s overall membership, this is not considered a problem, since the analyses are concerned with trends in councillors, not ordinary members, and all members of council are included in the study.

2.2.2 FACTORS ANALYSED

In the prosopographic and screening analyses, the 169 members of council are classified against a background of factors relating to three different kinds of status stratification; namely, social, institutional power, and contemporary geological achievement. The particular factors examined in each of these three categories are now discussed.

(1) SOCIAL STATUS

95 Ibid., pp. 265-266. 96 Elections were held on the third Friday in February, marking the end of each year and decade. 97 Honorary and foreign members, as well as personages of royal blood are excluded from these total Total membership was 341 in 1815 and 883 in 1845. Woodward, op. cit. (note 16), p. 51 and QJGSL, 1845,

39 The application of prosopographic and screening techniques to an investigation of the trends and patterns relating to the social status of GSL members of council presented two initial problems. First, some difficulties were encountered in obtaining sufficient, relevant data on each of the 169 members of council. Adequate data were obtained for 93·5%.98 None of the 11 members of council, for whom insufficient data were procured, had the required achievement levels to be considered in any of the screening analyses. The second difficulty relates to the nature and number of social status stratifications required for the analysis. As noted in the literature review, it was decided that social status stratifications within each of the English upper and middle classes would provide the most suitable basis of social differentiation. However, the number of possible stratifications within each of these two classes is virtually unlimited, since the various status judgments comprise a vertical continuum. Moreover, no applicable and relevant stratifications were found in the literature. Accordingly, all members of council are classified initially into an upper or middle class group, termed Categories 1 and 2 respectively. There was no need for any lower status, Category 3. Each of these two class categories is then sub-divided into three status stratifications considered pertinent to the period. Specific guidelines concerning the six social stratifications adopted are described below.

CATEGORY 1 – MEMBERS OF COUNCIL

As a general guideline, all members of council in Category 1 would have been recognised as having the status of a gentleman during the first half of the nineteenth century.

Sub Category U1 – Guideline Criteria

· Members of the aristocracy and well established gentry. · High, independent income, generally exceeding £3000.

1. 98 Sufficient personal details were not obtained for 11 of the 169 members of council, namely: W. Apsley, A.K. Barclay, S. Davis, T.C. Harrison, A. Jaffray, F. Moysey, T. Murdoch, A. Robe, E.W. Rundell, T. Smith, and J. Vine. Only T. Smith and J. Vine published (one paper each). T. Smith and T. Murdoch were the only members who were Fellows of the Royal Society at the time of their election to the GSL council.

40 · Country seat and London base. · Examples: Sir Philip Egerton, Lord Compton, Davies Gilbert. Sub Category U2 – Guideline Criteria

· Parents belonged to the ‘minor gentry’ or were established as leaders in one of the recognised professions. · Educated at Oxford, Cambridge, or a Military Academy. · Occupations mainly limited to the Established Church, Law, Army, Diplomacy and Medicine. · Generally financially independent. Annual income range: £500-5000. · Examples: C. Lyell, R.I. Murchison.

Sub Category U3 – Guideline Criteria

· Parents were typically members of the clergy, qualified physicians, or substantial business proprietors. · Occupations include leading London physician (educated at Edinburgh); major business proprietor (Oxbridge education). · Includes Oxbridge academics and Established Church clerics with annual income £150-250. Otherwise the income range is similar to the U2 sub- category. · Examples: H. Warburton, Sir A. Crichton, A. Sedgwick (until the mid- 1830s).

CATEGORY 2 – MEMBERS OF COUNCIL

This category comprises stratifications within a recently established and growing middle class.

Sub Category M1 – Guideline Criteria

· Parents commonly medium-sized business proprietors. · Members of the Established Church. · Occupations include Law and Medicine (but not Oxbridge educated); army surveyors; London-based professors. · Annual income: £ 250-2000. · Examples: W. Babington, Professor T. Bell, J. Bostock.

Sub Category M2 – Guideline Criteria

41 · Quaker or Unitarian business proprietors. · Non-university educated medical practitioners. · Income dependent on personal efforts with typical range £200-500, but more in the case of some Quakers. · Examples: A. Aikin, W.H. Pepys and G.A. Mantell (pre mid-1820s).

Sub Category M3 - Guideline Criteria

· Modest family background and circumstances. · Income usually in the range £150-250. · Occupations include draughtsman, museum curator. · Examples: J. Lindley, T. Webster.

(2) OCCUPATIONAL STATUS

In addition to the above six status stratifications, changes in the occupational status of the councillors are also analysed on a decade by decade basis using the broad occupational and social classifications set down below.

OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY DESCRIPTIVE CRITERIA

Acknowledged upper status back-ground. Financially independent. Independent Gentleman Examples: Sir Philip Egerton, Davies Gilbert.

Category 1 members of council who were predominantly engaged in geological or other specialist society activities whilst still Gentleman-specialist maintaining gentlemanly status, and in the case of members of the clergy, also fulfilled and their clerical responsibilities.

Clergyman-specialist Examples: C. Lyell R.I.M. Murchison, Rev. A. Sedgwick, and Rev. W.D. Conybeare.

Established Church, Army, Medicine, Law. Recognised Examples: W. Babington,

42 Professions R. Bright, Rev. J. Randolph

Income derived from proprietorial interests in Business proprietors banking, trade, or manufacturing.

Examples: J. Taylor, W.H. Pepys.

Full-time salaried positions Museum Curator, Librarian, London lecturer connected with natural history Examples: W. Clift, T. Webster.

(3) LONDON vs PROVINCIAL BASE

Another relevant factor connected with social status is provincialism, and the extent to which provincial members of the GSL, such as Mantell99 in the 1820s and 1830s, were able to participate in the Society’s activities and be elected to the council. Since the term ‘provincial’ has pejorative as well as geographical connotations, the following classifications have been adopted for all members of council in this particular analysis.

· London (L): Permanent residence in London. · Country/London (CL): Social Category 1 members of council who had a country seat and a London residence or were members of a recognised London club. · London Base (Lb): Members of council whose occupation entailed country or overseas travelling, but who had access to a London base, for example, Army Ordnance officers, diplomats and members of London clubs. · Cambridge/Oxford (CO): Members of council who held academic positions at either of these institutions. · Provincial-Clergy (PC): Members of the clergy situated in the country, but able to afford the time and expense to visit London whenever desired. · Provincial (P): Members of council situated in the country with no established London base and who could not afford to be absent from their occupational base for long and frequent periods.

(4) INSTITUTIONAL POWER AND STATUS

99 Until 1833 Mantell lived at Lewes, Sussex. In 1838 he moved from Brighton to Clapham Common, London.

43 Institutional status is an important factor. In addition to conferring prestige in its own right, it gives the holder both direct and indirect power to formulate agendas, decide priorities, facilitate publication of papers, and above all, to exclude. It also provides a base for networking and for the informal exchange of information and gossip. In the screening analyses, institutional status is defined and specified according to the senior positions held, and length of time served, on the GSL council. Other criteria of institutional power that are taken into account include election to the council of the Royal Society of London, and during the last two decades, service on the council of the BAAS. The introduction of these criteria ensures that a particular member of council was well regarded outside the bounds of the GSL. The various screening criteria concerning institutional status are summarised below.

44 INSTITUTIONAL STATUS CRITERIA

INSTITUTIONAL SCREENING CRITERIA NUMBER of MEMBERS of COUNCIL100

Members who served one term on 250 the GSL council during that decade

Members who held the position of President, Vice- President, Secretary, Foreign Secretary or Treasurer, and who also served on the council for 94 a minimum cumulative period of 3 years to the end of that decade.

Senior GSL office and 6 years cumulative council 66 service to the end of that decade.

Senior GSL service and 9 years cumulative 42 council service to the end of that decade.

Senior GSL service, 9 years cumulative council service to the end of that decade, plus election to 21 the council of the Royal Society of London.

(5) CONTEMPORARY GEOLOGICAL ACHIEVEMENT

In the analyses the initial measure of contemporary geological and scientific achievement is based on the number of publications made by each member of council in any of the following ways:

· Papers read to the GSL before 1 January 1851 and published in full or summary form in the Transactions, Proceedings, or Quarterly Journal of

100 These numbers include multiple counting since some members of council served over two or more decades.

45 the Geological Society of London. · All papers published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London and read before 1 January 1851. · Books published on geological, natural history or medical matters before 1 January 1851.

Articles published in other journals, such as the Annals of Philosophy or The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, have been excluded for reasons of expediency, since the purpose of the analyses is to identify those members of council who were relatively more active in geological investigations and who published in the more specialist journals. In the final and more rigorous screenings, the awarding of the Royal and Copley medals by the Royal Society of London, and the Wollaston medal by the GSL, are used as additional criteria of contemporary geological achievement.

2.2.3 SOURCES OF INFORMATION

The major source for biographical details of members of the GSL council has been The Dictionary of National Biography,101 supplemented by the following additional references:102

· Dictionary of Scientific Biography (18 vols), 1970. · Foster, J., Alumni Oxoniensis, 1715-1886 (2 vols), 1968. · Record of the Royal Society, London, 1912. · Sarjeant, W.A., Geologists and the History of Geology (5 vols), 1980. · Stenton, M. (ed.), Who's Who of British Members of Parliament, Vol. 1, 1832-1885, 1976. · Venn, J.A., Alumni Cantabrigiensis, Part II, 1754-1900 (6 vols), 1951. · Woodward, H.B., The History of the Geological Society of London, 1908.

Additionally, data have been obtained from the Obituary notices contained in

101 L. Stephen and S. Lee (eds), The Dictionary of National Biography, (22 vols), Oxford University Press, London, 1949-50. 102 Full details of these well-known references are contained in the bibliography of the thesis.

46 the President’s annual report of both the GSL and Royal Society of London103 and in The Gentleman’s Magazine.104 Information concerning the number of publications of each of the GSL members of council was obtained from four main sources:

· The Table of Contents of each volume of the Transactions, Proceedings, and Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, from 1811 until 1851. These data have been cross-checked against the summaries contained in A Classified Index to the Transactions, Proceedings, and Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London.105 106 · Index to the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London 1800-1905. 107 · The English Catalogue of Books...,1801-1836, and The English Catalogue of Books from 1835-1863.108 · Catalogue of Scientific Papers (1800-1863) compiled and published by the Royal Society of London, vols. 1-6, London, 1867-72.

Details concerning the election of members of the GSL council, and offices held, have been obtained from Woodward’s History of the Geological Society of London109 and the Transactions, Proceedings, and Quarterly Journal of the GSL.

2.2.4 PROCEDURES

103 Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1827-1845, 1-4, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 1845-80, 1-36; Abstracts of the Papers communicated to the Royal Society of London, 1832-50, 1-6; and Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 1830-55, 7 -30. 104 The Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical Chronicle, London, 1820-1869. 105 G.W. Ormerod, A Classified Index to the Transactions, Proceedings, and Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London: including all the memoirs and notices to the end of 1868., 2nd, edition, London, 1870. 106 Index to the Proceedings of the Royal Society of London (Old Series), Vols 1-75, 1800-1905, Harrison and Sons, London, 1913. 107 R.A. Peddie and Q. Waddington (eds), The English Catalogue of Books: giving in one Alphabet, under Author, Title and Subject, the Size, Price, Month and Year of publication, and Publisher of Books Issued in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. 1801-1836, The Publishers Circular Limited, London, 1914. 108 S. Low, The English Catalogue of Books from 1835 to 1863 published from January 1835, to January 1863, Sampson Low, Son and Marston, London, 1864.

47 The basic procedure adopted in the prosopographic and screening analyses consists of a succession of straightforward, screening processes. The backgrounds of all members of council are juxtaposed against increasingly rigorous criteria relating to institutional power and geological achievement. Specific difficulties encountered are noted in the accompanying text.

109 Woodward, op. cit. (note 16), pp. 286-308.

48 2.4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The aims of the various prosopographic and screening analyses are to discern any changes or trends in the overall social composition of members of the GSL council over the four decades; to examine the characteristics of those members of council who attained both high institutional and geological achievement status; to identify, at least provisionally, those who could qualify as members of a geological ‘elite’; and finally, to note any relevant factors that may have had a mitigating influence or effect on Mantell’s career in particular. The results of the analyses follow and are discussed in the same order as these aims. Summary prospographic details of all members of council are contained in Appendix 1.

2.3.1 OVERALL TRENDS IN MEMBERS OF THE GSL COUNCIL

(1) GENERAL SOCIAL AND OCCUPATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

TABLE 2.2 – TRENDS IN SOCIAL STATUS OF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL

` STATUS 1807 1820 1830 1840 - - - - CATEGORY 1820 1830 1840 1850

Number of members of council 61 71 60 58

Number in Social Category 1 30 38 41 39 ( U1 - U3 ) 49% 53% 68% 67%

Number in Social Category 2 26 29 17 19 ( M1 - M3 ) 43% 41% 28% 33%

Social Category not 5 4 2 - determined110 8% 6% 4% 0%

110 Members of council whose social status was not determined due to incomplete information are: 1807-1820: – A. Apsley, S. Davis, A. Jaffray, T. Murdoch, E.W. Rundell; 1820-1830 – T.C. Harrison, F. Moysey, T. Smith, and J. Vine; 1830-1840: – A. K. Barclay and A. Robe.

49 TABLE 2.3–OCCUPATIONAL STATUS OF MEMBERS OF GSL COUNCIL

1807 1820 1830 1840 OCCUPATIONAL STATUS - - - - 1820 1830 1840 1850

Number of Members of 61 71 60 58 Council 100% 100% 100% 100%

Independent Gentlemen 15 15 16 16 25% 21% 27% 27%

Gentleman and Clergyman 3 8 14 15 - specialists 5% 11% 23% 26%

23 30 21 14 Recognised 38% 42% 35% 24% Professions

11 7 2 5 Business Proprietors 18% 10% 3% 9%

5 7 6 7 Curators, 8% 10% 10% 12% Lecturers

4 4 1 1 Not determined111 6% 6% 2% 2%

Although there are no pronounced trends evident in the above tables, several observations can still be made. First, after 1830 the percentage of Social Category 1 members of council increases from one half to a more dominant two-thirds. This increase is also reflected in changes in the overall

111 Members of council whose occupational status was not determined due to insufficient data are: 1807-1820: – S. Davis, A. Jaffray, T. Murdoch, and E.W. Rundell; 1820-1830: – T.C. Harrison, F. Moysey, T. Smith, and J. Vine; 1830-1840: – A.K. Barclay; 1840-1850: – S.P. Pratt.

50 occupational pattern. After 1830, those members of council meeting the criteria of ‘gentleman or clergyman-specialist’ emerge as a distinct group, constituting 23 to 26 per cent of councillors compared to 5 to 11 per cent during the previous two decades, when the terms were essentially confined to the Oxbridge academics, Buckland, Sedgwick and Tennant.112 A further reason for the increased proportion of Social Category 1 members of council after 1830 is an increase in the number of members in the U3 sub-category, due to successful and ambitious professionals, as well as established business proprietors, advancing from the M1 sub-category. Members of council reflecting this increased social status are the surgeon Sir Alexander Crichton,113 the sculptor Sir Francis Chantrey,114 and those now less occupied with their business interests, such as Leonard Horner and John Taylor.115 This trend is illustrated in the next two tables.

TABLE 2.4 – STATUS TRENDS OF GSL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL

CATEGORY 1

112 Smithson Tennant (1761-1815). Professor of Chemistry, Cambridge University, 1813-15. DNB. 113 Sir Alexander Crichton (1763-1856). Edinburgh and European educated surgeon and physician. Member of GSL council 1824-27, 1830-31 and 1836-37. DNB and Woodward, op. cit. (note 16), on p. 301. 114 Sir Francis Chantrey (1781-1841). Sculptor born in humble circumstances. FRS 1818, Knighted in 1835. Member of GSL council 1830-31, 1833-34 and 1841-42. DNB and Woodward, op. cit. (note 16), on p. 301. 115 John Taylor (1779-1863). Born into a prosperous Unitarian family. Became a major figure in British mining activities. Member of GSL council 1815-22 and 1823-45 and Treasurer 1816-21 and 1823-43. DNB and Woodward, op. cit. (note 16), pp. 298 and 306.

51 STATUS CATEGORY 1807-20 1820-30 1830-40 1840-50

Number of Members of Council 61 71 60 58

8 13 10 11 U1 13% 18% 17% 19%

12 14 16 14 U2 20% 20% 26% 24%

10 11 15 14 U3 16% 15% 25% 24%

30 38 41 39 Total Category 1 49% 53% 68% 67%

TABLE 2.4 (continued)

CATEGORY 2

STATUS CATEGORY 1807-20 1820-30 1830-40 1840-50

16 19 10 17 M1 26% 27% 17% 29%

8 6 6 2 M2 13% 8% 10% 4%

2 4 1 - M3 3% 6% 2% -

Total Category 2 26 29 17 19 43% 41% 29% 33%

5 4 2 - Not determined 8% 6% 3% -

Another factor explaining the decline in the proportion of members of council in Social Category 2 from around forty per cent during the first two decades, to thirty per cent after 1830, was the retirement of the former Askesian

52 Society Quakers, W. Allen,116 W.H. Pepys,117 Richard118 and William Phillips119 and Samuel Woods.120 The gradual exodus of this particular sub- group is also a major factor in explaining the decline in the percentage of members of council engaged in business activities after 1830. A further point relating to Social Category 2 is the relatively small percentage of members of council belonging to the M3 sub-category during each of the four decades.

(2) MEMBERSHIP OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON

TABLE 2.5 – TRENDS IN MEMBERSHIP OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF LONDON BY MEMBERS OF THE GSL COUNCIL

1807-20 1820-30 1830-40 1840-50

Number of members of council 61 71 60 58

Number who were FRS 43 51 49 44 by the end of decade

Percentage 70% 72% 82% 76%

The consistently high percentage of members of the GSL council who were Fellows of the Royal Society of London by the end of the decade in which they served on the GSL council, can be regarded as an indication of the prestige of the GSL council. However, only 46% of all councillors had been

116 William Allen (1770-1843). Chemist. FRS. Son of a Quaker silk manufacturer. Original member of GSL and member of council 1808-10. DNB. 117 William Hasledine Pepys (1775-1856). Quaker manufacturer of surgical instruments. Helped to found the Askesian Socety. Original member of GSL and member of council 1807-19 and 1820-28. DNB. 118 Richard Phillips (1778-1851). Son of a Quaker London printer and book-seller and brother of William. Chemist. FRS. Co-founder of the Askesian Society. Original member of GSL and member of council 1808-11. DNB 119 William Phillips (1775-1828). Quaker printer and book-seller. FRS. Co-founder of the Askesian Society and original GSL member. Member of GSL council 1810-13. DNB. 120 Samuel Woods. Early member of Askesian Society. Quaker. Member of GSL council 1809-15. Inkster, op. cit. (note 27), p. 22 and Woodward, op. cit. (note 16), p. 308.

53 elected as Fellows of the Royal Society at the time of their election to the GSL council.

1807 - 1820 1807 - 1850 No. % No. % FRS before election to GSL council 28 46% 78 46%

FRS after election to GSL council 23121 38% 58 34%

GSL members of council who were not elected FRS 10 16% 33 20%

TOTAL 61 100% 169 100%

(3) LONDON vs PROVINCIAL BASE

Because Mantell was based in provincial towns until 1838, the purpose of this particular analysis was to identify the number of other provincial members of council in the Society.

121 This figure includes members of council who became FRS after 1820.

54 TABLE 2.6 – DOMESTIC BASE OF MEMBERS OF THE GSL COUNCIL

1807-20 1820-30 1830-40 1840-50

No. of Members of Council 61 71 60 58 London (L) 36 39 31 31 Country/London (CL) 14 19 14 16 London base (Lb) 4 8 7 6 Cambridge-Oxford (CO) 2 2 6 4 Provincial-clergy (PC) 2 1 2 - Provincial (P) - 1 - 1 Unknown122 3 1 - -

None of the four members of council classified as Provincial-clergy123 would have been regarded by their contemporaries as a ‘provincial’ in a socially derogatory sense. This observation would also have applied to the Oxbridge academics such as Buckland, Sedgwick, Henslow,124 and Hopkins125. Thus the only two members of council classified as truly provincial are Gideon Mantell126 of Lewes (1825-1826) and James Smith127 of Glasgow, (1841- 1842). However, there is a significant difference between the circumstances of these two men. In 1825, when Mantell was elected to his first term on the GSL council, he was entirely financially dependent on his busy medical practice at Lewes. In contrast, Smith was independently wealthy, with a substantial income from a silent partnership in a West India merchant firm.

122 Members of council whose domestic base was not determined are: 1807-20: – Capt. A. Apsley, S. Davis, and A. Jaffray; 1820-30: – T. Smith. 123 Clergymen in this category were: 1807-1820 - Rev. E.J. Burrow (P.C. of Bempton Yorks 1810- 16) and Rev. M. Raine (Headmaster, Charterhouse School 1791-1811); 1820-1830: Revd. W.D. Conybeare (Based near Bristol until 1836 when he presented himself to the family living of Axminster); 1830-1840: Rev. W.D. Conybeare and Rev. J.H. Randolph (Rector of Northolt, Middlesex, 1822-35). Conybeare was the only one of the four who published any papers on geology. 124 Rev. John Stevens Henslow (1796-1861). Professor of Mineralogy, Cambridge University, 1822- 27 and subsequently Professor of Botany 1827-61. DNB. 125William Hopkins (1793-1866). Cambridge mathematician and geologist. DNB. 126G.A. Mantell also served as a GSL member of council from 1841-44 when he resided at Crescent Lodge, Clapham Common, London, and from 1847-52, when he lived at 19 Chester Square, Pimlico. 127 James Smith (1782-1867). Eldest son of Archibald Smith, a West India merchant. Lived at Jordanhill, near Glasgow. FRS 1830. Served as President of the Geological Society of Glasgow.

55 Moreover, from 1839 to 1849, a period that includes his one year of service on the GSL council, Smith spent much of his time abroad because of concerns for his family’s health. This analysis therefore highlights Mantell as essentially the singular ‘provincial’ on the GSL council during the period 1807 to 1850.

(4) GEOLOGICAL ACHIEVEMENTS OF MEMBERS OF COUNCIL

TABLE 2.7 – GEOLOGICAL PUBLICATIONS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS

CRITERIA 1807-20 1820-30 1830-40 1840-50

Number of members of 61 71 60 58 council

Number of members of 29 25 17 10 council who did not publish 48% 35% 28% 17% during that decade

Members of council who had 10 21 24 31 published 3 or more geological papers 16% 30% 40% 53% cumulatively by the end of decade

The pattern of increased publication by GSL members of council over the four decades is not surprising. The above table becomes more meaningful, however, when used in conjunction with those detailing trends in institutional power.

Studied glacial questions and was an authority on ancient ship-building. DNB.

56 2.3.2 TRENDS IN GSL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL WHO SERVED ON THE COUNCIL FOR A MINIMUM PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AND WHO ALSO HELD SENIOR OFFICE IN THAT DECADE.

57 TABLE 2.8 – SOCIAL STATUS TRENDS

SOCIAL CATEGORY 1807-20 1820-30 1830-40 1840-50

Number of members of council 25 26 19 24

12 15 16 20 Social Category 1 48% 58% 84% 83%

13 11 3 4 Social Category 2 52% 42% 16% 17%

TABLE 2.9 – OCCUPATIONAL TRENDS

OCCUPATIONAL STATUS 1807-20 1820-30 1830-40 1840-50

8 4 6 7 Independent Gentlemen 32% 15% 32% 29%

Gentleman and Clergyman 1 5 9 10 Specialists 4% 19% 47% 42%

Recognised Professions 7 9 3 4 28% 35% 16% 17%

Business Proprietors 6 6 - 2 24% 23% 8%

Curators / Lecturers 3 2 1 1 12% 8% 5% 4%

58 TABLE 2.10 – PROVINCIALS AND ROYAL SOCIETY STATUS

(Councillors with 3 years service and who held senior office in that decade)

1807-20 1820-30 1830-40 1840-50

Number of members of council 25 26 19 24

Provincial Clergymen - 1 1128 - 4% 5%

Provincials - - - -

17 21 17 17 F.R.S. 68% 81% 89% 71%

Also served on the council of 1 2 10 14 the Royal Society 4% 8% 53% 58%

The general trends revealed in the previous analyses covering all members of the GSL council become more accentuated when the investigations are restricted to those who held senior office and served on the council for a minimum of three years. Furthermore, the change in the 1830s is particularly pronounced. The percentage of members of council in Social Category 1 increases from around 55 per cent to 83 per cent (Table 2.8) and the ‘gentleman and clergyman-specialists’ emerge as the largest occupational group, comprising 42-47 per cent of members of council meeting the more rigorous institutional criteria (Table 2.9). The decline in the relative number of business proprietors, as well as council members engaged in the traditional professions, is also a prominent feature of the last two decades. Additionally, the emergence of a ‘power elite’ is indicated by the post- 1830 increase from 8 per cent to more than 50 per cent in the number of members of council who also served on the council of the Royal Society of

128 Rev. W.D. Conybeare was the GSL member of council during both decades.

59 London. A further point is the absence of any provincials in this more restricted group. 2.3.3 IDENTIFICATION OF A GEOLOGICAL ELITE

The starting base for the final series of screening tests comprises those members of council who held senior GSL office during that particular decade, and who also served on the council for a minimum, cumulative period of three years. Since previous analyses indicate significant changes after 1830, the methodology adopted has been to progressively increase the criteria for both institutional status and geological achievement until a marked change in the percentage pattern occurs after that year. This occurs after the application of the fourth series of screening criteria, as indicated in the following table.

60 TABLE 2.11 – SCREENING CRITERIA FOR IDENTIFYING A GEOLOGICAL ELITE

Number and Percentage of Members of Council

Screening Criteria 1807-20 1820-30 1830-40 1840-50

1. Senior GSL office, 25 26 19 24 Member of council 3 years. 100% 100% 100% 100%

2. Senior GSL Office, 11 18 16 21 Member of council 6 years. 44% 69% 84% 87%

3. Senior GSL Office, Member of council 6 years, 5 14 15 18 min. of 3 geological or 5 20% 54% 79% 75% natural history publications (cum.) by the end of that decade.

4. Senior GSL Office, Member of council 6 years, 3 8 12 17 min. of 5 geological or 10 12% 31% 63% 71% natural history publications (cum.) by the end of that decade.

61 (1) LIST 1 – SCREENING CRITERIA No. 4

TABLE 2.12 – LIST 1

MEMBERS OF COUNCIL IDENTIFIED AFTER SCREENING CRITERIA No. 4

1807-20 1820-30 1830-40 1840-50

3 members of 8 members of 12 members of 17 members of council council council council

Aikin Aikin Austen130

Buckland Buckland Buckland

Conybeare Darwin

Daubeny

De la Beche De la Beche

Egerton Egerton

Fitton Fitton Fitton

Hamilton Hamilton

Horner Horner

Lyell Lyell Lyell

Macculloch Macculloch

Mantell

Murchison Murchison

Owen

Sedgwick Sedgwick

Sharpe

Taylor Taylor Taylor

Webster Whewell Whewell Wollaston Wollaston129

129 Whewell and Wollaston were the only two on this list who produced a minimum of 10 Natural History publications rather than a minimum of 5 Geological publications. 130 Later Godwin-Austen (1808-1884).

62 (2) SCREENING CRITERIA No. 5 – LIST 2

Criteria selected for the following, more rigorous screening analysis are:

· Members of GSL council must have held senior GSL office during that decade, besides having served for a cumulative period of six years on the GSL council by the end of that decade. · Produced a minimum of 10 Geological or 20 Natural History publications by the end of that decade. · Also served on the council of either the Royal Society of London or The British Association for the Advancement of Science. · Was a recipient or future recipient of the Copley or Royal Medal from the Royal Society of London or the Wollaston Medal from the GSL.

The above criteria for institutional power and contemporary geological achievement are considerably more demanding than those applying to screening criteria No. 4 in List 1. In all, thirteen members of council, including Mantell and Lyell, met these more stringent requirements.

63 TABLE 2.13 – LIST 2

MEMBERS OF COUNCIL IDENTIFIED AFTER SCREENING CRITERIA No. 5

1807-20 1820-30 1830-40 1840-50 Buckland Buckland Buckland Conybeare131 Darwin De la Beche De la Beche Egerton Fitton Lyell Lyell Mantell Murchison Murchison Owen Sedgwick Sedgwick Whewell Whewell Wollaston Wollaston

(3) SCREENING CRITERIA No. 6 – LIST No. 3.

In the final screening test, the requirement concerning the senior office held in the GSL includes a term as President of the Society and the minimum time spent on the council has been increased from six to nine years. Additionally, the number of cumulative geological publications has been increased to 15, or 30 in the case of natural history.

131 Conybeare only published 9, and not 10, of the prescribed publications up to the end of the decade. However, he published additional, significant papers in the Philosophical Magazine and BAAS Reports.

64 TABLE 2.14 – LIST 3

MEMBERS IDENTIFIED AFTER FINAL SCREENING CRITERIA.

1807-20 1820-30 1830-40 1840-50

Buckland Buckland Buckland

De la Beche

Fitton

Lyell Lyell

Murchison Murchison

Sedgwick Sedgwick

Whewell Whewell

These final and most rigorous screening criteria reveal an identified elite of seven members of the GSL council, including Lyell, but not Mantell. Further analyses and investigations need to be carried out to ascertain if this group constitutes all, or even most members, of an acknowledged geological elite.

2.3.4 SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COUNCILLORS IDENTIFIED IN FINAL LIST 3.

65 TABLE 2.15 – SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MEMBERS OF COUNCIL IDENTIFIED IN THE FINAL SCREENING ANALYSIS

MEMBER SOCIAL OCCUPATIONAL OF BASE CATEGORY STATUS COUNCIL

Buckland U3-U2 Oxford Clergyman-specialist

De la Beche U3-U2 London Gentleman-specialist

Lyell U2 London Gentleman-specialist

Fitton U3-U2 London Gentleman-specialist

Murchison U2 London Gentleman-specialist

Sedgwick U3-U2 Cambridge Clergyman-specialist

Whewell M1-U3 Cambridge Clergyman-specialist

The social and occupational characteristics of the post-1830 members of council who emerged from the final screening analysis are remarkably uniform. All are ‘gentleman-specialists’ or ‘clergyman-specialists’ with a residential base either in London, or at one of the two major English universities. Although all are in Social Category 1, none is in the more exclusive, sub-category, U1. It is also notable that most progressed socially during the course of their careers. Indeed, a reasonable case could be made that both Lyell and Murchison approached U1 status after being awarded their baronetcies in 1864 and 1866 respectively.

66 2.3.5 EXCLUSIONS

(1) COUNCILLORS ON PENULTIMATE LIST 2 BUT EXCLUDED FROM FINAL LIST 3.

TABLE 2.16 – MEMBERS OF COUNCIL EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL LIST

SOCIAL BASE OCCUPATIONAL CATEGORY STATUS

1807-30

Wollaston U2 L. Gentleman

1830-40

Conybeare U2 Bristol132 Clergyman-specialist

1840-50

Darwin U2 CL. Gentleman-specialist

Egerton U1 CL. Gentleman

Mantell M1 L. Surgeon-Physician

Owen M1 L. Comparative anatomist

There are some significant differences in the background characteristics of those members excluded by the final screening criteria, compared to the ‘gentleman and clergyman-specialists’ who exclusively comprised the final list. Wollaston was a physiologist and metallurgist rather than a geologist, although in many respects he can be regarded as a predecessor of the ‘gentleman-specialist’. After 1830, Conybeare’s geological output declined

132 In 1823 Conybeare removed to the vicarage of Sully in Glamorganshire. He subsequently held the curacy of Banbury near Bristol. In 1836 he presented himself to the family living at Axminster, Devonshire. DNB.

67 markedly,133 and he became more occupied with other interests. Although Darwin had much in common with the ‘gentleman- specialists’ in List 3, he was less occupied with geological matters during the latter half of the 1840’s. Sir Philip Egerton can be regarded as an archetype of the declining group of aristocratic ‘amateurs’. The most relevant exclusions are Mantell and Owen. Both men came from non-Category 1 backgrounds, and both had no private means and were financially dependent on their personal exertions. Above all, both men were intensely ambitious for scientific fame. Mantell was excluded from List 3 because he did not attain the position of President of the GSL and less importantly, served on the GSL council for seven and not ten years. The reasons for Owen’s omission are similar.

(2) OTHER EXCLUSIONS

The geologists identified in List 3 as members of a prosopographic elite were selected through the combined application of two different types of screening criteria. Consequently, potential candidates who had outstanding qualifications in regard to only one of these two criteria would have been excluded; more specifically, those who did not become a GSL councillor, but who nevertheless carried out important geological investigations, and those whose geological output was limited, but who had considerable institutional power. Two such figures can be identified, John Phillips and Greenough. Phillips was provincially based in York until 1840 and was not elected to the GSL council until 1853. However, well before his election to the GSL council, Phillips had completed some widely recognised and important studies on the geology of Yorkshire and published several notable books134 on this region. He was awarded the Wollaston Medal in 1845 and his geological career was one of distinction. In contrast, Greenough only produced two

133 By 1830 Conybeare had published 11 papers with the GSL and co-authored an important geological book with W. Phillips. After 1830 he published one paper with the GSL and one memoir on a landslip in Devon.

134 J. Phillips, Illustrations of the geology of Yorkshire; or, a description of the strata and organic remains of the Yorkshire coast: accompanied by a geological map, sections, and plates of the fossil plants and animals, Part I. The Yorkshire coast, York, 1829; Part 2. The Mountain Limestone District, Murray, London, 1836.

68 geological publications135 during the period 1807 to 1850, but was President of the GSL for three terms and served on the council continuously for 48 years. Phillips and Greenough are the only two notable omissions from Lists 1, 2 and 3. Their careers and geological contributions are taken into account in the following chapter.

2.4 CONCLUSIONS

The prosopographic analyses exhibit several notable changes in the nature and pattern of members of the GSL council after 1830. One of the more significant of these changes is the emergence of the ‘gentleman and clergyman-specialists’ as a distinct group. In the period 1807 to 1830 the percentage of members of council who could be so classified was 5 to 11 per cent. In the 1830s this percentage increased to 23 per cent and to 26 per cent in the 1840s. This trend becomes even more marked when the members of council studied are restricted to those who held senior office and who served on the council for more than three years. Using these criteria, the ‘gentleman- and clergyman-specialists’ exceeded 40 per cent. Another associated trend is the increased upper status nature of the GSL council after 1830, with those belonging to Social Category 1 increasing from one-half to two-thirds. Using the more restrictive criteria of senior office and three years’ council service, such members of council accounted for more than eighty per cent during the last two decades. In addition to the entry of the ‘gentleman-specialists’, other factors explaining this trend are the retirement of the former Askesian Society Quakers who belonged to Social Category 2, and the social advancement of ambitious and successful professionals and established business proprietors, such as Horner and Taylor. The advent of the 1830s also marks a divide in the analysis indicating trends in the institutional power of members of council. During the 1830s an ongoing cadre of members of council emerged who had held senior office, were continually re-elected to the council, and in a wider context, also served

135 G.B. Greenough, A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology, Longman, London, 1819; and ‘Memoir to accompany the Second Edition of the Geological Map of England and Wales’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1843-45, 3, p.180. Also, in 1820, Greenough, with the help of Conybeare, Buckland and Warburton, ‘coloured’ and published Webster’s large scale map of England and Wales. DNB.

69 on the council of the Royal Society of London. There was no such clearly defined group before 1830. A significant observation, rather than a trend, is that out of the 169 members of council who served from 1807 until 1850, only two, Mantell (1825-26) of Lewes, Sussex, and Smith (1841-42) of Jordanhill, near Glasgow, had a provincial base, excluding the four members who were classified as ‘provincial-clergy’ and the Oxbridge academics. The importance of this factor, and its influence on Mantell’s career, is examined in chapter four. Several observations can be made about the 13 members of council who met the requirements of screening criteria No. 5 and are on penultimate List 2. First, there is only one member of council, the relatively older Wollaston,136 a physiologist and metallurgist rather than a geologist, listed for the period 1807-1820. In the following decade, 1820 to 1830, he was joined by the ‘clergyman-geologist’, Buckland, the only member of council so identified for each of three decades. In contrast, seven members are identified in the 1830-1840 decade, and eleven for the period 1840 to 1850. This supports the earlier indication that 1830 marked a watershed in the affairs and development of the Society. It also suggests that it was not until 1830 that a geological elite emerged or could emerge. Second, it is notable that penultimate List 2 includes two Social Category 2 members of council, Mantell (1841-44 and 1847-52) and Owen (1844-48), neither of whom had independent means. It is not until the final criterion of Presidency of the GSL is introduced that these two men are effectively eliminated from the final list of the identified elite. By stipulating this requirement, the seven identified members of council are revealed as belonging to Social Category 1, and more significantly, to the group identified as ‘gentleman or clergyman-specialists’. By their very nature prosopographic and associated screening studies are limited to highlighting the makeup, trends, and changing patterns of a specific group of actors over a particular period of time. They do not explain, directly, how and why such changes occur, except perhaps inferentially. The fact that all members of council on final List 3 belonged to Social Category 1 does not explain Mantell’s exclusion. Further investigations need to be focused on one or more of the factors associated

70 with this status such as education, a London base, an established network of influential contacts and adequate private means to ensure sufficient time for geological investigations and travel. These factors are examined in chapter four, with special attention being given as to how they affected Lyell and Mantell. Likewise, the various analyses do not explain why an apparent geological elite emerged after 1830. To this end the next chapter of this thesis explores the nature of the geological work carried out by the identified elite, and that of Lyell and Mantell in particular.

136 Wollaston was 54 years of age in 1820 and died in 1828 .

71 CHAPTER THREE

THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK CARRIED OUT BY MANTELL, LYELL, AND MEMBERS OF THE IDENTIFIED ELITE

The geological work of the members of council identified in the two final screening tests, as well as that of the selected exceptions, Greenough and Phillips, is examined here with the aim of demonstrating that the principal geological work of each of the elite geologists encompassed a distinct area or segment of the discipline, including distinctive methodologies and practices, where they were regarded as the leading authorities, or exponents, by their peers. The analyses of the nature, scope, and importance of the work of the identified 15 geologists is carried out on a decade-by-decade basis, enabling trends to be detected and related to findings from the other main chapters. Consequently, this chapter contains a considerable amount of detailed. material. Particular emphasis is given to the geological investigations of Mantell and Lyell. Reviews of the literature relating to the geological work carried out during the 1820s, 1830s and 1840s are also carried out on a decade-by-decade basis; they are included in the respective studies of the identified geologists, since significant segments of the necessary analyses have been at least partly covered in the secondary literature. This observation particularly applies to important detailed studies on the stratigraphic investigations of Murchison and Sedgwick.1 The relevant literature on Lyell’s work is also considerable. The geological publications of the identified geologists provide the main focus for the analyses in this chapter. Since there were often considerable delays between the reading and publishing of GSL papers during the period 1820-1840, the reference date for all papers discussed is the year in which they were read.

1 See M.J.S. Rudwick, The Great Devonian Controversy: The Shaping of Scientific Knowledge among Gentlemanly Specialists, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1985, and J.A. Secord, Controversy in Victorian Geology: The Cambrian-Silurian Dispute, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986.

62 3.1 THE CONCEPT OF A GEOLOGICAL DOMAIN

Because of the proprietorial overtones of the concept, the term ‘domain’ has been selected in preference to alternatives such as territory, province, area, or cognitive field, which have less possessive connotations. Several other aspects are worth noting. First, the existence of personal ‘geological domains’ was usually tacitly and informally acknowledged by each practitioner’s geological peers, but rarely codified. One instance, however, appears in Conybeare’s 1822 paper on the Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus,2 in which he apologised for “intruding on the province of the comparative anatomist” [Sir Everard Home (1756-1832)]. Morrell offers another example, “As early as 1835 Colby had assured Murchison that the [Geological] survey would not trespass on Murchison’s ‘district’ for at least four years”.3 Another feature concerns the various phases in the development sequence of each domain. In the first stage, a new field of geological investigation or interpretation needs to be identified and instigated. This can be achieved by the geologist serendipitously, or from analysing particular situations and identifying potential opportunities. Sedgwick was in no doubt about Murchison’s luck in ‘discovering’ what came to be called Silurian strata on the Welsh borderland in 1831, and wrote to him as follows after reading and disagreeing with Murchison’s version of events:

Buckland you told me, gave you your line of march. It was rich in organics and abounded by igneous rocks; and you told me, by letter, that your main object was to see the pranks the igneous rocks were playing. Starting there without any anticipation of what has turned up, you stumbled upon a rich field and have since gathered an ample harvest after enormous labours.4

2 W.D. Conybeare, ‘Additional Notices on the Fossil Genera Ichthyosaurus and Plesiosaurus’, TGSL, 1822, 1, pp. 103-123 on p. 123. 3 J.B. Morrell, ‘London Institutions and Lyell’s Career: 1820-41’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 32, pp. 132-146 on p. 141 (note 45), where the quoted extract is in a letter from Buckland to Murchison, 12 March 1835, Devon Record Office, D.138 M/F 221. 4 H.S. Torrens, ‘The scientific ancestry and historiography of The Silurian System’, Journal of the Geological Society of London, 1990, 147, pp. 657-662 on p. 660; quoting from Sedgwick to Murchison, 25 January 1836, Geological Society Archives, M/S11/96b.

63 In contrast to the claimed fortuitous manner in which Murchison initially stumbled across his Silurian domain, Lyell was very much a proponent of the analytical approach. In a letter written to Mantell on 23 March 1829, Lyell identified a major geological opportunity for Mantell to exploit and thereby gain the fame he yearned for. In effect, Lyell set out a ‘career blue-print’ for Mantell to follow. In writing this letter, Lyell indirectly revealed himself to be a master in the art of fashioning a geological career. The relevant section of this letter, omitted by Katherine Lyell in her Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell,5 is set down below:

Now that Mantellias are becoming numerous and other honours you must keep up to your reputation which is high by confining your attention & concentrating it in future on that department in Geol.y where you are strongest & least in danger of being rivalled. I feel my own honour a little compromised in the affair, as a friend of mine had the impudence at the Soc.y on Friday to call you as he addressed another celebrated geologist ‘the man whom Lyell here & some folks abroad choose to make much of’ – of course in private conversation; in a coterie of which I was one. Now, I have sworn with myself that you shall show them ere many years are over who & what you are & put to the blush the jealous unwillingness which most metropolitan monopolists in Science both in France & here exhibit towards all such as happen not to breathe their own exclusive atmosphere. But you must concentrate. Cut Botany, except as a collector. Give up all ideas of a popular book on Wonders of Geol.y which would yield cash only. Of course you will not attempt to tilt with Fitton & me ‘on the general principles of Geol.y’ which we mean soon (mine will be soon) to give you. After all my travelling & reading I find it too much to dare & only excusable when I measure my strength against others & not with the subject. But from this moment resolve to bring out a general work on ‘British fossil reptiles & fish’ – Clift has not time & never will have – Buckland is divided amongst a 100 things & no anatomist. Conybeare [has] no time to devote himself to such a branch. Cuvier can not come to fossil fish in 4 or 5 years & must then quote you. His new book on fish enables you to start fair with others as to modern fish. Your book may be made popular even & contain recent zoological geology like Cuvier’s last. Our fossil fish lie within small compass as yet. You must run up often to town. After you have worked quietly to the point for a year & ½ or more, then out with a prodromus à la Adolphe B.[rongniart] Fish & reptiles will then be sent & lent in abundance from all Museums. You must purchase some from Lyme Regis &

5 K.M. Lyell (ed.), Life, Letters, and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart., author of ‘Principles of Geology &c’, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1881.

64 many books & say nothing for a while. By this you may render yourself truly great which without much travelling you will never become in general geoly. The field is yours – but might not remain open many years. It is worthy of ambition & the only one which in an equally short time you could make your own in England for ever.6

Lyell’s advice concerning the identification and delineation of a new geological domain embraces a combination of the principles of war and a strategic business plan. Its essence can be summed up as follows:

· Analyse your strengths and weaknesses. · Analyse the strengths and weaknesses of your opponents to determine potential opportunities. · Develop a clearly defined goal; but do not compete with your mentor (Lyell !). · Build on your strengths. Maintain and develop your alliances. · Obtain the necessary resources to achieve your goal and work secretly until a suitable base has been established. · Attack when ready; issue a prodromus; secure your reputation.

Lyell’s approach also reveals another characteristic of the first stage in establishing a geological domain: a penchant for secrecy, so that a head- start can be made, and potential competitors forestalled. Lyell also practised what he preached. After outlining to Mantell some aspects of his joint scheme with Deshayes to classify the Tertiary shells of the various European basins, Lyell gave the following admonition:

No-one but yourself & Deshayes is privy to these state secrets as yet & till I get in further I have no wish to advantage them. I treat you in this request as a friend sans ceremony.7

The second or middle step in the fashioning of a geological domain is characterised by establishing priority for the research claims in the particular investigative field. It is at this stage that informal proprietary

6 CL to GAM, 23 March 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 55). 7 CL to GAM, 24 February 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 53).

65 rights are acknowledged and barriers of entry erected by virtue of the head- start obtained and priority secured. Interlopers are thereby discouraged from entering this area of activity. In the final stage of the sequence, the tacitly acknowledged proprietorship factor, which is basically antithetical to the institutional norms of science, wanes in significance and is replaced by enhanced reputation and recognition as an authority. In an archetypal case, the Silurian System was regarded not merely as Murchison’s domain: Murchison was recognised as ‘King of Siluria’. In effect, the means (proprietorial rights over a domain) merged into the goal (fame and recognition). Another important feature of geological domains is that their nature and extent vary widely, because of differences in both kind and degree. There are basic distinctions between ‘taxonomic’ and ‘causal’ categories of geological domains. Stratigraphic domains can range in extent from a sub- stage stratum in a particular district to a complete system such as the Silurian in England, Europe, or the world. Likewise, ‘causal’ domains range from an explanation of a specific, local phenomenon, such as the ‘roads’ of Glen Roy in Scotland, to an overall theory of glaciation. A basic requirement of the concept is that it encompasses all aspects and variations of geological activity. Four categories of geological domain are outlined and proposed, following the literature review on this topic.

3.1.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature concerning scientific and geological domains is relatively sparse in a direct sense, but is nevertheless indirectly pervasive. It seems probable that the paucity of direct references8 results from the implicit and temporary nature of such intellectual ‘properties’. The literature respecting the concept is indirectly pervasive, since any account of geological activity necessarily deals with at least one domain. However, the notion is generally

8 The only two direct references to the proprietorial nature of geological domains that have been located in my enquiries concern Conybeare’s reference to intruding on Sir Everard Home’s ‘province’ (note 2) and Colby’s assurance that he would not trespass on Murchison’s ‘district’ (note 3). Comparable examples in the disciplines of physics and mathematics are contained in R.K. Merton, The Sociology of Science: Theoretical and Empirical Investigations, The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1973, p. 294, note 19.

66 bypassed, taken for granted, or not explicitly stated. Notable exceptions are Rudwick’s and Secord’s analyses of the disputes over the Devonian, Silurian and Cambrian domains.9 As Oldroyd has laconically noted, “It all had to do with territory”.10 Generally however, emphasis has tended to focus on the end goals of recognition and the achievement of scientific status, particularly important factors amongst ‘gentleman-specialists’ during the first half of the nineteenth century. As Rudwick observed:

Without a recognised ladder of advancement as the anticipated reward for mere diligence, they [the gentleman-specialists] were left to struggle more individualistically for their due share of less tangible rewards. They were therefore concerned with issues of recognition and scientific priority with an even greater intensity than later generations.11

Unlike the disciplines of physics and chemistry, geology does not offer many major eponymous rewards, since there are few geological laws, units of measurement or physical constants that can be named in honour of their discoverer.12 Consequently the importance of priority is accentuated. In regard to amplifying the various categories of geological domain, Rudwick has made two complementary contributions, albeit from different contexts. His first input has been discussed in the literature review of the previous chapter (Section 2.1.6) that dealt with the nature of the English geological elite. In The Great Devonian Controversy Rudwick defined this elite group in terms of ‘ascribed geological competence’, which in turn, relates to regionality and transportability.13 Thus the geological competence of ‘amateurs’14 was usually restricted to their immediate district, whereas at the other extreme the expertise of the elite was national, if not international, in scope. Rudwick’s concept of regionality is used here to rank stratigraphic domains in terms of relative importance. However, it is not an applicable classificatory tool for all categories of geological domain.

9 See note 1. 10 D.R. Oldroyd, Thinking about the Earth: A History of Ideas in Geology, Harvard University Press, Massachusetts, 1996, p. 120. 11 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 1), p. 18. 12 The naming of fossil species after a particular geologist is not regarded as a major eponymous reward. However, some important sites are named after geologists, e.g. Baringer Crater, (Arizona). 13 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 1), pp. 418-426. 14 In this context the term ‘amateur’ refers to collectors and enthusiasts whose geological activities

67 A second adaptation from Rudwick’s work derives from the need to find a method to categorise different kinds of geological domain. To this end the four different styles of geological work outlined in his paper, ‘Cognitive Styles in Geology’,15 were selected as a starting point. In this paper Rudwick first described the characteristics of four styles of geological work, the ‘concrete’, ‘abstract’, ‘agnostic’, and ‘binary’, and then examined each, in conjunction with the social environment of practitioners of that style, to assess their degree of correspondence with the social anthropological grid/group theory of Mary Douglas.16 In essence, Douglas’s four-fold sociological classification results from juxtaposing two complementary variables; first, the degree of an individual’s commitment to their social or working environment (group control), and second, the intensity of social control to which they are subjected within that specific group (grid control).17 Rudwick’s ‘concrete’ style of geology, characterised by order and classification, was matched to the high grid/high group social system of Douglas. The ‘abstract’ geological style, with its emphasis on causality, was related to the individualistic low grid/low group system; the ‘agnostic’ style, characterised by scepticism and a strongly empirical methodology, was placed in the high grid/low group category; and finally, the ‘binary’ style, where earth history is marked by a unique boundary event, was matched to the low grid/high group social system. Rudwick suggested the need for further study and refinement in this area, but the only subsequent application of his outlined approach in the history of geology has been Oldroyd’s 1984 analysis of Buckland’s style of geological investigation.18 An attraction of combining Rudwick’s four styles of geological investigation with Douglas’s grid/group theory, in order to obtain a classificatory system for geological domains, is that the sociological underpinning provided by Douglas could also provide insights into the working environment of each geologist. The inter-relationships between the

tended to be limited to their neighbourhood and who did not exhibit a major commitment to geology. 15 M.J.S. Rudwick, ‘Cognitive Styles in Geology’, in: M. Douglas (ed.), Essays in the Sociology of Perception, Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd., London, 1982, pp. 219-242. 16 M. Douglas, ‘Introduction to Grid/Group Analysis’, in: ibid., pp. 1-8. 17 These descriptions of grid and group control have been taken from D.R. Oldroyd, ‘By Grid and Group Divided: Buckland and the English Geological Community in the early Nineteenth Century’, Annals of Science, 1984, 41, pp. 383-393 on p. 388. 18 Ibid.

68 four sociological categories of Douglas and Rudwick’s geological styles are indicated in the following table.

GRID AND GROUP CHARACTERISTICS OF GEOLOGICAL STYLES19 ( # indicates the grid/group characteristics of Douglas; * indicates Rudwick’s geological style)

High Grid - Low Group High Grid - High Group

Hierarchical social structure and Hierarchical social system - control - minimal group allegiance # willingly accepted #

‘Agnostic’ geological style * ‘Concrete’ geological style *

Low Grid - Low Group Low Grid - High group

Social individualism # Social Factionalism #

‘Abstract’ geological style * ‘Binary’ geological style *

Despite his earlier willingness to entertain the grid/group concept, Oldroyd concluded in 1986 that there were considerable problems for historians of science in applying grid/group analysis.20 His concern stemmed from several reservations regarding Douglas’s concept - the general lack of precision in defining the terms grid and group; doubts that the two variables can cover the whole of a cultural field; some uncertainty whether the theory applies to both individuals and groups; and, finally, the lack of a causal link between social formation and cognitive structure. A further constraint in applying grid/group analysis to a classification of geological work is that a person may belong to several different social groups at one time. More pertinently, geological work frequently cannot be categorised in just one of four ways; in many cases the appropriate classification encompasses a ‘mix’ of two, or even three, types of domain. In

19 This table is adapted from one deployed by Oldroyd, op. cit. (note 17), p. 388. 20 D.R. Oldroyd, ‘Grid / Group Analysis for Historians of Science?’, History of Science, 1986, 24, pp. 145-171.

69 any case, although the social working background of a geologist is of interest, it is not directly relevant to the requirements of this thesis. The issue here is to obtain a classificatory system for analysing the scope and importance of a geologist’s work. For these reasons grid/group analysis is not used in conjunction with the adopted classificatory system for geological domains.

3.1.2 CATEGORIES OF GEOLOGICAL DOMAIN

The four basic categories of geological domain adopted for analysing the work of the 15 nominated geologists are now described for the time-period under discussion. Three of these domains, the ‘taxonomic’, ‘causal’, and ‘scriptural’ approximate Rudwick’s ‘concrete’, ‘abstract’, and ‘binary’ styles of geology. However, his cognitive style of ‘agnosticism’ only represents one of several types of domain within a wider category of ‘modal’ domains. The various characteristics applicable to the former three types of domain generally conform to those used in Rudwick’s paper on geological cognitive styles.21 Domains within each of these four basic categories also vary markedly in terms of their relative importance. Different criteria are used to assess the ranking of specific domains within each category.

(1) TAXONOMIC DOMAINS (based on Rudwick’s ‘concrete’ style)

Characteristics and Explanatory Comments

· The primary cognitive emphasis is on order and classification, rather than cause. Geological investigations are focused on the concrete order of strata or fossil remains. · Methodology is primarily empirical. · Stratigraphy and taxonomic palaeontology comprise the major sub- divisions of this domain. Classic exemplars cited by Rudwick are Werner and Murchison. Secord has summed up the latter’s outlook as follows: “Rather than considering the strata as the products of process and time,

21 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 15), pp. 220-239.

70 Murchison typically viewed them as ‘systems’, ‘units’, and ‘formations’, as elements in a classification”.22 · The relative importance of ‘taxonomic’ domains in the same field, for example, Devonian fossil fish, is essentially determined by their regional extent (local district, county, major region or country, and international). In this thesis ‘major’ domains are national, if not international, in scope. ‘Minor’ domains tend to be restricted to a county or specific region, such as the chalk deposits of Sussex. ‘Taxonomic’ domains of lesser importance are usually confined to a local area. · Domains in this category are the most frequently encountered, and exhibit the most obvious proprietorial characteristics.

(2) CAUSAL DOMAINS (based on Rudwick’s ‘abstract’ style)

Characteristics and Explanatory Comments

· Such geological investigations are markedly causal in orientation. The aim of any investigation is to determine the physical or biological causes of a past geological event; the overall goal is to reduce these causes to simple, explanatory principles. · Geological interpretations can include concepts from outside the discipline. Earth history is weakly classified. · Anomalies are ‘assimilated’, since it is expected that they will be incorporated into an improved theoretical structure. · ‘Causal’ domains are based on general explanations and principles. Thus the conclusions of an investigation into the origins of a particular type of coral reef should apply to all coral reefs of that type. “Major’ causal domains embrace fundamental geological explanations and principles; at lower levels, explanations are confined to a specific local phenomenon. · Actualism, geological dynamics, and aspects of palaeo-ecology are examples of geological work in this domain. In their day, Hutton and Lyell were two of the most notable exponents.

22 J.A. Secord, ‘King of Siluria: Roderick Murchison and the Imperial Theme in Geology’, in : P. Bratlinger (ed.), Energy & Entropy: Science and Culture in Victorian Britain: Essays from Victorian Studies, Indiana Press, Bloomington and Indianapolis, 1989, p. 65.

71 (3) MODAL DOMAINS

Characteristics and Explanatory Comments

· ‘Modal’ domains are characterised by an assemblage of one or more geological doctrines, practices, and styles that collectively constitute a distinctive approach to geological investigations. · Geologists who established a major domain in this category needed a position of institutional power and influence in order to persuade, or direct, other geologists to adopt their particular practices and viewpoints – otherwise their domain would have been relatively ineffective and they would not have been recognised as a leading exponent. At the most senior levels there were two key positions for this purpose during the first half of the nineteenth century, the Presidency of the GSL, and the Directorship of the Geological Survey. Other major positions of influence were the professorships of geology at Oxford and Cambridge. · A successful domain in this category effectively disappears if its distinguishing mode of practices and doctrines are absorbed into the prevailing mainstream of geological investigation. · The distinctive geological approaches and practices that De la Beche introduced and implemented at the Geological Survey in the 1840s is an example of a ‘modal’ domain. · ‘Modal’ domains can be complex and incorporate aspects of other types of domain. They can also be fashioned jointly by a small group of geologists. The English school of geology,23 developed and promoted by the ‘clergyman-specialists’ during the 1820s and 1830s, can be regarded as a broad, evolving, ‘modal’ domain incorporating ‘causal’, ‘taxonomic’, and ‘scriptural’ inputs. · Geological scepticism can be regarded as a distinctive geological mode, particularly if promulgated from a position of authority. For this reason Rudwick’s ‘agnostic’ style24 is considered a sub-category of a ‘modal’

23 The characteristics of the English school, as identified and described by Rupke, are described in section 3.2.4 (1) of this chapter. 24 Rudwick’s ‘agnostic’ style of geology is characterised by a sceptical attitude to the construction of any major synthesis of earth history, a strong empirical bias that focuses on local rather than regional classification, the embracing of anomalies, and an overall viewpoint that the cognitive field of geology is one of great complexity. Rudwick, op. cit. (note 15), pp. 228-229.

72 domain, despite problematical aspects due to its idiosyncratic nature. Greenough was the most notable practitioner of this particular approach.

(4) SCRIPTURAL DOMAINS (Rudwick’s ‘binary’ style)

Characteristics and Explanatory Comments

· Such geological work is strongly ‘dimensional’, but only to a unique boundary event, such as the Deluge or the Creation. Earth history is therefore classified in a simple, binary manner into two very sharply contrasting periods, most commonly pre and post-diluvial. · Explanatory goals are causal, but only for the boundary-event and the subsequent history of the earth. · None of the geological work considered in this chapter is strictly scriptural in the literal sense. However, geologists such as Buckland, Conybeare and Sedgwick exhibited some implicit aspects of this style in their work dealing with diluvial theories in the 1810s and 1820s.

(5) OTHER RELEVANT ASPECTS CONCERNING DOMAINS

The work of any one geologist need not be confined to a specific domain. A mix encompassing elements of two or even three domain categories can be fashioned, though there is usually a bias towards one type. For example, during the 1820s Buckland’s domain of diluvialism can be considered as a mix of the ‘taxonomic’ and ‘scriptural’. The proportions of any such a ‘mix’ can also change over time. Geological activities such as lecturing and writing for the ‘popular’ market do not constitute domains, but are manifestations of the concept. A key point concerning all domains is that a geologist could not be considered to have fashioned a domain until regarded as a leading authority or exponent of that area of geology or geological practice.

3.2 1820 to 1830

73 3.2.1 THE STATUS OF ENGLISH GEOLOGY IN 1820-22

In some instances the following summary of the status of English geology relates to the period 1820-22, rather than 1820, in order to incorporate several significant and definitive geological publications printed in that year.25 An additional reason is that Mantell and Lyell first met on 4 October 182126 and it is pertinent to review geological knowledge at that time.

(1) TAXONOMIC GEOLOGY

The status of English stratigraphy at the beginning of the 1820s is well outlined in Conybeare and Phillips’ publication, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales.27 A succinct account of the scope of this important book, as well as the status of English stratigraphy at that time, is provided by Zittel:

The two authors applied throughout the work William Smith’s principle of determining the age of the rocks upon the evidence of the fossils contained in them….The stratigraphical part begins with a short description of the Alluvium and Diluvium, then enters in fuller detail into consideration of the “Formations above the Chalk,” – the formations that were afterwards grouped as Tertiary. Conybeare and Phillips differentiated the successive horizons in this group, upon the basis of Webster’s and Buckland’s researches, into four horizons: – Upper Marine Formation (Crag and Bagshot Sand ) Fresh-water ” London Clay ” Plastic Clay ” Between these and the Oolite formation Conybeare and Phillips distinguished two main sub-divisions in the Cretaceous formation:– Upper Cretaceous System, comprising the Chalk deposits.

Lower Cretaceous System, comprising Chalk Marl, Green sand, Weald Clay, and ferruginous sand.

25 W.D. Conybeare and W. Phillips, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales with an Introductory Compendium of the General Principles of that Science, and Comparative Views of the Structure of Foreign Countries : Illustrated by A Coloured Map and Sections. &c, William Phillips, London 1822 andiJ. Parkinson, Outlines of Oryctology. An Introduction to the Study of Fossil Organic Remains: especially of those found in the British Strata, Sherwood, London, 1822. 26 GAM-PJ, entry 4 October 1821, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ. 27 Conybeare and Phillips, op. cit. (note 25).

74 The sub-division of the Oolite formation was carried out on the basis of W. Smith’s observations. Conybeare and Phillips distinguished four main divisions: – Upper Oolite System, with (a) Purbeck Series, (b) Portland Oolite, (c) Kimmeridge Clay. Middle Oolite System, with (a) Coral Rag, (b) Oxford Clay. Lower Oolite System, with (a) Cornbrash, (b) Forest Marble, (c) Stonesfield Slate, (d) Great Oolite, (e) Lower Oolite, (f) Marl Stone. Lias. Between the Oolite and the Carboniferous formation, Conybeare and Phillips recognised the formation of the Red Marl and New Red Sandstone, and that of the Magnesian Limestone. No fossils had been found in the Red Marl and Sandstone formation, but Conybeare and Phillips correctly compared the group with the Bunter Sandstone on the continent. The Magnesian Limestone of Sunderland, Durham, and Northumberland was identified by means of its characteristic fossils as an equivalent of the “Zechstein” and Copper Slate Series on the Continent. Conybeare also recognised in the Conglomerates of Devonshire a formation corresponding to the “Red Underlyer” of the Continental deposits. Finally, the Carboniferous formation was very carefully described, and was sub-divided into four groups – Coal Measures, Millstone Grit and Shales, Carboniferous Limestone, and Old Red Sandstone. 28

In summary, at the time of the first meeting between Lyell and Mantell, the English stratigraphic system had been delineated down to the Old Red Sandstone.29 The Transition series, comprising what later came to be known as the Cambrian, Ordovician and Silurian, remained undifferentiated. Work still needed to be done sorting out the precise relationships of the Lower Cretaceous Greensand beds and the freshwater nature of the Weald Clay and ferruginous (Hastings) sand. According to Challinor,30 Parkinson’s Outlines of Oryctology31 “summarised in detail all palaeontological knowledge acquired at that time in Britain and the neighbouring parts of the Continent”. Parkinsons’s book, which followed his earlier three-volume work Organic Remains of a Former

28 K.A. von Zittel, History of Geology and Palaeontology to the End of the Nineteenth Century, (translated by M.M. Ogilvie-Gordon), Walter Scott, London, 1901, pp. 426-427. 29 It was intended that a second part of Conybeare and Phillips’ work would be subsequently issued on the older formations, but Phillips died in 1828. H.B. Woodward, History of Geology, Watts and Co., London, 1911, p. 64. 30 J. Challinor, The History of British Geology: A Bibliographical Study, David and Charles, Newton Abbot, 1971, p. 86. 31 Parkinson, op. cit. (note 25).

75 World,32 systematically listed ‘vegetable fossils’ on pages 5 to 35 and ‘Animal fossils’ on the following 298 pages. This work is also relevant since Parkinson was one of Mantell’s early geological mentors.33 Another feature of Parkinson’s Outlines of Oryctology is that it mentions the first of the large terrestrial fossil reptiles found in Britain, the Megalosaurus,34 the bones and teeth of which had been found in 1818 by Buckland,35 but were not described until 1824.36 Previous English reptile discoveries comprised two marine forms, Ichthyosaur and Plesiosaur.37 Consequently, in the early 1820s the field of research concerning the nature and classification of large fossil reptiles was in the early stages of investigation and was an unclaimed, potential domain.

(2) CAUSAL GEOLOGY

Unlike taxonomic geology, where the state of knowledge at any one time can be readily delineated because of its classificatory nature, there are difficulties in defining the status of causal geology. In particular, the degree of acceptance of a controversial theory can be difficult to gauge, even among a relatively homogeneous group such as the English ‘gentleman-specialists’. In 1820, British geology accommodated two separate, but partly inter-linked causal factions: the differing viewpoints of the Wernerians (Neptunists) and the Huttonians (Plutonists); and second, the extent to which the earth had been subjected to catastrophic events. Although ‘pure Huttonian’ theory included the cyclical mechanism of ongoing natural causes, catastrophist theory was frequently combined with plutonism.38 A further complicating

32 J. Parkinson, Organic Remains of a Former World: An Examination of the Mineralized Remains of the Vegetables and Animals of the Antediluvian World; Generally Termed Extraneous Fossils, 3 vols, London, 1804, 1808, 1811. 33 G.A. Mantell, A Pictorial Atlas of Fossil Remains consisting of coloured Illustrations selected from Parkinson’s ‘Organic Remains of a former World’, and Artis’s ‘Antediluvian Phytology’, with descriptions, H.G. Bohn, London, 1850, p. 14. 34 Parkinson, op. cit. (note 25), p. 298. 35 N.A. Rupke, The Great Chain of History: William Buckland and the English School of Geology (1814-1849), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983, p. 135. 36 W. Buckland, ‘Notice on the Megalosaurus, or Great Fossil Lizard of Stonesfield’, TGSL, 1824, 1, pp. 390-396. 37 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), p. 134. 38 ‘Catastrophist’ Huttonians included Sir James Hall and Sir George Mackenzie. See Leroy E. Page, ‘Diluvialism and Its Critics in Great Britain in the Early Nineteenth Century’, in: C.J. Schneer (ed.), Toward a History of Geology, The M.I.T. Press, Massachusetts, 1969, pp. 257-271 on p. 264. A

76 factor was the influence of scripture on the exponents of these hypotheses, both explicitly and implicitly. An important common element, however, was the general acceptance of time as a key to understanding geological history. Towards the latter half of the 1810s an anti-theoretical bias was still much in evidence amongst some of the ‘gentleman-specialists’ within the Geological Society. The attitude of Fitton, for example, to geological theory generally, and to the ‘fire or water’ controversy in particular, was not one of ardour:

Notwithstanding all this, the matter-of-fact methods have lately been gaining in ground in Geology, as in all other sciences: hypotheses are now scarcely listened to; and even the well- organized theories which, a short time since, created so much controversy, receive in this day little attention or comment. Such, at least, seems to be the case with the sober-minded mineralogists of the South; who, in truth, have never shown that ardent zeal for their theories, which almost threw our northern capital into a flame. Fire and water are still indeed opposed to each other, as in days of yore; but it is now a modest and well-ordered struggle; more frequently resolving itself into a question about particular rocks, than embracing, as formerly, the whole series of mineral formations.39

Greene has pointed out that the gradual decline of Werner’s neptunism in favour of Hutton’s plutonism, over the period 1810 to 1830, was not evenly matched by the overthrow of Wernerian geognosy, particularly in Europe.40 Although basalt was widely recognised as an igneous rock after 1820,41 Werner’s students continued to adopt his pragmatic, methodical and observational approach to the study of the earth. Nevertheless, by 1820 the stage had been set for a renewed investigation into such major geological phenomena as volcanic activity. Catastrophist theory, in its various shades of grey, was widely accepted amongst English and Continental geologists in 1820, a significant

more prominent example is W.D. Conybeare, whose catastrophist explanations are cited in A. Hallam, Great Geological Controversies, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1989, p. 41. 39 W.H. Fitton, ‘Art. VIII. Transactions of the Geological Society. Vol. II. 4 to. pp. 558. London. Printed and Sold by William Phillips. 1814’, The Edinburgh Review or Critical Journal, 1817, XXVIII, pp. 174-192 on p. 175. 40 M.T. Greene, Geology in the Nineteenth Century: Changing Views of a Changing World, Cornell University Press, Ithaca, 1982, pp. 65-67. 41 Ibid., p. 69.

77 factor being Cuvier’s work,42 the English translation of which was published in four editions from 1817 to 1827. Cuvier’s evidence for a series of catastrophes in the world’s history was based on empirical data, such as major breaks in the fossil record, the alternation of freshwater and marine deposits, the discovery of marine fossils and boulders in the Alps, and the unsorted clays and gravels of the last ‘Deluge’. Possible mechanisms or causes for these seeming catastrophes were usually not stated explicitly. Conybeare referred to ‘violent convulsions’,43 but this was the extent of his explanation. In brief, the effect and power of present-day observable causes, combined with vast periods of time, was not then fully appreciated or accepted. However, as Oldroyd has pointed out in regard to Cuvier’s position on the matter,44 alternative explanations had significant implications. Operations of nature were either very different in the past and exhibited no uniformity, or catastrophic episodes such as the Deluge were supernatural events, and as a consequence geology had to deal with miracles.

(3) SCRIPTURAL GEOLOGY

In 1820 scripture exerted a major influence on English geological thought. As Hallam has noted: “Conybeare, along with virtually all his scientific contemporaries, was a firm believer in the scriptural Deluge”.45 The outstanding exponent of the Deluge was Buckland, who was in the process of establishing ‘diluvialism’ as a geological domain in the late 1810s. Buckland’s work on diluvialism has been well documented by Page,46 Rupke,47 and Hallam.48 All three authors have highlighted Buckland’s inaugural lecture49 at Oxford in 1819, when he presented a summary of the geological evidence for the Deluge, which he also tied in with natural

42 G.L.C.F.D. de Cuvier, Essay on the Theory of the Earth with Mineralogical Notes and an Account of Cuvier’s Discoveries by Professor Jameson, translated by R. Kerr, Blackwood, Edinburgh, 1813. 43 Conybeare and Phillips, op. cit. (note 25), pp. xxi and xxii. 44 Oldroyd, op. cit. (note 10), pp. 133-134. 45 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), p. 41. 46 Page, op. cit. (note 38), pp. 262-267. 47 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), pp. 37-41 and pp. 59-60. 48 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), p. 41. 49 W. Buckland, Vindiciae Geologicae: or the Connexion of Geology with Religion Explained, Oxford, 1820.

78 theology.50 Nevertheless, Buckland shied away from ascribing a specific cause to the Mosaic deluge, thus distancing himself from the biblical literalists.

(4) MODAL DOMAINS

Only one geological domain in this category had been fashioned in England at the beginning of the 1820s, that of geological scepticism, which was very much the domain of Greenough, an original member of the GSL, and its president from 1807 to 1813 and 1818 to 1820. He was therefore in a position of power and prestige to exercise his geological viewpoint.51 Greenough’s chief publication, A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology,52 was published in 1819 and consisted of a series of eight essays on most of the major, contemporary aspects of geology. The essays embodied all aspects of Greenough’s sceptical approach to geology and are characterised by a distrust of theory and generalisation and by the emphasis given to detail, empiricism, anomalies, conflicting opinions, and local rather than regional classification. Greenough’s publication was generally not well received at the time,53 as typified by the frustrations expressed by the non-gentleman geologist, Robert Bakewell:

As the present volume professes to contain a Critical Examination of the first principles of Geology, we think that the author ought at the commencement to have concisely enumerated what he regarded as first principles; and he might have classed them under four divisions, as certain, probable, dubious, or false. Instead of doing this, Mr. Greenough has presented us with eight essays, in which he has brought forwards the conflicting opinions of different geologists, and enumerated facts that are at variance with these opinions; which having done, he frequently leaves the reader without any decision on the question at issue.54

50 Ibid., p. 35. 51 In Chapter Four [Section 4.3.1. (1)] an example is given of how Greenough expounded his sceptical mode of geology in a letter to Mantell, dated 27 April 1817. 52 G.B. Greenough, A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology; in a Series of Essays, Longman & Co., London, 1819. 53 J. Challinor, ‘Progress of British Geology during the nineteenth century’, Annals of Science, 1970, 26, pp. 177-234 on p. 217. 54 [R. Bakewell], ‘Art.V. A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology, in a Series of Essays. By G.B. Greenough, President of the Geological Society, F.R.S., F.L.S. 8vo. Pp. 36. 9s. Boards. Longman & Co. 1819’, The Monthly Review; or Literary Journal, Enlarged, 1819, 90, pp. 376- 393 on p. 378. For confirmation of the authorship of Bakewell see Torrens, op. cit. (note 4), pp. 660-662.

79 In effect, Bakewell’s detailed, 17-page review of Greenough’s book constituted a major criticism of the latter’s sceptical approach. However, in view of Greenough’s status within the GSL, his geological peers had no option but to recognise him as the leading exponent of this ‘modal’ domain.

(5) REVIEW OF THE STATUS OF ENGLISH GEOLOGY IN 1820

Six of the fifteen geologists whose work is reviewed in this chapter were not members of the GSL in 1820 and had not published the results of any geological investigation.55 Mantell’s published work was restricted to his Linnean Society paper on a fossil Alcyonium,56 while Lyell had only been a GSL member for one year. De la Beche read his first GSL paper in 1819. Wollaston, the only member of council identified in the penultimate screening test (Table 2.13) for the period 1807 to 1820, confined his researches to chemistry and metallurgy, and consequently none of his work constituted a geological domain as defined here. This leaves the investigations of Buckland, Conybeare, Fitton, Greenough and Sedgwick to be considered. By the end of 1820 Buckland had read five papers at the GSL, all of which can be described as taxonomic in nature, since they dealt with a miscellany of stratigraphic and palaeontological subjects.57 Only one of these papers was concerned with diluvial issues,58 but Buckland’s approach was

55 These geologists were: Darwin, Egerton, Murchison, Owen, J. Phillips and Whewell. 56 G.A. Mantell, ‘A Description of a fossil Alcyonium from the Chalk Strata near Lewes, in a Letter to A.B. Lambert Esq. F.R.S. V.P.L.S. &c’, Transactions of the Linnean Society, London, 1815, 11, pp. 401-407. 57 W. Buckland,i‘Description of an insulated Group of Rocks of Slate and Greenstone, in Cumberland and Westmoreland on the east side of Appleby between Melmerby and Murton’, TGSL, 1817, 4, pp. 105-116;i‘Description of a series of Specimens from the Plastic Clay near Reading, Berks. With Observations on the Formation to which those Beds belong’, TGSL, 1817, 4, pp. 277- 304;i‘Description of the Paramoudra, a singular fossil body that is found in the Chalk of the North of Ireland; with some general Observations upon Flints in Chalk, tending to illustrate the History of their Formation’, TGSL, 1817, 4, pp. 413-423;i‘Notice on the Geological Structure of a part of the Island of Madagascar, founded on a Collection transmitted to the Right Honourable the Earl Bathurst, by Governor Farquhar, in 1819; with Observations on some Specimens from the interior of New South Wales, collected during Mr. Oxley’s Expedition to the River Macquarie, in the Year 1818, and transmitted also to Earl Bathurst’ [5 May 1820], TGSL, 1821, 5, pp. 476-481; i‘Description of the Quartz Rock of the Lickey Hill in Worcestershire, and of the Strata immediately surrounding it; with Considerations on the Evidence of a recent Deluge, afforded by the Gravel Beds of Warwickshire and Oxfordshire, and the Valley of the Thames from Oxford downwards to London; and an Appendix, containing analogous proofs of diluvian action. Collected from various authorities’[3 December 1819], TGSL, 1821, 5, pp. 506-544. 58 Buckland, ‘Description of the Quartz Rock of the Lickey Hill in Worcestershire.’, 1821.

80 non-scriptural in this case. However, his inaugural Oxford address, Vindiciae Geologicae, published in 1820, incorporated a pronounced component of scriptural geology. At this time Buckland was only in the process of establishing diluvialism as a geological domain. The situation of Conybeare and Sedgwick in 1820 was similar to Buckland’s, though the former two ‘clergyman-specialists’ had not yet identified separate domains to exploit. Nevertheless, Conybeare’s joint publication, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales, was more than sufficient to consolidate his established geological reputation. Sedgwick was yet to publish. By 1820 Fitton had written five geological reviews,59 besides a paper published in the first volume of the GSL’s Transactions.60 At this stage he had not moved to London to devote himself to scientific investigations, let alone establish a geological domain. Greenough, in fact, was the only member of council who had established a geological domain by 1820, albeit one characterised by idiosyncratic negativism.

3.2.2 THE GEOLOGICAL WORK OF MANTELL IN THE 1820s

Mantell’s geological work during the 1820s, culminating in 12 publications, can be classified into three inter-related segments: the geology and organic remains of Sussex; the discovery of the Iguanodon; and the cataloguing of Sussex fossils. These three categories are now separately discussed.

(1) THE GEOLOGY AND FOSSIL REMAINS OF SUSSEX

Mantell’s work in this category comprised two major books, The Fossils of the South Downs,61 and Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex,62 two booklets

59 In 1813 under the pseudonym “F”, Fitton published two articles entitled ‘On the Geological System of Werner’, in Nicholson’s Journal of Natural Philosophy. DSB. Additionally, Fitton wrote two reviews on the TGSL, 1814 and 1816, 2 and 3, series 1, for The Edinburgh Review, 1817 and 1818, 27 and 29. He also reviewed the work of Smith in The Edinburgh Review, 1818, 29. 60 W. Fitton, ‘Notice respecting the Geological Structure of the Vicinity of Dublin; with an account of some rare Minerals found in Ireland’, TGSL, 1811, 1, pp. 269-280. 61 G.A. Mantell, The Fossils of the South Downs: or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, Lupton Relfe, London, 1822. 62 G.A. Mantell, Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex: Containing a General View of the Geological relations of the South-eastern part of England; with Figures and Descriptions of the Fossils of Tilgate Forest, Lupton Relfe, London, 1827.

81 based on these major publications and directed to a more general and popular market,63 and four minor, short papers or notices on aspects of the stratigraphy and fossils of Sussex.64 The following analysis of Mantell’s work focuses on his two books published in 1822 and 1827, since they provide the best insight into his geological approach during this period. In the preface to Fossils of the South Downs, Mantell stated: “upon fixing my residence at Lewes, I resolved to devote my leisure moments to the investigation of the ‘Organic remains of a former world’: a study replete with interest and instruction”. It will be demonstrated in the next chapter that Mantell had an additional, socially orientated motivation to produce this planned study, but his statement is significant in indicating the influence of Parkinson,65 as well as Mantell’s early predisposition towards organic remains, rather than to other areas of geology. In fact, Mantell was not a pioneer investigator into the geology of Sussex, since Farey66 and Smith67 had unravelled much of the basic stratigraphy before 1810. Furthermore, Mantell had seen Smith’s new section on Sussex strata in September 1819,68 and according to Dean,69 also had an opportunity to see a pre-publication, proof copy of Conybeare and Phillips’ Outlines of the Geology of England and

63 G.A. Mantell,iOutlines of the Natural History of the Environs of Lewes, John Baxter, Lewes, 1824; andiA Sketch of the Geology of the Rape of Bramber in the County of Sussex, W. Lee, Lewes, 1827. The former 24 page booklet is essentially the same as Mantell’s ‘Natural History of the District’, in: T.W. Horsfield, The History and Antiquities of Lewes and its Vicinity, 2 vols, J. Baxter, Lewes, 1824-1827. The latter booklet, comprising 16 pages, provided an ‘epitome’ of Sussex geology for the popular market. 64 G.A. Mantell,i‘Notice accompanying some Specimens from the Blue Chalk Marl of Bletchingley’, TGSL, 1824, 1, series 2, Note 4, p. 421;i‘Description of some Fossil Vegetables of the Tilgate Forest in Sussex’, TGSL, 1824, 1, series 2, Note 7, pp. 421-424;i‘On the Iron Sand Formation of Sussex. In a Letter to Dr. Fitton. Secretary of the Geological Society’, TGSL, 1826, 2, series 2, pp. 131-134; and i ‘Remarks on the Geological Position of the Strata of Tilgate Forest in Sussex’, ENPJ, 1826, 1, pp. 262-265. 65 Parkinson’s main geological work was entitled Organic Remains of a Former World, 3 vols, London, 1804, 1807 and 1811. Mantell later paid tribute to Parkinson, who was also a medical practitioner, for the encouragement and guidance which Parkinson had given him in the 1810s, in his Pictorial Atlas of Fossil Remains, 1850, p. 14. 66 See T.D. Ford, ‘The first detailed Geological Sections across England by John Farey 1806-1808’, Mercian Geologist, 1967, 2, pp. 41-49. 67 See J. Phillips, Memoirs of William Smith, Murray, London, 1844, pp. 63-64. Additional information on the early geology of the Weald is contained in R.W. Gallois, British Regional Geology: The Wealden District, fourth ed., British Geological Survey, Keyworth, 1992, pp. 1-2. 68 J. Cooper and H. Torrens, ‘Charles Lyell Bicentenary Meeting: Wealden Field Excursion Notes’, August 1997, on p. 5. and E.C. Curwen (ed.), The Journal of Gideon Mantell, Surgeon and Geologist: covering the years 1818-1852, Oxford University Press, London, 1940, p. 12. 69 D. Dean, ‘A Bicentenary Retrospective of Gideon Algernon Mantell (1790-1852)’, Journal of Geological Education, 1990, 38, pp. 434-443 on p. 435.

82 Wales. At the very least Mantell was therefore in a position to produce a comprehensive review of his county’s stratigraphy, besides compiling lists and descriptions of the fossils found in the various Sussex beds. Mantell’s Fossils of the South Downs can be described as a lavish production with its 42 plates, but the book is not notable for any innovative contribution to geological thought. The 327-page volume commences with a 13-page preliminary essay ‘On the Correspondence between the Mosaic Account of the Creation and the Geological Structure of the Earth’ – in a letter to the author by a clergyman of the established church.70 It can be surmised that Mantell included this to enhance the acceptability of the publication to potential subscribers rather than because of any strong belief in scriptural geology.71 The bulk of the book concerns the Secondary (Cretaceous) strata of Sussex, and in particular, the chalk formation.72 Dean states that 76 new species are described by Mantell,73 and certainly the book’s strength lies in the listing and description of the various fossils of the county. However, Mantell’s geological interpretations were cautious and tentative. In his concluding observations Mantell did not make a judgement on whether the ‘Iron Sand’ and the ‘Weald Clay’ were of freshwater origin.74 In the former instance, after noting that the fossil shells of the iron-sand resembled a species of Tellina, or Nacula, and others were supposed to belong to the genus Cyrene, Mantell merely commented “whether they are of fresh water, or of marine origin, has not been satisfactorily determined”. In regard to the Weald clay, commonly supposed to be of freshwater origin, Mantell noted the differing observations of G.B. Sowerby, but gave no conclusion. Even when the arguments for a fresh-water origin were overwhelming, as in the case of Mantell’s ‘Tilgate Limestone’, he was not incisive, as indicated in the third of his eight concluding inferences:

70 Although the author’s name of this preliminary essay was not published, Vallance identified the clergyman as Henry Hoper, at that time vicar of Portslade, Brighton. T.G. Vallance, ‘Gideon Mantell (1790-1852): A Focus for Study in the History of Geology at the Turnbull Library’, in: M.E. Hoare and L.G. Bell (eds), “In Search of New Zealand’s Scientific Heritage”, Bulletin of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 1984, 21, pp. 91-100 on p. 94. 71 The names of subscribers listed at the beginning of this book indicate that 28 of the 134 were clergymen. 72 55 pages are devoted to the Green Sand Formation, 168 to the Chalk Formation, 27 to the Tertiary Formations, and 21 to the Alluvial Group. 73 Dean, op. cit. (note 69), p. 435.

83 That one of these Formations (the Tilgate Beds) contain the remains of shells, fishes, palms, arborescent ferns, Turtles, gigantic lizards, and unknown quadrupeds, an assemblage of organic remains, for which it is difficult to account, unless we suppose, that the bed in which they are enclosed was deposited by a river or lake of fresh water.75

Mantell was also tentative in his advocacy of the use of fossils for correlative purposes, despite the influence of Parkinson and the work of Smith. Hancock has made a scathing reference to Mantell’s “lack of understanding” on this point,76 blaming Mantell’s social aspirations for his neglect of Smith’s stratigraphic principles. In one area, however, Mantell was not tentative or provisional; catastrophism was very much a feature of The Fossils of the South Downs. For example, he deduced that “the animals and vegetables of the Tilgate strata must have been overwhelmed by a fluid in a state of violent commotion, since they are generally broken, and their fragments promiscuously intermingled”.77 In his ‘Concluding Remarks’, Mantell gave a vivid description, if not a definition, of the Deluge:

the newer depositions have also been broken up, and in a great measure destroyed, by an irruption of water in a state of violent commotion; a catastrophe to whose powerful agency the present form of the surface of the earth, and the accumulations of beds of gravel, sand, &c are to be attributed.78

Mantell’s confusion concerning the relative position and nature of the Tilgate Beds in The Fossils of the South Downs highlights his limited stratigraphic understanding at that time. He did not realise that these thin beds of limestone and clay were part of the ‘Iron Sand’, and not, as he supposed, either laid down in a basin above that deposit, or alternatively, comprised a protrusion of the subordinate Purbeck beds.79 Mantell appeared

74 Mantell, op. cit. (note 61), pp. 298-303. 75 Ibid., p. 303. 76 J.M. Hancock, ‘The Historic Development of Biostratigraphic Correlation’, in: E.G. Kauffman and J.E. Hazel (eds), Concepts and Methods of Biostratigraphy, Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross Inc., Pennsylvania, 1977, p. 5. 77 Mantell, op. cit. (note 61), p. 57. 78 Ibid., p. 303. 79 Ibid., p. 37.

84 to favour the latter alternative and his cross-section, showing an igneous type intrusion of the Purbeck through the iron sand, appears crude and naïve. He might not have made this judgment if he had had the time or inclination to trace and correlate his ‘Tilgate Beds’ with similar outcrops in other districts of Sussex. It was Lyell, Mantell’s new friend of seven months, and a newcomer to the geology of south-eastern England, who largely rectified the situation. In brief, as a result of Lyell’s fieldwork in Winchelsea in April 1822,80 combined with subsequent consultations in London with Webster,81 and a further survey by Lyell and Mantell, the latter was able to write82 to the GSL on 1 June and advise:

these strata [Mantell’s Tilgate Beds which he confused with the Purbeck limestone] may with greater propriety be associated with the subordinate beds of limestone, sandstone, and clay, which, in certain parts of Sussex, alternate in the iron-sand formation.83

In his next major work, Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, published in 1827, Mantell incorporated various “new and important facts” concerning the stratigraphy of Sussex. However, these new facts essentially resulted from stratigraphic work carried out by Fitton84 and Lyell,85 and not Mantell, whose geological work now largely focused on fossil remains. Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex was a much smaller book than its 1822 predecessor (92 compared to 327 pages) and exhibited a marked change in emphasis compared to the earlier publication. Only five pages were devoted to the Chalk Formation, compared to 23 given to the Hastings Formation, previously Mantell’s ‘Iron Sand’, but renamed by Fitton. Additionally, 30

80 CL to GAM, 19 April, 1822, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 6). 81 CL to GAM, 5 June, 1822 , Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 7). 82 In his letter dated 5 June 1822, Lyell advised Mantell that “you had better lose no time in declaring this to be your opinion”. However, Mantell had already written to the GSL on this matter. 83 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Iron-Sand Formation of Sussex. In a Letter to Dr. Fitton, Secretary of the Geological Society’, TGSL, 1826, 2, series 2, pp. 131-134 on p. 131. Although this volume of the GSL’s Transactions states that Mantell’s ‘Notice’ was read on 14 June 1822, Lyell, who was at this GSL meeting, advised Mantell in a letter dated 16 June 1822 that Fitton was unable to read the paper on 14 June “which is most unlucky as this is the last meeting for many months”, (Supp. Vol.-Letter 9). Consequently, Mantell’s stratigraphic error was not publicly corrected until 1826. 84 W.H. Fitton, ‘Inquiries respecting the Geological Relations of the Beds between the Chalk and Purbeck Limestone in the Southeast of England’, Annals of Philosophy, 1824, 8, new series, pp. 365- 383 and 458-462. 85 CL to GAM, 4 July 1822; 12 February 1823; 11 June 1823; 20 April 1824 and 24 November 1824, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 10, 11, 12, 15 and 17).

85 more pages were devoted to descriptions of the fossils of the strata of Tilgate Forest, including the Iguanodon. At this stage Mantell had discovered seven separate fossil teeth of this extinct animal and conceived it as a giant, herbivorous lizard. In essence, his 1827 book is a descriptive volume on the fossils of Tilgate Forest, and indicates that Mantell’s main geological interest was now within the broad taxonomic field of fossil remains, rather than stratigraphy. In 1827, Mantell was still a strong exponent of catastrophism. On the first page of his 1827 booklet on local geology, Geology of the Rape of Bramber, Mantell highlighted his conviction that: “nature has had her intestine wars; and that the surface of the earth has been convulsed by successive revolutions and various catastrophes”.86 Lyell was not yet successful in converting Mantell to a less dramatic viewpoint. In May 1826, before the publication of Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex and Rape of the Bramber, Lyell had expressed the following opinion to Mantell on some sharks’ teeth found in the Tilgate beds:

As to the Sharks teeth of Tilgate (query if sharks?) what can be said? I attribute the oysters to the minor oscillations of the land lifting up and depressing the estuary alternately, the grander alternations arise from external earthquakes.87

By mid-1829 the general context of some of Lyell’s letters to Mantell88 indicates that Mantell was at least sympathetic to the ‘fluvialist’ viewpoint.

(2) DISCOVERY OF THE IGUANODON

In many respects the most consequential scientific paper submitted by Mantell during the 1820s was his ‘Notice on the Iguanodon’89 that Davies Gilbert communicated to the Royal Society on 10 February, 1825. As a result of this paper Mantell was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in November

86 Mantell, op. cit. (note 63), p. 1. 87 CL to GAM, 16 May 1826, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 30). 88 CL to GAM, 16 May, 23 May and 7 June, 1929, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.- Letters 58, 59 and 60). 89 G.A. Mantell, ‘Notice on the Iguanodon, a newly discovered fossil reptile, from the sandstone of Tilgate forest, in Sussex. In a Letter to Davies Gilbert, Esq. M.P., V.P.R.S. &c, &c, &c. Communicated by D. Gilbert, Esq.’ PTRSL, 1825, 115, pp. 179-186.

86 of that year, but more importantly, it established Mantell’s reputation as the discoverer of a previously unknown, huge, herbivorous reptile. According to Mantell, his discovery stemmed from the chance finding, by his wife, of unusual and unknown teeth in the coarse conglomerate of the Tilgate Forest in 1822.90 Other teeth of this unknown animal were subsequently collected by him, but it was not until June 1824 that Cuvier asked “Have we not here a new animal, a herbivorous reptile?”.91 Following receipt of Cuvier’s 1824 letter, Mantell took some of the teeth to the museum of the Royal College of Surgeons and, in conjunction with Stutchbury,92 found that the modern Iguana possessed teeth with similar form and structure to his fossil specimens.93 By the end of the 1820s Mantell had not found any articulated remains of the Iguanodon, and as a consequence, he was not in a position to determine if his ‘monstrous lizard’ belonged to a new and unrecognised order of vertebrates. However, he had established a reputation in the new field of extinct fossil monsters and identified a potential taxonomic domain.

(3) THE CATALOGUING OF SUSSEX FOSSILS

Mantell’s work in this category largely resulted from another notable facet of his scientific work, his collection of Sussex fossils that comprised the basis of the Mantellian museum at Lewes.94 The most important of the three catalogues produced by Mantell in the 1820s was ‘A Tabular Arrangement of the Organic Remains of the County of

90 Mantell, op. cit. (note 62), p. 71. 91 A translation from Cuvier’s letter to Mantell dated 20 June 1824 in Mantell’s, ‘Notice on the Iguanodon’, 1825, p. 181. When the first discovered tooth was shown to Cuvier in June 1823, he judged it to be the upper incisor of a rhinoceros. Mantell, Pictorial Atlas of Fossil Remains, 1850, on p. 195. An account of the history of the teeth, now in the Museum of New Zealand, Wellington, is contained in J.C. Yaldwyn, G.J. Tee and A.P. Mason, ‘The status of Gideon Mantell’s “first” Iguanodon tooth in the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa’, Archives of Natural History, 1997, 24, pp. 397-421. 92 Samuel Stutchbury (1798-1859). English naturalist and curator. Assistant to William Clift, Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons 1820-25. D.F. Branagan, ‘Samuel Stutchbury: a natural history voyage to the Pacific 1825-27 and its consequences’, Archives of Natural History, 1993, 20, pp. 69-91. 93 Mantell, op. cit. (note 89), p. 182. 94 The Mantellian Museum was situated in the front rooms of Mantell’s house at Lewes and ‘finished’ on 5 August 1829. PJ-GAM. Bakewell visited the museum for three days in September of that year and gives a good description of its importance and contents in his article ‘A Visit to the Mantellian Museum at Lewes’, The Magazine of Natural History, 1830, 3, pp. 9-17.

87 Sussex’,95 read at the GSL on 6 June 1828. In their paper on Mantell’s fossil collections,96 Cleevely and Chapman disclose that Mantell mentioned in a letter to J. Hawkins, dated 17 January 1830, that lists such as his were “the first attempt to provide a list of the extinct animals…of a British Province”. Lyell and Fitton were in no doubt of the catalogue’s importance, as indicated in the following extract from Lyell’s letter to Mantell in April 1828:

If your list of fossils comes up I doubt not they would print it in next vol. I spoke to Fitton on the subject. I agree with him that the great value wd arise from your accurate local knowledge for you are the only great collector in England who combines Geol.y with fossils, so if your list is general put a mark on what you can answer for from personal observation.97

In the Catalogue Mantell placed an asterisk on those fossils either not in his possession or not examined by him. These amounted to only 12 species out of a total of 42 vertebrates, 328 invertebrates, and 16 vegetable fossils. The range of Mantell’s Catalogue extended from the Alluvial Deposits, through the Tertiary Formations and the beds of the Chalk Formation, down to the three divisions of the fresh-water Hastings Deposits. References and synonyms are given for all fossil species and their known localities in Sussex and elsewhere are also noted.

(4) REVIEW OF MANTELL’S GEOLOGICAL WORK IN THE 1820s

During the 1820s Mantell’s stature and reputation as a geologist increased considerably, being reflected in his election to the Royal Society of London in 1825 and to the GSL Council in the following year. By the end of the decade Mantell had established a broad, but essentially tentative ‘taxonomic’ domain, encompassing the vertebrate and

95 G.A. Mantell, ‘A Tabular Arrangement of the Organic Remains of the County of Sussex’, TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 201-217. The other 2 catalogues published at this time were the booklets A Scientific Catalogue of the Organic Remains of the County of Sussex, R. Taylor, London, 1829; and An Abridged Catalogue of the Organic Remains of Sussex.-“A Catalogue of the Museum of G. Mantell”, L. Relfe, London, 1829. 96 R.J. Cleevely and S.D. Chapman, ‘The accumulation and disposal of Gideon Mantell’s fossil collections and their role in the history of British palaeontology’, Archives of Natural History,1992, 19, pp. 307-364 on p. 315. 97 CL to GAM, 21 April 1828, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 47).

88 invertebrate fossils of his home county, Sussex. However, such a domain was too extensive to maintain, other than in the short term, and moreover, a ‘major’ palaeontological domain cannot normally be confined to a county. Mantell had not established a reputation in stratigraphy, which in any case offered him limited local scope, because of the work of Fitton. The study of fossil remains was more suited to the demands of his profession and also to Mantell’s inclination, as he indicated to Woodward in 1828: “the remains of reptiles and mammals interest me more than those of the other divisions of animated nature”.98 In summary, by the end of the 1820s Mantell was reasonably well positioned, from a geological viewpoint, to exploit the ‘taxonomic’ domain that Lyell had identified for him in his previously quoted 1829 letter. The reasons why Mantell did not follow Lyell’s advice are explored in the next chapter.

3.2.3 THE GEOLOGICAL WORK OF LYELL IN THE 1820s

During the 1820s Lyell published a total of 13 papers and articles, which can be classified into three general groups: five geological papers99 concluded before mid-1826; five essay reviews published in The Quarterly Review from 1825 to 1827,100 of which two dealt with geological issues; and three joint-

98 S. Spokes, Gideon Algernon Mantell, LL.D, F.R.C.S., F.R.S., Surgeon and Geologist, John Bale, Sons and Danielsson Ltd., London, 1927, on p. 32, citing a letter from Mantell to S. Woodward, dated 20 October 1828. 99 C. Lyell,i‘On a recent Formation of Freshwater Limestone in Forfarshire, and on some recent Deposits of Freshwater Marl; with a comparison of recent with ancient Freshwater formations; and an appendix on the Gyrogonite or Seed vessel of the Chara’[1824 and 1825],TGSL, 1826, 2, pp. 73- 96;i‘Art. XXIV – On a Dike of Serpentine, cutting through Sandstone, in the County of Forfar’, Edinburgh Journal of Science, 1825, 3, pp. 112-126;i‘On Fossil bones of the Elephant and other Animals found near Salisbury’, PGSL, 1826-1833, 1, pp. 25-26;i‘On the Strata of the Plastic Clay Formation exhibited in the Cliffs between Christchurch Head, Hampshire, & Studland Bay, Dorsetshire’[1826], TGSL, 1827, 2, pp. 279-286;i‘On the Freshwater Strata of Hordwell Cliff, Beacon Cliff, and Barton Cliff, Hampshire’[1826], TGSL, 1827, 2, pp. 287-292. 100 C. Lyell,i‘Article X. Letter to Mr. Brougham on the Subject of a London University, together with Suggestions respecting the Plan. By T. Campbell Esq., London, 1825’, Quarterly Review, 1825- 26, 33, pp. 257-275;i‘Article VIII – 1. Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. I; 2. Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, 1824, 4, 2d. series, London; 3. Transactions of the Royal Geological Society of Cornwall, instituted February 11, vols 1 and 2, Penzance; 4. Report of the Liverpool Royal Institution, 1822; 5. Bristol Institution. Proceedings of the Second Meeting, held February 10, 1825 &c; 6. Annual Report of the Council of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society for 1824’, The Quarterly Review, 1826, 34, pp. 153-179.i‘Article IX – Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1824, 1, series 2’, The Quarterly Review, 1826, 34, pp. 507-540.i‘Article VIII – State of the Universities’, The Quarterly Review, 1827, 36, pp. 216-268.i‘Article IV – Memoir on the Geology of Central France; including the Volcanic

89 papers with Murchison, published in 1829 following their field-work in France in 1828.101 The ensuing analysis of the nature of Lyell’s geological work in the 1820s follows this categorisation, since it generally accords with three phases of Lyell’s geological development during the decade. His work until 1826 provides a good indication of his early geological experience and concomitant approach to geology; Lyell’s two geological reviews in the mid- 1820s gave him a platform to highlight factors he regarded as significant at that time; and finally, during the latter years of the decade Lyell crystallised his methodological approach for the first volume of Principles of Geology, completed on 22 June 1830.102 Because the literature dealing with Lyell’s work is extensive, reviews of the relevant literature have been restricted to those dealing with his early geological work and the more significant factors that influenced his geological thinking. Particular emphasis is also given to the comments and opinions expressed by Lyell in his unpublished letters to Mantell during this period.

(1) LYELL’S GEOLOGICAL WORK PRIOR TO MID-1826

The five geological papers completed by Lyell during the first half of the 1820s were either read or published during the 18-month period ending June 1826. His first two publications described disparate aspects of Scottish geology, while the other three concerned the Tertiary, fresh-water deposits in the south of England. Earlier indications of Lyell’s approach to geology are contained in his letters to Mantell during the years 1822 to 1824. One insight revealed in these letters to Mantell is that the fresh-water beds of Tilgate forest, in particular, had a major early influence on the development of Lyell’s geological thinking. His interest in these deposits did not primarily result from Mantell’s fossil discoveries, but, as Wilson has pointed out, from “the convincing demonstration of the magnitude of the

Formations of Auvergne, the Velay, and the Vivarais, with a volume of Maps and Plates. by G.P. Scrope, F.R.S., F.G.S.’, The Quarterly Review, 1827, 36, pp. 437-483. 101 C. Lyell and R.I. Murchison,i‘On the Excavation of Valleys, as illustrated by the Volcanic Rocks of Central France’, ENPJ, 1829, 7, pp. 15-48.i‘On the Tertiary Freshwater Formations of Aix in Provence including the coal-field of Fuveau’, ENPJ, 1829, 7, pp. 287-298.i‘Sur les dépôts lacustres tertiares du cantal et leurs rapports avec les roches primordiales et volcaniques’, Annales des Sciences naturelles, first series, 1829, 18, pp. 173-214. 102 CL to GAM, 22 June 1830, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vols.-Letter 73).

90 earth’s movements that had occurred in the southeast of England”.103 These beds had first been laid down in a river delta, were subsequently depressed thousands of feet for the chalk sediments to be deposited in deep-sea conditions, and then elevated above sea level when the overlying chalk was eroded to expose the freshwater rocks and their contained fossils. Lyell’s resolution of the stratigraphic position of Mantell’s ‘Tilgate Beds’ in 1822 has been discussed [Section 3.2.2-(1)] and his letters to Mantell, dated 19 April, 6 June, 16 June, and 4 July, 1822,104 clearly indicate his competence as a field geologist as well as his incisive and penetrating approach to geological matters. Lyell’s letter to Mantell of 6 June 1822 is especially relevant since it indicates that at this early date he used present- day, observable causes to explain geological phenomenon. In the following extract from this letter, Lyell describes the furrowed surfaces of sandstone from the Stammerham quarries near Horsham in Sussex, and in doing so, reveals his determination to understand all aspects of the phenomenon:

At Sedgwick I found a large quantity of the slabs ready-quarried, & many furrowed on both sides. As I had before felt satisfied that the surfaces had been scooped out by the waves of an ocean (an hypothesis which you have suggested in your work) I was greatly surprised by this fact. I will add too, I was greatly disappointed, as I hope every Geologist is when he finds himself compelled to abandon a theory which refers not without probability to the agency of known causes, some of the many obscure phenomena which his investigations daily disclose. I observed that the opposite sides of few of these slabs corresponded; in some the furrows of the inferior were even at right angles to those of the upper side. They could not therefore in such instances have received their peculiar shape from any constitution of the lamina when in a soft state. Most of the slabs I found would cleave into thinner laminae & the inner faces were also furrowed, & fitted smoothly into each other. If this last fact should prove on further examination as invariable as I found it, I should entertain little doubt that the under side of each layer merely presents a cast of that on which it has been deposited. And when many thin layers succeed each other, we have only to suppose the lowermost to have been deeply worn by the waves & that it then formed a mould into which the next layer was cast, & the others successively into those which preceeded them. But when

103 L.G. Wilson, ‘The Intellectual Background to Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, 1830-1833’, in: C.J. Schneer (ed.), Toward a History of Geology: Proceedings of the New Hampshire Inter- Disciplinary Conference on the History of Geology, September 7-12, 1967, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1969, pp. 426-443 on p. 434. 104 Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. ( Supp, Vol.-Letters 6, 8, 9 and 10).

91 the furrows of the surface take a new direction we may again suppose the waves to have acted. If it be objected that when a new stratum of sand was washed up it would fill all the inequalities & reduce them to a level, I can only answer that I therefore assume that the beds were precipitated from a fluid in a certain state of tranquility. Nor is this supposition necessarily at variance with the occasional agitation which has worn some of the slabs, for the deposition may have gone on when the land was entirely covered by water, & the excavating power may have operated only when the waves were advancing or retreating. That the most indurated of these rocks was in a perfectly soft state when first formed, no one will dispute who observes the manner in which the organic remains are imbedded in them.105

Following a visit to France in 1823, when Prévost pointed out to Lyell that alternations of freshwater and marine sediments did not necessarily require catastrophist explanations,106 Lyell spent the summer of 1824 at his family home in Scotland, where “I have made a very detailed Geol l. Map of 2 thirds of the county of Forfar. this year besides many more labours on rock marl, serpentine &c”.107 In his paper on rock marl, read to the GSL on 17 December 1824, and on 7 January 1825,108 Lyell used the agency of present- day causes as his main, underlying theme. In doing so, he not only demonstrated how the recent marl deposits had been formed in Bakie Loch, but compared the limestone of Bakie with other freshwater limestones, both recent and ancient, in continental Europe.109 Thus the first paper presented by Lyell was causal in style and scope. It was also well received. Writing to Mantell, Lyell commented “I was much flattered with the manner in which the memoir was received & discussed”.110 Nevertheless, some explanatory aspects of marl formation still eluded Lyell, as evidenced in his letter to Mantell written the day after he had completed the final reading of his paper:

If you can give me any hints on shell marle I shall thank you as I could put them in before the referee gets my paper next week. I know you have not neglected alluvial deposits near Lewes for

105 CL to GAM, 6 June 1822, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ. Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 8). 106 This point is amplified in Wilson, op. cit. (note 103), p. 435. 107 CL to GAM, 24 November 1824, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp.Vol.-Letter 17) . 108 C. Lyell, ‘On a recent Formation of Freshwater Limestone in Forfarshire, and on some recent Deposits of Fresh-water Marl; with a comparison of recent with ancient Freshwater formations; and an appendix on the Gyrogonite or Seed vessel of the Chara’, TGSL, 1826, 2, pp. 73-96. 109 Ibid., pp. 83-86. 110 CL to GAM, 8 January 1825, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 18).

92 which I have quoted you. The following are some of the leading points on wh. you may have some opinions.

1. Is shell marle entirely derived from shells? if not why does it abound in a part of Scotland in wh. limestone is almost unknown, & is wanting in the Chalk & Oolite tracts of England? 2. Is there marle deposited by water in the Chalk? 3. In alluvial valleys in Chalk, in wh. freshwater shells occur, does calcareous marle accompany them? 4. Testacea multiply excessively in Scotland in the clearest lakes. when the water is charged with too much lime, as is perhaps the case in Chalk countries are not the mollusca killed, or injured? 5. If marle be derived from shells, why does it not form in England where I am told shells lie a foot deep at the bottom of ponds, as at Deptford? 6. If marle be a mechanical deposit from water ought it not to be most abundant in calcareous districts in England, & least, in the old red sandst. of Scotland in wh. there is scarcely any carb te. of lime? yet there it is accumulated enormously. 7. If marle be a chemical deposit from water why is it rare in England where evaporation is greater, where tuffaceous incrustations are common which are entirely unknown in the part of Scotland in wh. marle abounds? 8. Again, if it be chemical, why does its formation entirely cease in Scotland when a lake is drained, tho’ the springs wh. bring up calcareous matter, still flow? 9. Do canals in Chalk countries fill up with a kind of marly matter? 10. Near Romney in Hants. I have found a large quantity of shell marle in the alluvial tracts, overlying peat, wh. comes near to the Scotch. It is in the plastic clay formation. Do you know any English localities? 11. Is marle ever found where there are no springs? 12. Do freshwater testacea live in ponds in Chalk? 111

The above, relentless series of probing questions to Mantell reveals Lyell’s resolve to investigate the role of modern day causes in geological processes, besides bringing to mind a barrister’s cross-examination techniques. In his subsequent letter to Mantell, dated 14 January 1825, Lyell again revealed his determination to understand every aspect of marl deposit formation:

I am in hopes that in thinking over some of my queries you may be led to some observations that may assist me for I shall endeavour thoroughly to go to the bottom of the subject which I find deepens as I attempt to fathom it.112

111 Ibid. 112 CL to GAM, 14 January 1825, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 19).

93 Lyell’s other paper on Scottish geology, ‘On a Dike of Serpentine, cutting through Sandstone, in the County of Forfar.’, was published in 1825 and can be regarded as a competent, straightforward description of a presumed dyke of serpentine that Lyell traced for approximately seven miles along what is now known as the Highland Boundary Fault belt. This geological area is exceedingly complex and there is little that Lyell could have done other than describe the serpentine outcrops. Lyell’s papers concerning aspects of the Tertiary freshwater deposits of the south of England, ‘On the Strata of the Plastic Clay Formation exhibited in the Cliffs between Christchurch Head, Hampshire, and Studland Bay, Dorsetshire’, and ‘On the Freshwater Strata of Hordwell Cliff, Beacon Cliff, and Barton Cliff, Hampshire’, were read to the GSL on 17 March and 2 June, 1826, respectively. Both papers can be summed up as straight- forward stratigraphic descriptions, but significantly, Lyell concluded each paper with an input relating to present-day causes. In the former paper, dealing with the Plastic Clay, Lyell made the point that:

The size of the valleys is in general in proportion to that of the streams flowing in them, and their excavation appears referable for the most part, if not entirely, to the long continued agency of these streams.113

At the end of his other paper on the freshwater strata of Hordwell Cliff, Lyell argued that the fossil characteristics of recent freshwater deposits provided good evidence for the term ‘Freshwater formations’ to incorporate deposits formed at the mouths of rivers, rather than be restricted to deposits originating in inland lakes.114 In a letter115 to Mantell written six days before he was due to read his paper on the Plastic Clay formation, Lyell again requested Mantell’s assistance in a series of probing, penetrating questions on the type and source of diluvial rocks in Sussex. In this regard, Lyell’s main aim was not to add to the descriptive detail of the phenomenon, but to obtain evidence

113 ‘On the Strata of the Plastic Clay Formation exhibited in the Cliffs between Christchurch Head, Hampshire, & Studland Bay, Dorsetshire’, TGSL, 1827, 2, p. 286. 114 ‘On the Freshwater Strata of Hordwell Cliff, Beacon Cliff, and Barton Cliff, Hampshire’, TGSL 1827, 2, p. 292. 115 CL to GAM, 11 March 1826, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 28).

94 concerning the nature and origin of these deposits. In short, his approach was causal, rather than taxonomic.

(2) QUARTERLY REVIEW ARTICLES ON GEOLOGY, 1826-1827

Lyell’s review116 of volume one, series 2, Transactions of the Geological Society of London provides several pertinent insights into his geological thinking in mid-1826, since he used this opportunity to outline his assessment of recent geological findings, as well as to ‘sound out’ his developing concepts. Although the two parts of this volume of the Transactions comprise 26 papers and 19 notices, Lyell only mentioned or discussed 11, and of these, six were written by relatively minor or unknown geologists.117 Lyell’s inclinations were clearly manifested; stratigraphic papers were generally ignored, including two such papers by De la Beche. Buckland’s paper on the excavation of valleys by ‘diluvian’ action118 received similar treatment. In fact, the first eight pages of Lyell’s 33-page review do not refer to or mention any paper in the Transactions. Instead, Lyell summarised recent geological developments and, in particular, highlighted two specific points. First, recent fossil discoveries indicated that extinct animals and plants had both lived in and had their remains preserved, in essentially tranquil conditions. Second, great changes had occurred to these deposits following deposition, as shown by the alternating sequences of deep-water marine and fresh-water deposits, besides evidence of major climatic changes. Lyell then referred to the papers by Graham119 and Jack120 that described the uplifting effects of recent earthquakes, to make the point that modern-day causes could explain changes in land levels. Furthermore, he suggested an alternative to catastrophic causes in the earth’s history:

116 Lyell, ‘Article IX – Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1824, 1, series 2’, The Quarterly Review, 1826, 34, pp. 507-540. 117 H.T. Colebrooke, J.B. Fraser, W. Jack, J.J. Bigsby, T. Weaver and Mrs. M. Graham. 118 W. Buckland, ‘On the Excavation of Valleys by diluvian Action, as illustrated by a Succession of Valleys which intersect the South Coast of Dorset and Devon’, TGSL, 1822, 1, pp. 95-102. 119 M. Graham, ‘An Account of some Effects of the late Earthquakes in Chili: extracted from a Letter to Henry Warburton, Esq. V.P.G.S.’, TGSL, 1824, 1, pp. 413-415. 120 W. Jack, ‘On the Geology and Topography of the Island of Sumatra, and some of the adjacent Islands’, TGSL, 1824, 1, pp. 397-405.

95 But in the present state of our knowledge, it appears premature to assume that existing agents could not, in the lapse of ages, produce such effects as fall principally under the examination of the geologist.121

Lyell was unable to provide an explanation for climate changes at this time, although he indicated that the answer may “lie in astronomy”.122 The review ended with two comments from Lyell. His final observation was that all fossil plants and animals were ‘links in the chain’, and parts of one connected plan in an overall progressive and not fixed scheme.123 As Wilson has noted,124 Lyell’s assumption of this concept was in general accordance with the viewpoint of other educated contemporaries. However, Lyell’s preceding observation, although still representative of orthodox opinion, is rather surprising. Lyell combined his emerging principle of modern physical causes, or actualism, with aspects of Paleyan natural theology to explain England’s industrial might. After mentioning that Great Britain had been able to surpass all other nations in the cheapness of machinery due to the abundance of easily accessible coal and its opportune association with limestone and iron ore, Lyell observed:

Now it scarcely admits of a doubt that the agents employed in effecting this most perfect and systematic arrangement have been earthquakes, operating with different degrees of violence and at various intervals of time during a lapse of ages….The effects of these subterranean forces prove that they are governed by general laws, and that these laws have been conceived by consummate wisdom and forethought.125

Lyell’s alliance of modern causes and natural theology in this 1826 article does not appear to have been given any attention in the secondary literature. It is also an opinion that he did not explicitly repeat. It can be conjectured that Lyell introduced his Paleyan input in order to add ‘theological respectability’ to his concept of modern causes, bearing in mind the conservative nature of The Quarterly Review’s readership.

121 Lyell, op. cit. (note 116), p. 518. 122 Ibid., p. 528. 123 Ibid., pp. 538-539. 124 L.G. Wilson, Charles Lyell. The Years to 1841: The revolution in geology, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1972, p. 158. 125 Lyell, op. cit. (note 116), p. 537.

96 On a different note it is worth commenting that during the 1820s Lyell often requested assistance from Mantell on various geological points, including information for this particular article. After mentioning several areas where he would welcome information on certain fossils, Lyell demonstrated that he also followed the principle of ‘quid pro quo’:

If you will give me the title of your new work, I will advantage it in a note which cannot fail to do it good. Slips of the first part of my paper will be printed before I go circuit July 2d so lose no time. As I know you have imagination enough I trust to you seizing on points such as would do for the Quart. Rev.126

Lyell, in fact, advantaged Mantell with several favourable references in his Quarterly Review article.127 In his introductory remarks to his paper, ‘Poulett Scrope on the Volcanoes of Auvergne’,128 Rudwick has pointed out that Lyell needed a follow-up article to his review of the Transactions, in order to illustrate more specifically the advantages of applying modern causes to past geological events. To this end Scrope’s Memoir on the Geology of Central France129 was favourably reviewed by Lyell for his fifth and final article in the Quarterly Review.130 Rudwick summed up Lyell’s review and motivations in this manner:

It is not surprising that Lyell reviewed Scrope’s Memoir enthusiastically for The Quarterly review, as an almost perfect example of the style of reasoning that he himself wished to urge on geologists. Scrope had eliminated the ancient-modern distinction, and with it a major source of evidence for the diluvial theory; he had used an ‘unlimited allowance of time’ to do so; and he had stressed the heuristic value of the actualistic method of analogical comparison between present and past.131

126 CL to GAM, 22 June 1826, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 32). 127 Lyell, op. cit. (note 116), pp. 523, 525, and 531. 128 M.J.S. Rudwick, ‘Poulett Scrope on the Volcanoes of Auvergne: Lyellian Time and Political Economy’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1974, 27, pp. 205-242 on p. 206. 129 G.P. Scrope, Memoir on the Geology of Central France, including the Volcanic Formations of the Auvergne, the Velay and the Vivarais, with a volume of Maps and Plates, Longman, London, 1827. 130 Lyell, ‘Article IV – Memoir on the Geology of Central France, including the Volcanic Formations of Auvergne, the Velay, and the Vivarais, with a volume of Maps and Plates. by G.P. Scrope, F.R.S., F.G.S.’, The Quarterly Review, 1827, 36, pp. 437-483. 131 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 128), p. 220.

97 Lyell was pleased with his article. In a letter to Mantell he remarked “I fear it will annoy Buckland but ‘amicus Plato sed magnis amica veritas’ should be a geologist’s motto”.132

(3) LYELL’S GEOLOGICAL WORK FROM 1827-1830

Scrope’s Memoir on the Geology of Central France was largely instrumental in Lyell visiting this area of France in May 1828, accompanied by the Murchisons. The geological observations and field-work carried out by Lyell and Murchison in central and southern France, and subsequently in Italy, are well documented in Wilson’s 1972 biography.133 Additional details are contained in Lyell’s letters to Mantell dated 15 June and 22 August 1828, and 14, 19, and 24 February 1829.134 The field-work of the two men resulted in the publication of three joint papers135 following their return to England in 1829, but their scope and content adds little new to the theme of this analysis. In summary, the observations made by Lyell on the continent more than confirmed his particular concept of modern causes. In a frequently quoted letter, written in Naples, Lyell informed Murchison of the nature of his planned book:

It will not pretend to give even an abstract of all that is known in geology, but it will endeavour to establish the principle of reasoning in the science; and all my Geology will come in as illustration of my views of those principles, and as evidence strengthening the system necessarily arising out of the admission of such principles, which you know, are neither more nor less than that no causes whatever have from the earliest time to which we can look back, to the present, ever acted, but those now acting; and that they never acted with different degrees of energy from that which they now exert.136

132 CL to GAM, 30 June 1827, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 37). 133 Wilson, op. cit. (note 124), pp. 183-261. 134 Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folders 61 and 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 49-53). 135 C. Lyell and R.I. Murchison,i‘On the Excavation of Valleys, as illustrated by the Volcanic Rocks of Central France’, ENPJ, 1829, 7, pp. 15-48.i‘On the Tertiary Freshwater Formations of Aix in Provence including the coal-field of Fuveau’, EPNJ, 1829, 7, pp. 287-298.i‘Sur les dépôts lacustres tertiares du cantal et leurs rapports avec les roches primordiales et volcaniques’, Annales des Sciences naturelles, 1st series, 1829, 18, pp. 173-214. 136 C. Lyell to R.I. Murchison, 15 January 1829, quoted in K. Lyell, op. cit. (note 5), vol.1, p. 234.

98 Lyell’s proposed methodology that past geological events can be fully explained by present-day causes that have always acted with the same intensity is referred to as ‘absolute actualism’ from now on in this thesis.137 The term ‘modern causes’ is restricted to the recognition that physical causes acting today can and should be invoked to explain past geological events. Additionally, following discussions in Paris with Desnoyers138 and Deshayes,139 Lyell confirmed that the Tertiary strata could be correlated and subdivided on the basis of their contained percentage of living species of shells. This development provided Lyell with a notable example of how his methodology of extrapolating from the present to the past could also be applied to the study of fossils. As soon as he arrived back in London Lyell wrote to Mantell, requesting the loan of his Tertiary English shells for Deshayes to study, but did not amplify the reasons for his request:

We [Lyell and Deshayes] planned together a grand scheme of cataloguing the tertiary shells of various European basins that I might draw geological inferences therefrom. As it will become necessary for him in the execution of this plan that he should see himself as many English tertiary shells as possible of well ascertained localities I am going to exert myself in procuring the loan of several collections, which will return from Paris with Deshayes’ names,….Before the work I have in hand comes out I hope to get approximate lists for comparison of shells in most of the basins of Europe, not to publish the lists, but to give the results which I am sure will be important & which I already have discovered from the study of museums in Italy and France will be unexpected for the most part either by collectors or geologists.140

Following his return to England Lyell exhibited a very confident geological manner. In March 1829, one month after his return, he outlined the previously quoted strategic career plan for the older, and more professionally and geologically established Mantell, to follow.141 At a GSL meeting two months later Lyell had a splendid time defending the ‘fluvialists’ against the ‘diluvialists’, represented by Conybeare, Buckland and

137 The term ‘absolute actualism’ to describe Lyell’s causal methodology was introduced by W.F. Cannon in his paper, ‘Charles Lyell, Radical Actualism, and Theory’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 32, p. 113. 138 J.P.F.S. Desnoyers (1800-1887). French geologist and palaeontologist. 139 G. P. Deshayes (1796-1875). French doctor and naturalist. See Supp. Vol.- Letter 74. 140 CL to GAM, 24 February 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 53). 141 CL to GAM, 23 March 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 55).

99 Greenough.142 Finally, in February 1830, Lyell was able to inform Mantell that he had developed a theory based on natural causes that would explain climate changes “easily and naturally”.143

(4) REVIEW OF LYELL’S GEOLOGICAL WORK IN THE 1820s

Lyell’s geological publications, correspondence and field investigations indicate that during the 1820s his geological interests became increasingly focused on ‘causal’ geology, and in particular, on the explanatory methodology of modern causes. In fact, his orientation to ‘causal’ geology was evident as early as 1822, when he investigated the formation of furrowed surfaces on the Stammerham sandstone. This was followed by studies on marl formation, the action of earthquakes in raising land levels, and on the erosive power of rivers. By the end of the decade Lyell had applied the methodology of extrapolating from the present to the past to subdivide the Tertiary formations, and to develop a theory explaining climate changes. Lyell demonstrated his competency in field geology in his pre-1825 stratigraphic studies in the south of England, but in many respects these investigations can be regarded as ‘apprenticeship exercises’. His primary interest in these deposits was not in determining their detailed stratigraphy, but in comprehending the implications of alternating sequences of deep marine and shallow fresh-water deposits. Lyell’s letters to Mantell indicate a marked waning of interest in the geology of the Weald and the Hampshire basin by the mid-1820s; he had got what he wanted from these investigations and was ready for ‘new pastures’. Scrope’s opportune publication on the geology of central France then gave him the impetus to examine his developing concept of modern causes on the continent. His field work there confirmed his suppositions. During the second half of the 1820s one other factor had a major influence on Lyell’s overall geological viewpoint. In 1827 he ‘devoured’ Mantell’s copy of Lamarck’s Philosophie zoologique,144 which both delighted

142 CL to GAM, 15 May 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 58). 143 CL to GAM, 5 and 15 February 1830, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 67, 68). 144 J.B.A.P. Lamarck, Philosophie zoologique, ou exposition des considerations relatives à l’histoire naturelle des animaux, 2 vols, Dentu, Paris, 1809.

100 and startled him. Lyell’s often quoted letter to Mantell outlining his reaction to Lamarck’s theory contains several significant points:

But tho’ I admire ever his [Lamarck’s] flights & feel none of the odium theologicum which some modern writers in this country have visited him with I confess I read him rather as I hear an advocate on the wrong side to know what can be made of the case in good hands. I am glad he has been courageous enough & logical enough to admit that his argument if pushed as far as it must go if worth anything would prove that men may have come from the Ourang outang.145

Lyell’s attitude to Lamarck’s theory in the above extract can be described as one of tolerant opposition. His response was to formulate a case based on present-day or modern causes:

I am going to write in confirmation of ancient causes having been the same as modern & to show that those plants & animals which we know are becoming preserved now are the same as were formerly, e.g. scarcely any insects now, no lichens, no mosses &c ever get to places where they can become embedded in strata…. Now have you ever in Lewes levels found a bird’s skeleton or any cetacea. If not why in Tilgate and weald beds….You see the drift of my argument – ergo mammalia existed when the oolite & coal &c were formed.146

Although his refutation of Lamarck better illustrates Lyell’s powers of advocacy than the logic of modern causes, it provides a clear indication that the possibility of man descending from an ‘ourang outang’ was unacceptable to him. At this stage one of Mantell’s highest priorities was to discover a complete skeleton, or at least a jawbone, of an Iguanodon. After reading Lamarck, Lyell had other ideas:

I wish among your new Groombridge fossils there had been a good cetaceous quad. For theoretically it would have been of more importance than the iguanodon.147

145 CL to GAM, 2 March 1827, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vols.-Letter 35). 146 Ibid. 147 Ibid. This particular extract immediately precedes the quoted extract in note 145.

101 Batholomew has made a good case that Lyell’s opposition to all aspects of organic progressionism stemmed from his reading of Lamarck in 1827.148 In summary, by the end of the decade Lyell had firmly identified in his mind, but not established through publication, his ‘causal’ geological domain: the methodology of using the principles of absolute actualism to explain past geological events. Additionally, a strong anti-progressionist stance comprised an integral aspect of his geological approach.

3.2.4 THE NATURE OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK COMPLETED BY THE OTHER IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1820s

The ten members of council whose geological work is analysed in this section can be classified into three main groups: first, the more established, and generally middle-aged members, who with the exception of Greenough, constituted the English school149 of geology, Buckland, Sedgwick, Conybeare, and Fitton;150 a younger group comprising Murchison, De la Beche, and Phillips who developed their geological skills and experience during the 1820s; and finally, the two non-geologists, the elderly metallurgist and chemist Wollaston, and the emerging polymath Whewell. Of these ten members, Buckland was the only one identified in the final screening list for the 1820s, while Wollaston was the only other member identified in the penultimate screening list. The other eight geologists made one or both of these lists in the following decade, 1830 to 1840, apart from the two major exceptions, Greenough and Phillips. Because this thesis is primarily concerned with the geological careers of Lyell and Mantell, assessments of the nature of the geological work of the other identified members of council are essentially summary in form, and focus on the nature of their domains.

(1) BUCKLAND

148 M. Bartholomew, ‘Lyell and Evolution: An Account of Lyell’s Response to the Prospect of an Evolutionary Ancestry for Man’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1973, 6, pp. 264- 275. 149 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), pp.16-18. Characteristics of the English school are discussed in the immediate sub-section dealing with Buckland.

102 In Lyell’s letters to Mantell during the 1820s, Buckland is depicted in three main guises; as a headstrong exponent of Mosaic diluvialism, as a most entertaining speaker, and finally, as a rather slapdash geologist. Examples of Lyell’s comments are set down below:

Bucland [sic] in his usual style enlarged on the marvel with a strange mixture of the humorous and the serious that we cd. none of us discern how far he believed himself what he said.151

This is so beautiful a key, [the section from Compton Chine to Brook on the Isle of Wight] that I should have been at a loss to conceive how so much blundering could have arisen if I had not witnessed the hurried manner in which Buckland galloped over the ground. He would have entirely overlooked the Weald clay if I had not taken him back to see it.152

Buckland reconciled all to his diluvium hypothesis [fossilised reptile bones from Ava, India] as what facts would he not, but be his theory wide of the mark or not, he is always worth hearing.153

Conybeare’s memoir [‘On the Hydrographical Basin of the Thames’] is not strong by any means. He admits 3 deluges before the Noachian! and Buckland adds God knows how many catastrophes besides so we have driven them out of the Mosaic record fairly.154

He [Buckland] can swear to a genus from a rolled vertebra in Swanage bay whereas Cuvier cannot when he saw 20 from Loxwood & a femur &c &c.155

However, Lyell’s generally critical and simplistic comments on Buckland are belied, to a large extent, by the broad scope of Buckland’s geological work during the 1820s. Perhaps Lyell envied the rapid career advancement of his former Oxford tutor. Buckland was awarded the Royal Society’s Copley Medal in 1822, became President of the GSL in 1824-25, and a councillor of the Royal Society in 1827. He was also the recipient of other benefits, as Lyell informed Mantell in 1825:

150 In 1825 Buckland was 41, Sedgwick 40, Conybeare 38, Fitton 45 and Greenough 47 years of age. 151 CL to GAM, 8 February 1822, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 3). 152 CL to GAM, 11 June 1823, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 12). 153 CL to GAM, 17 February 1828, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol-Letter 45). 154 CL to GAM, 16 May 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 58). 155 CL to GAM, 5 February 1830, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.- Letter 67).

103 Bucland [sic] you know is made by Ld. Liverpool a canon of Ch. Ch. A good house, £1,000 per an.m & no residence or duty required. Surely such places ought to be made also for Lay Geologists.156

Buckland’s geological output was considerable during the 1820s. He read 16 papers at the GSL, of which one was a joint work with Conybeare;157 eight can be regarded as significant, and seven of lesser importance.158 Additionally, Buckland gave a notable paper to the Royal Society on the Kirkdale cave fossils159 that provided the basis for his Reliquiae Diluvianae,160 published two general articles in the American Journal of Science,161 and replied to criticisms from Fleming in The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal.162 The nature of his work during this decade can be grouped into three categories: diluvialism, palaeo-ecological studies based on modern analogies, and a wide range of English stratigraphic and palaeontological investigations. In essence, the combination of these three categories covers the spectrum of what Rupke has described as the English school of geology. This distinctive mix of geological practices and beliefs was jointly established by Buckland, Sedgwick and Conybeare in the 1820s and exhibited the following characteristics:163

· The school distanced itself from both the Plutonists and Neptunists and was therefore distinct from the schools of Paris, Freiberg and Edinburgh.

156 CL to GAM, 20 July 1825, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 22). 157 W. Buckland and W.D. Conybeare, ‘Observations on the South-western Coal District of England’, TGSL, 1824, 1, series 2, pp. 210-316. 158 A listing of these papers is provided later in this section of the thesis. One of these papers, ‘On the Structure of the Alps and Adjoining Parts of the Continent’, was laid before the GSL but published in Annals of Philosophy, 1821. 159 W. Buckland, ‘Account of an Assemblage of Fossil Teeth and Bones of Elephant, Rhinoceros, Hippopotamos, Bear, Tiger, and Hyaena, and Sixteen other Animals; Discovered in a Cave at Kirkdale, Yorkshire, in the Year 1821: with a Comparative View of Five Similar Caverns in Various Parts of England, and Others on the Continent’, PTRSL, 1822, 112, pp. 171-236. 160 W. Buckland, Reliquiae Diluvianae; or, Observations on the Organic Remains Contained in Caves, Fissures, and Diluvial Gravel, and on other Geological Phenomena, Attesting the Action of an Universal Deluge, Murray, London, 1823. 161 W. Buckland, ‘Instructions for Conducting Investigations, and Collecting Specimens’, American Journal of Science, 1821, 3, pp. 249-251; and ‘Opinion of Professor Buckland of the University of Oxford, Respecting certain Features of American Geology’, American Journal of Science, 1822, 4, pp. 185-186. 162 W. Buckland, ‘Reply to some Observations in Dr Fleming’s Remarks on the Distribution of British Animals’, The Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, 1825, 12, pp. 304-319. 163 The various features of the English school of geology are summarised from Rupke’s, The Great

104 · Geological investigations focused on the stratigraphy of England and Wales where the Secondary formations occur in a particularly well defined manner. Since these formations were found to be highly fossiliferous, the correlative role of fossils in stratigraphy was emphasised. · The school was committed to diluvialism during the first half of the 1820s and then to a broader synthesis of earth history, progressionism. · It aligned itself with Paleyan natural theology. · Economic geology was regarded with rather little interest.

In fact, the English school of geology can be regarded as a broad, evolving, ‘modal’ domain that embraced the more specific sub-domains of first, diluvialism, and then progressionism. During the decade both Buckland and Sedgwick held significant positions of influence to jointly expound the above tenets. In addition to their respective chairs at Oxford and Cambridge, Buckland was GSL President from 1824 to 1826, while Sedgwick served in that capacity from 1829 to 1831. In his examination of the English school Rupke also argued that the key factor that motivated Buckland, Conybeare, and Sedgwick to formulate their particular mode of geology was the need to make geology compatible with the Oxbridge curriculum for the education of the English clergy.164 In this regard Buckland’s diluvial theory was of crucial importance. As noted by Oldroyd: “It provided a link between the ‘textual’ evidence offered by Biblical history and the history of the earth that was beginning to be written by the nineteenth-century stratigraphers.”165 Diluvialism has been well described in the secondary literature by Page,166 Rudwick,167 Rupke,168 and Hallam.169 In summary, following Buckland’s investigations into the fossil bones of various animals discovered in the Kirkdale caverns in 1821, he was able to integrate his previous

Chain of History, pp. 15-26. 164 Ibid., pp. 24-25. 165 Oldroyd, op. cit. (note 17), p. 385. 166 Page, op. cit. (note 38). 167 M.J.S. Rudwick, The Meaning of Fossils: Episodes in the History of Palaeontology, Macdonald, London, 1972, on pp. 136-138. 168 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), pp. 39-41, 58-59, 64-78. 169 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), pp. 41-43.

105 diluvial studies, concerning widespread gravel and other surface flood phenomena,170 with palaeo-ecological techniques based on modern day analogies. In doing so, Buckland was able to argue that Cuvier’s last ‘revolution’ was a unique and transitory deluge akin to a tidal wave, and not a prolonged event. Buckland went on to argue that this scriptural deluge had been universal and not confined to northern latitudes where the geological evidence was strongest. Significantly, he did not propose a cause for this remarkable event, but his concept gained widespread general acceptance in England. Thus the diluvial domain established by Buckland during the first half of the 1820s incorporated various aspects of the overall concept; the nature of recent deposits, the formation of valleys, natural theology, and the application of palaeo-ecological techniques. His distinctive mix of interpretations and methodologies embraced aspects of all geological domains and the concept constituted a key sub-domain of the emerging English school. Buckland’s diluvial domain of the early 1820s, however, was to have a relatively short ‘shelf-life’ compared to most other geological domains examined in this thesis. Although his theory was strongly supported by the ‘clergyman-specialists’, Sedgwick, Whewell and Conybeare, Fitton was not fully convinced that the deluge was “recent, transient, and simultaneous”,171 Lyell much less so,172 while Fleming173 proved to be a most effective critic.174 By the end of the decade Buckland’s diluvialism was a diminished and considerably modified concept. The majority of Buckland’s geological investigations in the 1820s, in fact, were not explicitly concerned with diluvialism,175 but described fossil

170 Buckland, ‘Description of the Quartz Rock of the Lickey Hill in Worcestershire, and of the Strata surrounding it;’ TGSL, [1819] and op. cit. (note 49). 171 [W. Fitton], ‘Art. X. Reliquiæ Diluvianæ ; or, Observations on the Organic Remains contained in Caves, Fissures, and Diluvial Gravel, and on other Geological Phenomena, attesting the Action of an Universal Deluge. By the Reverend William Buckland, B.D., F.R.S., F.L.S. Member of the Geological Society of London &c &c. and Professor of Mineralogy and Geology in the University of Oxford. 4to. pp. 303. 27 plates. London. J. Murray, 1823.’ The Edinburgh Review, 1824, 39, pp. 196-234 on p. 229. 172 See CL to GAM, 16 May 1829, 7 June 1829, and 22 October 1829. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 58, 60 and 62). 173 John Fleming (1785-1857). Scottish cleric and naturalist. See Supp. Vol.-Letter 144, for details of his personal circumstances. 174 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), p. 44. 175 Buckland’s only other paper on diluvialism in the 1820s, hitherto not mentioned, was ‘On the Excavation of Valleys by diluvian Action, as illustrated by a Succession of Valleys which intersect the South Coast of Dorset and Devon’[1822], TGSL, 1824, 1, pp. 95-102.

106 reptiles and antediluvian formations,176 often with marked palaeo-ecological overtones that were an innovative feature of his work. Cannon has given an informative summary of Buckland’s approach:

His [Buckland’s] importance lay, rather, in helping to redefine the nature and method of a geological explanation….Buckland transferred Cuvier’s method of reconstructing fossil animals to geology proper….Nothing is more characteristic of Buckland’s papers than the use of some immediately observable analogy – the habits of modern hyenas, the cavities formed by air bubbles in clay, the geographical locus of modern animals: that is he tried to reason from the analogies of the existing world to the events of a past world.177

During the 1820s Buckland also completed three minor papers on petrological and mineralogical topics,178 and a causal study on valley formation.179

(2) SEDGWICK

In 1820 Sedgwick was 35 years of age and had been the Woodwardian professor of geology at Cambridge, and a member of the GSL, for two years. His geological work during the 1820s can be classified in three ways. First,

176 W. Buckland,i‘Notice on the Megalosaurus or Great Fossil Lizard of Stonesfield’, TGSL, 1824, 1, pp 390-396;i‘Geological Account of a Series of Animal and Vegetable Remains and of Rocks, collected by J. Crawfurd, Esq. On a Voyage up the Irawadi, to Ava, in 1826 and 1827’ [1828], TGSL, 1828, 2, pp. 377-392;i‘Observations on the Bones of Hyaenas and Other Animals in the Cavern of Lunel near Montpelier, and in the Adjacent Strata of Marine Formations’, PGSL, 1834, 1, pp. 3- 6;i‘An Account of the Discovery of a Number of Fossil Bones of Bears, in the Grotto of Osselles, or Quingey, near BesanÇon in France’, PGSL, 1834, 1, pp. 21-22;i‘On the Cycadeoideæ, a Family of Fossil Plants, found in the Oolite Quarries of the Isle of Portland’ [1828], TGSL, 1829, 2, pp. 395- 401;i‘Observations on the Secondary Formations between Nice and the Col di Tendi’ [1829], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 187-190;i‘On the Discovery of a New Species of Pterodactyle in the Lias at Lyme Regis’ [1829], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 217-222;i‘On the Discovery of Coprolites, or Fossil Faeces, in the Lias at Lyme Regis, and in other Formations’ [1829], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 223- 236;i‘On the Discovery of Fossil Bones of the Iguanodon in the Iron Sand of the Wealden Formation in the Isle of Wight, and in the Isle of Purbeck’ [1829], TGSL, 1835, 3, pp. 425-432. 177 W.F. Cannon, DSB, 1971, vol. 2, p. 567. 178 W. Buckland,i‘Notice on the Geological Structure of a part of the Island of Madagascar,’, TGSL, 1821, 5, pp. 476-481;i‘Supplementary Remarks on the supposed Power of the Waters of the Irawadi to convert Wood to Stone’, TGSL, 1829, 2, pp. 403-404;i‘On the Occurrence of Agates in Dolomitic Strata of the New Red Sandstone Formation in the Mendip Hills’, TGSL, 1835, 3, pp. 421-424. 179 W. Buckland, ‘On the Formation of the Valley of Kingsclere and other Valleys, by the Elevation of the Strata that inclose them; and on the Evidences of the original Continuity of the Basins of London and Hampshire’ [1825], TGSL, 1829, 2, pp. 119-130.

107 in the years to 1826 Sedgwick published eight varied, stratigraphic papers of relatively minor importance in Transactions of the Philosophical Society of Cambridge or in The Annals of Philosophy;180 in 1828 he finished a major investigation concerning the magnesian limestone of the New Red Sandstone that he had commenced in 1822; and finally, Sedgwick completed three joint- papers with Murchison in 1828-29. All of these papers can be classified as taxonomic-stratigraphic. Although Sedgwick was very much a diluvialist, only two of his papers dealt directly with this subject, namely, ‘On the Origin of Alluvial and Diluvial Deposits’ and ‘On Diluvial Formations’, both written in 1825.181 Sedgwick’s concept of the deluge at this stage was similar to Buckland’s, as instanced by some of his concluding remarks in the latter paper:

The facts brought to light by the combined labours of the modern school of geologists, seem, as far as I comprehend them, completely to demonstrate the reality of a great diluvian catastrophe during a comparatively recent period in the natural history of the earth.182

Like Buckland, Sedgwick was also forced to modify his conception of the deluge by the end of the decade, as indicated by Lyell’s comments to Mantell:

I followed [as a speaker at a GSL meeting in early June 1829] & then Sedgwick who decided on 4 or more deluges & said the simultaneousness was disproved for ever &c &c & declared that on the nature of such floods we should at present “doubt & not dogmatise!” a good meeting.183

Sedgwick has become as complete an anti-Bucklandite as to diluvium as I ever was & means to hold forth on it, a diversion very favourable to me.184

However, Lyell overstated the position. In his 1830 GSL Presidential Address Sedgwick indicated that Scrope’s views on the erosive powers of

180 Relevant details on these papers are contained in the bibliography of this thesis. 181 A. Sedgwick, ‘On the Origin of Alluvial and Diluvial Formations’, Annals of Philosophy, 1825, 9, pp. 241-257 and ‘On Diluvial Formations’, Annals of Philosophy, 1825, 10, pp. 18-37. 182 Ibid., p. 35. 183 CL to GAM, 7 June 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 60). 184 CL to GAM, 22 October 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 62).

108 rivers went too far and that they could not account for the gravels of the Thames Valley and elsewhere.185 Sedgwick spent the summers of 1822, 1823, and 1824 in north-east England and the Lakes District, mapping, inter alia, the New Red Sandstone using the calcareous beds in the upper and lower (magnesian) parts of the system to correlate other beds in this complex series. In doing so, Sedgwick made use of fossils for correlative purposes and was also able to correlate these beds with their German counterparts. His paper on this subject was read to the GSL over the interval November 1826 to March 1828.186 In several respects this paper can be compared with Fitton’s major study on the deposits situated between the chalk and Purbeck limestone in the south-east of England.187 Although neither man was the first to investigate these respective formations, the detailed and careful fieldwork of both regional studies resulted in the clearing up of various stratigraphic anomalies. In the latter half of the decade the relatively inexperienced Murchison virtually ‘selected’ Sedgwick to be his mentor and companion in helping him examine some perplexing stratigraphical problems in Scotland.188 The joint fieldwork of these two men resulted in three joint papers, two on aspects of Scottish stratigraphy, and one on the deposits of the eastern Alps.189 The former two papers were essentially extensions of earlier work by Macculloch; the latter paper was notable in that it accentuated the importance of Alpine stratigraphy and dynamics to English geologists.190 In reviewing Sedgwick’s geological work during the 1820s, Clark and Hughes made the point that although Sedgwick’s investigations may appear

185 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), p. 45. 186 A. Sedgwick, ‘On the Geological Relations and internal Structure of the Magnesian Limestone, and the lower Portions of the New Red Sandstone Series in their Range through Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire, Yorkshire, and Durham, to the Southern Extremity of Northumberland’ [17 November 1826, 30 April 1827, 18 May 1827 and 7 March 1828], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 37-124. 187 W.H. Fitton, ‘Inquiries respecting the Geological Relations of the Beds between the Chalk and Purbeck Limestone in the Southeast of England’, Annals of Philosophy, 1824, 8, new series, pp. 365- 383 and 458-462. 188 See A. Geikie, Life of Sir Roderick Murchison, Murray, London, 1875, vol. 1, p. 137 and J.W. Clark and T.Mc. Hughes, The Life and Letters of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1890, vol.1, p. 300. 189 A. Sedgwick and R.I.M. Murchison,i‘On the Geological Relations of the Secondary Strata in the Isle of Arran’ [1828], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 21-36;i ‘On the Structure and Relations of the Deposits contained between the Primary Rocks and the Oolitic Series in the North of Scotland’ [1828], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 125-160; andi‘A Sketch of the Structure of the Eastern Alps; with Sections through the Newer Formations on the Northern Flanks of the Chain, and through the Tertiary Deposits of Styria, &c, &c’,[1829 and 1830], TGSL, 1832, 3, pp. 301-420. 190 Clark and Hughes, op. cit. (note 188), vol. 1, p. 358.

109 to have been desultory, they were all concerned with the relatively complex stratigraphy and structure of the older rocks.191 More particularly, Sedgwick’s investigations of the New Red sandstone in the Lakes district gave him an appreciation of the nature of the older, non-conformable Carboniferous formations, which in turn, rested unconformably on older rocks. In summary, although his geological work in the 1820s did not result in the identification of a separate, major stratigaphic domain, it provided him with a sound foundation for his work in the coming decade.

(3) CONYBEARE

By the early 1820s Conybeare had established a notable reputation as one of the leading exponents of the emerging English school of geology, and as such, was a colleague of Buckland. At the commencement of the decade Conybeare was 33 years of age, married, a curate in Suffolk, endowed with a private income of £500 a year, and had published 3 papers192 in the Society’s Transactions.193 Conybeare’s first significant work described a part skeleton of a fossil reptile possibly found at Lyme Regis by Mary Anning in 1821. In a joint paper194 with De la Beche, who provided relevant stratigraphic data, Conybeare used Cuvier’s methodology to construct the Plesiosaurus as an intermediate reptile between the Ichthyosaurus and modern day crocodile. His reconstruction was confirmed following the discovery of an almost perfect skeleton of a Plesiosaurus several years later.195 Rudwick196 has commented that Conybeare’s most important and influential work was his enlargement and improvement of W. Phillip’s 1818 summary of English stratigraphy, A Selection of Facts from the Best Authorities Arranged as to Form an Outline of the Geology of England and

191 Ibid., vol.1, p. 530. 192 Details of these three papers are contained in the bibliography of this thesis. 193 Woodward, op. cit. (note 29), pp. 40-41 and 273. 194 W.D. Conybeare and H.T. De la Beche, ‘Notice of a Discovery of a New Fossil Animal, Forming a Link between the Ichthyosaurus and the Crocodile; together with general remarks on the osteology of the Ichthyosaurus’, TGSL, 1821, 5, pp. 558-594. 195 W.D. Conybeare, ‘On the Discovery of an almost perfect Skeleton of a Plesiosaurus’, TGSL, 1824, 1, pp. 381- 389. See CL to GAM, 17 February 1824, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 14). 196 M.J.S. Rudwick, ‘A Critique of Uniformitarian Geology: A letter from W.D. Conybeare to Charles Lyell, 1841’, Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, 1967, 111, p. 274.

110 Wales. The new joint work, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales,197 published in 1822, provided a synopsis of stratigraphic knowledge from the present to the Carboniferous period. As noted in an earlier section, the book exhibited catastrophist principles. Following the death of Phillips in 1828, a second volume was planned with Sedgwick198 as a co-author, but this work did not eventuate. Conybeare’s other stratigraphic paper during the 1820s, apart from his joint paper199 with Buckland on the south-western coal district of England, was also broad in scope and attempted a synthesis of Continental stratigraphy.200 In his 1983 study of Buckland and the English school of geology, Rupke attributed considerable importance to Conybeare’s role in defending diluvial theory against the ‘fluvialists’;201 in fact, he stated: “If Buckland was the titular head of the diluvialist party, Conybeare was the party theoretician”.202 An example of Conybeare’s role in this regard is his 1829 paper, ‘On the Hydrographical Basin of the Thames’,203 in which he argued that the valleys of the Thames could not have been formed by fluvial forces. Nevertheless, by the end of the decade the earlier 1820 concept of a dramatic and universal Mosaic deluge had been greatly modified. In its stead was a broader and more flexible synthesis of geological history, progressionism, that acknowledged occasional cataclysmic episodes in the stratigraphic record, evidence of increasing complexity combined with perfect adaptation in the fossil record, and a directional climate change. Like diluvialism, progressionism incorporated aspects of ‘causal’, ‘taxonomic’, and ‘scriptural’ domains of geology. Both Rudwick204 and Rupke205 have made the point that Conybeare was one of the most able exponents of this broader concept. To a considerable extent this can be regarded as a consequence of

197 Conybeare and Phillips, op. cit. (note 25). 198 CL to GAM, 21 April 1828, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 47). 199 Buckland and Conybeare, op. cit. (note 157). 200 W.D. Conybeare, ‘Memoir Illustrative of a General Geological Map of the principal Mountain Chains of Europe’, Annals of Philosophy, 1823, 5, pp. 1-16, 135-149, 210-218, 278-289, 356-359; and 6, pp. 214-219. 201 Conybeare termed the opponents of diluvial theory, ‘fluvialists’. See CL to GAM, 7 June 1829. (Supp.Vol.-Letter 60). 202 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), p. 86. 203 W.D. Conybeare, ‘On the Hydrographical Basin of the Thames, With a View More Especially to Investigate the Causes Which have Operated in the Formation of the Valleys of that River, and its Tributary Streams’ [1829], PGSL, 1834, 1, pp. 145-149. 204 M.J.S. Rudwick, DSB, 1971, 3, pp. 395-396. 205 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), pp. 180-183.

111 the man, his position in life, and the nature of geology at that time. The combination of Conybeare’s intellectual ability, Oxford education, and a family background entrenched in the Anglican establishment,206 gave him impeccable credentials to expound, if not spear-head, this broader mix of concepts. It also gave him an opportunity to demonstrate that there was no incompatibility between geological developments and the teachings of the established church. By the late 1820s Conybeare can be regarded as a leading exponent of this ‘modal’ domain, jointly established by the Oxbridge ‘clergyman-specialists’.

(4) FITTON

In 1820, Fitton was 40 years of age and had been a member of the GSL since 1816. During the 1820s he was a member of council from 1822 to 1830, and President from 1827 to 1829. Fitton’s geological publications throughout the 1820s, 1830s, and 1840s fall into two basic categories. The first comprises various Edinburgh Review articles on geological developments and publications that generally fall outside the scope of this review.207 Fitton’s other category of geological work related to his regional taxonomic domain, the strata between the chalk and the Oxford oolite in the south-east of England. Unlike Conybeare and Buckland, Fitton’s area of geological investigations was relatively narrow in geographic scope. Moreover, Fitton was not a pioneer in his chosen domain; among others, he followed the earlier work of Farey, Webster, Mantell and Lyell.208 For these reasons Fitton’s work on these formations is considered to constitute a minor and not a major domain. The nature of Fitton’s work was well summed up by Hopkins, the president of the GSL in 1852, who made the following remarks when presenting Fitton with the Wollaston medal :

206 At Oxford Conybeare gained first-class honours in classics and second-class honours in mathematics. His father was rector of St. Botolph’s, Bishopsgate, London, the son of a bishop. In 1836 Conybeare was able to take up his family living as vicar of Axminster. DNB. 207 Some of these articles are referred to elsewhere in this chapter. Details are contained in the Bibliography of this thesis. 208 During 1822 and 123 Lyell did considerable work in unravelling the correct order of the strata below to the chalk in Sussex and made the results of his work available to Fitton. See CL to GAM, 4 July 1822, 12 February 1823, and 24 November 1824, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 10, 11 and 17).

112 The Council, however, could not fail to recognise especially, in the award of this Medal, the merit of those papers in which you so clearly explained the nature of the different beds between the Chalk and the Oolites, and their relations to each other – relations which had been previously so imperfectly understood. The Upper Green Sand was sometimes confounded with the Lower Green Sand, the Gault with the Weald Clay, and the Ferruginous Sands of the Lower Green Sand with those of the Hastings Sands; and the distinctions between the Lower Green Sand, the Wealden Clay, and the Hastings Sands were imperfectly comprehended. 209

The papers referred to by Hopkins were Fitton’s ‘Enquiries respecting the Geological Relations of the Beds between the Chalk and the Purbeck Limestone in the South-east of England’, published in 1824,210 and ‘On Some of the Strata Between the Chalk and the Oxford Oolite, in the South-east of England’, read to the GSL in June, 1827, but not published until 1836.211 Both papers covered the same subject, but the latter was longer and more comprehensive. During the 1820s Fitton also produced five ancillary papers describing particular aspects of these beds, including some comparisons with those on the Continent.212

(5) DE LA BECHE

Like Lyell and Murchison, De la Beche can be regarded as representative of a younger group of ‘gentleman-specialists’ who completed their geological ‘apprenticeship’ in the 1820s. He was 24 years of age in 1820. De la Beche’s main training ground comprised the coastal stratigraphy of south-western England, though he also prepared a pioneering paper on the geology of Jamaica,213 an annotated translation of selected memoirs on Continental geology,214 and a description of the geology around Nice.215

209 GSL, ‘Proceedings at the Annual General Meeting, 20th February, 1852’, QJGSL, 1852, 8, p. 19. 210 W.H. Fitton, ‘Enquiries respecting the Geological Relations of the Beds between the Chalk and the Purbeck Limestone in the South-east of England’, Annals of Philosophy, 1824, 8, pp. 365-383 and 458-462. 211 W.H. Fitton, ‘Observations on some of the Strata between the Chalk and the Oxford Oolite, in the south-east of England’, TGSL,1836, 4, pp. 103-378. 212 Details of these five papers are contained in the Bibliography of this thesis. 213 H.T. De la Beche, ‘Remarks on the Geology of Jamaica’ [1825-26], TGSL, 1829, 2, pp. 143-194. 214 H.T. De la Beche, A Selection of the Geological Memoirs Contained in the Annales des Mines, Phillips, London, 1824.

113 Four of the six papers that De la Beche completed on the coastal stratigraphy of southern and south-western England concerned the stretch of Devon-Dorset coast from Bridport to Torquay216 (chalk beds down to the New Red Sandstone). Another paper on the geology of the coast of France highlighted the correspondence between the French beds and the formations in the south of England,217 while the sixth paper dealt with the geology of South Pembrokeshire218 (coal measures down to the greywacke). Consequently, De la Beche gained an appreciation of the formations above the Carboniferous, and an awareness of the potential domains below that system. All of De la Beche’s geological investigations during the 1820s can be summarised as taxonomic, and oriented towards stratigraphy, rather than fossil remains. However, some elements of his work were not completely representative of the English school of geology at that time. There are indications of Greenough’s sceptical approach to geological investigations such as considerable emphasis on detailed descriptive facts, local classification, complexity and minimum causal input. For example, in his paper on the Lias in the vicinity of Lyme Regis (read November 1823), De la Beche described 91 separate beds in one of three portions of the Lias in a particular section near Seven Point Rock.219 Only 18 of the 91 separated beds exceeded one foot (30 cm.) in thickness. Overtones of Greenough’s scepticism, and distrust of regional correlations, are also evident in De la Beche’s concluding remarks in his paper on the chalk and sands near Lyme Regis:

If therefore, in rocks formed in the same geological epoch, variations such as here are noticed, occur within the space of a

215 H.T. De la Beche, ‘On the Geology of the Environs of Nice, and the Coast thence to Vintimiglia’, [1828], TGSL,1835, 3, pp. 171-186. 216 H.T. De la Beche,i‘Remarks on the Geology of the South Coast of England, from Bridport Harbour, Dorset to Babbacombe Bay, Devon’ [1819], TGSL, 1822, 1, pp. 40-47;i‘On the Lias of the Coast, in the Vicinity of Lyme Regis, Dorset’ [1823], TGSL, 1826, 2, pp. 21-30;i‘On the Chalk and Sands beneath it (usually termed Green-sand) in the Vicinity of Lyme Regis, Dorset, and Beer, Devon’ [1825], TGSL, 1826, 2, pp. 109-118;i‘On the Geology of Tor and Babbacombe Bays, Devon’ [1827], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 161-170. 217 H.T. De la Beche, ‘On the Geology of the Coast of France, and of the inland Country adjoining; from Fecamp, Department de la Seine Inferieure, to St. Vaast, Department de la Manche’ [1821], TGSL, 1822, 1, pp. 73-89. 218 H.T. De la Beche, ‘On the Geology of Southern Pembrokeshire’,[1823],TGSL, 1826, 2, pp.1-20. 219 De la Beche, ‘On the Lias of the Coast, in the Vicinity of Lyme Regis, Dorset’, 1826, on p. 24.

114 few miles, how many points of difference may we not expect to find in geological equivalents, belonging to countries many thousand miles apart.220

By the end of the decade De la Beche had more than completed his ‘geological apprenticeship’ and was positioned to fashion a domain, as will be discussed.

(6) MURCHISON

Murchison did not begin his geological ‘apprenticeship’ until the mid- 1820s,221 but in the subsequent years to the end of the decade he sought and received a comprehensive grounding in stratigraphical geology. His first GSL paper, read in December 1825, consisted of a geological sketch of the deposits in north-western Sussex,222 which his biographer, Geikie, described in the following manner:

This little essay bore manifest evidence of being the result of careful observation of the order of succession of the rocks in the field, followed by as ample examination of their fossils as he could secure from those best qualified to give an opinion upon them. In these respects it was typical of all his later work.223

Geikie’s last sentence is pertinent. Murchison’s geological style of stratigraphic investigations, backed up by expert palaeontological advice, changed little throughout his career. During the 1820s Murchison availed himself fully of such geological mentors as Buckland, William Smith, J. Phillips, Lyell and most importantly, Sedgwick. In his next paper on the Brora coal-deposit in Scotland,224 an investigation suggested by Buckland, Murchison used fossils to correlate this

220 De la Beche, ‘ On the Chalk and the Sand beneath it…’, 1826, p. 118. 221 In 1824 Murchison attended lectures at the Royal Institution; he joined the GSL in 1825 and thereafter was in a position to devote himself entirely to geology and allied interests. DSB. 222 R.I. Murchison, ‘Geological Sketch of the North-western Extremity of Sussex, and the adjoining Parts of Hants and Surrey’ [December 1825], TGSL, 1826, 2, pp. 97-108. 223 A. Geikie, Life of Sir Roderick I. Murchison, Murray, London, 1875, vol. 1, p. 128. 224 R.I. Murchison, ‘On the Coal-field of Brora in Sutherlandshire, and some other Stratified Deposits in the North Scotland’ [January and February 1827], TGSL, 1827, 2, pp. 293-326. In November 1827 Murchison read an associated paper , ‘Supplementary Remarks on the Strata of the Oolitic Series, and the Rocks associated with them, in the Counties of Sutherland and Ross, and in

115 coal deposit with the Oolitic strata of Yorkshire, and disprove that it belonged to the older Carboniferous System. Before doing so, however, Murchison was fully briefed on the oolitic fossils of Yorkshire by John Phillips, who also arranged a meeting with his uncle, William Smith. Smith subsequently acquainted Murchison with the Yorkshire strata and instructed him in the principles of correlation using fossil data.225 In this instance Murchison acknowledged his gratitude to Smith, but not to Phillips. 226 As noted earlier in the section dealing with Sedgwick’s work in the 1820s, Murchison ‘selected’ the Woodwardian professor as his ‘senior partner’ to examine certain complex Scottish secondary formations. These investigations were followed by a joint expedition with Lyell227 to central France and Italy in 1828, when he came under the influence of the latter’s ‘actualistic’ concepts. However, Murchison’s subsequent observations and investigations in the Alps, both with and without Sedgwick, restored his catastrophist viewpoint.228 Although none of the geological work completed by Murchison during the 1820s can be regarded as innovative or of major importance, his investigations covered a broad stratigraphic range in terms of both geological age and geographic extent. Like De la Beche and Sedgwick, he was in a sound position at the end of the decade to exploit any identified stratigraphic domain.

(7) WOLLASTON

Wollaston was the only member of council identified in the penultimate screening list for the period 1807 to 1820, and one of two members so recognised in the decade 1820 to 1830, the other being Buckland. However, within the context of this thesis Wollaston can be regarded as an anomalous figure, since he was a distinguished physiologist, metallurgist and chemist, not a geologist. Wollaston’s wide-ranging scientific investigations were in the fields of physiology and physiological chemistry, instrumentation,

the Hebrides’ [1827], TGSL, 1828, 2, pp. 353-368. 225 Geikie, op. cit. (note 223), vol. 1, pp. 130-132. 226 J. Morrell, ‘The Legacy of William Smith: the case of John Phillips in the 1820s’, Archives of Natural History, 1989, 16, pp. 319-335, on p. 330. 227 See CL to GAM, 15 June and 22 August 1828, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp.Vol.- Letters 49 and 50). 228 M.J.S. Rudwick, DSB, 1971, 9, on p. 583.

116 crystallography, and the chemistry and metallurgy of the platinoid metals. All his work was published in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London,229 and not with the GSL. None of his studies concerned stratigraphy, structural geology, palaeontology, or petrology, and unlike Whewell, who can also be regarded as a ‘non-geological’ figure, Wollaston did not delve into the philosophy or methodologies of geology. Wollaston joined the GSL in 1812 and served as a member of council from 1813 to 1824. His inclusion in the list of an English geological elite can be regarded as a reflection of an earlier, different era in the history of the GSL.

(8) WHEWELL

Whewell did not serve as a member of the GSL council during the 1820s. He used these years to establish himself at Cambridge by publishing a treatise on dynamics230 besides an important paper on crystallography,231 becoming ordained in the Church of England in 1826, and being appointed Professor of Mineralogy in 1828, when he also published a revision of Mohs mineralogical system.232 Additionally, Whewell was an influential member of the ‘English school’ of geology, together with fellow clerics Buckland, Conybeare and Sedgwick. Rupke has referred to Whewell and Conybeare as the ‘party theoreticians’ of that particular school,233 but in Whewell’s case the context was in the early 1830s. Nevertheless, his reputation was sufficient for Lyell to comment in a letter to his sister in 1830 “He [Whewell] is head tutor at Trinity, and has more influence than any individual unless it be Sedgwick”.234 In many respects Whewell’s range of intellectual, religious and scientific interests were still being developed in the 1820s. He was not to take an active role in geological matters until the early years of the next decade. (9) GREENOUGH

229 During the period 1797-1829 Wollaston had 38 papers published in PTRSL. 230 W. Whewell, A Treatise on Dynamics, Cambridge, 1823. 231 W. Whewell, ‘A General Method of Calculating the Angles Made by Any Planes of Crystals, and the Laws According to which they are Formed’, PTRSL, 1825, 115, pp. 87-130. 232 W. Whewell, An Essay on Mineralogical Classification and Nomenclature; With Tables of the Orders and Species of Minerals, Cambridge, 1828. 233 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), p. 181. 234 CL to his sister Marianne, 14 November 1830. Quoted in K. Lyell, op. cit. (note 5), 1881, vol.1, p. 312.

117 In 1820 Greenough was 42 years of age and completing his second term as president of the GSL. He was also a founding member of the Society and its first president, and therefore a person of consequence in the English geological world. Under his leadership the GSL had prepared a geological map of England and Wales, published in 1820, but largely based on W. Smith’s work,. However, Greenough’s memoir accompanying the map235 was virtually his last geological publication. This explains his early exclusion from the various screening lists in the previous chapter. He is included in this analysis as one of two exceptional cases. As previously noted, Greenough’s principal publication, A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology, in a Series of Essays,236 was characterised by a sceptical approach to almost all aspects of geology. Given Greenough’s institutional status and geological authority at the time, however, the publication of this book effectively established him as the leading exponent of this modal approach to geology. Nevertheless, the problem with such a negative and idiosyncratic domain is one of conservation, let alone its development. Although Greenough was recognised as a leading exponent of the sceptical approach to geology, his publication was generally not well received. Bakewell’s criticism was severe;237 Fleming’s even more so:

Before taking our leave of Mr. Greenough, we feel disposed to state candidly, that his performance is one by no means calculated to advance his own reputation, or promote the interests of geology….There has resulted from all this a kind of geological scepticism, which we regard in this instance as the index of a mind unaccustomed to philosophical induction,238

The generally poor reception given to Greenough’s book by his geological peers may have fostered a characteristic that Rudwick connected with the sceptical style of geology, social isolation.239 Rupke has noted that

235 G.B. Greenough, Memoir of a Geological Map of England, London, 1820, accompanying A Geological Map of England and Wales, London, 1819. (map not published until 1820). 236 Published by Longman and Co., London, in 1819. 237 [Bakewell], op. cit. (note 54), pp. 376-393. 238 J. Fleming, ‘Review of Greenough’s A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology’, Edinburgh Monthly Review, 1820, 4, p. 571. 239 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 15), p. 236.

118 Conybeare’s 1823 memoir on the geology of Europe240 contributed to the alienation of Greenough from Buckland and Conybeare.241 The biographies of Sedgwick, Murchison and Lyell, which are based on their respective letters and journals, contain sparing references to Greenough. After 1826, in fact, Lyell’s references to Greenough in his letters to Mantell become increasingly critical.242 Nevertheless, Greenough retained his positions of authority, being elected GSL president for a unique third term in the 1830s, and remaining a member of council until his death in 1855.

(10) JOHN PHILLIPS

John Phillips is the other exception included in the identified geological elite, his case being the converse of Greenough’s. Because of his provincial position and strained financial circumstances, Phillips did not join the GSL until 1828, and was not elected a member of council until 1853. However, an offsetting experiential advantage was having William Smith as his maternal uncle and geological mentor. Another advantage was his base as Keeper of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society’s museum at York during the 1820s,243 a position that gave him the opportunity to identify and establish his stratigraphic domain of the 1830s, the geology of Yorkshire. In contrast to the strata in south and south-eastern England, the stratigraphy of Yorkshire offered less-crowded opportunities. In December 1827, Phillips read his first paper to the GSL on some dislocated secondary rocks of Yorkshire.244 On the second last page of this paper, Philips identified a key aspect of his future domain:

I forbear to enlarge on this subject [Yorkshire limestone deposits] because I am not without hopes of preparing a general table of

240 Conybeare, op. cit. (note 200). 241 Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), p. 127. 242 See CL to GAM, 22 June 1826, 17 February 1826, and 16 May 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folders 61 and 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 31, 45 and 56). 243 In 1824 Phillips was engaged to arrange the fossil collection at the Yorkshire Philosophical Society’s museum at York. He was appointed Keeper in 1826. DSB. 244 J. Phillips, ‘On a Group of Slate Rocks ranging E.S.E. between the Rivers Lune and Wharfe, from near Kirby Lonsdale to near Maltham; and on the attendant Phænomena’ [1827-28], TGSL, 1829, 3, pp. 1-19.

119 synonyms for the limestone beds over a great part of the north of England.245

Phillips’s first book, Illustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire,246 was published in 1829. It can be described as the first part of a major regional text, and as Morrell has noted, “was an exercise in Smithian geology in its broad results and approach. He showed what Smith had discovered but not published, i.e. the presence in Yorkshire of strata already known in the south-west of England”.247 Knell’s analysis of the book was more succinct: “the stratigraphic framework of the South had been superimposed on Yorkshire”.248

3.2.5 REVIEW OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK COMPLETED BY THE IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1820s

The various reviews indicate that only two members of council established individual, major geological domains in the 1820s, Buckland and Greenough, though doubts can be expressed as to whether the latter’s domain was in the major category. Additionally, Conybeare was a key figure in fashioning a joint-domain towards the end of the decade, with Sedgwick also playing a consequential role in the development of the English school. Buckland was the only member identified in the final screening list for the 1820s. Conybeare and Sedgwick were two of seven members on the penultimate list for the 1830s, while Greenough was one of two exceptional cases. A common characteristic of these three domains is that all were ‘modal’. Another common factor is their relative impermanence. Buckland’s diluvialism had an effective ‘shelf-life’ of less than ten years before it was incorporated into the broader concept of progressionism, which in turn, became increasingly diffused by the mid-century. Greenough’s unusual domain of geological scepticism did not develop after his main work, A

245 Ibid., p. 18. 246 J. Phillips, Illustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire; or, a Description of the Strata and Organic Remains of the Yorkshire Coast: accompanied by a Geological Map, Sections, and Plates of the Fossil Plants and Animals, York, 1829. 247 J. Morrell, ‘The legacy of William Smith: the case of John Phillips in the 1820s’, Archives of Natural History, 1989, 16, p. 329. 248 S. Knell, ‘Immortal Remains: Fossil Collections from the Heroic Age of Geology (1820-1850)’, unpublished Ph.D thesis, University of Keele, 1997, p. 70.

120 Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology, was published in 1819. Another common factor of the three identified domains is that they were essentially national, rather than international, in their degree of acceptance. This probably reflects the national rather than international extent of the respective power bases of Buckland, Conybeare and Greenough. The only member identified in the penultimate list for the decade, the non-geologist Wollaston, was an anomalous figure, representative of an earlier period in the history of the GSL. Only two minor domains were identified in the 1820s, Fitton’s and Mantell’s. Both domains had limitations. Fitton was not a pioneer in his selected domain, the strata between the chalk and the Oxford oolite, in either England or on the continent. In essence, he cleared up major anomalies rather than forged new ground. Mantell’s minor domain, the fossils of Sussex, was established towards the end of the decade, but was too broad in palaeontological scope to develop, other than in the short term. Moreover, a major palaeontological domain cannot be confined to a single county, except in special circumstances. Lyell was aware of these limitations, and in 1829 suggested a more suitable major domain for Mantell to establish – British fossil reptiles and fish. During the 1820s Lyell’s geological interest became increasingly focused on ‘causal’ geology, and more particularly, on the explanatory methodology of present-day observable causes. Although he had identified this broad, potential domain by the mid-1820s, Lyell’s concept of absolute actualism does not appear to have crystallised until 1829. Phillips, one of the two exceptions in the selected elite, also identified his future domain by the end of the decade, the regional geology of Yorkshire. He had no need to be secretive about this choice and announced it in one of his papers.249 Sedgwick, along with the two younger members, Murchison and De la Beche, had not identified a separate potential domain by the end of the decade. However, each of these men had gained an excellent grounding in English stratigraphy during the 1820s. More particularly, their geological work had given them an appreciation of the formations above the

249 Phillips, op. cit. (note 244), p. 18.

121 Carboniferous, and an awareness of the potential domain or domains situated below. In summary, the 1820s was not a decade for establishing major new domains. It was a decade for solving stratigraphic anomalies above the Carboniferous; for discovering, but not classifying, large fossil reptiles; for substantiating the use of particular fossils in stratigraphic correlation; for developing and broadening the scope of the English school’s approach to geology; and for training new members in a position to devote most, if not all their time, to geology. In regard to the achievement of geological status it was a decade for positioning – attaining sufficient geological experience and knowledge to identify a major new domain and then being in a position to fashion it in the coming decade.

3.3 1830 to 1840

3.3.1 THE GEOLOGICAL WORK OF MANTELL IN THE 1830s

Follow-up remarks by Lyell in October, 1829, suggest that Mantell intended to implement Lyell’s ‘career blue-print’ and claim the vacant ‘taxonomic’ domain of British fossil fish and reptiles:

I am glad to hear that you [Mantell] are getting on in the anatomical branch for it is there that you may top all on this side of the channel & give us an invaluable help. The field is yours in spite of disadvantages of localization which you have triumphed over.250

Besides Lyell, Bakewell was also aware of the opportunity open to Mantell, and advised him accordingly three years after Lyell had done so:

I have been thinking that you might render essential service to science, increase your reputation & put a few hundred pounds in your pocket by publishing a book in one Vol – Oc[tavo]. ‘On British Vertebrated fossil animals with an appendix on Foreign Do.’ This work would be in the hands of every Geologist & would supersede the four large Vols of Cuvier in this country & be far

250 CL to GAM, 22 October 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 62).

122 more useful. I know of no one who could compete with you in this line in England.251

Bakewell repeated his advice in a succeeding letter to Mantell, dated 2 November 1832.252 However, it is not sufficient to have identified a potential domain and formulated an appropriate work programme. It is equally necessary to be suitably positioned to implement it. In this regard Mantell’s provincial situation at Lewes might have sufficed as a reasonably practical base to carry out the investigations envisaged by Lyell and Bakewell, if he had been prepared to reduce his medical work-load and accept a lower income. This possibility can only be speculative, since Mantell developed an alternative strategy. In brief, in December 1833, Mantell moved his family to fashionable Brighton where he proposed to establish a more ‘up-market’ medical practice, re-establish his museum, and continue his geological investigations. The reasons that induced Mantell to make this decision are explored in the next chapter, together with an analysis of the professional and financial calamities he encountered there. Accordingly, Mantell’s geological work during the 1830s is best examined on a pre and post- Brighton basis.

(1) 1830 - 1833 ( Pre-Brighton )

The highlight of Mantell’s geological work in the four years to December 1833 was the publication of The Geology of the South-east of England.253 In his Preface Mantell gave the following reasons for this publication:

The discovery of an unknown fossil reptile [Hylaeosaurus] in the strata of Tilgate Forest, induced me to lay before the Geological Society of London [in 1832], a Memoir on the Organic Remains of the Wealden which had been collected since my publication on the geology of the district. By permission of the President and the Council that memoir was withdrawn; and it was suggested to me, that as my former works were out of print, a volume which should combine the most interesting portions of the “Illustrations of the

251 R. Bakewell to GAM, 17 October 1832, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 5. 252 R. Bakewell to GAM, 2 November 1832, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 5. 253 G.A. Mantell, The Geology of the South-east of England, Longman, Orme, Brown, Green & Longman, London, 1833.

123 Geology of Sussex” with an account of the recent discoveries, might be acceptable both to the natural philosopher and the general reader.254

From a scientific viewpoint, the most significant segment of the book is Chapter X, which describes the fossil remains of the Hylaeosaurus, the second of three large, land-based fossil reptiles discovered by Mantell. The book also demonstrates Mantell’s skill in writing a volume acceptable to both the intelligent layman and serious student of geology. Another feature is the praise given to Lyell’s Principles of Geology in Mantell’s Introduction: “the most able, comprehensive and philosophical view of the subject that has hitherto appeared”.255 Mantell was now very much one of Lyell’s ‘apostles’, as indicated in a 1831 letter from Lyell that described the formation of a new volcanic island near Sicily:

I congratulate you, one of the first of my twelve apostles, at Nature having in so come-atable a part of the Mediterranean thus testified her approbation of the advocates of modern Causes. Was the cross which Constantine saw in the heavens a more clear indication of the approaching conversion of a wavering world? 256

Mantell had earlier demonstrated his ability to write for the popular market with his 1831 essay, ‘The Geological Age of Reptiles’,257 in which he described the different environments and characteristics of the Ichthyosaurus, Plesiosaurus, Megalosaurus and Iguanodon. During this period Mantell also published three other articles or notices in The Edinburgh New Philosophical Review258 of a relatively minor nature, and an anatomical appendage to Murchison’s paper on a fossil fox, discovered in Switzerland.259

254 Ibid., Preface. 255 Ibid., Introduction. 256 CL to GAM 30, August 1831, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 86). 257 G.A. Mantell, ‘The Geological Age of Reptiles’, ENPJ, 1831, 11, pp. 181-185. In a letter to Mantell, dated 1 July 1831, Lyell commented on this article: “You do much for popularising the science”. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 84). 258 G.A. Mantell,i‘On supposed Vegetable Remains in Chalk’, ENPJ, 1830, 8, pp. 313-314:i ‘On the Ripple Marks made by the Waves, observable in the Sandstone Strata of Sussex’, ENPJ, 1831, 11, pp. 240-241. For additional background on this paper see CL to GAM, 13 August 1831, (Supp. Vol.-Letter 85);i‘Discovery of the Bones of the Iguanodon in a Quarry of Kentish Rag (a limestone belonging to the lower greensand formation) near Maidstone, Kent’, ENPJ, 1834, 17, pp. 200-202. 259 G.A. Mantell, ‘Anatomical Description of the Fox’, TGSL, 1832, 3, pp. 291-292.

124 As a general summary, Mantell’s geological work during his last four years at Lewes generally lacked innovation and depth, apart from his Geology of the South-east of England.

(2) 1834 - 1840 (Brighton)

Mantell’s move to Brighton in December 1833 did not result in the completion of any significant geological investigations, though the first of two short papers read in June 1835, had important consequences at the time. This particular paper260 described fragments of a presumed metatarsal bone of a bird belonging to the order of waders found in the freshwater deposits of the Weald. Mantell’s opinion had been endorsed by Owen, and consequently the existence of birds below the chalk was considered an established fact. Predictably, Lyell took a ‘deep interest’ in the subject, because of his non - progessionist beliefs. It is ironic that in his paper Mantell described his future arch-rival, Owen, as “a gentleman whose profound knowledge of comparative anatomy, is only equalled by the liberality with which he imparts his valuable information to others”.261 In the next decade Owen reversed his earlier judgment and pronounced that the bones belonged to Pterodactyles.262 The other paper read by Mantell in June, 1835, remarked on the coffin bone of a horse found in the Pliocene cliffs of Brighton.263 In addition to the above two short papers, Mantell wrote two, well- received ‘popular’ books on geology. The first such publication, Thoughts on a Pebble,264 was inscribed to Mantell’s youngest son, Reginald Neville, and can be described as a charming, 23-page introduction to geology. By 1849, eight editions of this booklet had been printed. Mantell’s second book for the ‘popular’ market, The Wonders of Geology,265 first published in 1838, was

260 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Bones of Birds discovered in the Strata of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex’ [1835], TGSL, 1840, 5, pp. 175-177. 261 Ibid., pp. 175-177. 262 R. Owen, ‘On the supposed Fossil Bones of Birds from the Wealden’ [17 December 1845], QJGSL, 1846, 2, p. 97. 263 G.A. Mantell, ‘Remarks on the Coffin-bone (distal phalangel) of a Horse from the Shingle Bed of the Newer Pliocene Strata of the Cliffs of Brighton’ [1835], PGSL, 1834-37, 2, p. 203. For additional background on this paper see GAM to CL, 17 February 1835, (Supp. Vol.-Letter 120). 264 G.A. Mantell, Thoughts on a Pebble or a First Lesson in Geology, Relfe and Fletcher, London, 1836. 265 G.A. Mantell, The Wonders of Geology, 2 vols, Relfe and Fletcher, London, 1838.

125 also well received, the eighth edition being printed 12 years after Mantell’s death. The basis of this publication was the series of geological lectures that Mantell gave at Brighton. Although Mantell’s popular volumes were well written and provided an excellent introduction to geology for the ‘intelligent lay reader’, they were not works of geological achievement. By the end of the decade Mantell had retrogressed in terms of establishing a suitable geological domain. More specifically, he failed to capitalise on his discoveries of the Iguanodon and Hyaeolosaurus and make British fossil reptiles his area of acknowledged authority.

3.3.2 THE GEOLOGICAL WORK OF LYELL IN THE 1830s

Because the publication of four, separate editions of Principles of Geology266 was the undoubted highlight of Lyell’s geological output during the 1830s, particular emphasis is given in this section to the nature of his causal principles and to his key motivation for adopting them. These principles are considerably more complex than Lyell indicated in his straight-forward title, Principles of Geology, being An Attempt to explain the Former Changes of the Earth’s Surface, by reference to causes now in operation. Since the literature pertaining to Lyell is extensive, relatively little attention is given here to other aspects of this work, such as its historical account of geology, overall structure, and polemical nature.267 Lyell’s progress and excitement in writing the first volume of Principles of Geology are revealed in his letters to Mantell from 23 May, 1829, until 22 June, 1830,268 the day he sent the last page to the printer and set out for the Pyrennees. In addition to the four editions of Principles of Geology, during the 1830s Lyell also published the first edition of Elements of Geology,269 and 12

266 The three volumes of the first edition of Lyell’s Principles of Geology were published by J. Murray, London, in 1830, 1832 and 1833 respectively. Vols 1 and 2 of this edition were re-printed in 1832 and 1833, the next edition, printed in 1834 (4 vols), was termed the third. The fourth and fifth editions, also comprising 4 volumes, were published in 1835 and 1837 respectively. 267 Excellent analyses of most of these aspects are contained in:iM.J.S. Rudwick, ‘The Strategy of Lyell’s Principles of Geology’, Isis, 1970, 61, pp. 5-33, andiR. Porter, ‘Charles Lyell and the Principles of the History of Geology’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 32, pp. 91-103. 268 CL to GAM, Supplementary Volume, Letters 59, 63, 64, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 73. 269 C. Lyell, Elements of Geology, Murray, London, 1838.

126 short papers270 that generally related to some causal aspect of geology. These publications are briefly discussed after the analysis of Lyell’s Principles.

(1) THE NATURE OF LYELL’S ‘CAUSAL’ DOMAIN

Since 1970, Lyell’s Principles of Geology has been subject to detailed analysis by Rudwick, Bartholomew, Cannon, Wilson, Porter, Ruse, Laudan, and Gould since 1970, and there is general consensus on the nature of the ‘principles of reasoning’ Lyell adopted in this work. They are summarised below, based on the work of Rudwick, Cannon, and Gould.271

· Uniformity of Law Natural and physical laws are continuous in space and time. This can be regarded as a non-contentious, methodological principle. Miracles do not occur. · Uniformity of Process Only those causes that can be observed in action today should be invoked to explain geological events and monuments. Again, this is a methodological principle. It is also a prerequisite condition of the ‘verae causae’ concept. · Uniformity of Rate of Change Lyell stipulated that the rate of change in both the inorganic and organic worlds has been slow, gradual, and on a world-basis, constant. This is not a methodological principle, but a substantive claim. Using Rudwick’s term, Lyell ‘conflated’ this assertion with the two, generally accepted methodological principles. Cannon describes Lyell’s combination of these three principles as ‘absolute actualism’.272 · Uniformity of State Change is continuous and gradual, but non- directional, resulting in a perpetual flux around a mean for both the inorganic and organic worlds. Biological structural relationships have no correlation with time; species are distinct entities whose creation and

270 Lyell is credited with 14 papers published during the 1830s in Royal Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers, vol. 1, 1867, but there is duplication in two of the subjects. 271 M.J.S. Rudwick, The Meaning of Fossils: Episodes in the History of Palaeontology, MacDonald, London, 1972, pp. 185-190;iW. Faye Cannon, ‘Charles Lyell, Radical Actualism, and Theory’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 32, p. 115;iS.J. Gould, Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle: Myth and Metaphor in the Discovery of Geological Time, Penguin Books, London, 1988, pp. 119-125. 272 Cannon, ibid., p. 113.

127 extinction regularly occur and can reoccur. Progressionism is denied. Man is a special case outside the system.

Lyell’s inclusion of the latter two substantive claims in his four principles leads to an analysis of his key motivation for adopting them. In 1970 Rudwick concluded that the fundamental aim of Lyell’s Principles was to establish:

a nondirectional steady-state theory of the earth, in opposition to theories involving directional changes either in the earth itself or in the forms of life on earth.273

At that time Rudwick did not probe further into the reasons that induced Lyell to adopt this aim, other than stating “Lyell’s contemporaries rightly saw the Principles primarily as the work of a system builder”.274 Subsequently, two different explanatory viewpoints have been advanced to explain why Lyell chose this non-directional, steady-state objective; the first concerns his rejection of an evolutionary origin for man, the second relates to Lyell’s captivation with the so-called ‘verae causae’ concept. Lyell’s reaction to Lamarck’s Philosophie zoologique in 1827 has been noted in an earlier section.275 Bartholomew has maintained that Lyell’s aversion to the possibility that man may have descended from the beasts led him to seek to discredit Lamarck, and attempt to overturn the prevailing concept of organic progressionism.276 Furthermore, Bartholomew has suggested that Lyell’s antipathy to Lamarck’s theory basically stemmed from Lyell’s deistic beliefs and concern for “the dignity and status of man”,277 with the end result that Lyell applied his steady-state theory to both the inorganic and organic worlds, and, in doing so, ruled out evolution. Lyell also developed a modern-day causal argument to disavow progressionism, but it was an argument that “pushed reasonable insights to unreasonable limits”.278 In a subsequent paper written six years later, Bartholomew summed up his interpretation of Lyell’s vision:

273 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 267), p. 8. 274 Ibid. 275 See Section 3.2.3 (4) and Supp. Vol.-Letter 35. 276 Bartholomew, op. cit. (note 148), p. 265. 277 Ibid., pp. 266-268.

128 Few of Lyell’s contemporaries recognised, in Principles, the working out of one consistent vision. (Darwin did not. De la Beche did). But there was a distinctive Lyellian vision – a vision of a world in which constant geological forces supply an endless permutation of life-support conditions, and of a Creator who constantly slots in appropriate species.279

In contrast, Rachel Laudan has presented a case that Lyell’s vision stemmed from his determination to introduce the appropriate methodology into geology: the scientific method adopted by Newton, the method of ‘verae causae’.280 In this way geology could achieve the status of sciences like astronomy. Lyell was certainly familiar with the concept, since two of his earlier intellectual mentors were Herschel and Playfair. In summary, Laudan’s argument is that Lyell’s adherence to the ‘verae causae’ method effectively generated his principle of ‘uniformitarianism’: true causes must be founded on, and limited to, those known to be operating at present.281 Certainly many aspects of Lyell’s steady state theory, and in particular his theory on climate change, illustrate ‘verae causae’ methodology. Ruse has indirectly supported Laudan by suggesting that Herschel’s enthusiasm for Lyell’s work can be traced to the former’s recognition of ‘verae causae’ reasoning.282 The argument advanced by Bartholomew appears more persuasive than Laudan’s ‘verae causae’ case, since Lyell’s anti-progressionist stance is so evident in his Principles, as well as in his letters to Mantell over a 27 year period.283 There is no reason, of course, why both factors cannot be regarded as having had a major influence on Lyell’s thinking. The important point here is to identify Lyell’s key principles, and hence the nature of his ‘causal’ domain. In this regard Cannon provides an appropriate summary:

278 Ibid., on p. 281. 279 M. Bartholomew, ‘The Singularity of Lyell’, History of Science, 1979, 17, on p. 281. 280 R. Laudan, From Mineralogy to Geology: The Foundations of a Science, 1650-1830, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1987, pp. 202-203. 281 Ibid., p. 206. 282 M. Ruse, ‘Charles Lyell and the Philosophers of Science’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 9, p. 122. 283 In addition to the letter containing Lyell’s reaction to Lamarck (Supp. Vol.-Letter 35), see CL to GAM, 3 March 1850, Supp. Vol.-Letter 221, and Supp. Vol.-Letters 252-269, which demonstrate Lyell’s determination to use the Telerpeton discovery to maintain his anti-progressionist stance.

129 “Lyell’s system is not one of radical actualism, not one of extreme actualism, but one of absolute actualism”.284 Although Lyell’s methodology of ‘absolute actualism’ resulted in few, if any, immediate ‘converts’ among his GSL peers or on the Continent, the overall scope of Principles of Geology was sufficient to establish him as the leading exponent of the ‘causal’ domain that Whewell subsequently termed ‘uniformitarianism’.285

(2) LYELL’S OTHER PUBLICATIONS IN THE 1830s

After 1834 Lyell published 12 papers on a diverse range of geological topics, though most were concerned with some aspect of causality. His range of subjects included the difficulty in explaining how loess was brought into the plains of the Rhine,286 rising land levels in Sweden,287 the origin of vertical lines of flint in chalk,288 evidence that the Canadian climate had been even more extreme in recent times,289 the mode of formation of ‘sandpipes’ in the chalk at Norwich,290 and mammalian fossils found in Suffolk.291 Lyell’s paper on rising land levels in Sweden is of particular interest, since in the first edition of Principles of Geology he referred to “that extraordinary notion proposed in our own times by Von Buch, who imagines that the whole of the land along the northern and western shores of the Baltic was slowly and insensibly rising”, when it had been “free of earthquakes”.292 Lyell’s visit to Sweden confirmed the correctness of Von Buch’s assessment and highlighted Lyell’s previous rigidity in supposing that earthquakes were the only

284 Cannon, op. cit. (note 270), p. 113. 285 W. Whewell, ‘Review of Charles Lyell’s Principles of Geology, vol. 2’, The Quarterly Review, 1832, 47, p. 126. 286 C. Lyell, ‘Observations on the Loamy Deposit called “Loess” in the Valley of the Rhine’ [1834], PGSL, 1833-38, 2, pp. 83-85. Also published in ENPJ, 1834, 17, pp. 110-122. 287 C. Lyell, The Bakerian Lecture, [1834], ‘On the Proofs of a gradual Rising of the Land in certain parts of Sweden, PTRSL, 1835, 125, pp. 1-38. 288 C. Lyell, ‘On Vertical Lines of Flint, traversing Horizontal Strata of Chalk, near Norwich’, BAAS Report 7, 1839, pp. 87-88. 289 C. Lyell, ‘Remarks on some Fossil and Recent Shells, collected by Captain Bayfield, R.N., in Canada’ [1839], TGSL, 1842, 6, pp. 135-142. 290 C. Lyell, ‘On the Origin of the Tubular Cavities filled with Gravel and Sand, called “Sandpipes”, in the Chalk, near Norwich’ [1839], BAAS Report 9, 1840, pp. 65-66. 291 C. Lyell, ‘On Remains of Mammalia in the Crag and London Clay of Suffolk’ [1839], BAAS Report 9, 1840, pp. 69-70. 292 Lyell, Principles of Geology, first ed., vol. 1, pp. 231-232. This point was noted by Rudwick, op. cit. (note 267), p. 16.

130 acceptable cause of land elevation. Although his paper on mammalian fossils in Suffolk was not concerned with causality, it was nevertheless typical, since it gave Lyell a further opportunity to advance his anti-progressionist view-point. Another common feature of Lyell’s geological work during this period is that the subject matter was often appropriate for inclusion in future editions of his Principles or his Elements of Geology, since the topics generally focused on unusual, but pertinent, geological phenomena. For example, the occurrence of the loess in the Rhine basin was subsequently mentioned in Lyell’s sixth edition of his Principles,293 which also included a summary of his paper on rising sea levels in Sweden.294 The phenomenon of vertical lines of flint-stones was described in Elements of Geology.295 However, Lyell’s inclusion of relevant points from his own papers in the various editions of his two main publications only represents the ‘tip of the ice-berg’. In essence, Lyell had established another ‘domain’, the regular updating of geological knowledge in the 12 editions of his Principles, and to a lesser extent, in the six editions of Elements of Geology. Bartholomew assessed Lyell’s position as follows:

In the field of publishing, he had no rival. There was just one book in English which codified and anthologized every scrap of international biological and geological evidence – Principles of Geology….Lyell’s was the only book on offer. He had cornered the market in three volume textbooks in the Earth sciences.296

Lyell’s role as a “supreme anthologizer and codifier”297 of geological textbooks does not, however, constitute a geological domain. It was a consequence of his geological, writing and commercial skills – skills that enabled him to establish formidable barriers of entry to his quasi- monopolistic situation. This aspect is examined in the next chapter.

293 Lyell, Principles of Geology, 6th ed., vol. 1, 1840, p. 286. 294 Ibid., vol. 2, pp. 402-424. 295 Lyell, Elements of Geology, 6th ed., 1865, pp. 320-321. 296 Bartholomew, op. cit. (note 279), p. 290. 297 Ibid.

131 3.3.3 THE NATURE OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK COMPLETED BY THE OTHER IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1830s

The geologists whose work is reviewed in this section includes the members of council, besides Lyell, identified in the final screening list for the 1830 to 1840 decade, namely Buckland, Murchison, Sedgwick and Whewell; Conybeare and De la Beche who were on the penultimate list for that period; Darwin, Egerton, Fitton and Owen who were identified on the penultimate or final lists for the 1840 to 1850 decade with Mantell; and finally, the two exceptions, Greenough and Phillips. Again, emphasis in this section focuses on the extent to which these geologists were recognised as the leading authorities or exponents of a geological domain they had fashioned, or further developed, during the 1830s. To this end considerable use is made of relevant studies in the literature.

(1) BUCKLAND

In 1830 Buckland was 46 years of age, comfortably ensconced at Oxford, and with a secured reputation as one of England’s foremost geologists. Although his 1820s geological domain of diluvialism had become outmoded and incorporated into the broader, ‘modal’ domain of progressionism, Buckland remained one of the leading exponents of this English school of geology. Given these circumstances, it is not surprising that Buckland’s style of geological work exhibited little change during the 1830s. Buckland’s geological output also declined to some extent compared to the previous decade. Besides his 1836 Bridgewater Treatise on the natural theology of geology and mineralogy,298 Buckland produced 13 generally short papers, of which six were published in the GSL’s Proceedings and only one in the Society’s Transactions.299 Most of these papers exhibited Buckland’s

298 W. Buckland, Geology and Mineralogy Considered with Reference to Natural History, 2 vols, Pickering, London, 1836. 299 W. Buckland and H.T. De la Beche, ‘On the Geology of the Neighbourhood of Weymouth and the adjacent Parts of the Coast of Dorset’ [April 1830], TGSL, 1835, 4, pp. 1-46. Because of its nature this paper is best considered as the last of a group of publications by De la Beche on the coastal geology of south and south-western England.

132 distinctive palaeo-ecological approach to various fossil discoveries. Examples include the beaks of extinct fossil fishes,300 the occurrence of silicified tree trunks,301 the adaptation of the present-day sloth,302 and an account of the fossil footsteps of the Cheirotherium.303 Buckland’s most notable publication during the 1830s was his Bridgewater Treatise, Geology and Mineralogy considered with Reference to Natural Theology, which combined a palaeo-ecological, progressionist approach with natural theology. It was not, as Lyell had earlier surmised, an exercise in orthodoxy:

Buckland’s thousand pounder threatens I am told to be extremely orthodox but I hope for the sake of the science & for his fame he will put the matter on a broad ground & not involve himself & all of us by tempting the public once more to believe that Moses was a consummate geologist. In my present position at King’s College I feel the great mischief done by the cave book.304

Lyell, however, was correct in his reporting of the conclusion of this work:

Buckland is reported to have said to his wife when she asked him what he sh.d do for the Bridgewater prize of £1,000 “Why, my dear, if I print my lectures with a sermon at the end it will be quite the thing”.305

In fact, the themes of Buckland’s concluding chapter 24 were the unity of the deity, the provinces of reason and revelation, the fact that geology was auxiliary to theology, and finally, the geological proof of a deity.306 Nevertheless, as Cannon has noted,307 Buckland’s work provided a major contemporary view of British palaeontology, besides incorporating new

300 W. Buckland, ‘A Notice on the Fossil Beaks of Four Extinct Species of Fishes, referrible to the Genus Chimaera, which Occur in the Oolitic and Cretaceous formations of England’ [1835], PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 205-206. 301 W. Buckland, ‘ On the Occurrence of Silicified Trunks of large trees in the New Red Sandstone Formation or Poikilitic Series at Allesley near Coventry [1836], PGSL, 1838, pp. 439-440. 302 W. Buckland, ‘On the Adaptation of the Structure of the Sloths to their peculiar Mode of Life’, Transactions of the Linnean Society, 1837, 17, pp. 17-28. 303 W. Buckland, ‘An Account of the Footsteps of the Cheirotherium and Five or Six Smaller Animals in the Stone Quarries of Storeton Hill, near Liverpool’, BAAS Report, 1838, 7, p. 85. 304 CL to GAM, 26 November 1832, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 95). 305 CL to GAM, 18 January 1832, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 89). 306 Buckland, op. cit. (note 298), pp. 432-443. 307 W.F. Cannon, DSB, 1971, 2, p. 570.

133 investigations on chambered cephalopods, a point that impressed Lyell.308 His synthetic table of strata, published as a coloured plate in Volume 2 of the Treatise, is also worthy of note and deftly summarised the stratigraphy of Europe as then understood. In many respects the two volumes of Buckland’s Bridgewater Treatise can be regarded as a concluding milestone in his geological career; his future geological contributions were less significant. Although Conybeare and Whewell may have been the ‘party theoreticians’ and the more able exponents of progressionism during the early 1830s, Buckland must also be acknowledged as a joint-founder and leader of this domain.

(2) CONYBEARE

Conybeare’s geological work in the 1830s falls into two general categories; first, criticisms of Lyell’s ‘causal’ methodology combined with a defence of progressionism, and of lesser importance, five short articles published in the Philosophical Magazine, three of which concerned coal deposits. All of these papers were completed by 1834, two years before his appointment as vicar at the family living at Axminster, Devon. At the end of the decade Conybeare produced what was effectively his last geological publication, an account of an extraordinary land-slip in Devon.309 Like Buckland, his more significant work was completed in the previous decade. In the 1830s Conybeare was most notable for his espousal of the English school’s progessionist approach to geology, as opposed to Lyell’s less flexible methodology. Conybeare’s criticism of the first volume of Lyell’s Principles of Geology appeared in 1830, and was followed by a further two articles in The Philosophical Magazine in 1830, and 1831.310 In 1832, his general review of geology for the British Association for the Advancement of Science gave him a

308 “I have been most pleased with Buckland on Cephalopoda which is the part I have just read”. CL to GAM, 22 October 1836, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 64. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 145). 309 W.D. Conybeare, ‘Extraordinary Land-slip and great Convulsion of the Coast of Culverhole Point, near Axmouth’ [1839], ENPJ, 1840, 29, pp. 160-164. This account was followed by an illustrated Geological Memoir of the Landslip in Devon, Murray, London, 1840. Conybeare’s actual last publication was an extract from his report ‘On the Country between the Summit of the Malsej Ghaut and the Gungathuree’ [1840], PGSL, 1838-42, 3, p. 225. 310 W.D. Conybeare, ‘On Mr. Lyell’s Principles of Geology’, Philosophical Magazine, 1830, 8, pp. 215-219, continued under the title of ‘An Examination of the Phaenomena of Geology, Which Seem to Bear Most Directly on Theoretical Speculations’, Philosophical Magazine, 1830, 8, pp. 359-362 and 402-406 and 1831, 9, pp. 19-23, 111-117, 188-197, and 258-270.

134 further opportunity to review Lyell’s ‘actualistic’ principles.311 A distinguishing feature of these various critiques is Conybeare’s balanced and rational perspective, as instanced in the following excerpts:

No real philosopher, I conceive, ever doubted that the physical causes which have produced the physical phaenomena were the same in kind, however they may have been modified as to the degree and intensity of their action, by the varying conditions under which they may have operated at different periods…we may still perhaps be permitted to doubt, that an identity of physical conditions can be predicated of the surface of our planet between these periods (the first primordial period of the micaceous slates) and the present….It may perhaps be the most truly philosophical rule to guide the spirit of our investigations, that whereas the actual operations of nature, and those indicated by geological observations, present certain points of analogy, and other points of difference, – so it is equally contrary to a sound spirit of inductive reasoning, to confine our attention exclusively to one class of facts or to the other.312

Whewell and Sedgwick were also active in supporting the essentially moderate position of the progressionists. It may not be entirely coincidental that the last time Lyell mentioned Conybeare in a letter to Mantell occurred when Conybeare made his fair- minded criticisms in the Philosophical Magazine. Lyell was not flattering:

Conybeare is a strange fellow don’t ask me to account for his doing this or that. He carried a letter of introductn, sealed, to a french nat t. in which his friend called him “an odd fish” which came out from Mons.r le zoologer who had difficulty in interpreting at last seized on that part & said “Ah, je vous suis bien oblige mais ou est le Singulier poisson”? When he went down to Herschell’s [sic], Mrs Stewart, H’s mother in law said “H. is so busy he sees no one, yet he is so kind to foreigners I dare say he will see you.” He was so much pleased with your letter that it was queer his not recollecting that a reply was a natural civility. He has hair gone long.313

Conybeare’s geological work effectively ceased in the mid-1830s, when he became vicar at Axminster and pursued other interests. (3) WHEWELL

311 W.D. Conybeare, ‘Report on the Progress, Actual State, and Ulterior Prospects of Geological Science’, BAAS Report, London, 1833, pp. 365-414. 312 Ibid., pp. 406-407.

135 During the 1830s Whewell’s range of publications encompassed mechanics, isomorphism, the status of mineralogy, mathematical aspects of political economy, a series of memoirs on the tides, including the concept of co-tidal lines,314 and the development of a new anemometer.315 In addition, Whewell completed a Bridgewater Treatise316 in 1833, and four years later, published his three volume History of Inductive Sciences.317 His geological output though was limited to three critiques of Lyell’s Principles of Geology in the early 1830s,318 and two anniversary addresses as GSL President in 1838 and 1839.319 This pattern typifies the geological role adopted by Whewell; he was a critic, adjudicator, and exponent of the tenets of the progressionist English school, rather than an original investigator. Like Conybeare, Whewell’s reviews of Lyell’s first two volumes of Principles of Geology were fair, tolerant, and predictable. In fact, there is little discernible difference between the critiques of these two ‘clergyman- specialists’. A feature of Whewell’s reviews is his facility for introducing appropriate new terms and definitions. The term ‘Geological Dynamics’ was suggested to describe a possible separate science “which has for its object to classify and analyse the changes which are perpetually occurring in the inorganic portion of nature”.320 He also categorised the two ‘sects’ in geological dynamics as “Uniformitarians and Catastrophists”.321

313 CL to GAM, 1 July 1831, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 84). 314 In all, Whewell published 14 memoirs on the tides in PTRSL, 11 of which were completed before 1840. 315 Details of these numerous publications are not listed in the Bibliography since they deal with non- geological matters. A listing is provided in Catalogue of Scientific papers (1800-1863) compiled and published by the Royal Society of London, 1872, 6, pp. 345-346. 316 W. Whewell, Astronomy and General Physics Considered with Reference to Natural Philosophy, Pickering, London, 1833. 317 W. Whewell, History of Inductive Sciences, from the Earliest to the Present Time, 3 vols, London, 1837. 318 W. Whewell,i‘Progress of Geology – Werner according to Cuvier, Lyell and MacCulloch – Hutton according to Playfair and MacCulloch – Antiquity of the Earth,’ ENPJ, 1831 (April-October), pp. 242-267. In this review Whewell’s criticism of Lyell was confined to the assertion that the geological series must have had a beginning.i‘Art. VIII – Principles of Geology;…By Charles Lyell Esq. In 2 vols. Vol. 1,’ The British Critic, Quarterly Theological Review, 1831, 9, pp. 180-206.i ‘Principles of Geology;...By Charles Lyell, Esq. Vol. II,’ The Quarterly Review, 1832, 47, pp. 103-132. 319 W. Whewell,i‘Anniversary address to the Geological Society, 16 February 1838,’ PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 624-649.i‘Anniversary address to the Geological Society, 15 February 1839,’ PGSL, 1839, 3, pp. 61-98. 320 Whewell, [Review of Principles of Geology,Vol.1], The British Critic, 1831, p. 195. 321 Whewell, [Review of Principles of Geology, Vol. 2], The Quarterly Review, 1832, p. 126.

136 In view of Whewell’s limited participation in ‘normal’ geological investigations, it is difficult to assign him any domain, other than as a leading spokesman for the progressionists. However, Whewell brought to this joint- domain not only his prestige as a polymath, but considerable influence in his assumed role of ‘cultural policeman’ of English science. In a review of a recent analysis of Whewell and his work,322 Morrell appraised him as follows:

Whewell may also be regarded as a cultural policeman, a cultural critic, a metascientist who deemed it proper for him to be the judge and purifier of all knowledge. As the cartographer of the various scientific disciplines, Whewell defined boundaries and contours….Whewell was a shaper of people, projects, subjects and institutions.323

In short, by the 1830s Whewell had fashioned a separate sphere of influence as a ‘scientific adjudicator’, which enabled him to exert considerable sway on English geological thinking, as well as on other scientific disciplines.

(4) SEDGWICK

During the 1830s Sedgwick’s most important geological accomplishment was the identification and tentative fashioning of a major, new ‘taxonomic’ domain, the Cambrian System. In this regard his endeavours were closely interlinked with those of Murchison, who concomitantly identified and established the overlying Silurian System. Moreover, in the process of founding these two new domains, Murchison and Sedgwick also established the Devonian System. Although most problems associated with the Devonian System were resolved by the early 1840s, difficulties in defining the boundaries of the Cambrian and Silurian continued until the 1870s. The nature and background of the resulting controversies are well documented in the literature. In particular, Secord’s analysis of the Cambrian-Silurian boundary dispute,324

322 M. Fisch and S. Schaffer (eds), William Whewell: A Composite Portrait, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991. 323 J.B. Morrell, ‘The Judge and Purifier of All’ [Review of M. Fisch and S. Schaffer (eds), William Whewell: A Composite Portrait, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1991], History of Science, 1992, 30, p. 107. 324 Secord, op. cit. (note 1).

137 and Rudwick’s detailed study of the Devonian controversy,325 provide comprehensive and insightful accounts of how stratigraphic domains were established at that time. Additionally, Hallam has given an excellent summary of both controversies.326 Following their joint field-work in Scotland and the Alps in the late 1820s, Sedgwick and Murchison began preliminary, but separate surveys, of the Welsh greywacke or ‘Transition rocks’ in 1831. Such an investigation was a logical follow-on of Sedgwick’s earlier field-work and his desire to complete Part II of Conybeare and Phillips’s Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales.327 On the other hand, Murchison initially had no particular incentive to investigate these formations.328 Sedgwick, who favoured a structural rather than a palaeontological approach to stratigraphic investigations, chose to work in north Wales where the sparsely fossiliferous greywacke underlay a major unconformity. As a result he was forced to adopt a ‘marker bed’ well down in the sequence (Bala Limestone) and worked on the ‘lower greywacke’.329 Murchison worked to the south and east of Sedgwick and quickly realised that his fossiliferous and relatively straightforward, ‘upper greywacke’ sequence was a potential major domain. Unfortunately, the two men did not correlate Sedgwick’s marker bed with its stratigraphic equivalent in Murchison’s sequence (Caradoc Sandstone). Accordingly, when Sedgwick and Murchison announced their respective new geological systems at the 1835 BAAS Conference in Dublin,330 neither was aware that Sedgwick’s Upper Cambrian effectively overlapped Murchison’s Lower Silurian sequence. Partly as a result of the need for both men to investigate and clarify De la Beche’s claim, in December 1834, that Coal- Measure plants had been found in the North Devon greywacke, the impending Silurian-Cambrian boundary dispute remained dormant until the early 1840s.

325 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 1). 326 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), pp. 68-86. 327 Conybeare and Phillips, op. cit. (note 25). 328 Secord, op. cit. (note 1), p. 50. 329 Lyell was evidently not impressed with Sedgwick’s prospects for this field-work. In a letter to Mantell he commented: “Sedgwick in town & has been rather I should say wasting his giant strength on a barren primary district in Wales, which he owns was like ‘rubbing himself against a grindstone’.” CL to GAM, 18 January 1832, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63, (Supp. Vol.-Letter 89). 330 A. Sedgwick, and R.I.M. Murchison, ‘On the Silurian and Cambrian Systems, Exhibiting the Order in which the Older Sedimentary Strata Succeed each Other in England and Wales’, 1835 BAAS Report, part 2, 1836, pp. 59-61.

138 Thus both men claimed their respective, lower Palaezoic, stratigraphic domains in the 1830s, but the extent and definition of their proposed systems was far from settled. Although the declaration of the Devonian as a separate system was jointly made by Sedgwick and Murchison in 1839,331 Rudwick’s analysis indicates that the latter was more influential in initiating and gaining contemporary acceptance for this domain. Nevertheless, during the 1830s Sedgwick was a key participant in the establishment of three major geological domains, the two ‘taxonomic’ domains of the Cambrian and Silurian Systems, and the ‘modal’ domain of the English school. Furthermore, as a result of his field-work on the complex strata and slates of north Wales, Sedgwick was able to produce an important paper explaining the cause and distinctive features of stratification, cleavage, and jointing in rocks.332

(5) MURCHISON

To a large extent the essential points relating to Murchison’s geological work in the 1830s have been mentioned in the previous section concerning Sedgwick. Differences in the original motivations and methodologies of the two men have also been noted. A further notable difference relates to their respective attitudes to the new stratigraphic domains. Although Murchison ‘stumbled’ across his Silurian domain,333 he quickly recognised the potential of the opportunity presented to him and set about exploiting it to the full. Murchison’s aspirations and attitude are summed up in one of his GSL Anniversary addresses:

The perpetuity of a name affixed to any group of rocks through his original research, is the highest distinction to which any working geologist can aspire…it is in truth his monument.334

331 A. Sedgwick and R.I. Murchison, ‘Classification of the older stratified Rocks of Devonshire and Cornwall’, Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, series 3, 1839, 14, pp. 241-260. 332 A. Sedgwick, ‘Remarks on the Structure of Large Mineral Masses, and especially on the Chemical Changes produced in the Aggregation of Stratified Rocks during different periods after their Deposition’, TGSL, 1835, 3, pp. 461-486. 333 See note 4. 334 R.I.M. Murchison, ‘Anniversary Address of the President’ [18 February 1842], PGSL, 1842, 3, p. 649. Murchison’s statement is also cited in Rudwick, The Great Devonian Controversy, p. 386.

139 In pursuing this aim, Murchison was very much assisted in his methodology of using fossils for identifying and establishing Silurian strata. In this regard, Secord has commented as follows:

While Sedgwick was mired in Wales and the Lake District, trying to use a combination of structural, palaeontological, and lithological criteria to group the older rocks, Murchison and his followers could colour thousands of square miles on the geological map of distant lands….Murchison almost never referred to the length of time represented by the Silurian. His concern lay instead with the distinctiveness of its fauna, and above all with the acreage that it occupied on the maps of the world.335

In contrast to Sedgwick, Murchison lost no time in proclaiming his Silurian domain. As early as 1834, Murchison made arrangements with John Murray, London, to publish his findings and a prospectus was circulated in August of that year.336 However, due to continuing new discoveries, and the need for specialists to describe the fossils collected, publication of Murchison’s Silurian System337 was not achieved until 1839, when it was still not realised that Sedgwick’s Upper Cambrian was conflated with Murchison’s Lower Silurian. Murchison was also more active than Sedgwick in submitting papers on his ongoing ‘greywacke’ researches. During the years 1833 to 1836, Murchison published ten papers on the sedimentary rocks below the New Red Sandstone of south Wales and south-west England.338 Over the same period Sedgwick’s only publication that directly related to his Cambrian investigations was his joint-paper with Murchison, read at the 1835 BAAS meeting, that announced the two new geological systems.339 Muchison is unique amongst the identified elite geologists in that he founded two, major ‘taxonomic’ domains in the 1830s, the Silurian and the Devonian Systems. Additionally, he founded the Permian System in the early 1840s. The ‘proclamation’ of the Devonian was important to Murchison,

335 J.A. Secord, op. cit. (note 22), p. 85. 336 J.C. Thackray, ‘R.I. Murchison’s Silurian System (1839)’, Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 1978, 9, p. 64. 337 R.I. Murchison, The Silurian System, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1839. 338 These papers are listed in the Bibliography of this thesis. 339 Sedgwick and Murchison, op. cit. (note 330).

140 since it enabled him to maintain that the Silurian pre-dated any land plants.340 The validity of the Devonian system was established in the early 1840s. On the other hand, Muchison’s determination to defend and extend the bounds of his Silurian domain continued throughout the 1840s and 1850s.

(6) DE LA BECHE

The geological work of De la Beche during the 1830s reflects his mixed fortunes throughout this period. In 1830-1831, De la Beche published two books on geology,341 as well as three varied papers,342 and decided to make a geological survey of Devonshire. This was a logical choice of ‘territory’ for him at the time, considering the ‘occupied’ stratigraphic domains in southern and south-eastern England. Moreover, new Ordnance Survey maps had recently become available for that area.343 As a result of a major decline in his financial circumstances, however, De la Beche found it necessary to submit a proposal to the Ordnance in 1832 to complete his Devonshire geological survey for £300. He accomplished this task in 1835 and proposed that similar surveys be conducted elsewhere. The net result was the establishment of the Geological Survey of Great Britain and the appointment of De la Beche as its first Director. He then commenced Geological Survey work in Cornwall, and afterwards in the coal-fields of south Wales. Until 1839, De la Beche largely carried out his full-time survey work single- handedly. In 1834-1835 De la Beche wrote two more geological books,344 but in many respects his most consequential publication was the innocuously titled note ‘On the anthracite found near Biddeford in North Devon’,345 read at a

340 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), p. 76. 341 H.T. De la Beche,iSections and Views illustrative of Geological Phenomena, Treuttel and Wurtz, London, 1830.iA Geological Manual, Treuttel and Wurtz, London, 1831. A second, corrected and enlarged edition was printed in 1832. 342 H.T. De la Beche,i‘On the geographical distribution of Organic Remains in the Oolite Series of England and France’, Philosophical Magazine, 1830, 7, pp. 81-95, 202-205, 250-268, 334-351; and 8, pp. 35-44, 208-213.i‘Notes on the formation of extensive Conglomerate and Gravel Deposits’, Philosophical Magazine, 1830, 7, pp. 161-171.i‘On the Geology of the shores of the Gulf of La Spezia’ [1830], PGSL, 1834, 1, pp. 164-167. 343 V.A. Eyles, DSB, 1971, 4, p. 10. 344 H.T. De la Beche,iResearches in Theoretical Geology, Knight, London, 1834, andiHow to Observe: Geology, Knight, London, 1835. 345 H.T. De la Beche, ‘On the anthracite found near Biddeford in North Devon’ [1834], PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 106-107.

141 GSL meeting in December, 1834. In this note De la Beche reported the anomalous discovery of Coal-Measure plants in the North Devon ‘grauwacke’346 to the astonishment and annoyance of Murchison. Subsequent investigations by Murchison and Sedgwick led to the identification of the Devonian system. De la Beche’s major, official publication of the 1830s, Report on the Geology of Cornwall, Devon, and Somerset,347 came out in February 1839, a month after Murchison’s Silurian System, but in his 648 page report De la Beche did not sanction the terms Cambrian and Silurian, nor acknowledge the Devonian system. The beds containing the Coal-Measure plants (Culm) were correlated with the Upper Grauwacke and therefore regarded as having a local equivalence with Murchison’s Silurian. Rudwick has interpreted De la Beche’s non-committal attitude to these formations as indicative of his sceptical approach to geology.348 On the other hand, De la Beche had no incentive to be over-zealous in accepting Murchison’s conclusions. In hindsight, it can be seen that De la Beche missed the opportunity to identify a major stratigraphic domain, the Devonian system, in his chosen geological province.349 Furthermore, by the end of the decade all of the major stratigraphic domains had effectively been taken up. Consequently, in order to achieve increased geological status, the best alternative for De la Beche, and the one adopted, was to establish a ‘modal’ domain within the Geological Survey. His appointment as its Director in 1835 had given him financial security, but not yet a position of significant power or influence, since he had no staff to direct or influence until 1839.350 Nevertheless, De la Beche exhibited considerable political and manipulative skills in also establishing the Museum of Economic Geology as a separate, and additional, future power base. H.E. Wilson has commented as follows on De la Beche’s skills in this regard:

346 De la Beche adopted the Continental spelling of this term. 347 H.T. De la Beche, Report on the Geology of Cornwall, Devon, and Somerset, Longman, London, 1839. 348 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 15), p. 228. 349 This point is made in J.S. Flett, The First Hundred Years of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, London, 1937, p. 32. 350 In 1839 J. Phillips and J. Rees were respectively appointed to palaeontological and geological positions in the Survey while R. Phillips and T. Reeks were appointed to the Museum of Practical Geology. J A Secord, ‘The Geological Survey of Great Britain as a Research School’, History of Science, 1986, 24, pp. 228-229.

142 The conventional view of De la Beche as an innovator of geological science, trying endlessly to advance his infant survey for the benefit of society, must be amended somewhat when we read the comments of some of his contemporaries. Murchison, for instance, writing to Sedgwick: ‘De la Beche is a dirty dog, there is plain English and there is no mincing the matter. I know him to be a thorough jobber and a great intriguer’. Or Ramsey, who noted that though he pretended to be open, frank and cordial, he was really ‘ – an artful dodger, for ever working his own interest, heedless of that of others’. Or Joseph Beete Jukes: ‘Poor Sir Henry started the survey very much for his own honour and glory’.351

However, despite these retrospective jibes, at the close of the decade De la Beche had attained a position of power at the Geological Survey that would enable him to fashion a major ‘modal’ domain in the 1840s.

(7) FITTON

Fitton’s geological investigations tapered off during the 1830s. His published work352 was limited to three relatively minor papers dealing with aspects of his domain,353 one general article,354 and a popular booklet, A Geological Sketch of the Vicinity of Hastings.355 Accordingly, Fitton merely maintained his minor domain, the succession of beds between the oolite and the chalk, throughout the decade.

(8) GREENOUGH

Greenough continued to hold influential positions in English geology throughout the 1830s. He was appointed GSL president for a unique third

351 H.E. Wilson, Down to Earth: One hundred and fifty years of the British Geological Survey, Scottish Academic Press, Edinburgh and London, 1985, p. 9. 352 Although Fitton’s major paper, ‘On Some of the Strata between the Chalk and the Oxford Oolite’, op. cit. (note 211), was published in 1836. It was read in June,1827. 353 W.H. Fitton,i‘A notice respecting some points in the section of the coast near St. Leonard’s and Hastings’ [1833], PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 1-3.i‘Notice on the junction of the Portland and Purbeck strata on the coast of Dorsetshire’ [1835], PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 185-187.i‘Deux lettres addressées à M. Constant Prévost, sur la comparaison des couches de la côte du Bas Boulonnais, avec leurs équivalentes en Angleterre’, Bulletin de la Société géologique de France, 1838-39, 10, pp. 436-454. 354 W.H. Fitton, ‘Ancient Geological Changes in England’, ENPJ, 1833, 14, pp. 300-306. 355 W.H. Fitton, A Geological Sketch of the Vicinity of Hastings, Longman, 1833.

143 term in 1833 and was chairman of the 1833 BAAS Geology and Geography committee at Cambridge, deputy-chairman at the Edinburgh meeting in the following year, and vice-president at Bristol in 1836. Greenough also retained his geological scepticism, which is evident in his only publication of the 1830s, the segment of his 1834 Presidential address that dealt with the elevation of mountains.356 In this paper Greenough displayed the same sceptical approach manifested in his 1819 publication, A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology. At the beginning of his 1834 article, Greenough doubted the validity of Von Hoff’s report that several tracts of land were upraised in Java in 1771,357 denied Mrs Graham’s report that the 1822 earthquake in Chile had raised the coastline over a distance of 100 miles,358 and was dubious of Von Buch’s statement that the Swedish coast was gradually rising along the Baltic coast.359 Greenough’s next step was to query all assigned causes for the elevation of land. Volcanic eruptions had insufficient power to raise continents; explanations based on the central heat of the earth were not acceptable, since the concept that the earth’s centre possessed heat had not been proved, as was the notion that the deepest mines are the warmest. Finally, the notion that elevation may be caused by the forcible injection of igneous into sedimentary rocks was introduced with the comment: “To put this theory to the test, it is natural to inquire, what igneous rocks are? My answer is, whatever geological speculators think proper to call so.”360 Throughout this article Greenough typically offered no positive opinions of his own. The fact that Greenough was re-elected as GSL president for a unique third term, during the 1830s indicates no significant diminution in his geological status and influence. Accordingly, it is considered that he maintained his position as the leading exponent of the sceptical approach to geology during this decade.

(9) PHILLIPS

356 G.B. Greenough, ‘Remarks on the Theory of the Elevation of Mountains’, ENPJ, 1834, 17, pp. 205-227. 357 Ibid., p. 207. 358 Ibid., pp. 207-209. 359 Ibid., p. 212.

144 Following the success of the first part of his Illustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire, which was published in 1829 and dealt with the Mesozoic formations along the east coast of Yorkshire, Phillips announced in 1831 that his next volume would describe the underlying Carboniferous strata of that county. He had heralded such an investigation in 1827.361 The new volume was published in 1836.362 Like the earlier volume, Part II is notable for the emphasis and detail placed on the fossil content of the strata. In doing so, Phillips provided a needed palaeontological reference base for the various investigations that were being carried out on the underlying ‘greywacke’ in the south-west of England. Furthermore, Rudwick has noted that one of the innovative features of the 1836 publication was Phillips’s demonstration of how the Carboniferous Mountain Limestone varied in a lateral sense, a finding that all geologists needed to take into account in other areas, and with other formations.363 For these reasons Phillips’s new work “was no provincial gap filling but a contribution to the construction of geological science”.364 It also established a major, new stratigraphic domain for Phillips, the geology of Yorkshire. Although Phillips’ major regional studies of Yorkshire can be regarded as the highlight of his geological work until the mid-1830s, he also carried out a diverse range of other investigations. These included a description of a new, self-registering thermometer,365 a commentary on the geology of Havre,366 and a paper on the effects of the atmosphere in wasting building surfaces.367 In 1834 his general treatise, A Guide to Geology,368 was well received, with a second, revised edition coming out two years later. Phillips was now ready for ‘broader pastures’, even

360 Ibid., p. 223. 361 Phillips, op. cit. (note 244), p. 18. 362 J. Phillips, Illustrations of the Geology of Yorkshire; or, a Description of the Strata and Organic Remains: accompanied by a Geological Map, Sections and Diagrams, and Figures of the Fossils: Part II The Mountain Limestone District, London, Murray, 1836. 363 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 1), p. 146. 364 Knell, op. cit. (note 248), p. 72. 365 J. Phillips, ‘Description of a new self-registering Maximum Thermometer’, BAAS Report, 1832, pp. 574-575. 366 J. Phillips, ‘On the Geology of Havre’, Philosophical Magazine, 1830, 7, pp. 195-198. 367 J. Phillips, ‘On some effects of the Atmosphere in wasting the surfaces of Buildings and Rocks’ [1831], PGSL, 1834, 1, pp. 323-324.

145 though he could not afford to leave his York base. In 1832 he accepted the additional responsibility of part-time BAAS Assistant Secretary, two years later he was also appointed to the Professorship of Geology at King’s College, London, and in late 1836 agreed to provide De la Beche with palaeontological assistance. His geological aspirations were now directed to establishing a national rather than a regional domain.

(10) DARWIN

Following his return to England in 1836 after the Beagle voyage, Darwin was quickly accepted into the ‘inner circle’ of the GSL, because of the interest he had aroused by his geological letters sent back to England.369 In 1838, he was appointed GSL secretary. Darwin’s geological work is of particular interest, since he established a ‘causal’ domain based on Lyell’s actualistic principles. Like Mantell, Darwin was one of the few geologists in the mid-1830s who accepted Lyell’s ‘principles’ with few, if any, qualifications.370 Darwin’s observations on the volcanic and limestone deposits at Saint Jago in the Cape Verde Islands,371 in 1832, gave him an early appreciation of how that island had undergone both subsidence and elevation in a gradual, non-catastrophic way. His understanding of the earth’s crustal movements developed further after he visited Chile and witnessed the Concepción earthquake in February, 1835, the topic of the first paper actually read by Darwin at the GSL.372 Four months later, Darwin read another paper, much broader in scope, in which he deduced areas of both elevation and subsidence in the Pacific Ocean as a result of

368 J. Phillips, A Guide to Geology, Longman, 1834. 369 C. Darwin,iExtracts from Letters Addressed to Professor Henslow, Cambridge Philosophical Society (privately printed), Cambridge, 1835.i‘Geological Notes Made During a Survey of the East and West Coasts of South America’ [1835], PGSL, 1835, 2, pp. 210-212. [Read by Sedgwick] 370 Hallam makes this point on p. 55 of his Great Geological Controversies, 1983. 371 C. Darwin, Journal of Researches into the Natural History and Geology of the Countries visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle round the World under the command of Capt. Fitz Roy, R.N., H. Colburn, London, 1839, pp. 1-6. 372 C. Darwin, ‘Observations of Proofs of Recent Elevation on the Coast of Chili, made during the survey of H.M.S. Beagle, commanded by Capt. Fitzroy’ [4 Jan. 1837], PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 446-449.

146 his investigations into coral reef formation.373 Rudwick has commented374 that Darwin’s primary concern in this paper was crustal mobility, and not coral reef formation, though that was in itself a major geological issue. In the following year Darwin read a further paper on the connection between earthquakes, volcanoes, and continental uplift.375 Hallam’s assessment is that this paper demonstrates “an explicit application of the Lyellian doctrine”.376 Rudwick concluded that it “embodied much more explicitly a major causal theory of crustal mobility with obvious global pretensions” and that “Darwin remained an elite geologist for the rest of his time in London and for several years afterwards”.377 For the purpose of this review, Darwin’s 1838 paper marks the establishment of his ‘causal’ domain, crustal mobility. Darwin’s greatest geological success was probably his theory of coral reef formation that was founded on his understanding of slow crustal movements and associated changes in sea-levels. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning was also applied to his erroneous explanation of the parallel roads of Glen Roy in Scotland,378 Darwin’s last paper of the 1830s.

(11) EGERTON

Like Darwin and Owen, Egerton’s geological work is reviewed in this section because of his inclusion in the penultimate screening list for the 1840 to 1850 decade. In 1830, Egerton was 24 years of age, an Oxford graduate who had studied under Buckland and Conybeare, and a ninth baronet. Although he only joined the GSL in 1829, Egerton served as a

373 C. Darwin, ‘On Certain Areas of Elevation and Subsidence in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, as Deduced from the Study of Coral Formations’ [31 May 1837], PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 552-554. 374 M.J.S. Rudwick, ‘Charles Darwin in London: The Integration of Public and Private Science’, Isis, 1982, 73, pp. 186-206 p. 194, note 20. 375 C. Darwin, ‘On the Connexion of Certain Volcanic Phaenomena, and on the Formation of Mountain Chains and Volcanos, as the Effects of Continental Elevations’ [7 March 1838], PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 654-660. 376 Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), p. 56. 377 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 374), p. 194. 378 C. Darwin, ‘Observations on the Parallel Roads of Glen Roy, and of Other Parts of Lochaber in Scotland, with an Attempt to Prove that They are of Marine Origin’, PTRSL, 1839, 129, pp. 39-81.

147 member of council from 1831 to 1840, declining the presidency after Whewell’s term ended in 1839.379 Egerton’s main scientific interest was the study and collection of fossil fish, much of his collecting being carried out in conjunction with Viscount Cole. However, during the 1830s Egerton’s geological activities are best described as general-palaeontological, rather than ichthyological, since only two of his eleven publications in this period directly concern fossil fish.380 This orientation changed in the next decade when Egerton established a taxonomic domain in ichthyology.

(12) OWEN

In 1830 Owen was 26 years of age, 14 years younger than Mantell, with whom he shared some similar background features.381 Owen had been appointed Assistant Conservator at the Hunterian Museum in 1827; nine years later he became Hunterian professor at the Royal College of Surgeons. Unlike Mantell, Owen was a professional comparative anatomist who did not have any career choice dilemmas in his early career. Until 1837, nearly all of Owen’s publications were concerned with the anatomy of a wide range of living species, and not with palaeontological matters. One such publication, a Memoir on the Pearly Nautilus,382 brought him considerable acclaim. However, Owen’s pattern of research changed to some extent following his introduction to Darwin by Lyell,383 in October 1836. Two months later Lyell informed Mantell:

379 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 1), p. 271. 380 P. de M.G. Egerton,i‘Catalogue of Fossil Fish in the Collections of Lord Cole and Sir Phillip Grey Egerton, arranged alphabetically; with references to the localities, geological positions, and published descriptions of the species’, Philosophical Magazine, 1836, 8, pp. 366-373.i‘On the Discovery of Ichthyolites in the south-western portion of the North-Staffordshire coal-field’, PGSL, 1838, 2, pp. 202-203. 381 Owen lost his father (a West India merchant) when he was 5 years of age, attended the Lancaster Grammar School, and in 1820 was apprenticed to the first of three Lancaster surgeons. Like Mantell, Owen also studied at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital with Abernethy. He qualified as a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1826. DSB. 382 R. Owen, Memoir on the Pearly Nautilus (Nautilus Pompilius, Linn.), with Illustrations of its External and Internal Structure, Wood, London, 1832. 383 W.C. Williams, DSB, 1974, 10, p. 261.

148 The College of Surgeons are to have Mr Darwin’s South American fossil bones, a new gigantic rodent quadruped & anteater & other wonders which Owen & Clift are to describe. Models to be given to the Geolog.l & other institutions.384

At this particular time Mantell’s personal, professional and financial circumstances at Brighton were in a state of chaos and virtual despair.385 If his state-of-affairs had been stable in 1836, it is conceivable that Lyell would have suggested to Darwin that Mantell examine and describe these fossils. However, the Lyell-Mantell correspondence during 1836-1837, as well as Mantell’s entries in his Private Journal, indicate that Mantell was so pre-occupied with his personal problems that there was no thought of him undertaking this work. Owen’s first palaeontological paper, on Darwin’s gigantic fossil rodent, the Toxodon,386 was read to the GSL in 1837. It was followed by seven publications on other South American and English fossils in 1838, and a further seven in the following year. By the end of the decade his palaeontological publications amounted to 15387 out of a total of 105 papers for the decade. Owen had discovered a new area of research where his skills as a comparative anatomist could be used to the full. Moreover, following Cuvier’s death in 1832, an implicit struggle developed between Grant,388 Mantell, and Owen about who should become the ‘English Cuvier’.389 Fossil reptiles constituted the main agonistic390 field for these three contenders. At the BAAS meeting at Liverpool in September, 1837, Owen was requested to draw up a report on the present state of knowledge of the fossil reptiles of Great Britain.391 His first report on fossil marine reptiles

384 CL to GAM, 31 December 1836, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 64. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 146). 385 Mantell’s circumstances are fully described in the next chapter of the thesis. 386 R. Owen, ‘Description of the Cranium of the Toxodon Platensis, a gigantic extinct mammiferous species, referrible by its dentition to the Rodentia, but with affinities to the Pachydermata and the herbivorous Cetacea’ [1837], PGSL, 1833-38, 2, pp. 541-542. 387 These papers are not listed in the Bibliography but were identified in The Royal Society Catalogue of Scientific Papers, 1870, 4, pp. 718-722. 388 Robert Edward Grant (1793-1874). Comparative anatomist. Professor of Comparative Anatomy and Zoology, University College, London, 1827-1874. DNB. 389 See H.S. Torrens, ‘Politics and Palaeontology: Richard Owen and the Invention of Dinosaurs’, in: J.O. Farlow and M.K. Brett-Surman (eds), The Complete Dinosaur, Indiana University Press, Indiana, 1997, pp. 175-190. 390 This phrase has been borrowed from Rudwick’s The Great Devonian Controversy, p. 435. 391 BAAS Report for meeting at Newcastle in Sept.1837, 1838, p. xix.

149 was read at the 1839 BAAS meeting.392 Owen’s second report, dealing with the land-based fossil reptiles in Mantell’s area, was not read until the Plymouth meeting in 1841. Thus at the end of the 1830s Owen had identified, but not fashioned, one of his future domains, British fossil reptiles.

3.4.4 REVIEW OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK COMPLETED BY THE IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1830s

In contrast to the previous decade, the 1830s was a period in which the five ‘gentleman and clergyman-specialists’ identified in the final screening lists fashioned a diverse range of major, new, geological domains. Not all of these were in existence throughout the decade. Phillips’s domain was established in 1836 and Darwin’s in 1838. Although Murchison and Sedgwick’s Palaeozoic domains were effectively founded in 1835, the Silurian and Cambrian Systems were not finally defined until three decades later. Conybeare effectively ceased geological activities after 1836. Owen and Egerton’s palaeontological domains were only in the process of being fashioned in the late 1830s. The other member included on the penultimate list for the 1830s, De la Beche, was well positioned by the end of the decade to establish a ‘modal’ domain at the Geological Survey. The two exceptions, Greenough and Phillips, respectively maintained and fashioned their domains. Mantell, who was on the penultimate but not final list for the 1840- 1850 decade, stands out as the exception. During the 1830s his triumphs included the discovery of the Hylaeosaurus and the award of the GSL’s Wollaston Medal,393 but his changed personal circumstances after moving to Brighton effectively prevented him from establishing a geological domain. In 1837, Owen was able to move into the area of fossil reptiles, virtually by default. The overall situation is illustrated in the table on the following page.

392 R. Owen, ‘Report on British Fossil Reptiles’, Report of the BAAS meeting held at Liverpool in September 1839, 1840, pp. 43-126. 393 In 1835 Mantell was the second recipient of this award. See CL to GAM, 18, 21 February 1835, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 64, (Supp. Vol.-Letters 121, 124).

150 TABLE 3.1 - DOMAINS ESTABLISHED BY THE IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1830s

Legend

MAJOR MAJOR DOMAIN MINOR IDENTIFIED NO DOMAIN (Tentative, Joint DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN or declining)

IDENTIFIED ON PENULTIMATE ON FINAL EXCLUSIONS BUT NOT FINAL LIST SCEEENING LIST

GREENOUGH CONYBEARE BUCKLAND Modal Domain Joint Modal Domain Joint Modal Domain (Scepticism) (English school) (English school)

PHILLIPS DE la BECHE LYELL Taxonomic Domain Modal Domain Causal Domain (Geology of Yorkshire) (Geological Survey) (Absolute actualism)

MURCHISON Taxonomic Domain (Silurian and Devonian Systems)

SEDGWICK Taxonomic and Joint Modal Domain (Cambrian System and English school)

WHEWELL Joint Modal Domain (English school)

DOMAINS ESTABLISHED OR IDENTIFIED IN THE 1830s BY THOSE LISTED ON THE PENULTIMATE OR FINAL LISTS FOR 1840-1850

DARWIN FITTON EGERTON MANTELL OWEN Causal Domain Taxonomic Taxonomic – Taxonomic (Crustal Mobility) (Chalk - Oolite) (Fossil Fish) – (Fossil Reptiles)

151 3.4 1840 - 1850

3.4.1 THE GEOLOGICAL WORK OF MANTELL, 1840 - 1852394

The scope of Mantell’s investigations during this period is remarkably broad, considering the state of his personal circumstances in the late 1830s. Following the forced sale of his fossil collection in 1838, Mantell moved to Clapham, where he had purchased a medical practice. His wife, eldest daughter, and eldest son left him at this time, and in 1840 his youngest daughter, aged 17 years, died after a long illness. In 1841, Mantell’s already poor health deteriorated further, following a near fatal carriage accident that exacerbated his already damaged spine.395 Furthermore, Mantell was 50 years of age in 1840. During this last stage of his career, all of Mantell’s scientific publications were palaeontological in nature, with the exception of a geological booklet written for the BAAS meeting at Southampton in 1846.396 He did not, however, focus his attention exclusively on any one group of fossils, although large land reptiles remained a major area of interest. In fact this contested domain constituted Mantell and Owen’s main agonistic field throughout the 1840s, and more particularly, during 1841-42. The range of other palaeontological subjects investigated by Mantell during this decade included large land reptiles, turtles, the mammal-like reptile Telerpeton, birds and evidence of their foot-prints, fruits, molluskite, belemnites, the fluviatile mollusc Unio, and foraminifera. Sarjeant was sufficiently impressed to comment: “Indeed he [Mantell] can justly be considered the first palaeontologist to work on the whole spectrum of fossils, from smallest to largest”.397 During the 1830s, Mantell’s publications on fossil reptiles only comprised the chapter describing the Hylaeosaurus in Geology of the South-

394 Because Mantell died on 10 November 1852, this review of his geological work extends to that date. 395 Details of these events in Mantell’s life are fully described in the next chapter of this thesis. 396 G.A. Mantell, Geological Excursions round the Isle of Wight and along the Adjacent Coast of Dorsetshire illustrative of the most Interesting Geological Phenomena, and Organic Remains, Bohn, London, 1846. 397 W.A. Sarjeant, ‘Gideon Mantell and the “Xanthidia”,’ Archives of Natural History, 1992, 19, pp. 91-100 on p. 91.

152 east of England, published in 1833, and his 1834 description of the Maidstone Iguanodon.398 In contrast, during this seven year period Owen had described Darwin’s large, South American fossils, for which he had been awarded the GSL’s Wollaston Medal in 1838, submitted a report on fossil marine reptiles at the 1839 BAAS meeting, and was in the process of preparing his Part II report on land-based fossil reptiles for the BAAS meeting at Plymouth in August, 1841. The late 1830s was an opportune time for Owen to ‘catch-up’ on Mantell. During these years no fossil discoveries had been made in England that would have enabled a new interpretation or classification to be given to the three large land reptiles discovered so far – the Megalosaurus, Hylaeosaurus, and Iguanodon.399 The fossil bones that had been found until this time were invariably incomplete and broken-up, and not infrequently mixed with other skeletal fragments. In regard to the Iguanodon, for example, Lyell made the following comments in his 1851 Anniversary Address:

He [Mantell] computed that in the course of twenty years he had found teeth and bones of the Iguanodon which must have belonged to no less than 71 distinct individuals, varying in age and magnitude from the reptile just burst from the egg, to one of which the femur measured 24 inches in circumference. Yet it was not until the relics of all these individuals were known that a solitary example of a jaw-bone was obtained.400

In February 1841, Mantell re-entered the field of land-based fossil reptiles and read a paper at the Royal Society describing a fragment of a presumed jaw-bone of a young Iguanodon.401 However, his evidence was not unequivocal. Three months later Mantell read another paper describing fossil turtles found in the chalk,402 and emphasized his return to the fray by sending

398 G.A. Mantell, ‘Discovery of the Bones of the Iguanodon in a Quarry of Kentish Rag (a limestone belonging to the lower greensand), near Maidstone, Kent’, ENPJ, 1834, 17, pp. 200-202. 399 The well-known Iguanodon skeleton discovered at Maidstone lacked a skull. W.E. Swinton, ‘Gideon Mantell and the Maidstone Iguanodon’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 1951, 8, pp. 261-276 on p. 271. 400 C. Lyell, ‘Anniversary Address of the President’, PGSL, 1851, pp. xxv-lxxvi on p. lxv. 401 G.A. Mantell, ‘Memoir on a Portion of the Lower Jaw of the Iguanodon, and on the Remains of the Hylaeosaurus and other Saurians, discovered in the Strata of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex’ [18 February 1841], PTRSL, 1841, 131, pp. 131-151. 402 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Fossil Remains of Turtles, discovered in the Chalk Formation of the South- east of England’ [20 May 1841], PTRSL, 1841, 131, pp. 153-158.

153 copies of these two papers “to friends in England, and to many savants in France”.403 Owen delivered his Plymouth lecture on land-based fossil reptiles on 2 August, 1841. In a recent analysis of this lecture, and its associated press reports, Torrens has pointed out two pertinent features of Owen’s address:404 · All newspaper reports indicated that Owen reviewed the land-based reptiles according to existing reptile classifications, and grouped them with lizards in the Lacertian Division of the Saurian Order. He did not name Dinosauria as a new Order at the BAAS meeting. · Owen agreed with Mantell’s size estimates of the Iguanodon, but considered Mantell’s 1825 name for the fossil reptile unsuitable and misleading.

Mantell responded to Owen’s criticism in the 28 August issue of the Literary Gazette, and in a reasoned manner, pointed out that the Iguanodon had been named because of the resemblance of its teeth to the modern-day iguana.405 Nevertheless, the Mantell-Owen conflict over the ‘taxonomic’ domain of land-based fossil reptiles now became an open and personally acrimonious issue.406 Owen’s final report407 was published in April, 1842, eight months after the Plymouth meeting. Torrens’s analysis408 reveals how Owen used this interval to make major revisions to his August lecture. One such change was to reduce the previous size estimates of the reptiles. More importantly, in a specimen observed in Saull’s Museum409 Owen had noticed that five sacral vertebrae of the Iguanodon were anchylosed, a characteristic known to be shared with the Megalosaurus. As a consequence, he deemed this and other distinguishing features “sufficient ground for establishing a distinct tribe or sub-order of Saurian Reptiles, for which I would propose the name of

403 GAM-PJ, entry 31 December 1841. 404 Torrens, op. cit. (note 389), pp. 175-190. 405 G.A. Mantell, ‘Fossil Reptiles’, Literary Gazette, 28 August 1841, pp. 556-557. 406 GAM to B. Silliman, 14 December 1841, quoted in Spokes, op. cit. (note 98), p. 133. 407 R. Owen, ‘Report on British Fossil Reptiles. Part II’, Report of the BAAS meeting held at Plymouth in 1841, 1842, pp. 60-204. 408 Torrens, op. cit. ( note 389). 409 William Saull (1784-1855) was a London wine merchant, radical socialist and geologist who opened his London Museum in 1833. His Iguanodon specimen came from the Isle of Wight. Torrens, op. cit. (note 389).

154 Dinosauria.”410 Rupke has summed up the situation in the following way: “By inventing the dinosaurs, coining the name and placing them in a taxonomic category of their own, Owen appropriated Mantell’s sensational monsters.”411 In effect, the ‘taxonomic’ domain of British fossil reptiles became Owen’s in 1842. Mantell acknowledged Owen’s report as a “very masterly paper”,412 but minimised Owen’s contributions to the field of fossil reptiles. Writing to Lyell eight years later, Mantell remarked:

In the report on British reptiles the only new fact in the osteology of the Iguanodon, stated by Owen is the construction of the sacrum which is peculiar O. supposes to Iguanodon, Megalosaurus, & Hylaeosaurus. O. showed the Ig. Sacrum consisted of 5 anchylosed vertebrae from a specimen in Saull’s collection: I since examined the same fossil & found the sacrum to consist of six vertebrae: I have figured it in Phil. Trans. Part II. 1849 pl. XXVI.413

Despite Owen’s entry to the field, Mantell did not relinquish his reptile investigations after Owen’s 1842 report. In 1848, a lower jaw with teeth of an Iguanodon was finally found at Cuckfield, Sussex, and given to Mantell. In his paper read to the Royal Society on 25 May 1848,414 Mantell was able to unequivocally confirm his previous claims concerning the herbivorous nature of the reptile.415 He had searched for such a fossil remain for 25 years. As a consequence of this paper, and of his earlier work on the Iguanodon, Lyell was able to advise Mantell on 30 November, 1849, that he had been awarded the Royal Medal of the Royal Society of London,416 despite vehement opposition from Owen. During the next two years Mantell completed three further papers on fossil reptiles for the Royal Society,417 one

410 Owen, op. cit. (note 407), p. 103. 411 N.A. Rupke, Richard Owen: Victorian Naturalist, Yale University Press, Yale, 1994, p. 134. 412 GAM to B. Silliman, 30 April 1842, quoted in Spokes, op. cit. (note 98), p. 135. 413 GAM to CL, 7 October 1850, APS Archives, Darwin-Lyell Correspondence, BD 25L. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 229). 414 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Structure of the Jaws and Teeth of the Iguanodon’ [25 May 1848], PTRSL, 1848, 138, pp. 183-202. 415 Ibid., pp. 198-199. In this paper Mantell also proposed that the lower jaw described in his 1841 ‘Memoir on a Portion of the Lower Jaw of the Iguanodon’, belonged to a new, allied genus Regnosaurus Northamptoni. 416 CL to GAM, 30 November 1849, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 65. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 216). 417 G.A. Mantell,i‘Additional Observations on the Osteology of the Iguanodon and Hylaeosaurus’ [8 March 1849], PTRSL, 1849, 139, pp. 271-305.i‘On the Pelorosaurus; an undescribed gigantic terrestrial reptile whose remains are associated with those of the Iguanodon and other Saurians in the Strata of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex’, [14 February 1850], Phil. Trans, 1850, 140, pp. 379-390.i‘On a

155 of which described the Pelorosaurus, a previously unknown, gigantic, terrestrial reptile. Thus Mantell made a very significant contribution to the construction of knowledge about the nature, habits, and variety of the large land-based fossil reptiles of the Cretaceous period, despite the fact that he did not establish a domain in this field. Additionally, through his Museum, public lectures, and publications for the non-scientific market, Mantell played a major role in making the public aware of these extinct monsters. As a final point, Mantell’s fossil reptiles acquired by the British Museum provided a substantial base for further research. Cleevely and Chapman have summed up this aspect of Mantell’s collection on a quantitative basis:

Mantell’s contribution to the increase in knowledge and material that has survived in the [British] Museum collections amounts to: 59 turtle specimens; 9 pterosaur specimens; 9 crocodile specimens; 4 monosaur specimens; 155+ dinosaur remains (including teeth). The extensive series of dinosaur remains acquired through the purchases in 1838 and 1853, attributed to 9 genera and 14 different species418

Most of Mantell’s other geological publications during the 1840s were consequential, and also reflect his ongoing feud with Owen. Subjects in this category were fossil birds of both England419 and New Zealand,420 Belemnites,421 and finally, the race for priority between Mantell and Lyell’s Telerpeton and Owen’s Leptopleuron in 1852.422 The enmity between the two

Dorsal dermal Spine of the Hylaeosaurus, recently discovered in the Strata of Tilgate Forest’ [13 June 1850], PTRSL, 1850, 140, pp. 391-392. 418 Cleevely and Chapman, op. cit. (note 96), p. 334. 419 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Fossil Remains of Birds in the Wealden Strata of the South-east of England’ [1 January 1846], QJGSL, 1846, 2, pp. 104-106. In this paper Mantell responded to Owen’s paper, ‘On the Supposed Fossil Bones of Birds from the Wealden’ [17 December 1845], QJGSL, 1846, 2, pp. 96-102, which claimed Mantell’s birds were Pterodactyles. 420 G.A.Mantell,i‘On the Fossil Remains of Birds collected in various parts of New Zealand by Mr Walter Mantell of Wellington’, QJGSL, 1848, 4, pp. 225-241.i‘Notice of the Remains of the Diornis and other Birds, and of Fossils and Rock-specimens, recently collected by Mr. Walter Mantell in the Middle Island of New Zealand; with Additional Notes on the Northern Island’, QJGSL, 1850, 6, pp. 319-343. 421 G.A. Mantell, ‘Observations on some Belemnites and other Fossil Remains of Cephalopoda, discovered by Mr. Reginald Neville Mantell, C.E. in the Oxford Clay near Trowbridge, in Wiltshire’, PTRSL, 1848, 138, pp. 171-181. In this paper Mantell presented evidence contravening Owen’s earlier interpretation of the remains of Belemnites and Belemnoteuthis. 422 An excellent account of this final feud between Owen and Mantell, besides a further illustration of Lyell’s anti-progressionist stance is given in M.J. Benton, ‘Progressionism in the 1850s: Lyell, Owen, Mantell and the Elgin fossil reptile Leptopleuron (Telerpeton)’, Archives of Natural History, 1972, 11, pp. 123-136.

156 men is also exhibited in Mantell’s last two books, A Pictorial Atlas of Fossil Remains423 and Petrifactions and Their Teachings.424 Both were major publications and completed when Mantell was in poor health and still conducting his declining medical practice. In summary, it can be stated that Mantell resuscitated his geological career during the last decade of his life. However, he was unable to fashion a new domain.

3.4.2 THE GEOLOGICAL WORK OF LYELL IN THE 1840s

In contrast to Mantell’s situation, the 1840s was a period of further consolidation for Lyell. Although his ‘causal’ domain had been soundly established during the previous decade, Lyell continued to reinforce his case for absolute actualism, as well as maintain his role as ‘the anthologizer and codifier of geological text-books’. As R. Silliman has observed, “he was ever in need of fresh material that, incorporated into the Principles of Geology or the Elements of Geology, justified new editions of these works and brought in new royalties”.425 During the 1840s and 1850s, Lyell’s lecture and geological visits to the United States of America provided the principal means to this end. Lyell and his wife visited the U.S.A. and Canada twice in the 1840s,426 and were on their third visit when Mantell died in November, 1852. Lyell’s output of geological publications was considerable during this decade. The sixth edition of his Principles of Geology was published in a revamped form in 1840,427 the seventh edition (one volume) in 1847, and the eighth in 1850. An enlarged, second edition of Elements of Geology came out

423 G.A. Mantell, A Pictorial Atlas of Fossil Remains consisting of coloured Illustrations selected from Parkinson’s ‘Organic Remains of a Former World’ and Artis’s ‘Antediluvian Phytology’ with descriptions, Bohn, London, 1850. On pp. 170-171 of this book Mantell again recounts Owen’s confusion between the Belemnite and Belemnoteuthis. 424 G.A. Mantell, Petrifactions and Their Teachings or A Hand-Book to the Gallery of Organic Remains of the British Museum, Bohn, London, 1851. Mantell criticized Owen’s professional conduct on p. 226 and on p. 489. 425 R.H. Silliman, ‘The Hamlet Affair: Charles Lyell and the North Americans’, Isis, 1995, 86, pp. 541-561 on p. 559. 426 On their first visit Lyell and his wife left England on 20 July 1841 and returned in August 1842. Background on this visit is given in CL to GAM, 29 October 1841, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 65, (Supp. Vol.-Letter 167). Their second visit was from September 1845 until June 1846. 427 In essence, all descriptive geology was transferred to the second edition of Elements of Geology.

157 in 1841, while two books describing his visits to the U.S.A. during the 1840s were published in 1845 and 1849 respectively.428 An indication of the relative importance to Lyell of his visits to North America is that 23 of his 38 papers published in the 1840s429 describe geological phenomena from that continent. Only six concerned specific British topics. Lyell’s geological investigations in the U.S.A. tended to follow a set pattern. In most cases he was accompanied by a local authority;430 his next step was to send a memoir or notice on the particular topic to the GSL for publication; in the final phase the phenomenon would be described in the forthcoming edition of his Principles or Elements, usually the latter. For example, during the inclusive period 1841 to 1847, Lyell published 19 papers or notices concerning aspects of North American geology. Twelve of these topics were subsequently described in the sixth edition (1865) of Elements of Geology,431 and two in the seventh edition of Principles of Geology.432 The four papers excluded were of a more general nature.433 Lyell benefited from his U.S.A. visits, but he also made some original contributions to the geological knowledge of that country. Dott has designated eight areas where Lyell made a significant contribution. These include: a demonstration of the trans-Atlantic uniformity of the Carboniferous coal-measures; the discovery, with Dawson, of Carboniferous

428 C. Lyell,iTravels in North America, in the Years 1841-42; With Geological Observations in the United States, Canada and Nova Scotia, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1845, andiA Second Visit to the United States of North America, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1849. 429 These 38 papers are not all listed in the Bibliography of this thesis but were identified in Catalogue of Scientific Papers (1800-1863) compiled and published by the Royal Society of London, 1870, 4, pp. 138-140. 430 For example, in his letter to Mantell of 29 October 1841, (Supp. Vol.-Letter 167), Lyell mentions visits where he was guided by B. Silliman and his son, James Hall of the New York Geological Survey, Dr. G. Morton, Dr. R. Harlin, and T. A. Conrad. 431 These topics tended to be distinctive and descriptive, for example:i‘On the Fossil Footprints of Birds and Impressions of Raindrops in the Valley of Connecticut’, PGSL, 1838-42, 3, p. 793, which was subsequently mentioned in Elements of Geology, 6 ed., pp. 793-796, andi‘On the Upright Fossil Trees Found at Different Levels in the Coal Strata of Cumberland, New Scotia’, PGSL, pp. 176-178. 432 These two topics concerned the causal examples of:i‘Memoir on the Recession of the Falls of Niagara’, PGSL, 1842, 3, pp. 595-602, andi‘On the Delta and Alluvial Deposits of the Mississippi, and other points in the Geology of North America, observed in the years 1846-46’, Report of the BAAS Meeting held at Southampton in 1846, London, 1847, pp. 117-119. 433 Examples of the more general topics excluded from Lyell’s geological text-books are:i‘On some Carboniferous and Older Rocks of Pennsylvania and New York’, PGSL, 1838-42, 3, p. 554, and i ‘On the Newer Deposits of the Southern States of North America’, QJGSL, 1846, 2, pp. 405-410.

158 reptiles in Nova Scotia; and the biogeographic homogeneity, between Europe and North America, of marine Palaezoic fossils.434 Although the scope of Lyell’s geological work during the 1840s was broad, few of his papers manifested the probing depth of his 1826 paper on the formation of freshwater marl in Forfarshire.435 As a general observation, Lyell’s investigations now fell into one of two categories: descriptions of new geological phenomena for inclusion in future editions of his Principles or Elements; and more pervasively, any palaeontological case that supported his anti-progressionist stance. Lyell’s anti-progressionist beliefs did not change during these years. An example of one aspect of his position is contained in the following extract from a previously unpublished letter to Mantell, written in 1850:

I have endeavoured as you know in many chapters of the Principles & in my works generally to explain why I take a different view. I believe that the last pair of Dodos was as capable if let alone by Man or the last Auroch so long as the Czar chose to protect them to repeople the globe as were the first pair & I believe it was the same with every other last pair from the beginning whether an uncongenial climate, or submergence of land by an earthquake, or conversion of sea into land, or the coming of a new species or any other cause organic or inorganic, mechanical or chemical, put a finishing stroke to the existence of a species. Your theory is Brochi's theory, Principles 7th. Edn. p. 641. which I have treated of – the physiological dying out of every species. The red man has an allotted time for his race dying out & it may be that the Small pox or some other epidemic may put the last finish to what the white man’s persecution has begun but the last pair of Indians will be naturally as fecund if unmolested as were Adam and Eve.436

A further example of Lyell’s inflexible, anti-progressionist stance, and also of his single-mindedness, is the ‘Telerpeton’ episode in 1851-52. Despite the fact that Mantell was in poor health and had other priorities, Lyell ‘bombarded’ him with 15 letters over a six-week interval that contained various requests and suggestions to complete a paper favourable to the anti-

434 R.H. Dott, Jr, ‘Lyell in America: His lectures, Field Work, and Mutual Influences, 1841-1853’, Earth Sciences History: Journal of the History of the Earth Sciences Society, 1996, 15, pp. 128-129. 435 Lyell, op. cit. (note 108). 436 CL to GAM, 3 March 1850, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 65. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 221).

159 progressionist argument.437 In fact, Lyell’s anti-progressionism exhibited the key hall-marks of a ‘modal’ domain – an idiosyncratic, geological viewpoint promoted from a position of authority and influence. Appropriately, the main themes of Lyell’s two Anniversary addresses during his second GSL presidency directly concerned these two geological fields, the ‘causal’ domain of absolute actualism, and the ‘modal’ domain of anti-progressionism. The theme of his 1850 address was the bearing of modern discoveries on the principles of geology;438 in his 1851 address, Lyell spoke against the palaeontological case for progressionism.439

3.4.3 THE NATURE OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK COMPLETED BY THE OTHER IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1840s

The geologists whose work is reviewed here comprise the six geologists, besides Lyell, identified in the final screening list for the 1840- 1850 decade, namely, Buckland, De la Beche, Fitton, Murchison, Sedgwick and Whewell; the three others included on the penultimate list with Mantell, namely, Darwin, Egerton and Owen; and the two exceptions, Greenough, and Phillips.

(1) BUCKLAND

Buckland served a second term as GSL president from 1839 to 1841 and was a member of council for most of the decade. He also received the society’s Wollaston Medal in 1848. However, Buckland’s inclusion on the final list for this decade basically stems from his earlier geological work, and not from the further development of his joint-domain of the 1830s, progressionism. In fact, the influence of the English school of geology diminished considerably during the 1840s. At Oxford, the Tractarian Movement had crusaded successfully against liberal Anglicanism and historical geology since the mid-1830s.440 Moreover, within the senior ranks of the GSL the English school’s approach to geology had become

437 See CL to GAM, 27 November 1851 to 5 January 1852, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 65. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 252-268) 438 C. Lyell, ‘Anniversary Address of the President’, QJGSL, 1850, 6, pp. xxxii-lxvi. 439 C. Lyell, ‘Anniversary Address of the President’, QJGSL, 1851, 7, pp. xxv-lxxvi. 440 See Rupke, op. cit. (note 35), pp. 209-218.

160 the accepted, conventional norm, with the notable exception of Lyell. There was little, if any, further need to promulgate the overall concept. In 1845, Buckland was appointed Dean of Westminster by Sir Robert Peel. In this capacity he continued his geological investigations, but favoured those with a bias to economic geology and utility. One characteristic of his work did not change, Buckland’s propensity to generate “unexpected suggestions, curious enquiries, and novel kinds of evidence”.441 Topics of the 11 varied papers he completed during the 1840s included the agency of land snails in making excavations in compact limestone rocks,442 petrified track-wings of ambulatory fishes on sandstone,443 and the occurrence of nodules (called petrified potatoes) in Ireland.444 In essence, Buckland retained his status as an elite geologist during this last decade of his geological career because of his previous achievements and experience.

(2) WHEWELL

In general the comments made about Buckland in the 1840s, also apply to his colleague from the English school, Whewell, who served as GSL president from 1837 to 1839, but only served on the council for two years during the 1840s.445 Like Buckland, Whewell accepted a prestigious appointment during the decade, that of Master of Trinity College, Cambridge, in 1841. As just noted, the more relevant factor shared with Buckland was the effective redundancy of their joint ‘modal’ domain of the 1830s, the tenets of the English school of geology. During the latter half of the decade Whewell exhibited less interest in geology, but consolidated his much broader sphere of influence as a polymath and ‘scientific adjudicator’.

441 Obituary Notice of the Rev. William Buckland, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, 1857, 8, on p. 267. 442 W. Buckland, ‘On the Agency of Land Snails in corroding and making deep excavations in compact Limestone rocks’, PGSL, 1842, 3, pp. 430-431. 443 W. Buckland, ‘On Ichthyopatolites or petrified track-wings of ambulatory Fishes upon Sandstone of the Coal Formation’, PGSL, 1843, 4, p. 204. 444 W. Buckland, ‘On the Occurrence of Nodules (called Petrified Potatoes) found on the shores of Lough Neagh, Ireland’, QJGSL, 1846, 2, p. 103. 445 Whewell served on the GSL council during the periods 1830-1833 and 1836-1842.

161 (3) SEDGWICK

During the 1840s Sedgwick was not able to consolidate his tentatively established ‘taxonomic’ domain of the Cambrian System. In fact Murchison, during 1841-1842, came close to annexing Sedgwick’s Cambrian System and incorporating it within his Silurian domain. During these years Sedgwick had few supporters who accepted the validity of his claimed domain of Cambrian strata. In several key respects Sedgwick’s geological approach did not help his cause. Apart from his tardiness in publishing, Sedgwick failed to describe a characteristic Cambrian fauna, in marked contrast to Murchison who effectively claimed all fossils below the newly established Devonian system as Silurian. Sedgwick, in fact, commented that Murchison had effectively defined the Silurian as “fossiliferous Greywacke”.446 But, as noted by Berry: “The Cambrian Period, as Sedgwick thought of it, was a descriptive unit and so could not be recognised outside of its type area”.447 In 1843, Sedgwick actually abandoned the name Cambrian and suggested the compromise term ‘Protozoic’ for the strata below the Upper Silurian,448 but he rescinded this decision in 1846. Despite this latter change of mind, Lyell’s seventh edition of Principles of Geology, printed in 1847, contained four references to Silurian rocks,449 but the word Cambrian was not mentioned. Furthermore, when Sedgwick was presented with the Wollaston Medal by Lyell in 1851 for “his original researches in developing the Geological Structure of the British Isles, the Alps, and the Rhenish Provinces”,450 there was no specific mention of the Cambrian System. In short, the situation was far from resolved by the end of the decade, and the status of Sedgwick’s Cambrian domain remained at best, tentative. In particular, it lacked the authority of a recognised distinctive fossil assemblage. The final solution to the dispute was not suggested until 1879, when Lapworth, following the tripartite Continental division of J. Barrande in Bohemia, created a tripartite division of the Lower

446 Clark and Hughes, op. cit. (note 188), vol. 2, p. 539. 447 W.B.N. Berry, Growth of a Prehistoric Time Scale: Based on Organic Evolution, Freeman, San Francisco, 1968, on p. 87. 448 A. Sedgwick, ‘Outline of the Geological Structure of North Wales’, PGSL, 1843, 4, p. 221; also quoted in Secord, Controversy in Victorian geology, 1986, p. 139. 449 Lyell, Principles of Geology, 7th ed., 1847, pp. 116, 156, 171 and 180. 450 C. Lyell, ‘Award of the Wollaston Medal and Donation Fund’, PGSL, 1851, 7, pp. xix-xx.

162 Palaezoic, allocating the lower part of Murchison’s Silurian and the upper part of Sedgwick’s Cambrian to the new System: the Ordovician.451

(4) MURCHISON

Although the stratigraphic scope of the Silurian System, as envisaged by Murchison during the 1840s, was considerably diminished 30 years later, his domain was effectively accepted from the time The Silurian System was published in 1839. Because of his correlative use of fossils, Murchison was able to extend his domain to Europe, Russia, North America, Australia and even the Falkland Islands. Unlike Sedgwick, Murchison was able to pronounce:

The simple question, then, which every practical geologist has long ago answered in the negative, is this, Was the Cambrian system ever so defined, that a competent person going into an uninvestigated country could determine if it existed there? That it was never so characterized is demonstrated by the successive publications of Professor Sedgwick himself,….For whenever well- known Lower Silurian fossils occurred in such countries, the tracts so typified have necessarily been called Silurian.452

The overseas extension of Murchison’s Silurian domain became an aspect of English scientific colonisation, and a source of pride. Secord quotes Whewell as follows: “I rejoice to hear of your success in Silurianizing the nations. One of our toasts at the geological ought to be ‘the Silurian System all over the world’.”453 The process reached its apotheosis in 1849, when Murchison was hailed ‘King-of-Siluria’ by the Bishop of Oxford, following a field excursion to Dudley.454

451 See Hallam, op. cit. (note 38), 1989, pp. 80-83. 452 R.I. Murchison, ‘On the Meaning of the term “Silurian System” as adopted by Geologists in various countries during the last ten years’, QJGSL, 1852, 1, p. 176. 453 W. Whewell to R.I. Murchison, [dated 1839], Murchison mss, quoted in Secord, op. cit. (note 22), p. 81. 454 See H.B. Woodward, op. cit. (note 29), p.169. D.R. Oldroyd also quotes this example in The Highlands Controversy: Constructing Geological Knowledge through Fieldwork in Nineteenth- Century Britain, Univ. of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1990, p. 31.

163 Murchison also established another geological system, the Permian, following a visit to Russia in 1841. In all, he published 41 scientific papers455 and a major book456 during the decade. Murchison’s geological work during the first half of the nineteenth century highlights the proprietorial and self-aggrandisement aspects of ‘taxonomic’ domains in particular. Nevertheless, his dispute with Sedgwick did lead to the construction of geological knowledge. The utility and importance of using fossils for national and international correlative purposes was confirmed, and a better understanding of the distinctive characteristics of a new geological system was developed.

(5) FITTON

Fitton was 60 years of age in 1840 and it is not surprising that his geological investigations continued to be confined to his minor, but long established statigraphic domain, the succession of strata between the Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous in the south of England. His four geological publications during the decade were again confined to this stratigraphic zone,457 but dealt with a significant new discovery. Fitton was able to demonstrate the existence of a fossiliferous marine clay, the Atherfield Clay, at the base of the Lower Greensand that had previously been included in the underlying, freshwater Wealden Clay.

(6) DE LA BECHE

The review of De la Beche’s career during the 1830s concluded that by 1839 he was well positioned in his capacity as director of the Geological Survey

455 These publications are not listed in the Bibliography of this thesis. They are listed in the Catalogue of Scientific Papers (1800-1863) compiled and published by the Royal Society of London, vol. 4, 1870, pp. 548-543. 456 R.I. Murchison, E. de Verneuil, and Count von Keyserling, The Geology of Russia in Europe and the Ural Mountains, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1846. 457 W.H. Fitton,i‘Observations on part of the Section of the Lower Greensand at Atherfield, on the coast of the Isle of Wight’ [1843], PGSL, 1846, 4, pp. 198-203.i‘Comparative Remarks on the Lower Greensand of Kent and the Isle of Wight’ [1843], PGSL, 1846, 4, pp. 208-210.i ‘Comparative Remarks on the Sections below the Chalk on the coast near Hythe, in Kent, and Atherfield, in the Isle of Wight’, QJGSL, 1845, 1, pp. 179-189.i ‘A Stratigraphical Account of the Section from Atherfield to Rocken-End in the Isle of Wight’, QJGSL, 1846, 2, pp. 55-56 and 1847, 3, pp. 289-328.

164 and the Museum of Practical Geology to fashion a new ‘modal’ domain. Before then, De la Beche did not have staff at these institutions to direct or influence. This situation changed significantly in the 1840s; nine officers were employed by the Geological Survey in 1845, and thirteen in 1850, while staff at the Museum of Practical Geology increased from one chemist and a curator in 1845 to three chemists and curator by 1850. Fossil collectors, some technical staff and temporary employees are excluded from these numbers.458 Thus, by the middle of the decade De la Beche had established a major power-base in British geological circles. Moreover, the characteristics of the Geological Survey were unique in English science at that time. Secord has highlighted the nature of this key development:

it represented the efforts of a group of researchers gathered together to pursue common objectives. The Geological Survey departed strikingly from a tradition that had emphasized individuals working alone or in voluntary association.459

Previous ‘modal’ domains, such as Buckland’s English school of geology, were loose associations of ‘gentleman and clergyman-specialists’ pursuing interlinked, but essentially independent investigations. De la Beche’s domain was different. He provided hierarchical and undisputed leadership to a carefully selected group of able professionals – geologists, curators, chemists and palaeontologists, united in Horner’s words “for the accomplishment of a great work, not surpassed…by any similar establishment in any other country”.460 During the Geological Survey’s first decade, its activities focused on economic geology and associated detailed mapping of south-west England and southern Wales. Secord has made a convincing case that in carrying out and directing this work De la Beche had a distinctive agenda: a research school centred on palaeoecology that exhibited the following characteristics and areas of emphasis:461

458 The number of these employees was obtained from Secord, op. cit. (note 350), p. 228. 459 Ibid., p. 223. 460 L. Horner, ‘Anniversary address of the President’, QJGSL, 1847, 3, on p. xxxi. Also quoted in ibid., p. 223. 461 Secord, op. cit. (note 350), pp. 241-247.

165 · Palaeoecological interpretations and environmental reconstructions were applied to the older rocks below the Tertiary. Buckland’s previous work in this area tended to focus on more recent strata. · Emphasis was placed on reconstructing the characteristics of specific places rather than on more general ‘lost worlds’. · Stratigraphic mapping was carried out with unprecedented accuracy and detail (De la Beche’s field-work had displayed this characteristic). · Past reconstructions of geological phenomena were carried out utilising a wide range of technical and scientific skills.

In order to ensure that this overall system was implemented in the field, De la Beche issued detailed directives in his ‘Instructions for the Local Directors of the Geological Surveys of Great Britain & Ireland’.462 As a general summation, De la Beche set a new bench-mark in regard to the efficacy of power-based, ‘modal’ domains during the 1840s.

(7) GREENOUGH

Greenough continued his record term as a member of the GSL council throughout the 1840s,463 and also served on the main council of BAAS from 1840 until 1848. He therefore maintained his accustomed geological positions of influence. However, he did not make any presidential addresses during this period, or publish any geological papers, which makes it difficult to assess any changes in the status of his ‘modal’ domain of geological scepticism. Records from the GSL meeting on 4 November 1840, when glaciation was discussed, reveal that Greenough exhibited considerable scepticism on this major issue. According to Woodward, Greenough regarded Agassiz’s theory as “the climax of absurdity in geological opinions”.464 His attitude to new geological ideas therefore appears to have changed little. It is extremely difficult, though, to determine the extent of a probable decline in the influence of his expounded approach throughout the decade.

462 Ibid., p. 248. 463 Greenough served on the original GSL committee from 1807 to 1810 and subsequently served as a member of council from 1810 until 1855. Woodward, op. cit. (note 29), p. 302. 464 Ibid., p. 140.

166 (8) PHILLIPS

In 1838 De la Beche enlisted Phillips’ voluntary assistance to produce a report on the fossils of Devon and Cornwall to complement and support his forthcoming Survey report on the geology of these counties.465 His participation in this project was to lead to new career opportunities. In 1840 Phillips joined the Geological Survey as a professional palaentologist. Hitherto, he would have been best described as a field- geologist and stratigrapher. Phillips’ report on the Palaeozoic fossils of the south-west counties was published in 1841.466 In essence, this report described and illustrated 275 species of fossil collected by Phillips and local collectors, a number he considered sufficient for “a partial removal of the veil which has so long obscured the age and affinities of the strata of Devon and Cornwall”.467 On a broader front, the report re-introduced his 1840 concept of three major geological eras, the Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cainozoic, based on “three great systems of organic life, characterizeable and recognizable by the prevalence of different species, genera, families”.468 Phillips also used his distinctive, quantitative methodology for analysing the fossils found in the different Palaeozoic systems of the three counties. As a final point, Phillips would have realised that with the production of his 1841 report, combined with his appointment to the first palaeontological position in the now-expanding Geological Survey, he was in a strategic position to establish a major ‘taxonomic’ domain, such as British Palaeozoic fossils, and to assume control over the Survey’s palaeontological investigations. Events did not work out this way. In 1844 Phillips accepted the position of Professor of Geology, Trinity College, Dublin, but arranging matters so that he was free to spend most of the year with the Geological Survey. However, Edward Forbes was appointed to superintend the

465 De la Beche, op. cit. (note 347). 466 J. Phillips, Figure and Descriptions of the Palaeozoic Fossils of Cornwall, Devon and West Somerset; Observed in the Course of the Ordnance Geological Survey of that District, Longman, London, 1841. 467 Ibid., preface, on pp. v-xii. Quoted in Rudwick, op. cit. (note 1), p. 372. 468 Ibid., pp. 159-160. Phillips first introduced the terms ‘Mesozoic’ and ‘Kainozoic’ in The Penny Cyclopedia of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, Charles Knight, London, 1840, 17, pp. 153-154.

167 Survey’s palaeontological activities in the same year. Phillips subsequently resigned his Dublin academic position in 1845 and resumed regional geological investigations with the Survey, based in York. In 1848 he completed his next major work, The Malvern Hills compared with the Palaeozoic districts of Amberley, Woolhope, May Hill, Tortworth and Usk.469 Although this publication continued to exhibit Phillips’s palaeoecological and quantitative approach to palaeontological investigations, it was basically a comprehensive, regional geological study.470 Phillips had returned to his base geological domain.

(9) DARWIN

During the first half of the decade Darwin completed the trilogy of geological books471 that consolidated his previously established, ‘causal’ domain of crustal mobility. Their publication marked the conclusion of his geological investigations during the voyage of H.M.S. Beagle. Darwin also evinced interest in another aspect of causal geology during the 1840s, glaciation, and in 1848 he completed a paper explaining how ice-bergs could account for the transport of boulders to higher levels.472 Darwin’s last geological paper,473 published in 1855, also concerned aspects of glaciation. By this time, however, Darwin’s influence as a causal geologist had diminished for several reasons474 – his move to Kent in 1842, the implausibility of his interpretation of the Glen Roy ‘roads’, and his changed scientific interests, from geology to biology.

469 J. Phillips, The Malvern Hills compared with the Palaeozoic districts of Amberley, Woolhope, May Hill, Tortworth and Usk, Memoir of the Geological Survey, 2, 1848. 470 Challinor has described Phillips’ Malvern Hills Memoir as: “one of those fundamental works which at once establish our knowledge of a region and which have never been superseded, though many new facts are subsequently recorded”, The History of British Geology: A Bibliographical Study, David and Charles, Newton Abbot, 1971 p. 119. 471 C. Darwin,iThe Structure and Distribution of Coral Reefs, Smith and Elder, London, 1842.i Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands Visited During the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, Smith and Elder, London, 1844.iGeological Observations in South America, Smith and Elder, London, 1846. 472 C. Darwin, ‘On the Transportal of Erratic Boulders from a lower to a higher level’, QJGSL, 1848, 4, pp. 315-323. 473 C. Darwin, ‘On the Power of Icebergs to make rectilinear uniformly-directed Grooves across a submarine undulatory Surface’, Philosophical Magazine, 1855, 10, pp. 96-98. 474 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 374), p. 194.

168 (10) EGERTON

In several respects Egerton differed from the other ‘gentleman-specialists’ identified in the final and penultimate screening lists. He was the only aristocrat in a total of 13 members of council included in these lists, and his geological interests were mainly confined to the collection and classification of fossil fish. Thirteen of the fifteen scientific papers he published during the 1840s were concerned with this taxonomic field. For the most part these papers are straightforward, descriptive and classificatory and frequently reliant on Agassiz’s Poissons Fossiles.475 Egerton was not an innovator and his taxonomic domain can be regarded as minor. Egerton’s collection of fossil fishes was acquired by the British Museum following his death in 1881.

(11) OWEN

The most pertinent aspects of Owen’s palaeontological investigations during the 1840s have been discussed in the section concerning Mantell’s work during this period. In summary, Owen claimed the vacant taxonomic domain of British fossil reptiles in 1842 when he submitted his Part II BAAS Report on British Fossil Reptiles, in which he established a new sub-order of saurian reptiles, the Dinosauria.

3.4.4 REVIEW OF THE GEOLOGICAL WORK COMPLETED BY THE IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1840s

With the exception of Mantell, all identified geologists either established, consolidated or retained a geological domain during the 1840s, as shown on the following page.

475 For example , in his paper ‘On the Remains of Fishes found by Mr. Kaye and Mr. Cuncliffe in the Pondicherry Beds’, QJGSL, 1845, 1, pp. 164-171, Egerton commented that he identified these fish by comparing them with analogous forms from other localities and with the figures and descriptions provided by Agassiz.

169 TABLE 3.2 - DOMAINS ESTABLISHED BY THE IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS IN THE 1840s

Legend

MAJOR TENTATIVE OR MINOR IDENTIFIED NO MAJOR DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN (tentative, joint or declining)

IDENTIFIED ON PENULTIMATE ON FINAL SCREENING EXCLUSIONS BUT NOT FINAL LIST LIST

GREENOUGH DARWIN BUCKLAND Modal Domain Causal Domain Joint Modal Domain (Scepticism) (Crustal Mobility) (English-School)

PHILLIPS EGERTON DE LA BECHE Taxonomic Domain Taxonomic Domain Modal Domain (Regional Geology) (Fossil Fish) (Geological Survey)

MANTELL FITTON No Domain Taxonomic Domain (Chalk - Oolite)

OWEN LYELL Taxonomic Domain Causal Domain (British Fossil Reptiles) (Absolute actualism)

MURCHISON Taxonomic Domain (Silurian and Devonian Systems)

SEDGWICK Taxonomic and Joint Modal Domain (Cambrian System and English school)

WHEWELL Joint Modal Domain (English school)

170 For most of the 13 selected geologists, the 1840s was a period for consolidating their identified or established domains. Geologists in this category were De la Beche, Fitton, Lyell, Murchison, Owen, Egerton, and, to a lesser extent, Darwin. Sedgwick tried to substantiate his tentatively established Cambrian domain, but with only partial success. On the other hand, the ‘modal’ domains of Buckland, Whewell and Greenough declined in influence during the decade. In the case of the former two ‘clergyman- specialists’, the English school’s approach to geology was simply incorporated into mainstream English geology. The youngest of the identified geologists, Phillips, had ambitions of establishing a major new domain in Palaeozoic palaeontology, but was thwarted by the appointment of E. Forbes to the Geological Survey in 1844. Mantell stands out as the exception. He was the only identified member of council who had not established a geological domain by the end of the decade. By the time he was able to re-enter the field of British fossil reptiles in the early 1840s, it was too late. Owen had seized the opportunity. Nevertheless, Mantell’s range of palaeontological investigations throughout the decade was remarkable.

3.5 CONCLUSIONS

All members of council who were identified in the final screening list were successful in establishing a geological domain. Six of the seven members of this selected elite established a major domain, either individually or jointly. Fitton was the only member whose domain was in the minor category. Apart from the notable exception of Mantell, and the anomalous case of Wollaston,476 all members of council included in the penultimate, but not final lists, also established a domain, Egerton’s being categorised as minor. The two exceptions, Greenough and Phillips, who were not included in the final screening lists because of their respective failure to achieve the stipulated number of publications or required council service, both established major domains. The degree of correspondence between the geologists identified in the final screening lists of the previous chapter, and the extent to which they

476 The non-geologist Wollaston was the only inclusion in the penultimate list for the period 1820 to 1830. He can be regarded as representative of an earlier period in the history of the GSL.

171 were successful in establishing geological domains, is illustrated below for each of the three decades examined.

TABLE 3.3 SUMMARY OF DOMAINS ESTABLISHED BY THE IDENTIFIED GEOLOGISTS

MAJOR TENTATIVE OR MINOR IDENTIFIED NO MAJOR DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN DOMAIN (tentative, joint or declining)

1820 - 1830

OTHERS PENULTIMATE BUT FINAL ( established domains) NOT FINAL LIST SCREENING LIST CONYBEARE WOLLASTON BUCKLAND FITTON

GREENOUGH

MANTELL

1830 - 1840

OTHERS PENULTIMATE BUT FINAL SCREENING (established domains) NOT FINAL LIST LIST DARWIN CONYBEARE BUCKLAND FITTON DE LA BECHE LYELL GREENOUGH MURCHISON

PHILLIPS SEDGWICK

WHEWELL

1840 - 1850

OTHERS PENULTIMATE BUT FINAL SCREENING (established domains) NOT FINAL LIST LIST GREENOUGH DARWIN BUCKLAND PHILLIPS EGERTON DE LA BECHE MANTELL FITTON

OWEN LYELL

MURCHISON

SEDGWICK

WHEWELL

172 These results indicate a good but not exceptional degree of correspondence between members who established a geological domain and those included on the final and penultimate screening lists. It is concluded that the screening criteria adopted in the previous chapter provide a rational, preliminary basis for distinguishing members of the geological elite. However, the screening criteria cannot be applied too rigidly. Flexibility and judgement are required to ensure that members who greatly exceed the requirements for one of the criteria, but fall short in regard to another, are taken into account. The above summary tables also indicate certain trends concerning the identification and establishment of geological domains during the three decades. In many respects these trends are best illustrated by the case- histories of Mantell and Lyell. During the 1820s relatively few domains were established. Greenough, Buckland and Conybeare fashioned major ‘modal’ domains, while Fitton and Mantell established minor taxonomic domains. Neither Fitton nor Mantell exploited ‘virgin territory’. Mantell’s domain, the fossils of Sussex, was too extensive in palaeontological scope, and too limited geographically, to be developed other than in the short term. Lyell was aware of these limitations and in 1829 outlined a strategic plan for Mantell to take-over the vacant domain of British fossil fish and reptiles. By 1829 Lyell had clearly identified his own future domain. The 1830s can be regarded as a decade of geological achievement, with Murchison being the classic exemplar. The number of geologists with either joint or individual major domains increased from three to nine. Additionally, Fitton maintained his minor stratigraphic domain, and by the end of the decade De la Beche was ready to establish a new domain within the Geological Survey, and Owen was about to seize the vacant ‘taxonomic’ domain of British fossil reptiles. Mantell stands out as the solitary exception. Although the pattern of the 1830s is similar to that of the 1840s, the key characteristic of the latter decade is consolidation rather than the exploitation of new domains. Lyell was perfectly positioned during the 1840s to consolidate both his domain and pattern of geological investigation. Mantell was again the exception. Although he investigated a wide range of

173 palaeontological subjects during this period, Mantell did not identify, let alone fashion, a new domain. The critical finding in this chapter is that during the period 1820 to 1850 any aspirant to elite status in English geology needed to establish a geological domain. Mantell did not achieve this goal and in a simplistic, but still basic sense, this fact accounts for his perceived failure. However such an explanation does not provide a meaningful understanding of his career. Several pertinent points have been highlighted in this and the previous chapter. Mantell was the most singular provincial member of the GSL council during the first half of the nineteenth century. He was the only one dependant on non-geological activities for his livelihood. These and other germane factors related to positioning are examined in the next chapter.

174 CHAPTER FOUR

SOCIAL FACTORS AFFECTING THE GEOLOGICAL CAREERS OF LYELL AND MANTELL

The most striking social difference between Lyell and Mantell, or for that matter, between the ‘gentleman-specialists’ and Mantell, concerns their respective family backgrounds. In Mantell’s case, the fact that his father was a provincial shoe-maker, with dissenting religious beliefs and radical political views, resulted in Mantell having a markedly different social status from Lyell, and as a consequence, much more restricted educational and occupational opportunities. In this chapter the extent to which these factors proved to be a handicap to Mantell’s geological career are explored. Other social factors are also examined. These include patronage, the advantages of having an established network of influential friends and contacts, the resolution of career-choice clashes, fashioning a socially acceptable occupation in the world of gentlemanly geology, the importance of a supportive spouse and the income requirements for the lifestyle of a gentleman-specialist. In addition, personal qualities and factors such as ambition, diligence, and health problems are taken into account. The main emphasis in this chapter focuses on Mantell, since his case history epitomises that of an ‘outsider’, in contrast to the more orthodox case of Lyell. Nevertheless, Lyell also faced some career obstacles, which further illustrate aspects of early nineteenth-century geological life.

4.1 LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature reviewed in this chapter falls into two broad categories: first, biographical material concerning Lyell and Mantell, and second, studies pertaining to scientific patronage, provincialism, occupational opportunities in natural history, and living standards, costs, and incomes. Most of these issues are interlinked, and in a broad sense the various factors reviewed focus on the question of how could a gentleman, or more pertinently, an ambitious person with gentlemanly pretensions, establish the necessary base

175 to achieve elite status in natural history during the first half of the nineteenth century. In this regard both Lyell and Mantell provide complementary and contrasting case histories.

4.1.1 LYELL AND MANTELL

The review of biographical data on Lyell and Mantell has been restricted to material examining or raising relevant social factors that affected the geological careers of the two men. For this reason most of the pre-1970 biographies are not discussed,1 but use is made of his Life and Letters.

(1) LYELL

One of the earliest and most important sources of information on Lyell is Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell,2 edited by his sister-in-law, Katherine M. Lyell, and published in 1881. Extracts from these two volumes, which are typical of this late Victorian biographical genre, have been cited frequently in the literature on Lyell’s work and the history of English geology.3 They provide useful insights into Lyell’s boyhood,4 his close family relationships, the high opinion he held of Mantell in the 1830s,5 his social milieu, his determination to establish a successful career in geology, and to his apparent indifference to money. The relative importance of Lyell’s letters to Mantell in these two volumes is indicated below.

1 Examples in this category include:iA. Geikie, The Founders of Geology, J. Murray, London, 1897;iH.B. Woodward, History of Geology, Watts and Co., London, 1911; iE.B. Bailey, Charles Lyell, Doubleday, New York, 1962. 2 K.M. Lyell (ed.), Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart. author of ‘Principles of Geology &c’, 2 vols, J. Murray, London, 1881. 3 Extracts from these volumes are cited, for example, in:iJ.B. Morrell, ‘London Institutions and Lyell's Career: 1820-41’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 32, pp. 132- 146;iN.A. Rupke, The Great Chain of History. William Buckland and the English School of Geology (1814-1849), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983, pp. 72, 88, and 246;iM.J.S. Rudwick, The Great Devonian Controversy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1985, pp. 73, 75, and 380. 4 The first 31 pages of Volume 1 contains an autobiographical sketch of Lyell’s life until he entered Oxford at the age of 17 years. It was written in 1831-32 for the information of his fiancee, Mary Elizabeth Horner, who was then living in Bonn, Germany. As such, it has inherent limitations, but it does give a picture of a pleasurable, uncomplicated and privileged childhood. 5 K.M. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 1, p. 377 and pp. 444-446.

176 Quoted Recipients of Lyell’s Letters Number of Letters Quoted

Lyell’s sisters and mother 68 Charles Lyell Senior 49 L. Horner 42 G.A. Mantell 36 C. Bunbury 27

G. Tichnor 27 J. Fleming 15 C. Darwin 14 R.I. Murchison 7 A. Sedgwick 5

Since Horner was Lyell’s father-in-law, and Bunbury his wife’s brother-in- law, the quoted letters from Lyell to Mantell comprise the highest number written to any English geologist outside Lyell’s extended family. Additionally, these two volumes are interesting because of the nature of a number of subtle deletions and exclusions that Katherine Lyell made to some of the letters from Lyell to Mantell. These omissions have been identified by comparing the text of Lyell’s original letters with the 36 extracts quoted in the two volumes. For the most part the excisions made by Katherine Lyell relate to late nineteenth-century social conventions and to the impropriety of discussing financial matters, family incomes, and disparaging remarks concerning certain institutions and individuals. There are also strong indications of the editor deliberately fashioning and enhancing a favourable image of her brother-in-law. Lyell’s attitude to money is portrayed as that of the gentleman, relatively unconcerned with financial matters, as indicated in this extract from a letter to his father, dated 10 April 1827:

I am quite clear, from all that I have seen of the world, that there is most real independence in that class of society who, possessing moderate means, are engaged in literary and scientific hobbies; and that in ascending from them upwards, the feeling of independence decreases pretty nearly in the same ratio as the fortunes increase.6

6 CL to CL Senior, 10 April 1827. Quoted in K.M. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 1, pp. 170-171.

177 Lyell’s seeming offhand attitude to money is further illustrated in his letter to Murchison, 21 months later, following their joint expedition to Sicily:

I shall never hope to make money by geology, but not to lose, and tax others for my amusement; and unless I can secure this, it would in my circumstances be selfish in me to devote myself as much as I hope to do to it.7

However, these and other quoted extracts from Lyell’s correspondence and journals do not provide an altogether balanced assessment of Lyell’s attitude to financial matters. A reading of all of Lyell’s 232 letters to Mantell indicates that Lyell was financially shrewd and worldly, and well aware of the importance of money. Under Katherine Lyell’s editorship, omissions range from a single key word to an entire significant letter, in order to enhance and consolidate a desired image. For example, in his letters to Mantell dated 14 June 1832 and 30 April 1833, Lyell made the following respective comments on his lectures at King’s College, London, and at the Royal Institution:

My lectures were splendidly attended. [(chiefly by persons who honoured me) to the last. As yet, far less profitable for purse, & surely for solid fame than writing. But I won’t be hasty.]8

and

My introductory lecture at Royal Institn. last Thursdy was attended by 250 persons, [95 of them proprietors who pay nothing.]9

The words in square parentheses in each of these quoted extracts, and which relate to Lyell’s income, were omitted from K. Lyell’s volumes.10 Other topics that were subject to editorial deletion concerned adverse references to the Established Church, particular individuals, and even the names of specific authors. In a letter to Mantell describing Buckland’s recent appointment as Canon at Christ Church, Lyell commented:

7 CL to R.I. Murchison, 15 January 1829, quoted in ibid., vol.1, p. 234. 8 CL to GAM, 14 June 1832, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 92). 9 CL to GAM, 30 April 1833, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63. (Supp.Vol.-Letter 100). 10 K.M. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 1, pp. 388 and 395 respectively.

178 The Canon has a glorious house & [but for the daily everlasting chapel going & long chants] is admirably set down for himself and geology.11

Again, the words in parentheses were omitted12 in this quoted letter in Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell. The socially disparaging term ‘tradesman’ was excised in a reference to the London publisher, John Murray,13 and in the same letter the following sentence was also excised:

Featherstonaugh has made an ass of himself by a poem on the deluge which is despicable low and vulgar to a degree that would disgust you.14

Another exclusion concerns Katherine Lyell’s suppression of references to George Toulmin,15 whose name was purposely left blank in an important quoted extract from Lyell’s letter to Mantell dated 29 December 1827:16

I marvel less at Dr Toulmin anticipations ( as I supposed them ) in Geol.l speculations now that I observe he followed Hutton & cites him. I think he ran unnecessarily counter to the feelings & prejudices of the age.17

In a follow-up letter Lyell wrote on 5 February 1828, Katherine Lyell deleted the following sentence:18

I will send Toulmin very soon. My absence has made me in arrears in reading.19

For various reasons Katherine Lyell simply did not wish to reveal that Lyell had read Toulmin, who subscribed to a world that was unchanging, socially

11 CL to GAM, 5 February 1828, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp.Vol.-Letter 44). 12 K.M. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2 ), vol. 1, p. 177. 13 CL to GAM, 23 April 1830, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 70). The term ‘tradesman’ was expunged by K.M. Lyell in op. cit. (note 2), vol.1, p. 264. 14 CL to GAM, 23 April 1830, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 70). 15 George Hoggart Toulmin (ca. 1750-1817). English theologian and writer who theorised on the indefinite antiquity of the earth. W.A. Sarjeant, Geologists and the History of Geology, 1980, p. 2280. 16 K.M. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 1, p. 173. 17 CL to GAM, 29 December 1827, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 42). 18 K.M. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 1, p. 177.

179 and geologically, for all time. Besides the deliberate omissions described above20 that comprise single words, phrases, or sentences, Katherine Lyell also completely ignored some of the most significant and interesting letters that Lyell wrote to Mantell. One of the most important omissions, quoted in the previous chapter, is Lyell’s letter setting out a career plan for Mantell to follow in order to achieve geological eminence.21 In doing so, Lyell indirectly revealed himself as a master in the fashioning and strategic planning of a successful career path. In another completely excluded letter, Lyell advised Mantell of his betrothal to Mary Elizabeth Horner. It contains the following sentence:

I shall have no money with her at all, which is certainly an act of imprudence on my part, but I feel confident that my wife will be satisfied to live in a very quiet way & I know that I shall.22

The two volumes of Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell highlight the need to be careful when relying on edited correspondence, particularly when it concerns personal and socially sensitive issues. Katherine Lyell’s omissions also underscore the importance of Lyell’s transcribed letters to Mantell that are contained in the supplementary volume of this thesis. Edward Herbert Bunbury,23 the brother of Lyell’s sister in law’s husband, Charles Bunbury,24 reviewed K. Lyell’s Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell in the Quarterly Review25 in 1882 and in doing so revealed some pertinent facts regarding Lyell’s background. In particular, he was the first to draw public attention to the fact that Lyell, the eldest son, did not inherit the family estate following the death of his father in 1849. Bunbury also emphasised the key supporting role that Lyell’s wife played

19 CL to GAM, 5 February 1828, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 44). 20 Some of these omissions have been discussed in M. Shortland and R. Yeo (eds), Telling lives in science: Essays in scientific biography, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1996, p. 23. 21 CL to GAM, 23 March 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 55). 22 CL to GAM, September 1831, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 87). 23 Edward Herbert Bunbury (1811-1895). Second son of General Sir Henry Bunbury of Great Barton, Suffolk. M.A. Cambridge and Liberal M.P. M. Stenton (ed.), Who’s Who of British Members of Parliament, Vol. 1, 1832-85, Harvester Press, Sussex, 1976. 24 Charles James Fox Bunbury (1809-1886). Son of General Sir Henry Bunbury. Educated Trinity College, Cambridge. GSL member of council 1846-54 and 1861-63. FRS 1851. Botanist. Succeeded to the baronetage in 1860. In 1844 married Frances Joanna Horner, second daughter of Leonard Horner, Lyell’s father-in-law. 25 The Quarterly Review, 1882, 153, pp. 96-131.

180 throughout his career. In subsequent literature until the mid-1970s, Lyell has generally been portrayed as one of the great geological ‘revolutionaries’, who also epitomised the virtues of the English gentleman and scholar. This characterisation is illustrated in the preface of Bonney’s biography, in which the author, after noting Lyell’s background advantages, stated that the object of his book was to show that Lyell “spared no labour, grudged no expenditure, shrank from no fatigue”, in order to put geology on “a more sound and philosophical basis”.26 Lyell’s motives and assumed altruism were not questioned. The most authoritative and comprehensive biography of Lyell yet published, Wilson’s Charles Lyell. The Years to 1841: The Revolution in Geology,27 the first of a planned trilogy, also exhibits some of these characteristics and has been similarly criticised, for example by Porter28 at the Charles Lyell Centenary Symposium in London in 1975. Nevertheless, Wilson’s work incorporates previously unavailable family papers and correspondence and provides a major reference base on Lyell’s background and career. Again, Lyell’s letters to Mantell are used frequently, but the extracts from the 43 letters quoted mainly relate to geological rather than sociological topics. In the main, Wilson adopts a benign attitude to Lyell’s motivations and methods, and as indicated in the title, his underlying theme is the depiction of Lyell as the successful, geological revolutionary. Wilson’s second volume of Lyell’s biography, covering the period 1841 to 1853, was published in 199829 and focuses on Lyell’s visits to North America. In one of the relatively few, completely socially orientated papers on Lyell, Morrell has argued that Lyell’s association with various London institutions such as the Royal Society, GSL, Royal Institution, and Athenaeum Club, “can be understood in terms of his perceptions about their utility for him”.30 After highlighting Lyell’s advantages – wealth, good social position, a sympathetic wife, no distracting children or family neuroses,

26 T.G. Bonney, Charles Lyell and modern Geology, Cassell, London, 1895, p. v. 27 L.G. Wilson, Charles Lyell. The Years to 1841: The Revolution in Geology, Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 1972. 28 R. Porter, ‘Charles Lyell and the Principles of Geology’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 32, pp. 91-103 on p. 91. 29 L.G. Wilson, Lyell in America: Transatlantic Geology, 1841-1853, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore, 1998. 30 Morrell, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 132-146.

181 Morrell argued that Lyell capitalised on these strengths in a single-minded manner to pursue his aims of “gaining geological knowledge, income, respect, fame and command of society”,31 citing supporting references from Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell.32 Morrell did not make the point, however, that any intelligent, ambitious person in a similar position would probably have followed the same pattern as Lyell. In fact, it would have been irrational for anyone not to have done so. The more interesting and germane question is, how could a person without the advantages of Lyell’s background pursue and achieve similar aims? Aspects of this question comprise a central feature of this chapter.

(2) MANTELL

Mantell’s obituary in The Gentleman's Magazine33 began with the sentence: “Dr Mantell was a striking instance of a rise in life amidst great difficulties”. The tribute went on to explain that as a result of his father’s strong support for the local Whig party, the feoffees denied Mantell one of the twelve places at the Southover and Lewes Free Grammar School.34 The obituary in the Abstracts of the Papers communicated to The Royal Society of London35 made no reference to this incident, but mentioned that Mantell’s father was a shoe-maker who employed as many as 23 men, according to Mantell’s surviving brother. The obituary delivered by the President36 of the GSL was even more circumspect, the only reference made to Mantell’s early years being: “for several years he practised as a medical man at Lewes in Sussex”.37 These three different perspectives and references to aspects of Mantell’s early life illustrate some of the difficulties encountered in reviewing and researching literature concerning the family background of an individual from modest circumstances. The main problem, which relates to

31 Ibid., p. 143. 32 K.M. Lyell, op. cit.(note 2), vol. 1, pp. 326, 360, 373. 33 The Gentleman’s Magazine, 1852, 38, London, pp. 644-647. 34 The Southover and Lewes Free Grammar School was founded and endowed by Agnes Morley in 1512 and was further enriched by Mrs Mary Jenkins in 1709. The school is situated in the parish of St. Ann, Lewes, and the Master is required to instruct so many boys gratuitously, as the trustees may direct. In Mantell’s time the number of boys so instructed did not exceed 12. T.W. Horsfield, The History, Antiquities and Topography of the County of Sussex, (2 vols), reprinted Kohler and Coombes, Dorking, 1974, vol. 1, p. 213. 35 Abstracts of the Papers communicated to The Royal Society of London, 1854, 6, pp. 252-256. 36 William Hopkins (1793-1866). President of the GSL 1851-53. DNB. 37 Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1853, 9, pp. xxii-xxv.

182 the omission of information perceived to be embarrassing, tends to be accentuated in the case of a socially ambitious person like Mantell. Although Mantell’s relatively humble origins have always been recognised, there are no detailed accounts of how he overcame his various social handicaps. In fact, Mantell was a relatively neglected scientific figure following his death in 1852 until the late 1970s. During this period of approximately 125 years there were only two publications on Mantell and his work. The first, a biography by Spokes38 in 1927, was largely based on Mantell’s friendly and informal correspondence with Professor Benjamin Silliman39 of Yale College that commenced in 1830 when Mantell was 40. Spokes acknowledged that he had few details about Mantell’s medical practice in Lewes,40 but nevertheless his biography provides some useful insights, such as this recollection by Dr. Gordon Hake:

Gideon Mantell was an inhabitant of Lewes, struggling for fame by his researches within the chalk strata, and for his livelihood by his practice as a surgeon and apothecary, in which he had a fair amount of success, no doubt due to his great abilities, but in the estimation of many to the flash of his surroundings. His gig and groom were models as they waited at his door. His coat-of-arms embraced your vision as it shone in the fanlight and whispered of greatness within. He was tall, graciously graceful, and flexible, a naturalist, realizing his own lordship of the creation.41

The other pre-1980 publication on Mantell is Curwen’s42 abridged edition of Mantell’s Private Journal, the original of which is in the G.A. Mantell Papers at the Alexander Turnbull Library in Wellington, New Zealand. None of this material had been available to Spokes. The Private Journal entries quoted by Curwen comprise a little more than half of those contained in the original,43 and are orientated to Mantell’s personal, rather

38 S. Spokes, Gideon Algernon Mantell, LL.D., F.R.C.S., F.R.S., Surgeon and Geologist, John Bale, Sons & Danielsson, London, 1927. 39 The correspondence between Mantell and Benjamin Silliman (1779-1864), Professor of Chemistry and Natural Science, Yale College, New Haven, U.S.A., comprises 126 letters from Mantell and 94 from Silliman and is located in the Yale University Library. Transcribed copies of Silliman’s letters are held at ATL-NZ. 40 Spokes, op. cit. (note 38), p. 2. 41 Gordon Hake (1809-1895). Author of Memoirs of Eighty Years, Bentley, London, 1892, and quoted in ibid., p. 7. 42 E.C. Curwen (ed.), The Journal of Gideon Mantell, Surgeon and Geologist, covering the years 1818-1852, Oxford University Press, London, 1940. 43 Ibid., p. vi.

183 than geological, activities. For this reason they provide the basis for a good insight into Mantell’s aspirations and tribulations. Unfortunately, approximately ten per cent of the contents of Mantell’s original Journal were excised or particular entries completely blackened out, possibly because of their connection with Mantell’s wife who left him in 1838. Mantell’s motivations and career were reappraised in 1983 by Vallance,44 following his examination of the Mantell Papers in New Zealand. Vallance summed up Mantell in these terms:

Soaring ambition, an impressive presence and quickness of mind combined with an obsessive capacity for work enabled him to rise in a society dominated by those born privileged. In the scientific community where he won fame he was unusual in having to earn a living through time-consuming attention to another field. For him there was never the luxury of independent means or the employment in science that his colleagues enjoyed.45

Vallance’s analysis also highlighted the importance of the G.A. Mantell Papers to historians of geology. Subsequently, 15 papers concerning aspects of Mantell’s career and geological work were presented at the Gideon Mantell Bicentenary Symposium, held at Brighton, England, in 1990. Within the context of this review the most relevant of these papers was presented by Cleevely and Chapman.46 Although the basic theme of their paper focused on the accumulation, nature and subsequent sale of Mantell’s fossil collection to the British Museum in 1838, the authors also delved into the motivation for Mantell’s scientific endeavours. They concluded that during this period of ‘social flux’, Mantell used science “to transcend class barriers” in an effort to regain the social status of some of his distant forbears.47 Another relevant paper read at the Brighton Conference was by Dean48 who emphasized the achievements of Mantell, believing that his

44 T.G. Vallance, ‘Gideon Mantell (1790-1852): A Focus for Study in the History of Geology at the Turnbull Library’, in M.E. Hoare and L.G Bell (eds), “In Search of New Zealand’s Heritage”, Bulletin of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 1984, 21, pp. 91-100. 45 Ibid., p. 92. 46 R.J. Cleevely and S.D. Chapman, ‘The accumulation and disposal of Gideon Mantell’s fossil collections and their role in the history of British palaeontology’, Archives of Natural History, 1992, 19 (3), pp. 307-364. 47 Ibid., pp. 307-309. 48 D.R. Dean, ‘A Bicentenary Retrospective on Gideon Algernon Mantell (1790-1852)’, Journal of Geological Education, 1990, 38, pp. 434-443.

184 accomplishments have not been adequately recognised.49 In 1979 Dean had been one of the first to highlight the importance of the Gideon Mantell manuscript papers,50 and in doing so, noted that since Spokes’ was the only full-length biography yet published, there was a need for a new biography based on the New Zealand material. Dean’s study on Mantell is expected to be published in 1999.51 Background material concerning the history and political, economic, religious and social structure of Lewes during the period 1714 to 1830 is contained in Brent’s book on Georgian Lewes.52 As yet, however, no fuller account has been given of the relative importance of the social barriers that Mantell faced in his scientific career and how he attempted to overcome them. Vallance focused on the importance of an independent income, while Cleevely and Chapman emphasized Mantell’s social ambitions. Other factors such as provincialism and patronage are only sparingly mentioned in the literature. There has been no published study on the Lyell-Mantell relationship.

4.1.2 SOCIOLOGICAL THEMES

The themes reviewed in this section relate to social factors that could have adversely affected the attainment of high status in geology during the period 1807 to 1850. Three main and interrelated factors were identified in chapter two: the need to be a member of appropriate social and geological networks, the importance of a London rather than a provincial base, and the requirement of an adequate and socially acceptable income. By definition none of these factors would have posed a problem to the archetypal ‘gentleman-specialist’, although the income requirement created some short-term difficulties for De la Beche53 in the 1830s. In the case of an ‘outsider’, however, the lack of influential family, school, university, club and political connections required the counterbalancing assistance of a patron. This then left the significant

49 D.R. Dean had earlier made this point in his review of M.J.S. Rudwick’s The Great Devonian Controversy, Annals of Science, 1986, 43, pp. 504-507. 50 D.R. Dean, ‘The Gideon Mantell collection, New Zealand’, Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 1979, 9, pp. 121-124. 51 D.R. Dean, Gideon Mantell and the Discovery of Dinosaurs, ISBN 0-521-42048-2. 52 C. Brent, Georgian Lewes, 1714-1830: The Heyday of a County Town, Colin Brent Books, East Sussex, 1993. 53 Henry Thomas De la Beche (1796-1855). Following a sudden and major decline in his income from his Jamaican estate in 1831, De la Beche accepted an assignment with the Board of Ordnance

185 problem of obtaining an adequate income to live in London in a modest but gentlemanly style, and also having sufficient time to devote to geological matters. These are the themes reviewed in the following pages.

(1) NETWORKS AND PATRONAGE

A good summary description of a typical network was given by Cannon when outlining the scope, activities and influence of the ‘Cambridge network’ in the early Victorian period:

The grouping was a loose convergence of scientists, historians, dons, and other scholars, with a common acceptance of accuracy, intelligence, and novelty. It was made up of persons each of whom knew many but not all of the others intimately. Face-to-face contacts were sometimes regular, as with dons at the same college; sometimes often, as with leading members of the council of a scientific society; and sometimes periodic, as at christenings, Christmas celebrations, yearly terms of residence as a cathedral canon, and meetings of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. The chief agency of continual contact in such a network was the personal letter.54

Such a group has many of the characteristics of an informal club, with the members sharing common social and educational backgrounds and having similar viewpoints on the desired nature and structure of society, as well as implicit trust in each other. There is nothing new about networks of this nature, since they are based on the truism that ‘like attracts like and like tends to help like’. At their best, and as Cannon has pointed out, if the network welcomes creative people with new ideas, it exposes the other members to approaches that they may not have otherwise had, and accordingly, the overall intellectual scene is opened up and developed.55 On a more pragmatic level, Cannon has commented on the effectiveness of the ‘Cambridge network’ in identifying Darwin as a suitable ‘gentleman- naturalist’ for the Beagle voyage.56 Brown subsequently recounted how members of the same network quickly ensured Darwin’s success in securing

position which led to his later appointment of Director of the Geological Survey. DNB. 54 S.F. Cannon, Science in Culture: The Early Victorian Period, Dawson and Science History Publications, New York, 1978, on p. 30. 55 Ibid., p. 62. 56 Ibid., p. 55.

186 £1000 out of public funds to cover the cost of producing The Zoology of the Voyage of HMS Beagle.57 Other similar networks in existence during this period included one based on gentlemen and noblemen educated at Eton, Harrow, and Winchester and who went on to Christ Church or Oriel College, Oxford, and the Geological Society Club, formed in 1824 with a membership restricted to 40.58 Rupke has highlighted the controlling influence that the Christ Church network exercised on the activities of the Hunterian and British Museums.59 Morrell and Thackray60 have pointed out that the basis of these various interconnected and overlapping networks is what can be described as a scientific clerisy.61 This broad group emerged in the 1820s and 1830s and comprised an intelligentsia of gentlemen with the leisure and income to pursue their institutional, political, cultural or scientific interests. A person who did not have the leisure and the necessary income to support a major interest in any of these particular activities was therefore reliant on assistance or patronage from the leading members of the various networks within this scientific clerisy. The importance of another kind of network, that concerned with Natural History correspondence, was described by Ann Secord in 1994.62 During the early nineteenth century, in particular, British naturalists were very reliant on correspondence as a means for gathering information and identifying and exchanging specimens. To this end, correspondence had to satisfy the same criteria of reliability as applied in other aspects of scientific practice. Confidence in the dependability of the information contained in each letter was of paramount importance. In his Social History of Truth,63 Shapin has made a strong case that in the seventeenth century gentlemen were regarded as reliable sources of information because their cultural practices fitted them for the role of being reliable spokesmen for reality. In short,

57 J. Brown, Charles Darwin: Voyaging, Jonathan Cape, London, 1995, p. 368. 58 H.B. Woodward, The History of the Geological Society of London, Longmans, London, 1908, p. 66. 59 N.A. Rupke, Richard Owen: Victorian Naturalist, Yale University Press, 1994, pp. 48-55. 60 J. Morrell and A. Thackray, Gentlemen of Science, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1981, pp. 18-23. 61 Morrell and Thackray borrowed the term from Coleridge’s concept of ‘a national church of intellect’; ibid., p. 20. 62 A. Secord, ‘Corresponding interests: artisans and gentlemen in nineteenth-century natural history’, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1994, 27, pp. 383-408. 63 S. Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1994.

187 gentlemen were supposedly disinterested and independent, and as a consequence, trustworthy. Secord has gone on to suggest that this association between gentlemen and trustworthiness continued into the nineteenth century.64 Certainly most ‘Gentlemen of Science’ knew each other through various networks. Potential problems arose when the status of a person requesting or supplying information was unknown. Strict codes of etiquette were therefore developed and followed, particularly if a correspondence was opened by somebody from a lower class.65 However, when such a correspondence was opened up and developed, as occurred between Mantell and Greenough from 1814 to 1822,66 it provided an opportunity for an outsider to establish a position on the periphery of an otherwise closed network. More importantly, it was a way in which the activities and abilities of an ‘unknown’ could be drawn to the attention of potential patrons. In a later section of this chapter it will be shown how Mantell adopted this approach. For present purposes two types of patronage can be recognised. The first concerns patronage within a particular social group or network, and its rationale can be summed up as ‘looking after one’s own’. Frequently such patronage was politically orientated, as for example, Lord Liverpool’s appointment of Buckland in 1825 to the canonry at Christ Church, Oxford, with its free house and £1000 per year, and Buckland’s subsequent elevation to the deanery at Westminster in 1845 by Sir Robert Peel.67 Buckland’s Toryism was an undoubted factor in both these appointments. As Morrell has observed, such patronage of geology and geologists “was usually not ostensible but incidental, occasional, and indirect”.68 In fact, patronage of this nature was usually limited to clerical preferment, a point made by Peel himself.69 The second type of patronage can be described as ‘aristocratic’, since its underlying style is one of ‘noblesse oblige’, and the encouragement of ‘deserving’, disadvantaged talent. A good example concerns John Phillips, for whom Harcourt70 secured the position of Keeper of the York Museum in

64 Secord, op. cit. (note 62), p. 384. 65 Ibid., p. 393. 66 Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 45 and GAM ms 1812-1817. 67 DNB and CL to GAM, 20 July 1825, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 61. (Supp.Vol.-Letter 22). 68 Morrell, op. cit. (note 3), p. 140. 69 Cannon, op. cit. (note 54), on p. 249. 70 William Vernon Harcourt (1789-1871). Son of Edward Harcourt, Archbishop of York. General Secretary to the first meeting of the BAAS (York, 1831). Rector of Wheldrake and Bolton Percy.

188 1825. Subsequently, Phillips assisted Harcourt in the preparations for the 1831 BAAS meeting, and from this base Phillips went on to a meritorious and outstanding geological career. The influence and geological patronage that Murchison was able to bestow is noted by J. Secord;71 Murchison helped Phillips down to London in 1834, and obtained a Geological Survey post for Ramsay72 in the 1840s. Mantell’s obituary in the Gentleman's Magazine73 merely stated that he was greatly encouraged in his early work by Davies Gilbert. It will be shown later in this chapter that Mantell did not receive Davies Gilbert’s patronage and assistance by chance. He worked for it. A further point is that the recipient of any patronage has an obligation to his patron. In the case of State-based patronage, obligations tended to be politically orientated. Buckland was associated with Peelite-Toryism;74 Sedgwick, with his Whiggish convictions, was appointed to his prebendary stall at Norwich by Brougham in 1834.75 Recipients of ‘aristocratic’ patronage were expected to conform in other ways. For example, Rupke has recounted how Owen’s Oxbridge patrons, who pushed his Museum cause, expected Owen to carry out his vertebrate morphology and palaenontology in accordance with the Oxford ‘epistomology’ of natural theology.76 Rupke had earlier demonstrated that both Buckland and Sedgwick used natural theology to secure and consolidate their respective positions at Oxford and Cambridge prior to receiving their ecclesiastical preferments.77 As a general observation, intellectual rebels or political radicals were not ideal candidates for establishment patronage. It will be shown that this point was made clear to Mantell in 1820.

(2) THE ROLE OF THE PROVINCIAL GEOLOGIST

The aim here is to review the literature concerning the difficulties

DNB. 71 J.A. Secord, Controversy in Victorian Geology: The Cambrian-Silurian Debate, Princeton University Press, Princeton, 1986, p. 269. 72 Andrew Crombie Ramsay (1814-1891). Obtained employment in the Geological Survey of the U.K. in 1841 of which he became Director General in 1871. President GSL, 1862-64. DNB. 73 Op. cit. (note 33), pp. 664-647. 74 Rupke, op. cit. (note 3), p. 13. 75 Henry Peter Brougham, later Baron Brougham and Vaux (1778-1868). Advocate, M.P., and Reformer. He appointed Sedgwick as a prebendary at Norwich when Lord Chancellor in Lord Melbourne’s administration. DNB. 76 Rupke, op. cit. (note 59), p. 59. 77 Rupke, op. cit. (note 3), p. 25.

189 encountered by an ambitious, provincial member of one of the major, London-based natural history institutions, and the perceived role of such members by the leaders of these institutions. In this context particular emphasis is given to provincials like Mantell in the 1820s, who were dependent on their provincial activities for their livelihood, and did not enjoy the advantages of a private income. The disadvantages faced by such individuals are largely self-evident, and in the main have been taken for granted in the literature. In the case of the GSL for instance, fifteen evening meetings were held during the period from early November to early June. The cost and time required to attend these meetings on a regular basis before train transport would have constituted a major obstacle for a provincial member of council. In any case, it was normally impractical for a busy accoucheur in the country, like Mantell, to have frequent one to two day absences from his patients. The difficulties associated with attending important, impromptu meetings in London were even greater, a point noted by Morrell and Thackray.78 Porter has observed79 that the perceived role for provincial geologists was essentially laid down in the GSL’s 1808 questionnaire, Geological inquiries, in which it was stated:

to reduce Geology to a system demands a total devotion of time, and an acquaintance with almost every branch of experimental and general Science and can be performed only by philosophers; but the facts necessary to this great end may be collected without much labour, and by persons attached to various pursuits and occupations; the principal requisites being minute observation and faithful record.80

In the above context the term ‘philosophers’ equates with the London-based ‘gentleman-specialists’, whilst the collectors, who can be “persons attached to various pursuits and occupations”, essentially designates the prescribed function of the provincials.

78 Morrell and Thackray, op. cit. (note 60), p. 301, describe how through the use of impromptu meetings in London, provincials were effectively debarred from any direct voice in the conduct of BAAS within 18 months of its foundation. 79 R. Porter, The Making of Geology: Earth science in Britain 1660-1815, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1977, p. 147. 80 Geological inquiries, GSL, London, 1808 and reprinted in Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science, 1817, 44, pp. 421-429.

190 Rudwick81 has outlined the role of the 332 (52%) GSL members who lived outside London in 1835 in an unequivocal manner by designating their three main functions: to make available their strictly local expertise; to donate specimens; and to assist visitors from the metropolis. The prosopographic and screening analyses in chapter two highlighted the rarity of provincial members on the GSL council. In this chapter the difficulties that Mantell faced in leaving his provincial base are given considerable emphasis.

(3) INCOMES OF THE GENTLEMAN-SPECIALISTS

This section of the literature review has two main aims: first, to examine the published data on the incomes of those members identified as both ‘gentleman- specialists’ and members of the geological elite, and second, to review guidelines concerning the minimum income needed to support the lifestyle of this group. In regard to the first aim, Porter has made the following comment:

Almost no research has been done on geologists’ incomes (a mark of gentlemanly historians). None of the printed lives and letters of nineteenth century geologists delves into so vulgar a subject.82

Subsequently, Secord provided a listing of staff members, positions held, and annual rate of pay in 1848, of the Geological Survey of Great Britain, Museum of Practical Geology, Mining Record Office and Geological Survey of Ireland in his 1986 paper, ‘The Geological Survey of Great Britain as a Research School, 1839-1855’.83 Secord’s list includes De la Beche and J. Phillips. As a general rule the incomes of ‘gentleman and clergyman- specialists’ who were the recipients of ecclesiastical preferments or political patronage, such as Buckland,84 Sedgwick,85 and De la Beche,86 are recorded in

81 M.J.S. Rudwick, ‘A year in the life of Adam Sedgwick and company, geologists’, Archives of Natural History, 1988, 15, pp. 257-259. 82 R. Porter, ‘Gentleman and Geology: The Emergence of a Scientific Career, 1660-1920’, The Historical Journal, 1978, 21, pp. 809-836 p. 823. 83 J.A. Secord, ‘The Geological Survey of Great Britain as a Research School, 1839-1855’, History of Science, 1986, 24, pp. 223-275 on p. 236. 84 Buckland’s annual stipend for each readership at Oxford was no more than £100. However, in 1825 he was also appointed a canon of Christ Church, Oxford, which carried a free house and £1,000 per year. Rupke, op. cit. (note 3), pp. 13 and 22.

191 the literature. The paucity of information arises in the case of those with private incomes. For example, no specific income has been reported for either Fitton or Greenough. Geikie described Fitton’s circumstances as follows:

Eventually, having married a lady of ample means, he [Fitton] retired from his profession, and established himself in London where his house became one of the scientific centres of the time.87

Subsequent references to Fitton in the literature concerning his financial position have been based on variants of the above quotation. Recent references to Greenough have been only slightly more specific:

He [Greenough] was a very rich man. Born in 1775, he was orphaned at the age of six and adopted by a wealthy Londoner, adding the final name of Greenough to his original name of George Bellas as a condition of inheriting a considerable legacy.88

The son of a lawyer but orphaned at an early age, his gentlemanly style of life had been secured when a grandparent left him a substantial fortune, derived from a lifetime’s successful but less than gentlemanly business as an apothecary.89

In the case of Murchison, whose lifestyle was grander and more ostentatious than most of the ‘gentleman-specialists’, there is comparable vagueness about his income after 1823, when he and his wife were forced to economise after spending more than 2,000 pounds a year.90

85 In 1818 Sedgwick was appointed Woodwardian Professor of Geology, Cambridge University, for which he received £100 per annum. He subsequently obtained a further £100 for a second set of lectures each year. Additionally, as a Senior Fellow of Trinity College, Sedgwick had rooms and commons plus dividends from the College which varied from £130-500 a year. Following his appointment as a prebendary at Norwich in 1834, Sedgwick received a further £600 a year. Cannon, op. cit. (note 54), p. 40 and a private communication from Trinity College Library to D.R. Oldroyd, 4 October 1996, which was kindly shown to the writer. 86 Until around 1832 De la Beche enjoyed an income from his family’s West Indies estates of around £3,000 which he then lost. Morrell, op. cit. (note 3), p.139. In 1835 De la Beche received a salary of £500 for carrying out geological work for the Government. In 1848 his salary as Director of the Geological Survey of Great Britain was £800. Secord, op. cit. (note 71), p. 226 and p. 236. 87 A. Geikie, The Founders of Geology, Macmillan, (2nd ed.), London, 1905, p. 397, (note 3). 88 J.F. Wyatt, ‘George Bellas Greenough: a Romantic Geologist’, Archives of Natural History, 1995, 22, pp. 61-71 p. 62. 89 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 3), p. 65. Additionally, Greenough’s Obituary in The Gentleman’s Magazine contained two general references to his “considerable and ample wealth”. The Gentleman’s Magazine and Historical Review, May 1855, pp. 532-534.

192 After a year spent with Charlotte’s [Murchison’s wife] parents, the Murchisons – still possessed of a substantial independent income – set up house on a reduced scale in London.91

Secord did not quantify the Murchison’s reduced, but substantial income. It is recorded that Murchison subsequently inherited the estates of his father, father-in-law and uncle,92 and, moreover, lost substantial sums on various investments including 10,000 pounds on a single railway company in 1862 and in the following year more than three times this sum in bad investments.93 The interest foregone on just these losses would have amounted to at least £1200 a year if the capital had been invested in Government loan funds or ‘consols’. Although his private income must therefore have varied considerably until his death in 1871, Murchison’s described style of living could not have been maintained on an annual income less than £1500, and more likely £2000. The nature of Lyell’s private income at the time of his marriage in 1832 has been described by Wilson:

During his bachelor years Lyell had received from his father an annual allowance of £400 but as part of the marriage settlement Mr. Lyell increased this allowance to £500 per year. Lyell had saved the money he had earned by writing articles for the Quarterly Review and what he had received from the Principles and thus had several hundred pounds invested in the funds, that is, in British Government securities. In addition Mary Horner received from her father under the marriage settlement £4000 which would yield another £120 per year of income. Thus the young couple would have a secure income of about £650 per year on which to start their married life, entirely apart from what Lyell hoped to continue to earn by writing.94

Although Wilson records the ongoing negotiations and sums received by Lyell from his publisher, Murray,95 for the various volumes and editions of his Principles of Geology, the amounts received annually by Lyell from his writing activities are not explicitly set out. This is an important point, since

90 A. Geikie, Life of Sir Roderick Murchison, (2 vols), John Murray, London, 1875, vol. 1, p. 91. 91 Secord, op. cit. (note 71), p. 44. 92 L.E. Page, ‘The Rivalry between Charles Lyell and Roderick Murchison, The British Journal for the History of Science, 1976, 32, p. 156. 93 R.A. Stafford, Scientist of Empire: Sir Robert Murchison, scientific exploration and Victorian imperialism, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1989, p. 209. 94 Wilson, op. cit. (note 27), p. 361. 95 John Murray (1778-1843). Publisher of Albermarle Street, London. DNB.

193 some historians have regarded Lyell’s writing as his principal occupation, for example, Bartholomew:

Keeping it [Principles of Geology], and its companion Elements, up to date was Lyell’s chief commitment – it was his job. He tended to publish his original work in his books rather than in individual papers….He needed the money his writing brought in.96

A similar attitude was adopted by Latour who stated that Lyell had to earn a living since the pittance he received from his father was not enough to support a family.97 The relative importance of Lyell’s income from writing will be placed in perspective later in this chapter. Little specific data have been published on the income that Mantell earned at his three medical practices, first at Lewes (1811-1833), then Brighton (1834-1838), and finally at Clapham (1838-1852). Although it is evident from Curwen’s edition of The Journal of Gideon Mantell,98 that Mantell built up a large and successful practice at Lewes, encountered financial disaster at Brighton, and had a modest practice at Clapham, there is no published information on his actual income during these three phases of his career. This is reflected in the four major publications on Mantell.99 However, additional information obtained from an analysis of the Lyell-Mantell correspondence and the G.A. Mantell Papers in New Zealand, has proved useful in giving a better indication of Mantell’s varying financial circumstances. The income that Lyell and Mantell earned from the publication of their geological books has not been investigated in detail. This information, set out in a later section of this chapter, assists in providing a better insight into the difficulties of securing a reasonable income from writing scientific books in the first half of the nineteenth century. There is also relatively little detailed information, in the history of

96 M. Bartholomew, ‘The Singularity of Lyell’, History of Science, 1979, 17, pp. 276-293 on p. 289. 97 B. Latour, Science in Action, Open University Press, Milton Keynes, 1987, pp. 146-150. 98 Curwen, op. cit. (note 42). 99 Spokes, op. cit.(note 38), on pp. 6 and 9 referred to Mantell being a good all-round practitioner and having an extensive practice at Lewes.iVallance, op. cit. (note 44), commented that the 1820s were years of achievement for Mantell and that his Lewes medical practice flourished; (p. 94), that Mantell was losing money at Brighton, (p. 97), and that the practice at Clapham proved reasonably successful, (p. 98).iCleevely and Chapman, op. cit. (note 46), p. 310, simply stated that Mantell’s move to Brighton proved to be a complete failure.iDean, op. cit. (note 48), p. 438, commented that

194 science literature, concerning the minimum income necessary for the lifestyle of a ‘gentleman-specialist’, although Morrell and Thackray provided some guidelines in the following footnote:

It is difficult to give present-day equivalents of incomes during the early Victorian era. An Anglican parson might receive £200 per annum, a prosperous provincial physician, £300, a schoolmaster, £75. A gentleman with a wife, three children, and five servants (including a coachman), was affluent on £800. Among the lower orders, a coachman received £25 and a skilled artisan £50.100

In an Appendix to The Great Devonian Controversy,101 Rudwick included a brief note on prices and incomes during the 1830s and 1840s. After noting that it is notoriously difficult to convert such data into their present equivalents, he suggested a conversion factor of 40 as perhaps the least misleading way in which to compare the values of the 1830s with those of the mid-1980s. On this basis, a book costing ten shillings in 1830 would involve an equivalent, current outlay of around 25 pounds or 70 Australian dollars (1999). Rudwick also chose two indicative income levels to illustrate the application of this conversion factor. First, a modest income of £200 per annum, which equates to a 1985 figure of £8000, was stated as clearly insufficient to support a gentleman in a life of science unless he was unmarried and the beneficiary of free housing, like Sedgwick at Cambridge during the 1820s. On the other hand, it was indicated that an income of £1000 in the 1830s would have been more than adequate to support a ‘gentleman-specialist’. Some, however, found this sum insufficient. Lyell’s father-in-law, Leonard Horner, who had six unmarried daughters in 1830 when he was negotiating his appointment as Warden of University College, London, insisted that “with so numerous a family as I have, I cannot live in a House in Gower Street in a very quiet way for less than £1400 per an.”102 In fact, if allowance is made for subsequent inflation since 1985, a more appropriate conversion factor for 1998 would be 50 rather than 40. This point alone is indicative of the many complications in establishing equivalent values within the one country. Other difficulties concern major

Mantell made the mistake of moving to Brighton without acquiring a practice. 100 Morrell and Thackray, op. cit. (note 60), p. 309, note 56. 101 Rudwick, op. cit. (note 3), Appendix C, pp. 460-461. 102 H.H. Bellot, University College London: 1826-1926, University of London Press, London, 1929,

195 differences in taxation laws over the past 160 years, changing values and priorities in respect to particular social norms and living standards, and the compound effects of productivity and technological changes. For these reasons, the approach adopted here to assess an adequate income for a ‘gentleman-specialist’, has been to develop appropriate annual living cost budgets based on London cost and price data in 1830 and to disregard possible current day equivalents. Harrison has provided an overview of living standards during the period 1832-1851.103 The middle class was defined as the servant-keeping class, and with an income below £300 a year only a maid-of-all-work was economically feasible. Above £300, another housemaid could be added; and at £400 to £500, a cook could also be employed. A household with one horse and a coachman-groom necessitated an income of at least £600 a year.104 Harrison, though, did not provide sufficient details to compile annual budgets for the following three styles of living for a ‘gentleman-specialist’:

(i) Modest but socially acceptable house in London. Married with three children. Limited travelling and entertaining. Maintains gentlemanly style of living, but forced to be prudent. (ii) The style of living enjoyed by Lyell following his marriage in 1832. (iii) Reasonably fashionable house in London, but no country residence. Married with three children. Visits continental Europe once a year and when necessary, travels comfortably throughout the U.K. Entertains adequately but not lavishly.

The first of the above three categories describes an economically constrained and moderate lifestyle. Its purpose is to provide clear guidelines concerning the minimum required income for a ‘gentleman-specialist’. This case also gives an indication of the private income Mantell would have needed if he had moved to London to pursue his palaeontological investigations on a full- time basis. The second category is self-explanatory. The third category, which is less austere, characterises the lifestyle to which Mantell aspired, but is less lavish than that enjoyed by Murchison. p. 194. 103 J.F.C. Harrison, The Early Victorians: 1832-1851, Praeger Publishers, New York, 1971, pp. 104- 109.

196 Much of the necessary detailed cost data to prepare annual budgets for the three nominated lifestyles are derived from an 1824 edition of A New System of Practical Domestic Economy founded on Modern Discoveries and from the Private Communications of Persons of Experience, by a Lady (Mrs Rundell), and printed for Henry Colburn, New Burlington Street, London. Extracts from this handbook are contained in several works and references on the sociology of nineteenth-century life in England.105 For all income groups this handbook sets out such details as the amount and cost of bread, eggs, meat, soap and candles consumed; the number of fires per house and the cost of coal burnt; the cost of servants and their overheads; as well as housing, clothing, education and transport expenses. Although written before 1830, the data contained in this manual are generally applicable until the mid- 1840s. Variations in the cost of living during this period, and in particular, fluctuations in the price of such staples as bread, were only of real concern to those earning less than £100 a year.106 Cost data on other expenses that would have been incurred by a gentleman-specialist, such as postage, continental travel, purchase of reference books and specimens, and club and specialist society fees, have been compiled from numerous publications referred to in a later section of this chapter. No detailed annual living cost budget for a ‘gentleman-specialist’ has been noted in the relevant literature.

(4) GENTLEMANLY OCCUPATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES IN GEOLOGY

As discussed in chapter two (section 2.1.4), English geology was dominated during the period 1830 to 1850 by the gentleman-specialists who effectively fulfilled the role normally assumed by ‘professionals’. Here, the literature review focuses on the occupational opportunities that existed in geology during the first half of the nineteenth century for ‘gentleman-specialists’, such as Lyell, who needed to supplement their private income, and also for

104 Ibid., pp. 108-109. 105 C.S. Peel, ‘Homes and Habits’, in E.M. Young (ed.), Early Victorian England 1830-1865, 2 vols, Oxford University Press, London, 1934, pp. 77-152;iJ. Burnett, Plenty and Want: A social history of diet in England from 1815 to the present day, Thomas Nelson, London, 1966, pp. 57-71. 106 The weekly cost of bread for a family with 3 children was 3s. 6d. in 1825, 3s. 9d. in 1831, 3s. 6d. in 1841, and 2s.6d. in 1851. E.P. Thompson and E. Yeo (eds), The Unknown Mayhew: Selections

197 aspiring gentlemen like Mantell, who were socially ambitious but had relatively little capital. With the possible exception of Taylor,107 no notable ‘gentleman-specialist’ in geology before 1840 overcame this predicament by first amassing a fortune from business activities, as did the astronomer Baily.108 Another alternative was to marry a wealthy woman, as did Fitton. A key problem for those faced with the need to find employment in geology was the maintenance of their gentlemanly status. Heyck109 has observed that the same dilemma confronted ‘men of letters’ in Victorian England; the old criterion that a gentleman did not work for a living still held considerable sway in the mid-nineteenth century, despite the fact that the concept of a gentleman was increasingly based on moral values. Although there were salaried professionals in geology, most of these men were lowly paid curators from modest family backgrounds, and who not infrequently obtained their position because of the patronage of a ‘gentleman-specialist’.110 Trading in mineral and fossil specimens would certainly have involved loss of gentlemanly status. In fact there were few acceptable employment opportunities in geology in England between the years 1807 and 1850. Two such positions were the Oxbridge professorships held by Buckland and Sedgwick, but both men were also recipients of ecclesiastical preferments resulting from political patronage. Perhaps the most notable position was the appointment of De la Beche as the first Director of the Geological Survey in the mid-1830s, a post essentially created for him by his colleagues.111 Another pertinent appointment was Lyell’s sojourn as a lecturer at King’s College, London, in 1831-32, that has been well documented by from the Morning Chronicle 1849-1850, Merlin Press, London, 1971, in Appendix II, p. 482. 107 John Taylor (1779-1863). Successful mining engineer, manager and entrepreneur. Not a conventional ‘gentleman-specialist’. GSL treasurer 1823-1843. DNB and Woodward, op. cit. (note 58), p.298. 108 Francis Baily (1774-1844). Eminent astronomer who retired from business in 1825 to devote himself to astronomy. DNB. 109 T.W. Heyck, The Transformation of Intellectual Life in Victorian England, Croom Helm Ltd., London, 1982, p. 31. 110 Examples areiJohn Phillips who was appointed Keeper of the York Museum in 1825 at a salary of £60 per annum through Vernon Harcourt’s patronage. Morrell and Thackray, op. cit. (note 60), p. 439;iG.F. Richardson was appointed an assistant in the Mineralogical and Geological Branch of the Department of Natural History at a salary of £100 per annum following the closure of the Mantellian Museum at Brighton in 1838. H.S. Torrens and J.A. Cooper, ‘George Fleming Richardson (1796-1848): Man of Lettters, Lecturer, and Geological Curator’, The Geological Curator, 1986, 5, p. 256; andiJ.S. Miller, for whom Conybeare engineered the post of curator at the Bristol Institute in 1823 at a salary of £150 per annum. M. Neeve, ‘Science in a commercial city: Bristol 1820-60’, in: I. Inkster and J. Morrell (eds), Metropolis and Province, p. 193.

198 Wilson.112 This episode in Lyell’s early career demonstrated that full-time lecturing was not an ideal occupation for a ‘gentleman-specialist’, since it did not allow sufficient time for geological investigations. According to Hays,113 scientific lecturing was one of three activities that were especially important to the non-gentlemanly members of the various scientific communities of London between 1800 and 1850. The other two activities nominated by him were medical practice and technological involvement in trade and industry. Hays has further argued that scientific lecturing in the 1830s and 1840s was a contributing factor to the professionalisation of science, since it provided a stable, though small, income,114 but he also noted that few of this class of career lecturers could be regarded as in the ‘first rank’ of original researchers. Through the process of exclusion, one of the few occupational opportunities left was scientific writing. It can also be regarded as socially acceptable, since it was adopted by Lyell as a means of supplementing his income, and he did so without loss of his gentlemanly status. A further advantage of scientific writing was that it could be conducted on a part-time basis at times to suit the author. This activity was also important to Mantell, but it will be shown that it did not give him a significant supplementary income. Heyck has shown that considerable money was earned by popular and best-selling authors such as Scott, Byron, and Moore during the first half of the nineteenth century and that in the 1840s and 1850s, a mediocre novelist frequently earned £250 for a novel.115 However, during this period the average edition of a serious book was only around 750 copies.116 Moreover, during the 1820s and 1830s, in particular, books on science were not numerous. Yeo117 has observed that most reports on scientific investigations were published in the transactions and journals of the specialist societies. He

111 Secord, op. cit. (note 71), pp. 226 and 236. 112 Wilson, op. cit. (note 27), pp. 308-360. 113 J.N. Hays, ‘The London lecturing empire, 1800-50’, in: I. Inkster and J. Morrell (eds), Metropolis and Province, pp. 91-119. 114 Ibid., p. 109. 115 Heyck, op. cit. (note 109), p. 28. 116 R.D. Altick, The English Common Reader: A Social History of the Mass Reading Public 1800- 1900, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1957, on p. 263. Altick went on to comment that if the book sold well then further editions might rapidly follow, but the size of these editions was still limited because of the relatively high cost of paper. 117 R. Yeo, Defining Science: William Whewell, natural knowledge, and public debate in early

199 quoted from Lyell’s 1826 article on ‘Scientific Institutions’ to support this contention:

Those who are aware of the limited sale of scientific works, even of profound research, and who know the consequent reluctance of publishers to undertake the publication of them at their own risk, even when proceeding from authors of acknowledged talents.118

The attitude of the publishers can be appreciated when it is realised that in the 1830s only one book in fifteen paid for its own expenses.119 The literature concerning the economics of scientific writing during the first half of the nineteenth century is incidental and not extensive, probably because of the small number of successful practitioners. Cumming120 has described the circumstances surrounding the publication of Macculloch’s, A Description of the Western Islands of Scotland, a lavish three-volume production that did not recover costs. J. Thackray has revealed that Murchison and his publisher John Murray shared a profit of £312 in the production of Siluria.121 One of the best accounts of the difficulties encountered in publishing serious scientific works, combined with specific data concerning their profitability, is contained in Wilson’s Charles Lyell: The Years to 1841.122 Wilson, though, does not give a detailed breakdown of the fixed and variable costs of the various reprints and editions that is essential to gaining an understanding of the economics of scientific book publication. He also does not give a clear account of how much supplemental income Lyell actually earned from his writing on a year-to-year basis. Both of these aspects are explored in a later section of this chapter. As will be seen, the Lyell-Mantell letters and Mantell’s Private Journal contain considerable unpublished information concerning the profitability of scientific writing and lecturing in England in the 1840s.

Victorian Britain, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1993, p. 80. 118 Lyell, ‘Art. VIII. – Scientific Institutions’, The Quarterly Review, 1826, 34, p. 167. 119 W.A. Astore, ‘Observing God: Thomas Dick (1774-1857)’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Oxford University, 1995, p. 190, referring to J. Grant, The Great Metropolis, 2 vols, Saunders, London, 1837, in vol.1, on p. 134. 120 D.A. Cumming, ‘A description of the western islands of Scotland: John Macculloch’s successful failure’, Bibliography of Natural History, 1977, 8, pp. 270-285. 121 J.C. Thackray, ‘R.I. Murchison’s Siluria (1854 and later)’, Archives of Natural History, 1981, 10, pp. 37-43 on p. 38. 122 Wilson, op. cit. (note 27), pp. 341-343, 376, 411-413.

200 (5) THE ROLE OF THE SPOUSE IN ENGLISH GEOLOGY

Although the English geological community, as depicted through the activities of the GSL in the first half of the nineteenth century, was almost wholly male, the role of the wives of the ‘gentleman-specialists’ also warrants examination. The importance of this point is accentuated by the contrasting roles that the wives of Lyell and Mantell played throughout the careers of their husbands, and the explanatory value that their respective domestic situations had on the nature and scope of their work. The need for such an understanding has been recognised by Abir-Am and Outram, who made the following observation:

In the early nineteenth century, the predicament of both men and women in relation to science was similar in many important ways. Approaches to science were enormously influenced by personal and family situations....Although actual scientific posts were wholly monopolized by men, such posts were few in number; not all men producing science held such posts; and most amateurs, male and female, worked from a domestic base. Often other family members greatly affected the actual resources of time, energy, and assistance available for scientific work of any kind.123

In the main there are very few references in the literature to the role of the wives of ‘gentleman-specialists’. An exception is the five-page tribute that Murchison wrote to Geikie in 1869 for inclusion in his planned biography,124 about the assistance, companionship, influence, and encouragement that had been given him by his late wife. E.H. Bunbury, the brother of Lyell’s brother-in-law, extolled the virtues of Lyell’s wife, and in particular, stated “she devoted herself heart and soul to the furtherance of her husband’s pursuits”.125 Wilson’s two biographical studies on Lyell126 only cover the years to 1853 and consequently it would have been inappropriate to include an assessment of the role of Lyell’s wife in these volumes. In the case of Mantell, references in the literature about his wife are minor, and

123 P.G. Abir-Am and D. Outram (eds), Uneasy Careers and Intimate Lives: Women in Science 1789-1979, Rutgers University Press, New Brunswick, 1987, pp. 2-3. 124 Geikie, op. cit. (note 90), vol. 2, pp. 332-336. 125 E.H. Bunbury, ‘Art. III – Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart., Edited by his Sister-in-Law, Mrs. Lyell, 2 vols, London, 1881’, The Quarterly Review, 1882, 153, p. 112. 126 Wilson, op. cit. (note 27) and op. cit. (note 29).

201 mainly relate to her work in producing the engravings for Mantell’s first book, her role in allegedly finding the first Iguanodon teeth in 1822, and the fact that she left her husband in 1838.127 Unfortunately, manuscript sources shed little light on the last incident. In this chapter emphasis is placed on demonstrating the contrasting but significant roles played by the wives of Lyell and Mantell during the careers of the two men.

4.2 METHODOLOGY AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION

In line with the methodology adopted in the previous chapters, the following examination of various social factors that may have had a significant influence on the scientific careers of Lyell and Mantell has been carried out on a decade-by-decade basis. Most of the factors discussed are only relevant within a particular time-frame, and Mantell’s or Lyell’s reactions and responses are best related to the circumstances and conventions of that particular time. The basic approach adopted has been to examine and probe the journals and correspondence of Lyell and Mantell, together with other contemporary material, to determine the primary objectives of the two men during each decade, and then to identify and assess the significance of the various social factors that had a bearing on the attainment of these aims. A disadvantage of this approach is that it tends to present a somewhat distorted

127 Respective references to these three incidents are contained in Spokes, op. cit. (note 38), pp. 11, 18 and 110.

202 overall view of each of the two men, since emphasis is necessarily focused on specific social factors and particular personality traits. Consequently, Lyell’s single-mindedness and commercial acumen are highlighted, as are Mantell’s foibles, such as his yearning for recognition and high social status. In the main, the more appealing human characteristics and virtues are given little attention, unless relevant to a particular issue. The key source of information for the analyses in this chapter is the material contained in the Mantell Family Papers, 1805-1895, held at the Alexander Turnbull Library, in Wellington, New Zealand, and more specifically the G.A. Mantell Papers that comprise Series One of this collection. These papers include the letters Mantell received from 269 correspondents, including the letters from Lyell; Mantell’s Personal Journal that he kept from 1819-1852; copies of some of his outward correspondence including his pre-1820 letters to James Sowerby, Etheldred Benett, and Greenough; as well as various notebooks, manuscripts and family papers. Other manuscript and information sources are noted where applicable. 4.3 ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIAL FACTORS THAT AFFECTED THE GEOLOGICAL CAREERS OF LYELL AND MANTELL

4.3.1 THE YEARS TO 1820: OVERCOMING INITIAL HANDICAPS

At the close of 1820, Lyell was a 23-year old Oxford graduate who had started his legal studies in London, evinced a keen and growing interest in geology, and visited continental Europe twice. His father, Charles senior, owned a considerable estate in Forfarshire, Scotland, and was a man with cultivated literary and botanical interests. Furthermore, Lyell enjoyed the advantage of being the eldest son, with presumed prospects of inheriting the estate. The only significant problem that Lyell seems to have experienced until this time was a weakness in his eyes, which became inflamed following intensive reading.128 By the end of the second decade of the nineteenth century Mantell’s future prospects would also have been generally regarded as favourable. In 1820, Mantell was 30 years of age, married with two children and had a successful medical practice in the provincial town of Lewes, Sussex.

128 K. M. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 1, p. 112.

203 Additionally, he had established a local reputation for his interest in, and knowledge of, the district’s antiquities and natural history. In contrast to Lyell, however, Mantell had had to overcome several major social barriers in order to attain the position he held. In this section, which deals with the early, formative years of the two men, most of the discussion revolves around Mantell, since his case history is that of the ambitious outsider, in contrast to Lyell’s, whose conventional, upper-class background epitomises that of the archetypal ‘gentleman- specialist’.

(1) MANTELL

In an autobiographical summary,129 written after November 1850, Mantell recorded the following facts concerning his early years:

Gideon Algernon Mantell was born at Lewes in Sussex February 3, 1790. Baptised at the Dissenting Chapel in Saint Mary’s Street by Rev. Barnard. At the dissolution of this Chapel the register was lost.

Educated at Mr Button’s School (a day scholar) till 1801 from 1797. Went as boarder to his uncle Rev. George Mantell at Westbury, Wiltshire and afterwards removed with his Uncle to Swindon in the same County from 1801-1804.

Apprenticed to James Moore, a Surgeon at Lewes, February 3, 1804, for a period of 5 years. In 1810 entered as pupil at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, London, under Mr Abernethy and Sir Charles Blicke. Fellow of the Royal Coll. of Surgeons 19/4/1811. Entered into partnership with Mr Moore, at Lewes, 1811.

Married 4 May 1816, Mary Ann Woodhouse. Resided at Castle Place.

1814, February 1st. Elected a Fellow of the Linnaean [sic] Socy of London.130

It is mildly surprising that in these brief biographical notes Mantell mentioned the fact that he was baptised in a Dissenting Chapel, since this is

129 ‘Memoir of the Mantells’, Mantell mss, ATL-N.Z, Folder 122. The last dated entry in this summary prepared by Mantell is dated 4 November 1850. 130 In the remainder of this biographical note Mantell listed his papers, awards, lectures, and books

204 the only intimation that he came from a modest family background. In none of the other personal notes and summaries in this particular folder, that Mantell titled, ‘Scrapbook-Memoranda, relating to the Mantells of Northamptonshre, Sussex and Kent from A.D. 1066’, does he give any details on his father’s occupation, political activities or dissenting religious views. In fact, apart from listing the dates of the births, marriages, baptisms and deaths of his immediate relations, Mantell made no further mention of the activities of his parents, brothers, or sisters. Nor does Mantell explain that he attended his Baptist uncle’s school in Swindon because the trustees of the local Southover and Lewes Free Grammar School, which had an endowment to provide free instruction for up to 12 boys, were antipathetic to the radical views of his father.131 In essence, Mantell distanced himself from his immediate family and focused instead on the gentility of some distant forbears. His attitude is illustrated in the following description of his early background that he wrote in 1845:

Descended from a family of high antiquity, many of whose members had borne the honour of knighthood when that distinction was sparingly bestowed, and whose possessions and honours had been dissipated and lost by civil commotions and religious persecutions, my father filled a respectable but humble station in a county town. His children received the best education which the provincial grammar school could bestow; and from an early predilection for study which I was supposed to evince, at the age of twelve I was removed from my Alma Mater and placed under the private tuition of a clergyman, in a distant part of England. Here I remained three years, and at the expiration of that term was apprenticed to a general practitioner, in a market town in the west of __shire.132

In a sense Mantell simply did not openly acknowledge his early social handicaps. However, it will be shown that he worked very hard at overcoming them following his return to Lewes from London in 1811. Mantell’s birthplace, Lewes, is situated 49 miles from London on the South Downs of Sussex and is a strategically placed old market centre for the

in chronological order. 131 Background on The Southover and Lewes Free Grammar School is contained in Horsfield’s History, Antiquities and Topography of the County of Sussex, vol.1, p. 213 and in Mantell’s obituary, The Gentleman’s Magazine, 1852, 38, p. 645. 132 G.A. Mantell, (published anonymously under the pseudonym ‘Stat nominis umbra’), Memoirs of The Life of a Country Surgeon, Reeves Brothers, London, 1845.

205 agricultural surpluses of the South Downs and the Weald.133 In Mantell’s time the town’s commercial vigour also resulted in Lewes becoming a focus for legal and medical practitioners. The borough of Lewes had four parishes, and seven dissenting chapels,134 including the Chapel in St. Mary’s Lane where Mantell was baptised. In 1801 the population of Lewes was 5,200; it increased to 6,500 in 1811, 7,400 in 1821 and 8,900 in 1831.135 Gideon Algernon Mantell was the fourth son of seven surviving children of Thomas and Sarah Mantell. Mantell’s father had been baptised in the local Established Church of St. Michael, but it is not known when he became a dissenter. His local activity in radical whig politics, though, is documented.136 According to Mantell’s oldest brother, Thomas, their father’s shoe-making business employed up to 23 men,137 and he also owned at least two properties in the town.138 More importantly, he was able to pay the Lewes surgeon, James Moore, the considerable sum of 200 guineas when Mantell entered into a five-year indenture agreement as an apprentice on 2 March 1805.139 Moreover, following the death of Mantell’s father on 11 July 1807, there were sufficient family funds for Mantell to proceed to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, in London, as a pupil in 1810. He was not, therefore, brought up in penurious circumstances. On 19 April 1811, Mantell was awarded the Diploma of Membership of the Royal College of Surgeons and he returned to Lewes, entering into partnership with his old master, James Moore. The best record of Mantell’s experiences during the period from 1805, when he began his apprenticeship, until 1819, the year in which he started his Private Journal, are contained in his little-known and anonymously written, 21-page pamphlet, Memoirs of The Life of a Country Surgeon, extracts of which are set down below:

My master was a married man in the prime of his life, about 40 years of age.…He held the situation of medical attendant to the poor of 3 parishes as well as that of ‘Ordnance Surgeon’ to a troop of artillery, stationed in barracks near town. He was popular with the trades people but few of the gentry however were included in his list of patients.

133 Brent, op. cit. (note 52), p. 27. 134 Horsfield, op. cit. (note 34), vol.1, p. 208 and pp. 216-217. 135 Brent, op. cit. (note 52), p. 59 and pp. 213-217. 136 Ibid., p. 39, 193, and 194. 137 Abstracts of the Papers communicated to The Royal Society of London,1854, 6, p. 252. 138 Brent, op. cit. (note 52), pp. 163-165. 139 Mantell mss, ATL-N.Z., Folder 121, Indenture Agreement.

206 The returns of his practice at the commencement of my service amounted to between £500 and £600 p.a. inclusive of his salary as ordnance surgeon, and for the attendance on the sick poor of three parishes. The latter were contracted for at £20 each, surgery and midwifery being charged extra; the fee for each accouchement was 10/6, with an additional 2/6 when 3 miles distant.

As I was tall and looked old for my age I was soon able to be of considerable service to my master, by visiting the poor in slight ailments and occasionally accompanying him to the military hospital, and assisting to dress the poor fellows’ backs; for flogging was at that time in vogue, and we often had 5 or 6 men in the hospital from the infliction of that horrible and iniquitous punishment. Here I was initiated into postmortem examinations;

Four years passed away in this daily round of occupations; and by rising very early (often by four o’clock) I had many a spare hour for reading and drawing; and having an ardent love for natural history, I made a little collection of plants, shells &c from the neighbourhood.

At twenty, the term of my apprenticeship expired and I proceeded to London to complete my professional education.

It will not be necessary to dwell on my sojourn at the London Hospitals. At the period to which I refer (some 35 years since) no examination was required of the general practitioner and the only Court of Examiners was that of the College of Surgeons. Although anxious, on account of the limited means of my only surviving parent, to avoid unnecessary expense, I was ambitious of obtaining the only professional distinction within my reach, and therefore resolved to acquire the diploma of the college. But the students of those days were sadly restricted in their anatomical studies, by the scarcity and high price of subjects for dissection, from six to ten pounds being the usual sum for a body, and frequently one could not be obtained at any price.

I spent 2 years at the hospitals, attending the usual course of lectures in medicine, surgery and midwifery; and at the age of 22 passed my examination at the College, and became a member of that body. A small share of a country practice was immediately offered to me, by a surgeon who had known me from boyhood, and which I accepted, although it was not likely to produce me more than £50 p.a., but this was my only resource, for I had tried in vain for the situation of an assistant in London. The town in which I now began my medical career contained about 8 or 9 thousand inhabitants and several populous villages were situated within a few miles of the place; and there were

207 barracks for 1 or 2 troops of horse artillery, the medical attendance upon which was generally given to one of the resident surgeons.140 The practice depended in great measure on midwifery, the fee for attendance rarely exceeding 10/6; there were 3 parishes141 contracted for at £20 each; surgical and obstetrical cases being paid for extra, at low charges.

For 10 years I continued in partnership with the founder of this practice142 and by incessant labour increased the returns from £250 to £700 p.a.; attending myself from 200 to 300 cases of midwifery annually. Frequently I have been up for six or seven nights in succession; an occasional hours sleep in my clothes being the only repose I could obtain. The death of my partner about this time143 put me in possession of the entire emoluments; with the exception of £100 p.a. to the widow for a stipulated term of years.144

Although Mantell wrote this pamphlet in 1845 as a commentary on Sir James Graham’s Medical Bill concerning the Charter of the College of Surgeons, the dates and incidents recounted by Mantell are in general agreement with other records of his early life. The above extracts indicate that long hours and constant attention to his medical practice were one of the key ways that enabled Mantell to become established in Lewes. His exertions to this end are also confirmed by the following pattern of entries from his Private Journal:

August 2, 1818. An immense number of persons in this Town and neighbourhood are ill with Typhus fever – I have visited upwards of 40 and 50 patients every day for some time: yesterday I visited 64.

March 19, 1819. Mrs Tasker died yesterday – I am almost fatigued to death. I have been detained two nights and two days.

March 21, 1819. Exceedingly engaged: visited nearly 60 patients. Rode to Rodmill in the morning before breakfast: to Ringmer, Barcombe and Cocks bridge in the afternoon.145

140 In February 1819, Mantell’s 3-year superintendency of The Royal Artillery Hospital, Ringmer, ceased following the transfer of the Troop to Ireland. GAM-PJ, entry 24 February 1819. 141 Mantell was appointed medical attendance of the Parishes of Ringmer, Malling, St. John’s and St. Michael’s. GAM-PJ, entry 24 March, 1820. 142 Mantell bought James Moore out of their Lewes surgical partnership on 25 March 1818. The terms were an annuity of £91 p.a. in 2 equal instalments for 7 years and Mantell also pledged to pay the yearly rent of £40 as tenant of the property in High Street. Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 121. 143 James Moore died at Lewes on 31 August 1820. GAM-PJ, entry 31 August 1820. 144 Mantell, op. cit. (note 132), pp. 9-16. 145 GAM-PJ.

208 The long hours that Mantell gave to building up and maintaining his medical practice continued throughout the 1820s and contributed to the serious detriment of his health. The situation was also exacerbated by the fact that Mantell’s specialty was midwifery, which necessitated many late night calls and unexpectedly long periods of attendance with his patients. Additionally, he needed to find sufficient time to pursue his growing interests in natural history and in particular, geology. One consequence, though, of Mantell’s exertions in his medical practice was financial reward. In November 1818, Mantell entered into a contract to purchase Moore’s house at 3 Castle Place for £725, and six months later, he acquired the adjoining house on the west side for £600. By combining the two residences Mantell created a handsome drawing room for his antiquities and fossil collection.146 Although Mantell did not complete full settlement on the original house at 3 Castle Place until April 1821, the shoe-maker’s son was the owner of property worth in excess of £1300 at the age of 30 years. On 4 May 1816, Mantell married Mary Ann Woodhouse, the eldest daughter of George Edward Woodhouse of Maida Hill, Paddington, at the Church of St. Mary-le-bone. In the literature she is described as the daughter of one of Mantell’s patients,147 but little is known of her family background. It is a reasonable assumption that if she had had any family connections with the gentry, Mantell would have made this fact known. She was born on 9 July 1795, and was five years younger than Mantell. Their first surviving child, Ellen Maria, was born on 30 May 1818, followed by a son, Walter Baldock Durrant, on 11 March 1820, Hannah Matilda on 24 November 1822, and Reginald Neville, on 11 August 1827. In an external sense, at least, any legacy of the dissenting religious views of Mantell’s father was dispelled following his death in 1807, when Mantell was 17 years of age. Thomas Mantell was buried in the Anglican churchyard of St. John’s sub-castro where the remains of Mantell’s mother, who died on 23 December 1828, were also interred. Furthermore, Mantell placed a memorial tablet in St. Michael’s Church, where his father had been baptised on 21 April 1750. The first four lines of Mantell’s tribute read as follows:

146 GAM-PJ, entries 23 and 24 June 1819. 147 Spokes, op. cit. (note 38), p. 5.

209 Though humble was the lot to thee assign’d The sterling virtues of an upright mind In thee, beloved parent, purely shone, And made content and happiness thy own.

All of Mantell’s children were baptised at the Established Church of St. Michael’s, Lewes. Another way in which Mantell strove to increase his social status was through the assumption of the arms of some of his claimed distant forbears. His Scrapbook-Memoranda148 contains numerous references to the Mantells who originally came from Normandy and settled in Northamptonshire. Most of Mantell’s genealogical investigations were carried out before 1814, the upshot of which was that he simply assumed the armorial bearings149 of his presumed ancestors. Following his marriage in 1816, Mantell combined the arms of the Mantell and Woodhouse families, and openly displayed these assumptions of gentility:

Had my arms painted on the marble table in the drawing room – the Mantell arms, impaled with those of Woodhouse.150

Following his removal to Brighton in the 1833, Mantell resumed the use of the armorial bearings of the ancient Mantells. In a revealing letter to his American friend, Professor Benjamin Silliman, written on 30 March 1843, Mantell first described and extolled various exploits of his claimed ancestors, and then made the following admission:

To you I will confess my weakness, that in my boyish days I fancied I should restore its honours, and that my boy Walter would have obtained the distinctions our knightly race once bore – but that is passed. Sic transit &c.151

Mantell’s confession that he yearned and strove for a knighthood in his early days provides a key to understanding his aspirations, especially during the

148 Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 122. 149 The Mantell arms are described in Horsfield, op. cit, (note 34), vol. 1, p. 156, as: Arms: Ar. a cross, engr. between four martlets sa. Crest: A stag’s head, affrontee, ar. issuing out of ducal coronet, or. 150 GAM-PJ, entry 16 October 1820.

210 first two decades of the nineteenth century. Another area in which Mantell distanced himself from his father is politics. As previously noted,152 Thomas Mantell was recognised in Lewes as a radical whig. Although numerous entries in Mantell’s Private Journal indicate that he continued to espouse whiggish principles and supported the cause of Reform,153 he was not openly radical or extreme in his political views. Such viewpoints would have hindered Mantell’s quest for professional and social acceptance by the local gentry. This is indicated by the following extracts from a letter that Mantell received on 6 September 1820:

The strongest and best disposed minds are ever found most eager to promote whatever promises to be of advantage to their fellow creatures. I lament, therefore, but am not surprized, at hearing that you are warm in the cause of patriotic reform, and I fear will hardly think it possible that you can be mistaken either in your object of ameliorating the condition of your fellow country men, or in the means for accomplishing it. As a medical man and one who promises to be an honour to his profession, I appeal to you, whether in the Physical world, you can trace the connection between Cause and Effect? Why the small seed springs up into the lofty tree, why the same Earth and Water nourishes plants of such different qualities. . . . In like manner, Philosophers remark, the real road to obtain a desirable end, is, often far different from what experience would at first sight choose, that Liberty, for example, is protected and cherished by institutions which at first sight seem to impinge upon, and abridge it. Did I feel you interested in a state of plunder and Anarchy, or too weak in mind, to judge for yourself, I would not send the inclosed books, but I trust, as neither of those suppositions is the case that you will give them a candid consideration, and the only favour I ask, is, that you will not attempt to find out from whom they came. I recommend that Cotter be read first. August 1820 You need not scruple to receive the books, being a tribute of gratitude from one, whom you have obliged.

[Mantell wrote the following undated note at the bottom of this letter]

151 Spokes, op. cit. (note 38), p. 148 . 152 Brent, op. cit. (note 52), pp. 39, 193 and 194. 153 The following indications of Mantell’s democratic outlook are contained in his Private Journal: reference is made to the strong democrat and republican minded Sir Richard Phillips, as his “enlightened friend”, entry 12 September 1819; he openly admired Napoleon, entries 15 August 1819 and 6 July 1821; and his general sympathy for the poor and underprivileged is clearly stated in entry 31 December 1830.

211 This letter was sent to me with two works: one “Conversations on Political Economy”, the other a translation of “Cotter on Jurisprudence”. At the time I received them, I suspected they had been sent to me by the Lady of Davies Gilbert M.P. Eastbourne; but I now doubt if this opinion is correct. G.Mantell.154

The significance of this letter does not concern the identity of the author, but the confirmation it provides of Mantell’s reformist political views and the insight it gives of the social pressures to which he was subjected. In early 1820, Davies Gilbert had been largely instrumental in getting Mantell elected to the GSL, and during the next five years he was to extend even greater patronage and assistance to the ambitious Lewes surgeon. Mantell evinced a marked enthusiasm for natural history as a young boy at Mr Button’s school at Lewes and when he boarded with his uncle at Swindon.155 His interest was further stimulated and encouraged when he met James Parkinson156 in London, in 1811. Years later, in 1850, Mantell paid the following tribute to Parkinson:

He kindly showed and explained to me the principal objects in his cabinets, and pointed out every source of information on fossil remains, a department of natural knowledge at that time but little cultivated in England, but which peculiar circumstances had contributed to render the engrossing subject of my young and ardent mind. In after years Mr. Parkinson warmly encouraged my attempts to elucidate the nature of the strata and organic remains of my native county, Sussex, a district which was then supposed to be devoid of geological interest; and he revised my drawings, and favoured me with his remarks on many subjects treated of in my first work The Fossils of the South Downs.157

Following his return to Lewes in 1811, Mantell found time to pursue various natural history investigations in the Lewes neighbourhood, despite the arduous demands of his medical partnership. In 1812-13 he wrote three

154 Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 43. 155 Mantell obituary, Abstracts of the Royal Society of London, 1854, VI, on p. 253. In 1841 Mantell revisited the scenes of his schooldays at Swindon and recalled the many hours spent in his garden or in solitary reading secluded from his noisy school-fellows. GAM-PJ, entry July 1841. 156 James Parkinson (1755-1824). English surgeon and original member of the GSL. Author of Organic Remains of a Former World. An Examination of the Mineralized Remains of the Vegetables and Animals of the Antediluvian World; Generally termed Extraneous Fossils, 3 vols, London, 1804, 1808 and 1811. 157 G.A. Mantell, A Pictorial Atlas of Fossil Remains consisting of coloured Illustrations selected from Parkinson’s ‘Organic remains of a Former World’, and Artis’s ‘Antediluvian Phytology’, with

212 letters to the Editor of the Lewes Journal on ‘The Extraneous Fossils found in the neighbourhood of Lewes’.158 These were followed by his first London paper, ‘A Description of a Fossil Alcyonium from the Chalk Strata near Lewes’, read before the Linnean Society in 1814.159 Mantell had joined this Society on 1 February 1814, an event he regarded as sufficiently important to highlight in his autobiographical notes.160 Based on intimations in Mantell’s early correspondence with Miss Etheldred Benett of Wiltshire,161 it appears probable that A.B. Lambert162 was responsible for Mantell’s election. Lambert also acted as an intermediary when Mantell initiated correspondence with Benett on geological matters in June 1813. In addition to the mutual benefits resulting from the exchange of fossil specimens and geological information, this activity also gave Mantell a mechanism through which he could establish influential new contacts beyond the environs of Lewes. A parcel of unusual fossils was one of the few things which Mantell could offer to selected notables and know that they would be well received. During the period 1811 to 1820, Mantell initiated correspondence and exchanged geological specimens and information with two professional naturalists, Konig163 and J. Sowerby164 and with three members of the gentry, Benett, Greenough and John Hawkins.165 He also wrote four and received three letters from Parkinson, but the basic theme of this particular

descriptions, H.G. Bohn, London, 1850, p. 14. 158 Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, 1812-1817, (No. 1500). 159 G.A. Mantell, ‘Description of a fossil Alcyonium from the Chalk Strata near Lewes’, Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 1815, 11, pp. 401-407 . 160 Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 122. 161 Etheldred Benett (1775-1845).The daughter of a Wiltshire squire who lived at Norton House, near Warminster. Fossil collector and correspondent of Mantell from 1813-1843. The references to Lambert are in GAM to E. Benett, 30 June 1813, and E. Benett to GAM, 15 July 1813, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 10A. 162 Aylmer Bourke Lambert (1761-1842). Wiltshire botanist and Vice-President of the Linnean Society of London, from 1796-1842. A.T. Gage and W.T. Stearn, A Bicentenary History of The Linnean Society of London, Academic Press, London, 1988, p. 191. 163 Charles Dietrich Ebernhardt Konig (1774-1851). German born mineralogist who was Keeper, Dept. of Mineralogy and Natural History, British Museum from 1807. By the end of 1820 Konig had written 5 letters to Mantell, in which specimens were acknowledged and named. Mantell mss, ATL- NZ, Folder 56. 164 James Sowerby (1757-1822). English conchologist. Mantell first wrote to Sowerby in 1813 and there are 25 letters until 1819 concerned with the identification and naming of fossils forwarded by Mantell. Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 90. 165 John Hawkins (1758-1841). Wealthy owner of Bignor Park, Sussex. Devoted his life to science, literature and the arts. Wrote some papers on geology. DNB.

213 correspondence was gratitude and thanks on the part of Mantell.166 For example, in his letter to Parkinson, dated 30 May 1814, Mantell advised that he had sent a small parcel of three species of Turrilites as “a small testimony of my gratitude for the pleasure & instruction I have received from your valuable work”. Mantell’s geological correspondence with Benett and Greenough is the more interesting because it illustrates several relevant points; the initial, socially subservient status of Mantell, his eagerness to gratify their wishes, and how the exchange of information developed into a virtual research programme for Mantell, as well as a learning process. Additionally, the 30 year correspondence between Mantell and the Wiltshire squire’s spinster daughter indirectly reveals the gradual development of a deep and fond relationship between the two naturalists who also shared the problem of continual poor health. The opening paragraph of Mantell’s first letter to Benett, in 1813, illustrates his initial social subservience:

Madam Under the kind recommendation of Mr Lambert a stranger begs to intrude himself on your notice and respectfully solicits the honour of a correspondence, so gratifying to his inclinations and so flattering to his pursuits. The diffidence which an introductory letter naturally creates, would have prevented me from embracing the opportunity that presents itself, of being favoured with your correspondence, had I not been reassured by the flattering letter of Mr Lambert, and the consciousness that your goodness will look with an indulgent eye on the formal style which politeness imposes upon a stranger.167

Mantell opened up his correspondence with Greenough in 1814 by sending him a collection of fossils and an outline of the geological work that he had carried out in Sussex. Greenough was receptive to Mantell’s approach and in his reply, dated 31 July 1814, raised two desiderata: tracing the course of the Ashburnham beds, and ascertaining the extent of the Eastbourne green-sand. Mantell pursued these and other requested investigations concerning the geology of Sussex, and until the early 1820s continued to send Greenough considerable detailed geological information, together with numerous parcels of samples. In fact, until Mantell met Lyell

166 GAM to J. Parkinson, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 78. 167 GAM to E. Benett, 30 June 1813, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 10A.

214 in October 1821, Greenough exercised more influence over Mantell’s geological development than any other geologist; his requests for data on the geology of Sussex effectively constituted a major research programme for Mantell. However, Greenough’s tutelage also incorporated his scepticism, as indicated in this letter to Mantell in 1817:

I rejoice in the attention which is at present paid to fossils, because that brand of science has been unfairly neglected & because it holds out to us the assurance of most important results; but no one can reflect upon what has been written upon the subject lately, without perceiving that there is a disposition on both sides of the channel to ride this delightful hobby too hard. Were we to reason in the other departments of natural history as we do in geology, we would see Camels & Bears classed together in the first instance, & then divided into two species, those which have monkies on their backs & those which have not. I never now see Macarel [sic] & Gooseberries associated together at a dinner table when geologists are present without expecting to hear it disputed whether the Macarel was terrestrial or the Gooseberries marine.168

Mantell’s geological correspondence with Greenough effectively ceased in May 1822. Despite the wealth of information that Mantell forwarded to London during the six years to 1820, Greenough gave no intimation in his letters to Mantell that he could, or should, join the GSL. That initiative was taken by Davies Gilbert, and on 13 April 1820, Mantell was advised that he had been elected a Member of the Society.169 Notwithstanding his considerable achievements during the years to 1820, Mantell would have been aware that a successful medical practice at Lewes, and a growing reputation as a provincial geologist, were insufficient bases for his longed-for knighthood. To some extent this realisation is reflected in his Private Journal entry on 31 December 1820:

At the close of another year, one naturally reflects on the events in which we have taken a part during the time that ------my servant informs me that I am requested to attend a patient in the country immediately. The domestic events of my life during the last year present but little interest or variety – with the exception of the birth of my little boy, nothing remarkable has occurred. My intended work on the fossils of the South Downs is in a state of forwardness. I have added a few specimens to my cabinet, and

168 G.B. Greenough to GAM, 27 April 1817, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 45. 169 GAM-PJ, entry 13 April 1820.

215 have acquired some new patients.170

Mantell intended that his planned book on the fossils of the South Downs would play a major role in furthering his social and geological status. This venture is examined in the section dealing with Mantell’s activities in the 1820s.

(2) LYELL

During the years to 1820, Lyell, like Mantell, exhibited an early boyhood interest in natural history and also received geological instruction and encouragement from a notable mentor, in this case Buckland at Oxford. These are the only relevant background factors that Lyell and Mantell had in common during this period, apart from living in southern England. Lyell’s early interest in natural history is clearly revealed in the autobiographical notes that he wrote for his fiancée, Mary Elizabeth Horner, in 1831-32. Illustrative extracts are set down below:

Collecting insects was just the sort of desultory occupation which suited me at that time.…[in 1808 when Lyell was 11 years of age] I had no companion to share this hobby with me, no one to encourage me in following it up, yet my love for it continued always to increase, and it afforded a most varied source of amusement.171

Among the things which supported me in my secret estimation of entomology, was the number of expensive books on the subject which I found in my father’s library.172

The second extract also indicates one of the early background advantages enjoyed by Lyell, having a wealthy and cultivated father who was interested in natural history and literary pursuits. Lyell’s father, Charles senior, had inherited a Scottish estate, Kinnordy, in Forfarshire, that his father had purchased in 1782 for £38,000 from prize money received as a purser in the Royal Navy.173 Charles senior was educated at Cambridge,

170 GAM-PJ, entry 31 December 1820. 171 K.M. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 1, p. 14. 172 Ibid., p. 17. 173 Wilson, op. cit. (note 27), p. 3.

216 taking his degree in 1791, and shortly after the death of his father in 1796, married Frances Smith, daughter of Thomas Smith of Maker Hall, Swaledale, Yorkshire. Lyell’s early background is well described in Wilson’s 1972 biography174 and in summary form in Katherine Lyell’s Life, Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell.175 In brief, Lyell was born on 14 November 1797 and was the eldest of 10 children, having two brothers and seven sisters. Although born in Scotland, Lyell’s education was entirely English, mainly because his father preferred living in the South of England where he had taken a lease on an 80 acre property, Bartley Lodge, in the New Forest. Lyell first attended a nearby school at Ringwood, when he was almost 8 years of age; at the age of 10 years he was transferred to a school at Salisbury; and finally, when 12 years old, he was enrolled at a public school at Midhurst that was modelled on Westminster. At the age of 17 years Lyell was entered at Exeter College, Oxford, where he obtained a second class honours degree in classics in 1819. In his biography of Lyell, Wilson has included an extract from a letter Lyell’s father wrote to his friend Charles Wedderburn, in which he explains why he sent his son to Oxford as a gentleman commoner:

as it gave the command of his society; and the best is not within a man’s reach at that Tory University unless he is well born, or has been educated at a public School, or is a Gentleman Commoner.176

Although Lyell could be described at this time as at least belonging to the ‘minor’ Scottish gentry, his father appears to have been aware that his family was not exactly well born. Nevertheless, Lyell’s background and education epitomises that of the ‘gentleman-geologist’, and unlike Mantell, Lyell was not confronted with any social barriers during these years. In 1819 he joined the GSL and the Linnean Society, and after leaving Oxford, Lyell complied with the wish of his father and entered Lincoln’s Inn, London, to study law. One particular handicap became manifest at this time; his eyes became weak and inflamed following intensive reading. During the 1820s Lyell was to use this physical disability to help resolve his career-choice conflict.

174 Ibid., pp 1-64. 175 K.M. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 1, pp. 1-18, 32 and 112. 176 Wilson, op. cit. (note 27), p. 64.

217 (3) REVIEW OF THE YEARS TO 1820

In many respects the careers of Mantell and Lyell to 1820 represent quintessential and contrasting case histories. Mantell’s case illustrates how an intelligent and ambitious person of relatively lowly origins could rise in provincial society by establishing a successful medical practice and by cultivating antiquarian and geological interests. Lyell’s case history at this stage provides the standard comparison, since it illustrates the conventional ‘norm’ of a future ‘gentleman-specialist’. Although Mantell’s achievements can be regarded as creditable and noteworthy, they were not singular or particularly uncommon throughout England during this period. Mantell still had a long way to go if he wanted to achieve the status he so strongly desired. Few of his medical patients were members of the Sussex gentry, and his role as a budding geologist was largely confined to local geological investigations and forwarding information to London.

4.3.2 1820 - 1830: POSITIONING FOR SCIENTIFIC STATUS

During the late 1820s both Lyell and Mantell either identified, or were advised of, a potential geological domain. Accordingly, in this section emphasis is placed on examining how effectively each man had positioned himself to exploit that identified opportunity by the end of the decade.

(1) MANTELL

In 1817, Mantell privately produced a well illustrated manuscript, ‘Outlines of the Mineral Geography of the Environs of Lewes’, which can be regarded as a forerunner of a planned book on the geology and fossils of Sussex, a project supported and encouraged by Parkinson,177 Benett,178 and Greenough.179 Mantell expected that this work would enable him to achieve a major breakthrough in his quest for social recognition and procure him his

177 J. Parkinson to GAM, 14 December 1817, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 78. 178 E. Benett to GAM, 21 April 1818, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 10. 179 G.B. Greenough 17 September 1818, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 45.

218 “introduction to the first circles in this neighbourhood”.180 This book,181 completed in May 1822, was an ambitious and bold project on several counts. First, disregarding papers in the various journals, it is one of only 21 geological books produced and published in Britain during the ten year period, 1812 to 1812.

Geological and Palaeontological Books published in England 1812 - 1822182 (summarised titles)

1812-26 J. Sowerby, and J. de C. Sowerby, The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, 7 vols, London. [3 vols. published before 1822]

1813 R. Bakewell, An Introduction to Geology, London.

1813 J. Townsend, The Character of Moses Established for Veracity as an Historian: Recording Events from the Creation to the Deluge, Bath and London.

1813 W. Watson, A Section of the Strata forming the Surface in the Vicinity of Matlock Bath in Derbyshire, England, Chesterfield.

1815 W. Smith, A Delineation of the Strata of England and Wales, with part of Scotland, together with A memoir to the map, London.

1815 J. Kidd, A Geological Essay on the Imperfect Evidence in Support of a Theory of the Earth, Oxford.

1815 W. Phillips, Outline of Mineralogy and Geology, London.

1816 [F. Kendall], Mineralogy and Rocks including Organic Remains of Scarborough, Scarborough.

1817 W. Smith, Stratigraphical System of Organized Fossils, London.

1818 W. Phillips, A Selection of Facts from the Best Authorities Arranged as to Form an Outline of the Geology of England and Wales, London.183

1818 W. Knight, Facts and Observations towards Forming a New Theory of the Earth, Edinburgh.

1819 G.B. Greenough, A Critical Examination of the First Principles of Geology; in a Series of Essays, London.

1819 J. Macculloch, A Description of the Western Islands of Scotland including the Isle of Man:, 3 vols, London.

180 GAM-PJ, entry 31 December 1822. 181 G.A. Mantell, The Fossils of the South Downs or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, Lupton Relfe, London, 1822. 182 Jameson’s 1813 translation of Cuvier’s, Essay on the Theory of the Earth, has been excluded from the list. New editions of previously published works are also excluded. 183 This work by Phillips became the basis of a joint-publication with Conybeare in 1822, Outline of the Geology of England and Wales.

219 1819 R. Bakewell, An Introduction to Mineralogy, London.

1820, W. Buckland, Vindiciae Geologicae; or the Connexion of Geology with Religion Explained, Oxford.

1821 J.S. Miller, A Natural History of the Crinoidea, London.

1821 J. Macculloch, A Geological Classification of rocks, with Descriptive Synopses of the Species and Varieties, London.

1822 W.D. Conybeare and W. Phillips, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales, London.

1822 G.A. Mantell, The Fossils of the South Downs: or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, London.

1822 J. Parkinson, Outlines of Oryctology; an Introduction to the Study of Fossil Organic Remains, London.

1822 G. Young, and J. Bird, A Geological Survey of the Yorkshire Coast, Whitby.

Second, Mantell’s publication is noteworthy because of its lavish number of plates and illustrations, and the inclusion of an introductory, 13- page, anonymous essay on ‘The Mosaic Account of Creation’. The single volume work consists of 320 Crown Quarto pages and contains 42 illustrated plates, engraved and lithographed by Mantell’s wife. It was an expensive production, designed to make a big ‘impact’. The cost of the book to subscribers was £3-3-0, with a deluxe, hand-coloured version costing £6-6- 0. Mantell’s prospectus stated that the book would be published as soon as 200 names were obtained, but at the time of publication there were only 134 subscribers who took up a total of 152 copies. The work was dedicated to an influential local patron of Mantell’s, Davies Gilbert,184 who ordered three copies.185 Mantell was forced to work hard in distributing the prospectus. Lyell’s assistance was requested, and he distributed copies to various members of the GSL, besides offering Mantell some shrewd advice:

I am sorry that in those [copies of Mantell’s prospectus] which I have, you have not included all the later subscribers, because some people are led by the number of names, others are apt to think themselves slighted if after subscribing they do not see themselves among the patrons of science. You will easily believe

184 Davies Gilbert (1767-1839). A wealthy Sussex based parliamentarian, naturalist and antiquarian who lived at Eastbourne near Lewes. President of the Royal Society of London 1827-1830. DNB. 185 GAM-PJ, entry 12 April 1821.

220 me that it does not arise from such vanity that I regret that my name is not there but simply from this that no one can with such good grace ask others to subscribe as one who appears in print as subscriber himself.186 In his Preface, Mantell explained that the ‘Essay on the Mosaic Account of the Creation’, was sent to him by an unknown clergyman of the established church soon after the prospectus was distributed, and that it was included because “the vast importance of the subject, and the ability and temper with which it is discussed, render any apology for its insertion unnecessary”. Indeed, 28 clergymen of the established church subscribed to Mantell’s book, constituting a significant contribution to the financial viability of the project. Nevertheless, the publication of this book resulted in a financial loss for Mantell, who received the following consoling advice from Greenough:

I am sorry tho’ not surprized that the sale of the work is not likely to pay its expenses. Yours is the fate of almost every author who writes for the advancement of science. Fame is all the remuneration a philosopher can calculate upon.187

Mantell’s assessment of his ambitious project is reflected in the following extract from his Private Journal, written seven months after the publication of the book:

The past year like its predecessors has fleeted away almost imperceptibly, and I am as far from attaining that eminence in my profession to which I aspire, as at the commencement of it, the publication of my work on the Geology of Sussex, although attended with many flattering circumstances, has not yet procured me that introduction to the first circles in this neighbourhood which I had been led to expect it would have done. In fact I perceive so many chances against my surmounting the prejudice which the humble station of my family naturally excites in the minds of the great, that I have serious thoughts of trying my fortune either at Brighton or London.188

This indicates that Mantell was as much interested in the social rather than the scientific impact of The Fossils of the South Downs. Nevertheless, its production must be regarded as a major achievement, considering it was

186 CL to GAM, 7 March 1822, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 4) 187 G.B. Greenough to GAM, 29 May 1822, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 45. 188 GAM-PJ, entry 31 December 1822.

221 carried out in conjunction with the responsibilities of a busy medical practice. Mantell alluded to this factor in the book’s Preface, and in doing so, pointed out one of the major difficulties that faced a provincial geologist:

Few indeed have been the moments dedicated to this work, that have not been snatched from the hours of repose, after active and laborious exertion during the day. Another formidable obstacle has arisen from local situation, which has prevented access to a comprehensive library, and thus deprived me of the important aid to be derived from an unlimited reference to the work of others.

Although The Fossils of the South Downs did not open all the doors to the “first circles of the neighbourhood”, Mantell continued his busy medical practice and geological investigations. Additionally, he built up his geological and antiquarian museum that occupied one of the drawing rooms of his expanded house at Castle Place, Lewes, and which attracted increasing numbers of influential visitors and geological contacts. His aspirations are best summed up by the following entry in his Personal Journal on New Year’s day, 1823:

As usual I begin the new year, poring over my accounts and sitting up alone, to a late hour. Should my life and health be spared, I am resolved to make every possible effort to obtain that rank in society, to which I feel I am entitled, both by my education, and by my profession. If I fail this year, I will then remove elsewhere, for I am now arriving at an age when it will not do to hesitate.189

An important breakthrough occurred in the summer of 1822 when Mantell’s wife discovered some unusual, worn fossil teeth in the Tilgate Forest near Cuckfield.190 It took Mantell two years to identify these teeth as belonging to an unknown, very large, herbivorous reptile that he named Iguanodon. His notice describing this discovery was read to the Royal Society of London on 10 February 1825, and subsequently published in the Society’s Philosophical Transactions.191 1825 proved to be a good year for Mantell. In February he was elected

189 GAM-PJ, entry 1 January 1823. 190 Mantell, op. cit. (note 181), p. 71. 191 G.A. Mantell, ‘Notice on the Iguanodon, a newly discovered fossil reptile, from the sandstone of Tilgate forest, in Sussex. In a Letter to Davies Gilbert, Esq. M.P., V.P.R.S. &c. &c. &c

222 to the council of the GSL, having been reassured by Buckland that he need not imagine himself disqualified by not residing in London.192 Lyell’s advice was similar:

You must not decline being on our Council from your incapacity to attend it. It is a compliment which is thought the more due to you from the laboriousness of your professional engagements which make your exertions in Geology the more meritorious, at least in the eyes of every lover of that Science.193

Another consequential event was Mantell’s election as a Fellow of the Royal Society in November, one of his main supporters being Davies Gilbert,194 to whom he also dedicated his next book.195 Mantell was now making sound progress indeed, and geological fame must have seemed attainable in the near future. There is an undertone of confidence in the following lines that Mantell wrote in March 1825.

No! whatso’er my fate I’ll not complain If that my humble name enroll’d shall be Among the glorious intellectual train Whose fame shall live thro’ all futurity.196

Mantell’s provincial position, however, remained a major drawback. In fact it became accentuated following his appointment to the GSL Council. One of the difficulties has been previously noted by Mantell – the lack of ready access to a reference library and specialised collections, both essential to anyone engaged in palaeontological investigations. Equally important was the lack of frequent personal contact with geological peers. To some extent Mantell overcame these problems through his extensive correspondence, his generosity when exchanging fossil specimens, and by making his Museum freely available to visitors.197 Nevertheless, although Lewes is situated only

Communicated by D. Gilbert, Esq.’, PTRSL, 1825, 115, pp. 179-186. 192 W. Buckland to GAM, 8 January 1825, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 20. 193 CL to GAM, 14 January 1825, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 19) 194 GAM-PJ, entry 27 November 1825. 195 G.A. Mantell, Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex: Containing a General View of the Geological relations of the South-Eastern part of England; with figures and descriptions of the fossils of Tilgate Forest, Lupton Relfe, London, 1827. 196 GAM-PJ, entry 25 March 1825. 197 Mantell’s Private Journal contains frequent references to the number of visitors who called to inspect his Museum which he enlarged again in 1829. GAM-PJ, entry 5 August 1829.

223 49 miles from London, considerable effort was needed to attend a GSL meeting during the 1820s:

Last evening, at seven o’clock, I started for Brighton, by Moon’s cart….On my arrival at Brighton, the suburbs of the town were in high bustle….I got into the night coach at ten o’clock, and had 2 stupid companions….I scarcely awoke till we arrived at Reigate; it was then half past two, and we alighted at a miserable inn, to take some refreshment….We proceeded at 3 o’clock: the sun was just rising…we arrived at Cheapside soon after six….At half past two I proceeded to the Coach office in Grace Church Street and left London at 3 o’clock. After a pleasant jaunt of six hours we arrived at Brighton; and in company with Mr Godlee the Banker, we arrived by Moon’s cart, at Lewes. It is now mid-night.198

It is not surprising that Mantell was unable to attend many GSL Council meetings during his one-year term in 1826. An additional factor to the time and discomfort of travelling to London by public coach was the not inconsiderable cost. In 1833 the average fare for seating inside a public coach from Brighton to London was 15 shillings. On a pro-rata basis the extra fare from Lewes to Brighton would have been 2 shillings, making the cost of a return journey to London from Lewes £1-14-0.199 Furthermore, since Mantell’s practice had a large midwifery component, he could not afford to be absent from Lewes for any extended period, resulting in very tiring one to two day visits. In a letter to Mantell, written in 1832, the geologist Robert Bakewell200 commented on another disadvantage of living in a provincial town:

In all smaller moderate sized provincial Towns a man of scientific or intellectual pursuits who rises somewhat above the level of his neighbours[’] intellects is sure to draw upon himself no small portion of envy hatred and calumny let him bear his faculties ever so meekly. Of this I had myself 20 years experience. It is also no small evil to be deprived of the frequent society of those who can understand or appreciate your efforts.201

Bakewell was also familiar with the converse side of the prejudice displayed against provincial geologists. Following a three-day visit to Mantell’s

198 GAM-PJ, entry 2 June 1821. 199 E.W. Gilbert, Brighton: Old Ocean’s Bauble, Methuen & Co., London, 1954, p. 117. 200 Robert Bakewell (1768-1843). Geologist and correspondent of Mantell 1829-1843. ATL-NZ, Folder 5. 201 R. Bakewell to GAM, 27 November 1832, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 5.

224 Museum at Lewes, in September 1829,202 Bakewell included the following comments in his favourable review of the Mantellian Museum:

The labours of Mr. Mantell did not in the first instance receive the attention that they justly merited. There is a certain prejudice more or less prevalent among the members of scientific societies in large cities, such as London or Paris, which makes them unwilling to believe that persons residing in provincial towns or in the country (les esprits campagnards, as they are called) can do anything important for science; and it is strangely imagined, that a city geologist, who runs over a district in a few days, can make greater discoveries than any one residing in it, who is in the habit of daily and repeated observation.203

The other adverse factor that continued to affect Mantell throughout the 1820s was increasing ill-health, much of which resulted from over exertion and too little rest, due to his medical practice and geological investigations. His Private Journal contains constant references to various ailments experienced during these years.204 Mantell was to have no respite from health problems for the rest of his life. In summary, the 1820s were years of both achievement and frustration. The major difficulties Mantell encountered during this period resulted from his provincial base at Lewes and poor health. Although he was aware of these two problem areas at the start of the decade, neither was resolved by 1830. Nevertheless, his journal entry on the last day of the decade was more positive than most of his other year-end entries:

Another year has passed rapidly away. I have built a Museum and newly arranged and enlarged my collection: published a catalogue of the Museum; and the list of the Organic Remains of Sussex, has just appeared in the Transactions of the Geological Society. I have certainly materially enlarged the circle of my literary reputation, and have now foreign correspondents of the first order.205

Mantell, though, was not well positioned to follow up and exploit the

202 GAM-PJ, entry 17 September 1829. 203 R. Bakewell, Art. II.‘A Visit to the Mantellian Museum at Lewes’, The Magazine of Natural History and Journal of Zoology, Botany, Mineralogy, Geology, and Meteorology, 1830, 3, pp. 9-17 on p. 10. 204 In May 1826, for example, Mantell recorded that he was ill with lumbago; on 8 August 1827 he had a tumour in the groin; on 6 January 1829 he experienced an infection of the bladder and 28 November 1830 Mantell was exceedingly ill with a severe headache. GAM-PJ. 205 GAM-PJ, entry 31 December 1829.

225 ‘taxonomic’ domain that Lyell had outlined for him in his letter of 23 March 1829. Instead, Mantell was in the process of developing an alternative plan: a plan with the primary aim of increasing his social status.

(2) LYELL

In 1820 Lyell began legal studies in London in compliance with his father’s wish, and was in receipt of an annual living allowance of £400.206 At the end of the decade he was ensconced in comfortable bachelor quarters at 9 Crown Office Row, Temple, had served for three years as one of the secretaries of the GSL, was a Fellow of the Royal Society, and had been a member of the Athenaeum Club since its inception in 1824. More significantly, Lyell had decided on a career in geology, identified his geological domain, and what is more, set about exploiting it. Accordingly, the main points of interest in this section concern the manner in which Lyell resolved his career-choice clash between geology and the law, and the extent to which he was well positioned to carry out his geological investigations. Lyell was conscious of a potential, if not an actual, career-choice clash between geology and his planned profession as a barrister, early in his studies. This is indicated in the closing paragraph of his first letter to Mantell, following their initial meeting on 4 October 1821:

Let me know what Hawkins says of the Whin, but do not write to me before Xmas unless I can be of use to your work by getting you any information, for I am buried in the study of Law here & am too fond of geology to do both. It is not so compatible with my Profession as with yours.207

There is no indication in Lyell’s correspondence or writings that he found any significant appeal or interest in the law, or in the professional life of a barrister. He embarked on a legal career as a dutiful son, and at the strong urging of his father, who was no doubt mindful that he had a large family to support. Lyell had two younger brothers who had entered the armed services,208 and seven unmarried sisters at that stage. Moreover, Lyell’s father, Charles senior, did not earn any income from personal exertion and

206 Wilson, op. cit. (note 27), p. 361 and private communication with the author, 7 November 1996. 207 CL to GAM, 3 November 1821, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 60. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 1).

226 the family incurred considerable additional living costs through spending most of the year at their leased property, Bartley Lodge in the New Forest, rather than at the family seat, Kinnordy, in Forfarshire. Since Lyell was financially dependent on the £400 annual allowance from his father, it would have been imprudent if he had abruptly discontinued the law in favour of geology, which gave no promise of financial reward. Such a career change, in fact, could only be done with the understanding and tacit acceptance of his father. A reading of Lyell’s correspondence with Mantell indicates that Lyell was more than sufficiently worldly to appreciate this fact. One factor that militated against a career in law for Lyell was a weakness in his eyes, which caused them to become inflamed and sore after intensive reading. This weakness became sufficiently pronounced in September 1820, for Lyell’s father to take him to Italy for a holiday, and during the period 1823 to 1824 any legal work was virtually curtailed, enabling Lyell to carry out geological investigations in south-eastern England and in Forfarshire. During the interval from February 1823 until April 1824, each of the four long letters that Lyell sent to Mantell concerning the succession of beds below the chalk was written by an amanuensis, because of problems with his eyes. In 1825, Lyell’s father urged his son to resume legal work209 and Lyell chose the western circuit. During the next three years there were three pertinent developments. First, there was no diminution in Lyell’s interest in and enthusiasm for geology. Second, Lyell did not cover his direct expenses as a barrister when on circuit.210 And third, in 1825 Lyell was invited to write an article for The Quarterly Review that was published in December of that year.211 This article was followed by four others212 during the next two years

208 Thomas (born 1799) who joined the Royal Navy and Henry (born 1804) who joined the Army. 209 K.M. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2), vol.1, p. 160. 210 Wilson, op. cit. (note 27). Page 172 sets out Lyell’s notebook analysis of the Warminster Sessions in July 1827. Lyell’s expenses were £8 and his receipts less than £5. 211 C. Lyell, ‘Article X. Letter to Mr. Brougham on the Subject of a London University, together with Suggestions respecting the Plan. By T. Campbell Esq., London, 1825’, The Quarterly Review, 1825- 26, 33, pp. 257-275. 212 C. Lyell,iArticle VIII. ‘Scientific Institutions’, The Quarterly Review, 1826, 34, pp. 153-179; iArticle IX. ‘Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1824, 1, 2d series’, The Quarterly Review, 1826, 34, pp. 507-540;iArticle VIII. ‘State of the Universities’, The Quarterly Review, 1827, 36, pp. 216-268;iArticle IV. ‘Memoir on the Geology of Central France; including the Volcanic Formations of Auvergne, the Velay and the Vivarais, with a volume of Maps and Plates. By G.P. Scrope F.R.S., F.G.S., London, 1827’, The Quarterly Review, 1827, 36, pp. 437-483.

227 for which he was financially rewarded.213 In April 1827, Lyell was in a position to advise his father as follows:

But to be willing without avail to work hard, and almost for nothing, is now the fate of many hundreds of barristers, and many millions of our labouring classes, and we must congratulate ourselves at not being among the latter. I am quite clear, from all that I have seen of the world, that there is most real independence in that class of society who, possessing moderate means, are engaged in literary and scientific hobbies; and that in ascending from there upwards, the feeling of independence decreases pretty nearly in the same ratio as the fortunes increase. My eyes go on tolerably, and I feel my faculty of composition increases, and I hope to make friends amongst those that a literary reputation will procure me who may assist me.214

By this time it is likely that Lyell’s father would have been at least partly resigned to the fact that his eldest son intended to foresake the law as a profession. The final step followed on from Lyell’s decision to visit Auvergne with Murchison in May 1828. This visit was largely inspired by Scrope’s geological observations,215 and set the seal on Lyell’s future plans and intentions, as indicated in the following extract from a letter written to Murchison in January 1829:

I will tell you fairly that it is at present of no small consequence to me to get a respectable sum for my volume, – not only to cover extra expenses for present and future projected campaigns but because my making my hobby pay its additional costs, which it entails, will alone justify my pursuing it with a mind sufficiently satisfied with itself, and so as to feel independent, and free to

indulge in the enthusiasm necessary for success. I shall never hope to make money from geology, but not to lose, and tax others for my amusement; and unless I can secure this, it would in my circumstances be selfish in me to devote myself as much as I hope to do to it. I have little fear of accomplishing so much and with that view I shall set steadily to the task. My work is in part written, and all planned….This year we have by our joint tour fathomed the depth and ascertained the shallowness of the geologists of France and Italy as to their original observations.

213 Lyell received 40 guineas for his review of the TGSL. Wilson, op. cit. (note 27), p. 159. 214 CL to C. Lyell (senior), 10 April 1827; quoted in K.M. Lyell, op.cit. (note 2), vol. 1, pp. 169-171. 215 G.P. Scrope, Memoir on the Geology of Central France; including the Volcanic Formations of Auvergne, the Velay and the Vivarais, with a volume of Maps and Plates, Longman, London, 1827.

228 We can without fear measure our strength against most of those in our own land, and the question is, whether Germany is stronger. They are a people who generally ‘drink deep or taste not’, &c. Their language must be learnt; the places to which their memoirs relate, visited; and then you may see, as I may, to what extent we may indulge dreams of eminence, at least as original observers. If I can but earn the wherewithal to carry on the war, or rather its extraordinary costs, depend upon it I will waste no time in bookmaking for lucre’s sake.216

When Lyell returned to his London chambers on 24 February 1829 he had resolved his career conflict between geology and the law, although he had not finally settled on the most suitable way to supplement his adequate, but essentially modest, private income. In summary, he was reasonably, but not ideally, ‘positioned’. His articles for The Quarterly Review had given Lyell confidence that he could buttress his income in an acceptable manner through authorship, but writing a geological book was different from reviewing. Nevertheless, he had cause for optimism ten months after the first volume of his Principles of Geology217 appeared in June 1830. In a letter to his sister Marianne, Lyell remarked:

I have pretty good news to tell you about my volumes….The booksellers tell me that if the latter part of my work is as popular and readable as the first, it will prove an annuity to me. Whewell of Cambridge has done me no small service by giving out at his University that I have discovered a new set of powers in Nature which might be termed ‘Geological Dynamics’.218

An alternative way of supplementing his income, through lecturing, was not to be explored until the early 1830s.

4.3.3 1830 - 1840: THE DECADE FOR ACHIEVEMENT

This period has been sub-titled ‘The Decade for Achievement’ because of the upsurge in the number of major geological domains that were established by the identified elite during these years. The main theme in this section, however, still concerns the importance of positioning and associated aspects of the concept.

216 CL to R.I. Murchison, 15 January 1829; quoted in K.M. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 1, p. 234. 217 C. Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. 1, John Murray, London, 1830.

229 In December 1833 Mantell moved to Brighton, which proved to be a disastrous mistake on almost every count; it significantly affected the quality and quantity of his scientific work, reduced his income to virtually nil, forced him to sell his outstanding collection of fossil specimens, and also resulted in his wife and children leaving him. On the other hand, the 1830s proved to be years of ongoing and steady achievement for Lyell, who had suitably positioned himself to good advantage by the time Mantell moved to Brighton. Considerable attention is given to two associated aspects of ‘positioning’. The first concerns the income that would have been necessary to support the life-style of a ‘gentleman-specialist’ during the 1830s. This provides a yardstick to gauge the respective financial circumstances of the two men. The second deals with the economics and financial returns from writing geological books in the first half of the nineteenth century, since both Lyell and Mantell engaged in this activity in order to supplement their income.

(1) INDICATIVE INCOMES OF GENTLEMAN - SPECIALISTS

Indicative cost-of-living budgets have been prepared for three varying life- styles of a ‘gentleman-specialist’ during the period 1830 to 1840. The base criteria for these three categories are summarised below.

1.Minimum Required Budget

· London based; married with 3 children. · Modest entertaining and infrequent travelling. · Prudence exercised with all expenditures. · Two maid-servants. No private transport.

The purpose of this case is to give an indication of the private income that Mantell would have needed if he had moved to London to pursue his palaeontological investigations on a full-time basis. It also provides an indication of the minimum income required by a married ‘gentleman- specialist’ with three children.

2.Estimated Annual Living Expenses of Lyell following his Marriage in 1832

218 CL to M. Lyell, 14 November 1830; quoted in K.M. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2), vol. 1, p. 312.

230 · Comfortable London house, but not fashionably located. · Entertains adequately, but not lavishly. No children. · No stinting on expenditures for books, clubs or society memberships. · No curtailment of necessary travel in the U.K. One annual visit to Europe for geological investigations. · Domestic staff comprises 1 manservant (Hall), 1 house-boy, 1 cook (Mrs. Hall), and 2 maid servants. · No private transport.

3. Indicative Annual Budget of a Gentleman-specialist with a Private Income in the range £1,000 - £1,500

· Based in London; married with 3 children. · Comfortable, but not highly fashionable house. · Has coach with a pair of horses. Household staff comprises coachman, man-servant, cook, house-maid and nursery maid.

This case covers the style of living to which Mantell aspired and what would have been typical of a moderately successful London medical practitioner. It approximates the standard of living enjoyed by Horner, but would have been considered modest by Murchison’s standards.

TABLE 4.1 - ANNUAL BUDGETS OF GENTLEMAN-SPECIALISTS219

(estimated costs in pounds)

Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 (7 persons) (7 persons) (10 persons)

Food and Household Provisions

- bread, groceries, milk, tea &c 63 63 110 - meat and fish 42 42 82 - vegetables and fruit 9 9 20 - beer and liquors 20 20 55 - coals and wood 15 20 25 - candles, oil, soap, sundries 12 20 38 - medicines 5 5 10

219 Most of the data used in the three budgets set down below are based on material obtained from the 1824 edition of a New System of Practical Domestic Economy founded on Modern Discoveries and from the Private Communications of Persons of Experience and contained in Peel, op. cit. (note 105) pp. 90-151. References for other cost data are noted separately.

231 Sub total-Food Expenses 166 179 340 Education 30 - 40 Entertainment 8 20 20 Clothes and Haberdashery 50 60 120

232 Table 4.1 (cont.) Case 1 Case 2 Case 3 (7 persons) (7 persons) (10 persons) Rent and Taxes 40 130220 120 Misc. Expenses 13 15 35 Transport - coach - - 40 - 2 horses - - 66 House Servants - coachman - - 38 - footman and groom - 60221 35 - house boy - 15 - - cook / maid servants 30 25 40 Sub-total - Household Expenses 337 504 894 Club and Society Fees222 - annual subscriptions 15 20 25 - club and society dining expenses 10 15 30 Geological Publications &c223 - scientific books and journals 10 25 30 - specimens 5 10 10 Correspondence224 5 10 15 Travelling Expenses - within U.K. 10225 150226 150 - Europe - 100 150 SUBTOTAL 392 834 1304 Contingency 38 41 96

TOTAL 430 875 1400

Of the above expenses, the most difficult to estimate were the costs of

220 In a letter to L. Horner, dated 18 September 1832, Lyell commented as follows on his new residence at 16 Hart Street: “rent £89, taxes included £129. £300 lately laid out on it by the Proprietor, new paper &c, so we can get into it without almost any expense”. Wilson, op. cit. (note 27), p. 373. 221 The wage of Lyell’s man-servant, Hall, has been estimated at the relatively high figure of £60 since he also acted as secretary and amanuensis to Lyell. 222 It has been assumed that there has been no compounding of annual subscriptions which was normally the case with the more affluent members. Annual subscriptions were: Royal Society £4; GSL £3-3-0; Linnean £3; BAAS £1; Athenaeum Club £6-6-0. The cost of dining in a modest manner at the Athenaeum Club once a week has been assessed at 3/6. A.A. Hume, The Learned Societies and Printing Clubs of the United Kingdom, Longman Brown Green and Longmans, London, 1847, and F.R. Cowell, The Athenaeum: Club and Social Life in London 1824-1974, Heinemann, London, 1975. 223 Authors of geological books usually received a negotiated number of copies from their publisher which they presented to their friends and colleagues. Consequently, the annual amount expended on geological books by Lyell and Mantell may have been less than the sum shown, but in a sense such interchanges represent income foregone. A similar case applies to fossils. 224 Before 1840 the cost of postage varied between 4 and 20 pence per letter. In Lyell’s case a weekly expenditure of 4 shillings has been assumed for geological correspondence. 225 Based on 5 return trips by coach averaging 50 miles each way at a cost of 5d. per mile. 226 This estimate is based on one annual return coach trip to Kinnordy, Forfarshire, and the

233 an annual two-month geological visit to Europe, since the standards of available accommodation and transport varied widely, and these costs were also subject to negotiation. Although actual expenditures for any particular item would have varied significantly between individuals, it is considered that the above budgets provide adequate guidelines for the required incomes of the three categories of ‘gentleman-specialist’. In the minimum case, a capital sum of £13,250 would need to have been invested to yield the required annual income of £430.227 In 1830, Mantell’s income, and hence style of living, was significantly in excess of this figure; in fact, Mantell implied that it was close to £2,000:

My reputation now stood high; and by degrees my practice included all the principal families in the town and neighbourhood, and my returns exceeded £2,000 p.a.; but this amount was made up of bills which would scarcely average more than £3 or £4 each; including the attendance on a military hospital, and on six large parishes.228

It is possible that Mantell exaggerated his income when he wrote this pamphlet for political purposes in 1845, but his standard of living in 1830 certainly approximated that of a ‘gentleman-specialist’ with a private income of £1,400. However, Mantell’s capital was far short of the £13,250 required to provide a minimum income of £430. If he had sold his practice for the high figure of £2,000, and realised £1,500 on his Lewes property, then his resulting income would only have amounted to £113 if this sum had been invested in ‘consols’. Thus, if Mantell wished to leave Lewes for London, he could only have continued his palaeontological and geological investigations on a part-time basis. In the event that he discontinued practicing medicine, he would have needed to earn a supplementary annual sum of £320 from lecturing, writing or other acceptable activities. As indicated earlier, Lyell and his wife enjoyed a private annual income of at least £620 during the 1830s, £255 less than their estimated total expenditure of £875. In this regard Lyell’s ‘problem’ was manifestly easier than Mantell’s. It will be shown that he was able to bridge this ‘gap’ equivalent of 4 return trips to Brighton or Oxford, accompanied by his wife in each case. 227 It has been assumed that the capital sum has been invested in ‘consols’ at an interest rate of 3.25%.

234 through his geological writings. It is also relevant to note that during this period Lyell, as the eldest son, had every expectation of inheriting his father’s estate. (2) MANTELL

During the early 1820s Mantell produced his lavishly-produced book, The Fossils of the South Downs, with the expectation that it would give him an entreé into “the first circles of Sussex”, besides establishing his geological reputation. In the early 1830s Mantell made another bold decision in order to achieve his desired ‘breakthrough’. He would move to Brighton, where he believed he would be able to leave the provincialism of Lewes, obtain a higher social class of patient, maintain his income, turn his museum into some account and be able to practise both geology and medicine. His decision was not taken impetuously. Mantell had contemplated such a move as early as December 1822,229 when he realised that The Fossils of the South Downs, would not achieve the success he had expected. Nevertheless, he was still hesitant about making such a major move in December 1831:

Shall I leave this dull place and venture into the vortex of fashion and dissipation at Brighton, or shall I not? Prudence says stay where you are but ambition and my friend Martin Cripp Esqr. say go and prosper! What shall I do?230

It is possible that Mantell’s indecisiveness during 1831 at least partly resulted from a major disagreement with his wife on the matter; approximately eight pages of his Private Journal, covering the period mid- June to mid-August 1831, were subsequently excised by his family. However, in October 1833, one of Mantell’s major local patrons, Lord Egremont,231 offered one thousand pounds to cover the removal costs of Mantell’s museum to Brighton.232 On 21 December 1833, Mantell recorded “My family and all my servants &c take up their abode in 20 Steyne – farewell forever to Castle

228 Mantell, op. cit. (note 132), p. 6. 229 “I have serious thoughts of trying my fortune either at Brighton or London”. GAM-PJ, entry 31 December 1822. 230 GAM-PJ, entry 29 January 1831. 231 George O’Brien Wyndham, third Earl of Egremont (1751-1837). Lord Lieutenant of Sussex 1819-35. A well-known and generous patron of the arts and science. DNB. 232 GAM-PJ, entries 5 October 1833 and 1 May 1834.

235 Place”.233 In 1783, when the future Prince Regent first visited Brighton, the population of the town was only 1,783, but as a result of the building of the Royal Pavilion between 1815 and 1820, combined with the town’s reputation as a health resort and its relative proximity to London, Brighton’s population increased from 24,429 in 1821 to 40,634 in 1831.234 In fact, after 1830 Brighton succeeded Bath as a fashionable centre.235 In moving to Brighton Mantell certainly left the provincial life of Lewes, but he was to encounter a very competitive medical environment. The growth in the number of medical practitioners matched the town’s population growth.

GROWTH OF MEDICAL PRACTITIONERS AT BRIGHTON236 Year Physicians Surgeons 1800 1 9 1824 9 29 1834 11 32 1842 18 52

Mantell did not purchase or buy into an established medical practice when he moved to Brighton. Naively, he had assumed that the fashionable gentry who would visit his new Museum would also visit him as a patient. Mantell’s move to Brighton quickly proved to be a professional and financial disaster, as indicated by the following entries in his Private Journal:

1 May 1834 – My reception in this town has certainly been very flattering so far as visitors and visitings have been concerned but my professional prospects are not encouraging….All the principal persons in this place have called upon me….My museum has been visited by nearly a thousand persons.

9 October 1834 – As usual murdering my time – lots of visitors but no patients.

25 June 1835 – My practice here is very unpromising.

18 October 1835 – Gracious being!. Oh enable me to bear up under the miseries that surround me on every side.

233 GAM-PJ, entry 21 December 1833. 234 Gilbert, op. cit. (note 199), p. 89 and p. 97. 235 A. Dale, Fashionable Brighton: 1820-1860, Country Life Limited, London, 1947, p. 17. 236 Gilbert, op. cit.(note 199), p. 85.

236 1 January 1836 – My prospects are so cheerless.

15 July 1836 – Eternal round of nothingness!….Could I but find a good professional opening (the more labour the better) and all would be well.

In summary, Mantell had not realised that the Brighton public would regard him as a man of science, and not as a medical practitioner. He even encouraged this image by insisting on using the title of doctor after Yale College conferred the honorary degree of L.L.D. on him in October 1834,237 although his friend Bakewell strongly counselled against its use.238 Bakewell correctly assessed the situation in a well-meaning letter to Mantell in February 1835:

I heard our principal medical practitioner here [in Hampstead] say “Mr Mantell is a man of superior scientific attainments & so much devoted to science that like the late Dr Young239 persons except his own immediate friends never think of employing him”. I combatted this assertion as well as I could but still I believe such an opinion bears against you & is promoted by your Brethren of the healing art.240

In the same letter Bakewell also advised Mantell to sell the Museum and return to Lewes, where he still owned the house at Castle Place. Drastic financial measures became necessary. As an interim step in early 1836, Mantell negotiated an arrangement with some of his supporters that involved a proposed Sussex Scientific and Literary Institution taking over his house and museum for a two and a half year period for a combined annual fee of £400. Again, Lord Egremont assisted in this development by contributing £1,000.241 The scheme necessitated Mantell moving into lodgings on the Steyne, and his wife and family moving first to Southover, and subsequently to 114 Western Road, Brighton.242 The Museum opened to the public under these new arrangements on 23 May 1836 and attracted a total of

237 Mantell was awarded the degree of L.L.D. by Yale College, New Haven, through the efforts of his friend and correspondent, Professor B. Silliman, Professor of Chemistry and Natural Science at Yale. GAM-PJ, entry 3 October 1834. 238 R. Bakewell to GAM, 7 December 1834, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 6. 239 Thomas Young (1773-1829). M.D., F.R.S. Child prodigy, physiologist, natural scientist and Egyptologist. DNB. 240 R. Bakewell to GAM, 10 February 1835, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 6. 241 GAM-PJ, entry 4 January 1836.

237 3,000 visitors in its first year.243 The entry fee was one shilling per person. In July 1837 Mantell began negotiations for the sale of his Museum to the Brighton Council and for the purchase of a medical practice at Clapham, near London. The former negotiations were unsuccessful, partly due to the death of Mantell’s patron, Lord Egremont.244 In early 1838, Mantell commenced negotiations with the British Museum for the sale of his collection that consisted of between 20 and 25 thousand specimens.245 Negotiations were concluded in 1839, with Mantell receiving a net sum of £4,000.246 On the 1 April 1838 Mantell acquired the medical practice of Sir William Pearson at Clapham for £1,500, having sold his Brighton practice for a mere £100.247 Other financial measures taken during this two-year period included the sale of another house owned at Lewes for £800.248 Consequently, by the end of the decade Mantell had capital funds of at least £3,500, plus the property at Castle Place, Lewes, and the goodwill of the recently purchased Clapham medical practice. However, his health had deteriorated considerably during the 1830s. More dramatically, Mantell’s preoccupation with geology became too much for his wife, who left him in 1838. In 1839 this blow was compounded when Mantell’s eldest son, Walter Baldock Durrant, emigrated to New Zealand. In addition to illustrating the difficulties that a medical practitioner encountered if he wished to pursue a concurrent career in science,249 Mantell’s case history during the 1830s provides some insights into the practicality of other acceptable modes of employment. At Brighton, Mantell was virtually forced to venture into two such fields, namely lecturing and scientific writing.

242 GAM-PJ, entry 25 April 1836. 243 Spokes, op. cit. (note 38), p. 81; GAM-PJ, 17 and 25 April and 26 August 1836, and First Annual report of the Sussex Royal Institution and Mantellian Museum, 1837, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ. 244 In the Preface of the second edition of Wonders of Geology, Mantell attributed the abandonment of the idea of Brighton Council purchasing his collection to form the nucleus of a proposed Sussex County Museum, on the deaths of his patrons, the Earls of Egremont and Munster. Quoted in Cleevely and Chapman, op. cit. (note 46), p. 321. 245 Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 122. 246 Lyell assisted Mantell in various minor ways in these negotiations with the British Museum. See CL to GAM, 21 December 1837, 16 January 1838, 7, 17, and 21 February 1838 and 5 June 1838, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 64. (Supp.Vol.-Letters 151, 152, 154, 155, 156 and 160). 247 Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 121. 248 Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 121, and GAM-PJ, entries 4 April 1837,4 March and August 1839. 249 This issue was publicly raised by a Mr. F.B. Winslow in 1839 when he anonymously stated in Physic and Physicians: a medical sketch book, that Mantell’s “geological pursuits were incompatible with the practice of medicine” and were the cause of Mantell’s failure as a medical man in Sussex.

238 Mantell’s Private Journal records that soon after his arrival in Brighton he gave several well-attended public lectures for the benefit of local causes, and in the following year gave at least four more lectures that were received with “great approbation” or “went off with great éclat”.250 At this stage there was no thought that Mantell would lecture on a professional fee- paying basis. In fact, in October 1834, he commented to his American friend, Silliman, that he would lose caste if he lectured for money.251 However, one of the arrangements, when Mantell’s museum was leased to the Sussex Scientific and Literary Institution, was an undertaking that Mantell would deliver five lectures for £50. These were all well attended and well received. These lectures subsequently provided the basis for Mantell’s Wonders of Geology.252 The success of his Brighton lectures prompted Mantell to investigate the feasibility of securing a suitable lecturing position in London, and to this end Lyell sounded out several possibilities in comparative anatomy. Lyell’s contacts were unanimous in the belief that Mantell would be unable to secure such a position in London, where he was only known as a geologist.253 Lyell went on to give Mantell some blunt, but realistic advice:

I believe there is no alternative but all medicine or all science. The latter would only yield two or three hundred a year if that in London. Whether you could give 52 lectures or one a week & clear £25 by each by lecturing at great towns in the country & so clear £1,300 a year is a question I cannot solve but I know that it is easier to make £100 at Leeds, Manchester or Newcastle than £10 by lectures in Londn.254

Lyell followed up this theme more strongly in three subsequent letters to Mantell, one of which referred to Lyell’s resolution of his own career-choice clash:

The more I think on your affairs of which you have spoken so

Quoted in Torrens and Cooper, op. cit. (note 110), p. 257. 250 GAM-PJ, entries 1 May 1834, April 1835, and 13 November 1835. 251 Spokes, op. cit. (note 38), p. 68. 252 G.A. Mantell, The Wonders of Geology or a Familiar Exposition of Geological Phenomena, 2 vols, Relfe and Fletcher, London, 1838. 253 CL to GAM, 3 and 18 March 1836, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 64. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 139 and 140). 254 Ibid., CL to GAM, 3 March 1836.

239 openly in your letters the more it strikes me that you will never have anything like rest & tranquility till you take a more decided line either for science or medicine; if for the latter you might do as much as ever in a quiet way & get reputation among the best people in science but appear to the world to be but little occupied with anything but your profession. I went through the same struggle when I cut law.255

Mantell never fully realised that the resolution of a career choice clash is a fundamental pre-requirement for correct ‘positioning’. Several points concerning the economics of writing scientific books in the first-half of the nineteenth century are contained in a letter that Bakewell wrote to Mantell on 12 April 1834:

In fact a work of science unless it be some new theory (or some old friend with a new face) like Mr Lyell’s Principles, Books of science seldom pay for the time of writing them unless school books & compilations which run away with all the profits. My late friend Mr Lowry256 who next to Dr Woollaston [sic] was the best natural philosopher in England always declined writing….I don’t believe Conybeare & Phillips England published in 1822 is all sold yet though 12 years have elapsed. I believe I cleared not more than 350 by all the 3 Editions of my book.257….A Manual of Fossils is much wanted & would have a very very great sale I am sure & better repay you than any other book could do.258

Given Mantell’s financial circumstances and tribulations from 1834 to 1839, it is not surprising that his geological books during these years were orientated to the ‘popular’ market, and more often than not, based on his earlier work. Mantell simply did not have the time, money or suitable working environment to write a serious work such as ‘A Manual of Reptile Fossils’. But he was aware that Lyell had earned more than £200 on each of his volumes of Principles of Geology,259 and it is understandable that he tried to emulate Lyell’s example. The first of the three books that Mantell wrote during the 1830s, The Geology of the South-east of England, was produced

255 CL to GAM, 6 July 1836. Other relevant comments on the theme of ‘science or medicine’ are contained CL to GAM, 19 September 1836, and 7 February 1838, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 64. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 143, 144, and 154). 256 Wilson Lowry (1762-1824). A distinguished engraver who was a GSL member of council 1810- 12. F.R.S. 1812. Woodward, op. cit.(note 58), p. 36. 257 R. Bakewell, An Introduction to Geology, London, 1813. 258 R. Bakewell to GAM, Folder 6, 12 April 1834, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 6. 259 “I thought you informed me he had £250 for his first volume beside what he was paid for the other 2 Vols & the small edition. £250 is a large sum for 1 Volume of a scientific work”. R.

240 by Mantell in three weeks during December 1832 and January 1833:

every moment not engaged in my profession has been devoted to my book, which I have this moment completed in less than 3 weeks – I have written (much of course compiled from former volumes) 280 pages, and drawn 130 subjects for wood cuts.260

In preparing this work Mantell had several objects in mind. First, it was a means of updating his two earlier works on the geology of Sussex261 that were out of print, and second, it could incorporate Mantell’s memoir on the Hylaeosaurus that he had earlier planned to publish in the GSL’s Transactions. Thus, as Mantell stated in his preface, the book was aimed at both “the natural philosopher and general reader”. Mantell initially approached Lyell’s publisher, John Murray, but he declined to publish this work.262 Largely due to Bakewell’s assistance, an agreement was reached with Longmans, two weeks later, whereby that firm and Mantell would share any profits from the book, after all publishing costs had been recovered.263 Although the book was well written and had a relatively wide market, it was not a resounding financial success. Three years later Mantell noted in his Private Journal:

Recd. from Messrs Longman 60 copies of the Geology of the South-east of England and thus close the account of the first edition – when these 60 are sold at 20/- each I shall clear about £100 by the work – the only money I ever obtained from any literary production.264

The other two books that Mantell produced during the 1830s were entirely orientated to the ‘popular’ market. The first, Thoughts on a Pebble or a First Lesson in Geology,265 was a pocket-sized booklet of 23 pages dedicated to Mantell’s youngest son, Reginald Neville, ‘the little geologist’. It ran through eight editions, Messrs Reeve paying Mantell £25 for the last

Bakewell to GAM, 16 November 1834, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 6. 260 GAM-PJ, entry 10 January 1833. 261 Mantell, The Fossils of the South Downs, 1822 and Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, 1827. 262 GAM-PJ, entry 21 January 1833. 263 A copy of this agreement is contained in the printers proof of The Geology of the South-east of England, dated 14 March 1833, ATL-NZ. 264 GAM-PJ, entry Friday November 1836. 265 G.A. Mantell, Thoughts on a Pebble or a First Lesson in Geology, Relfe and Fletcher, London, 1836.

241 edition in 1849.266 The second, The Wonders of Geology,267 was based on Mantell’s Brighton lectures, and also had eight editions. Despite the relative market success of these ‘popular’ books on geology, Mantell was unable to achieve a significant financial return from any of these works, thus bearing out Bakewell’s earlier dictum.268 This unsatisfactory pattern continued during the next decade. Because of his failure to resolve his career clash between medicine and geology, combined with the disastrous move to Brighton, Mantell was poorly positioned to make any significant contributions to geology during the 1830s. Nevertheless, the ebullience and driving ambition of the man were not curtailed, as indicated by the following entry in his Private Journal in August 1839:

Received the sum of £4000 from the Trustees of the British Museum for my collection. And so passes away the labour of 25 years!!! But I will begin de novo!!

There was one bright note for Mantell in the 1830s. In 1835 the GSL council awarded Mantell the Wollaston Medal for his work on the comparative anatomy of fossils, and in particular, for discovering the two new genera, Iguanodon and Hylaeosaurus. Mantell’s was the second such award, the first being to William Smith in 1831. Throughout the 1830s there is no mention in Mantell’s Private Journal or in his known correspondence, that he intended to exploit the ‘taxonomic’ domain of British fossil reptiles suggested to him by Lyell in 1829 and Bakewell in 1832.

(3) LYELL

In contrast to Mantell, the 1830s proved to be years of achievement for Lyell. Although he had resolved his career-choice clash during the late 1820s, Lyell had not finally or securely positioned himself at the commencement of the new decade. However, this situation was rectified following an appropriate marriage and his decision to supplement his income

266 GAM-PJ, entry 10 August 1849. 267 Mantell, op. cit. (note 252). 268 R. Bakewell to GAM, 12 April 1834, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 6.

242 through writing, rather than lecturing. In an unpublished letter dated September 1831 Lyell advised Mantell that he was betrothed to Mary Elizabeth Horner, the eldest daughter of Leonard Horner:

The lady is 10 years younger than me & altho’ I shd. fully agree with you that this is more disparity than may be desirable for one who lives so quiet & secluded a life as a geologist ought to do at home yet I know you do not prohibit such a difference in your rules, & would grant that the disposition of the lady in these respects is of more importance than the age, & it is in this that I feel quite at ease. I shall have no money with her at all, which is certainly an act of imprudence on my part, but I feel confident that my wife will be satisfied to live in a very quiet way & I know that I shall.269

Lyell was not entirely accurate when he informed Mantell that his future wife would “have no money with her at all”. Under the marriage settlement Lyell’s father-in-law, Horner, gave his daughter Mary £4000, which would have yielded an annual investment income of £120.270 Nevertheless, Lyell had advised his future wife that although their style of living would be somewhat modest, he hoped to supplement their income:

Not that I am at all sanguine about the pecuniary profits that I shall ever reap, but I feel that [if] I could have fair play for the next ten years, I could gain a reputation that would make a moderate income for the latter part of my life, yield me a command of society, and a respect that would entitle me to rest a little on my oars, and enable me to help somewhat those I love.271

The success of Lyell’s marriage is another contrasting feature with Mantell. In addition to being his constant companion, Lyell’s wife acted as his assistant and amanuensis, and there were no ‘distractions’ due to children. Additionally, Mary Lyell made up for her husband’s social shortcomings, as attested by Silliman, one of the Lyell’s hosts during their first visit to the U.S.A. in 1842:

269 CL to GAM, September 1831. Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63, (Supp. Vol.-Letter 87). 270 Wilson, op. cit. (note 27), p. 361 271 CL Journal to Miss M.E. Horner, 23 April 1831; quoted in K.M. Lyell, op. cit. (note 2), p. 326.

243 It is fortunate for Mr L. that he carried with him a brilliant letter of introduction wherever he went in that winning lovely wife who made all his peculiarities pass. People did not always know what to make of his apparent coldness & absence of mind & I might have been embarrassed by some of his queer ways had you not put me right in the beginning. 272

Fifteen months before his marriage, Lyell had sought and obtained the position of professor of geology at the newly established King’s College, London.273 Despite the social success of his lectures at this institution,274 he quickly realised that they were “far less profitable for purse, & surely for solid fame than writing”.275 As a comparison, by the end of 1832 Lyell had received a total of £588 from his publisher, John Murray, for the first two volumes of his Principles of Geology, and the third volume was yet to come. It is not surprising that on 16 September 1833 Lyell advised Mantell that he had resigned his professorship. Lyell was now well positioned to consolidate his geological domain and pursue his chosen career in geology. Geological writing would supplement his private income. The indicative annual budget for Lyell and his wife amounted to £875 (Table 4.1), £255 more than their combined private incomes. During the 1830s Lyell was able to make up this deficit through his earnings from Principles of Geology. An analysis of the ledger accounts at Lyell’s publisher, John Murray,276 shows that he received the following payments for the various editions of this work and for his Elements of Geology, during the period 1830-40.

TABLE 4.2 - LYELL’S EARNINGS FROM WRITING, 1830-1840

Year Principles Elements Edition Volume of Geology of Geology

272 B. Silliman to GAM, 13 July 1842, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ. 273 Details concerning the circumstances of Lyell’s appointment to King’s College, London, and the social success of his lectures there are contained in Lyell’s letters to Mantell, dated 16 March and 21 April 1831. Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 78 and 81). 274 In his letters to GAM dated 16 May and 14 June 1832, Lyell described with obvious delight the number of lords, titled ladies and coronetted carriages who attended his lectures. 275 CL to GAM, 14 June 1832, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 63. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 92) 276 Archives John Murray (Publishers) Ltd., 50 Albermarle Street, London.

244 1830 £210 - 1st ed. vol. 1

1831 - - - -

£168 1st ed. vol. 2 1832 £105 - 2nd ed. vol. 1 nd £105 2 ed. vol. 2

1833 £294277 - 1st ed. vol. 3

1834 £315 - 3rd ed. one vol.

1835 £225 - 4th ed. one vol.

1836 - - - -

1837 £420 - 5th ed. one vol.

1838 - £352 1st ed. one vol.

1839 - - -

1840 £294 - 6th ed. one vol.

The average earnings for each of the above 11 years is £229.278 A perusal of Lyell’s letters to Mantell indicates that he was a shrewd commercial negotiator with a firm understanding of the economics of book publishing.279 A breakdown of the main production cost categories of the first two editions of Principles of Geology shows that Lyell’s earnings from each book exceeded Murray’s profits.

277 Lyell’s original payment for this edition was to have been £444 but since there were 462 unsold copies when this account was closed on 21 May 1834, Lyell repaid Murray £150. 278 During the next decade, 1841-50, Lyell’s earnings from new editions of these two books declined to an average of £65 p.a. because only one edition, the seventh, of Principles of Geology was printed during this period. However, this was offset by the printing of authorised American versions of the books and the release of his two travel books on North America in 1845 and 1849. 279 A good example of Lyell’s understanding of the practicalities and commercial aspects of publishing is contained in his letter to GAM, dated 9 November 1835, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 64. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 134).

245 TABLE 4.3 - UNIT PRODUCTION COSTS OF LYELL’S PRINCIPLES OF GEOLOGY ( first and second editions )

(costs are indicated in shillings and pence)

P.O.G. P.O.G. P.O.G. P.O.G. P.O.G. vol.1 vol.1 vol.2 vol.2 vol.3 1st ed. 2nd ed. 1st ed. 2nd ed. 3rd ed.

No. of Copies 1500 1000 1500 1000 2500

Average whole -sale price.280 9s.3d. 9s.0d. 7s. 9d. 7s.4d. 10s.4d.

Paper/Printing 3s.6d. 4s.4d 2s.5d. 2s.7d. 3s.11d Illustrations 1s.3d. 2d. 1s.0d. 4d. 1s.8d. Advertising 9d. 4d. 3d. 9d. 9d. Direct Costs of Production 5s. 6d. 4s.10d. 3s.7d. 3s.7d. 6s.4d.

to Lyell 2s.10d. 2s.1d. 2s.3d. 2s.1d. 2s.4d. to Murray 11d. 2s. 1d. 1s.11d. 1s.8d. 1s.8d.

9s 3d. 9s.0d. 7s.9d. 7s.4d. 10s. 4d.

This break-down of the direct costs of publishing Principles of Geology illustrates several aspects of the economics of book publishing in the first half of the nineteenth century. First, the major cost component was the cost of paper and printing, which made up more than 60% of all direct production costs due to the relatively high cost of paper. Another significant cost component were the illustrations, which typically comprised 25% of the

280 Based on the total print run. No adjustment has been made for free copies given to the author and

246 direct costs of the first edition of each volume. However, since these costs are mainly of a ‘one-off’ nature, and can be amortised in the first-edition print run, these costs decline to 5-10% in any second or subsequent edition. (4) REVIEW OF THE YEARS 1830 - 1840

The contrasting case histories of Lyell and Mantell during the 1830s again highlight the importance of appropriate positioning in terms of income, time, location and domestic circumstances in order to establish a geological domain. In the ideal case this would have entailed a London base and an annual private income in the range £500-£1000 – certainly not less than £430 for a married man with children. The attainment of such an income level would not have constituted a significant problem for an ambitious and able medical practitioner like Mantell, provided he maintained his professional practice on an ostensibly full-time basis. However, this pattern would not have been suitable or applicable for an ambitious person who wanted to achieve eminence in geology; sufficient time for serious geological investigations would not have been available. In attempting to combine medicine and geology at Brighton, Mantell encountered the worst of both worlds. His failure to resolve this career clash also precluded him from obtaining a lectureship in comparative anatomy in London, where he was only known as a geologist. If Mantell had chosen science in preference to medicine, then his standard of living would have declined markedly. Although he was an accomplished speaker and writer, lecturing on geological topics in London was unlikely to bring in more than £100-£200 a year, and earnings from writing ‘popular’ geological books were also unlikely to exceed this range. Producing a serious reference book on, say, the fossil reptiles of Great Britain, would not have been practicable under these circumstances, because there would not have been sufficient time for the necessary investigations. In this regard Mantell’s case history is of particular interest, since a surgical apprenticeship and associated medical training was one of the few ways in which a talented young man from a humble background could gain an entry into the world of science during the first half of the nineteenth century.

4.3.4 1840-1850: BEGINNING ‘DE NOVO’ AND MATURITY to reviewers.

247 Following his relocation to Clapham in 1839, Mantell had to re-establish both his professional and geological careers, as well as his domestic base, a daunting task for a 50 year old with failing health and limited capital. Consequently, positioning again comprises a major underlying theme. In the case of Lyell, this period can be described as one of maturity; his career glided on predictably and successfully, despite the disappointment of not inheriting his father’s estate in 1849. (1) MANTELL

In several respects the decade started well for Mantell. In 1840 he became a member of the Athenaeum Club, albeit 16 years later than Lyell, and in December, he was elected to the GSL council, 15 years after his first, one year term as a member of council in 1825-26. Some of the benefits of a London base became evident. Mantell was to serve on the GSL council from 1841 to 1844 and from 1847 to 1852. He also served as a GSL vice-president from 1848 to 1850. Additionally, Mantell was elected to the council of the Royal Society of London for one-year terms in 1843 and 1850. Another development was that during the 1840s Mantell entered into a discreet, and perhaps platonic relationship, with a Miss Foster, first mentioned in his Private Journal in April 1840. In subsequent entries Miss Foster was usually described by Mantell as “my kind friend”, and there are circumspect entries concerning the interchange of birthday gifts, quiet dinners and outings, until Mantell’s death in 1852.281 This relationship has been largely ignored in the literature, though noted by Dell.282 There were also some ominous developments. On 12 March, 1840, Mantell’s youngest daughter, Hannah Matilda, who lived with him at Clapham, died aged 17 years and 3 months after a distressing three-year illness.283 Difficulties arose with the Clapham medical practice purchased from Sir William Pearson for £1500, compelling Mantell to take legal

281 Typical entries concerning Miss Foster are: 6 October 1842. Drove Miss Foster to Norwood & visited the grave of my beloved Hannah Matilda; 3 February 1846. My birthday. A present from my kindest friend Miss Foster ushered in the day; 1 October 1846. Presents from my kind friend Miss Foster as usual….Presented Miss Foster with a pearl brooch on her birthday; 22 January 1851. Yesterday Miss Foster dined with me: took her through the Park to see the grand Exhibition house. GAM-PJ. 282 S. Dell (ed.), ‘Gideon Algernon Mantell’s unpublished Journal, June-November 1852’, The Turnbull Library Record, 1983, 16, pp. 77-94, p. 79.

248 action.284 Moreover, his health continued to decline, having been aggravated by a spinal injury from a carriage accident. The following typical entries in Mantell’s Private Journal indicate the extent of his suffering throughout the decade:

27 October 1841. Ill with symptoms of paralysis arising from spinal disease brought on by over exertion in stooping over my poor girl…in 1839 and 1840.

4 May 1842. Confined to my bed – very ill with neuralgia of the heart. Took 75 drops of laudanum and 12 drops of prussic acid before any relief was obtained.

21 March 1843. Very ill.

27 February 1844. Nothing can exceed my sufferings the last 3 weeks, except for short intervals.

3 April 1846. So ill I was obliged to go to bed and take large doses of opium which as usual made me sick incessantly for several hours.

19 March 1848. Dreadful suffering all night: took ether – of no avail whatever. Then inhaled chloroform

22 July 1849…severe paroxysm of neuralgia.

13 February 1851. Suffering intensely from neuralgia in the sciatific [sic] nerve.

Mantell’s correspondent and friend, the Pulborough medical practitioner and amateur geologist Martin,285 was sufficiently alarmed at Mantell’s health and appearance to write to him in the following manner on 30 June 1846:

Dear Mantell,

Notwithstanding that I have been pretty well haunted by the recollection of my recent misfortune, I have found my mind frequently intruded by the image of your emaciated frame – animated as it is still by a “spirit that o’er tenements its clay” – and painfully spirited by the melancholy anticipations of an impending fate.

283 GAM-PJ, 12 March 1840. 284 GAM-PJ, December 1840. 285 Peter John Martin (1786-1860). Studied medicine in Edinburgh and at London hospitals and then joined his father’s practice at Pulborough, West Sussex. He wrote various geological and archaeological papers. DNB.

249 Recollect that a dead philosopher is of no use but to swell the obituary notices of the periodicals (impertinent Rascals)….286

One of the conspicuous characteristics of Mantell was that he did not succumb to his physical disabilities. His drive and determination to achieve success remained undiminished. During this period of his life Mantell had four papers published in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, two in the Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London; and he completed five geological books. He also ventured into the relatively new scientific field of microscopy. In addition to his health, family and medical-practice problems, another development had an adverse impact on Mantell during the 1840s, the emergence of Richard Owen as a major English figure in comparative anatomy and vertebrate palaeontology. Owen, who was fourteen and a half years younger, had some background factors in common with Mantell. Neither was a gentleman by birth, and both were apprenticed to provincial surgeons in their mid-teens, although Owen also studied at, but did not graduate from, Edinburgh University. In 1826, one of Mantell’s former teachers at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, John Abernethy,287 arranged for Owen to be appointed assistant- conservator of the Hunterian Collection. Eight years later he married the only daughter of the conservator, William Clift.288 Unlike Mantell, Owen did not have the dilemma of a career-choice clash between science and medicine. Owen chose science and the salaried life of a comparative anatomist and museum conservator. In 1836, he was appointed Hunterian professor at the Royal College of Surgeons, and in 1844 was also appointed conservator, holding both positions until 1856.289 At the time of his appointment as conservator, Owen’s annual salary was increased to £500, but the College also provided free living quarters.290 Consequently, Owen was able to maintain the minimum lifestyle appropriate for a ‘gentleman-specialist’, and more importantly, was suitably positioned by the early 1840s to establish himself as England’s premier vertebrate palaentologist.

286 P.J. Martin to GAM, 30 June 1846, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 68. 287 John Abernethy (1764-1831). Surgeon at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, 1787-1827. DNB. 288 William Clift (1775-1849). Osteologist and medical draftsman. Conservator of the Hunterian Collection 1793-1844. DNB. 289 The summary details concerning Owen’s background and career were obtained from the DSB. 290 Rupke, op. cit. (note 59), pp. 19-20.

250 During the 1840s Mantell’s medical practice at Clapham did not prove a great success. He summed up his overall position in a letter to Silliman, dated 2 February 1846:

In the new edition of ‘Wonders’ I shall feel it a duty to omit the passage relating to the desirableness of medical men cultivating science. I now feel in all its force the remark of Sir Astley Cooper,291 that I should find my high scientific reputation an injury to my professional success. It is my present intention to go on quietly here for a while, finish my two works now in hand – the Nervous System and the Isle of Wight – then work up my lectures to a serviceable state – and if my health is neither better or worse, then attempt a change of air for a month; and by its effects determine my future career; for I am now sadly wasting away my little capital, though I live most plainly. But my profession compels me to keep a carriage and appearance, which are not otherwise necessary to me.292

Mantell’s conception of living plainly illustrates the relativity of that term. After spending five years at Clapham, Mantell moved to a house at 19 Chester Square, Pimlico, on 23 September 1844. This residence, which he described as “a small, very pleasant and convenient house” situated “in the heart of the most aristocratic part of London”, had six floors, besides a basement,293 and the household comprised a total of seven people.294 The annual rent was £160.295 Additionally, Mantell at least partially supported his wife,296 and so his annual expenditures can be estimated as follows:

MANTELL’S ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURES 1845-1852 (pounds)

Food and Household Provisions 180 Entertainments and Misc. Expenses 35 Clothes 60

291 Sir Astley Paston Cooper (1768-1841). Eminent London surgeon. DNB. 292 GAM to Silliman, 2 February 1846; quoted by Spokes, op. cit. (note 38), p. 184. 293 Curwen op. cit. (note 42), in a note on p.188. 294 Mantell’s household comprised Mantell, his youngest son Reginald (while completing his clerkship with the engineer, Brunel), his sister Mrs West, an assistant and coachman, and 2 female servants. GAM to Silliman, 17 October 1844 and 2 December 1844; quoted by Spokes, op. cit. (note 38), pp. 166-168. 295 GAM-PJ, entry 5 October 1852.

251 Rent and Taxes 190 Coach and 2 horses 100 House servants 120 Club and Society Fees, Books 60 Contingencies 55 Sub-total 800 Possible Allowance for wife 100 ESTIMATED ANNUAL EXPENDITURE £900

Even a cursory review of Mantell’s Private Journal during the years 1840 to 1852 indicates the declining attention given to his medical practice. In brief, Mantell supplemented his income through a combination of lecturing, writing popular geological books, sales of fossils, and receiving interest from investments. On his death Mantell left a capital sum of £6500297 that would have yielded approximately £210 a year when invested in ‘consols’ at 3-3.5 per cent. Income from this source appears to have exceeded his earnings from a combination of writing, lecturing and fossil sales. Mantell’s earnings from his geological books averaged less than £100 a year, as indicated on the following page. MANTELL’S EARNINGS FROM GEOLOGICAL BOOKS, 1844-1851298

1844 Medals of Creation (1st Ed.) (£30) 1846 Thoughts on Animalcules £100 1847 Geological Tour of the Isle of Wight £100 1848 Wonders of Geology (6th Ed.) £105 1849 Thoughts on a Pebble (8th Ed.) £ 25 1851 Petrifactions and their Teachings £105

Mantell’s income from lecturing activities during the latter half of the decade could not have averaged more than £50 a year, judging from his

296 GAM to B. Silliman, 2 December 1844; quoted by Spokes, op. cit. (note 38), p. 168. 297 Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 121. 298 The net indicated earnings have been obtained from the following entries in GAM-PJ: 21 September 1844; 9 December 1845; 21 May 1846; 1 May 1848; 10 October 1849; and 21 November

252 Private Journal entries. As Lyell had indicated ten years earlier,299 lecturing in London was less remunerative and more dispiriting than in the provincial cities, as illustrated by the following Private Journal entries concerning lectures given by Mantell in London and Leeds:

25 March 1848. Delivered a lecture at the Mary-le-bone Institution on the fossil bones of New Zealand, at three in the afternoom. Only about 50 persons: my loss will be nearly [£]6-10- 0. So much for my chance of profit from lectures – this will not do.300

5 April 1852. (Monday) A fine day, left with my footman, for the Great Northern Station at King’s Cross. Started at eleven; reached Leeds before seven and drove to lodgings. 6 April (Tuesday) To the Mechanics Institution and had the diagrams fixed up. Gave my first lecture from 8 to 9½ to a large audience; passed off very well. 7 April Sauntered about this horribly carboniferous town. 8 April My second lecture: room crowded capitally: a most attentive auditory. 12 April Lectured from 8 to 9½. capital audience. 14 April (Wednesday) My fourth and last lecture from 8 to 9¾. The President and Managers were much pleased: it appeared no scientific lectures had been so successful. 15 April (Thursday) Mr Train called and paid me £52-10-0 for my course of lectures. 19 April (Monday) My trip to Leeds York &c cost about twelve pounds: add to this £5 I gave my brother for staying here in my absence, and £3 for diagrams = £20 : so I clear about £32-10-0.301

Fossil sales proved to be even less rewarding and comprised sundry sales to the British Museum for sums in the range £10-25.302 It is therefore likely that Mantell was not able to supplement his income by more than £150 through his writing, lecturing and fossil sale activities. Assuming dividends of £200 from his investments, and annual capital depletions of perhaps £250, Mantell’s income from his medical practice would have been around £300. Thus Mantell’s decision to combine a scientific career with the practice of medicine resulted in him being no better off than Owen.

1851. 299 CL to GAM, 3 March 1836, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 64. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 139). 300 GAM-PJ, entry 25 March 1848. 301 Ibid., entries 5-19 April, 1852. 302 Ibid., entries 4 April 1847; 1 May 1848; 31 October 1850; 5 November 1850.

253 Moreover, Owen had the time and opportunity to conduct serious palaeontological investigations. Mantell was much more restricted in his options. A further feature of Mantell’s career in the 1840s is that he does not appear to have lost any social status because of his lecturing and fossil sale activities. In fact, one of Mantell’s consolations during the last decade of his life must have been his participation in the London social scene. The pleasure with which he recorded the following journal entries is almost palpable.

15. Saturday [June 1844] – Visited Sir Robert Peel, who had sent me a very kind invitation to an evening party to meet the King of Saxony. Arrived there before ten, and was received by Lady Peel. A brilliant but select company. Sir Robert received me very courteously, and expressed how delighted he was with my new book, which he had been reading that morning. Introduced me to the King of Saxony who conversed with me some time on my specimens in the British Museum….The Marquess of Northampton, Dr Buckland, Mr Whewell, Sir B. Brodie, Sir John Herschel, and numerous other scientific friends were of the party; together with the foreign Ambassadors, Lord Lyndhurst, etc….

June 13 Wednesday [1849]. – Dined with Earl and Countess of Rosse, M. Guizot, Lords Northampton and Holland, Sir H. De la B., Rennie and C. Lemon were of the party.

March 12 [1852]. – Dressed with difficulty and at ½ past ten went to the soiree of the Duchess of Northumberland at Northumberland House….Met many persons I knew: grouped with Sir John Herschel, Brande and others. The Duke of Wellington was there …..all the elite of nobility and fashion and a good sprinkling of the aristocracy of science.303

Another triumph for Mantell during this decade was the award of the Royal Medal from the Royal Society of London in 1849, despite vehement objections from Owen. Lyell, in particular, was one of Mantell’s staunchest supporters in ensuring that Mantell received this honour304 for his palaeontological papers published in Philosophical Transactions,305 and in

303 Ibid., entries 15 June 1844, 13 June 1849 and 12 March 1852. 304 GAM-PJ, entries 18 October and 26, 29 and 30 November 1849, and CL to GAM, 29 and 30 November 1849. (Supp. Vol.-Letters 215, 216). Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 65. 305 G.A. Mantell,i‘Memoir on a Portion of the Lower Jaw of the Iguanodon and on the Remains of the Hylaeosaurus and other Saurians’, PTRSL, 1841, 131, pp. 153-158;i‘On the Fossil Remains of

254 particular for his 1848 paper ‘On the Structure of the Jaws and teeth of the Iguanodon’. Mantell also received strong support from Buckland, Murchison and Horner.306 On 27 June 1852 Mantell was able to record another acknowledgment of his scientific work:

To my astonishment recd. a note from the Earl of Rosse informing me that at his suggestion the Minister, Lord Derby, had offered me an annuity of £100: as an expression of respect from the Crown for my scientific labours!307

Mantell was not to enjoy the benefit of this annuity for long. He died on 10 November 1852 as a result of an overdose of opium, taken to relieve the suffering from his spinal disorder.308

(2) LYELL

In 1841 Lyell was invited to give a series of 12 lectures at the Lowell Institution in Boston for a fee of 2000 dollars, “a striking contrast to the remuneration that he had any prospect of obtaining in this country”.309 In fact, Lyell received double this amount, equivalent to £800. Silliman, who was one of Lyell’s hosts, commented on this visit in a letter to Mantell:

To be invited in a professional character to visit a foreign country, to be everywhere canvassed and pioneered by scientific men, to have a years range of thousands of miles of diversified geological structures and to be paid four thousand dollars (profits of extra courses included) is a rare chance, and if he does not go back in good humour with the country, it would be useless to attempt to please any future scientific visitor.310

Lyell indeed came back in good humour with North America, and made the Soft Parts of Foraminifera’, PTRSL, 1846, 136, pp. 465-472;i‘On the Structure of the Jaws and Teeth of the Iguanodon’, PTRSL, 1848, 138, pp. 183-202;i‘Observations on some Belemnites and other Fossil Remains of Cephalopoda, discovered by Mr Reginald Mantell, C.E. in the Oxford Clay’, PTRSL, 1848, 138, pp. 171-182. 306 W. Buckland to GAM, 22 November 1849, and R.I. Murchison to GAM, 26 November 1849. Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folders 22 and 74. 307 GAM-PJ, entry 27 June 1852. 308 Vallance, op. cit. (note 44), p. 98. 309 E.H. Bunbury, op. cit. (note 25), p. 120.

255 another successful visit in 1845-46.311 In addition to the substantial boost to his income as a result of his American lectures, Lyell also negotiated the printing of authorised American editions of Principles of Geology and Elements of Geology,312 and subsequently wrote two travel/geological books describing his first two visits to North America.313 Silliman also discerned another reason for Lyell’s success, his single- mindedness.

Geology seemed to be the primary orb around which other subjects revolved. I wrote them a warm farewell when they were going away but the only letter that we received was of August 1 to B.S. [Benjamin Silliman] junior concerning several papers for publication or replication in the American Journal and the only personal allusion to us was in a single line at the close of the letter.314

Things did not change during Lyell’s second trip to the United States in 1845-1846.

I think you will obtain very little from him as regards our personal, those particulars of position, person, manner, house &c home &c which would interest you as a warm friend: he is so absorbed in things that were: that those that are – at least the human, seem to attract him but little altho he appears & I believe is kind in his feelings; he is in a state of Geoll. abstraction too prevailing to admit of much social sympathy which you will find in a much higher degree in his amiable and lovely wife.315

Lyell was granted a knighthood in 1848, Mantell being one of the first to congratulate him.316 At this stage Mantell must have realised that he had little chance of receiving such an honour. However, Lyell did face one disappointment during this decade. Following his father’s death on 8

310 B. Silliman to GAM, 13 July 1842, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Silliman letters. 311 Accounts of Lyell’s lecturing and geological visits to the U.S.A. in 1841-42 and 1845-46 are given by R.H. Dott, Jr., ‘Lyell in America – His Lectures, Field Work, and Mutual Influences, 1841-1853’, Earth Sciences History: Journal of the History of the Earth Sciences Society, 1996, 15, pp. 101-140, andiRobert H. Silliman, ‘The Hamlet Affair: Charles Lyell and the North Americans’, Isis, 1995, 86, pp. 541-561. 312 Dott, ibid., p. 102. 313 C. Lyell, Travels in North America, with Geological Observations on the United States, Canada and Nova Scotia, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1845 and A Second Visit to the United States, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1849. 314 B. Silliman to GAM, 4 September 1843, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Silliman letters. 315 B. Silliman to GAM, 18 July 1846, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Silliman letters. 316 GAM to CL, 23 September 1848, Kinnordy mss, Kirriemuir. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 199).

256 November 1849, Lyell unexpectedly discovered that he was not the principal heir to the family estate:

Instead his father’s will established a trust, from which the eight Lyell children were to receive equal shares of the income. Sir Charles Lyell would continue to receive 500 pounds annually that he had received since his marriage. In addition he was to receive the rent from the home farm of the Kinnordy estate, plus his one eighth share of the trust income. Lyell’s income was thus increased after his father’s death, but much less so than if he had been his father’s principal heir.317

(3) OVERVIEW OF THE YEARS 1840-1852

Although Mantell’s scientific achievements during the 1840s must be regarded as meritorious, if not valiant given his personal circumstances, the underlying theme that emerges is the difficulty faced by anyone trying to achieve eminence in science, while still obliged to maintain a different occupational activity. In this regard the contrast between Mantell’s and Owen’s positioning is pertinent. One trend that can be discerned during this decade concerns the emergence of some aspects of professionalisation. Mantell does not appear to have experienced any social bias as a result of his lecturing and fossil-sale activities. Nor did Lyell as a result of his lecturing visits in the U.S.A. To some extent these incipient changes are reflected in a comment made by Lyell to Mantell in a letter of 1847 thanking him for a copy of Geological Excursions round the Isle of Wight:318

The way in which you have for the first time recorded my earliest work to all others hitherto unknown at p. 135 gives me a kind of mixed pleasure which I cannot easily describe or define. At that time I would have willingly devoted myself vigorously and exclusively to the science & tho’ 8 years of law reading which followed against my natural bias would not have been lost to geology had I been able to see as a young man now can the rank which in spite of all untoward circumstances, our studies have forced their return into in this country.319

317 Private communication to the author from Professor L.G. Wilson, 7 November 1996. Information based on Kinnordy mss. 318 G.A. Mantell, Geological Excursions round the Isle of Wight and along the Adjacent Coast of Dorsetshire illustrative of the most Interesting Geological Phenomena and Organic Remains, Bohn, London, 1846. 319 CL to GAM, 9 March 1847, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 65. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 193).

257 This is one of the few letters in which Lyell exhibited a sense of warmth and nostalgia.

4.4 CONCLUSIONS

In this chapter the analysis of the various social and other factors that affected the careers of Lyell and Mantell focused on the question of how an ambitious person, with gentlemanly pretensions, could establish the necessary base to achieve elite status in English geology during the period 1815 to 1850. To this end the contrasting backgrounds of the two men are particularly apposite; Lyell’s career is quintessentially that of a ‘gentleman- specialist’, and Mantell’s that of an ambitious ‘outsider’. Mantell’s career is especially instructive, since it goes beyond the conventional case history of illustrating how an intelligent and socially disadvantaged young man could use medicine and natural history to ‘rise’ in the world. In his quest for social status and geological eminence, Mantell encountered almost every social barrier.320 Moreover, his geological achievements were significant and almost matched his aspirations. Consequently the case histories of the two men provide a broad appreciation of, as well as some fresh insights into, the social nuances and practices of English geology in the first half of the nineteenth century. The analysis of the years to 1820 necessarily concentrates on Mantell, who overcame the social barriers pertaining to a relatively humble family background, whose father was both a political radical and religious dissenter, and who was prevented from attending the local grammar school, let alone university. The crucial step in Mantell’s advancement was his apprenticeship to a Lewes surgeon at the age of fifteen, and then being able to proceed to St. Bartholomew’s Hospital in London. His subsequent success in building up a medical practice at Lewes is almost predictable, given his ambition, intelligence, and willingness to work long hours. It is also not surprising that during this period Mantell espoused moderate and not radical whig opinions in public, and that he and his family re-joined the Established Church. However, these particular measures were insufficient to give Mantell his

320 Although racial and gender barriers existed in nineteenth-century England, they are not pertinent

258 desired professional and social entrée into the circles of the Sussex gentry. This mechanism was provided through the cultivation of his interest in local antiquities and natural history. As a result of these interests and early enthusiasms, Mantell was able to build up relationships with influential county land-owners and potential patrons such as Davies Gilbert and John Hawkins. Additionally, he entered into correspondence on geological matters with comparably important contacts beyond the environs of Lewes, such as Greenough and Benett. Although Mantell’s initial letters clearly indicate his socially subservient status and eagerness to please, the resulting exchange of information developed into a virtual training and research programme for him. In this respect Mantell differed from the normal, amateur enthusiast who was content to exchange specimens and data with other amateur enthusiasts. Mantell also proved adept in establishing new contacts with selected notables, such as Buckland, by sending parcels of rare fossils. By the close of 1820 Mantell was a member of both the Linnean and Geological Societies of London, and these memberships alone provide a measure of his success in overcoming early social handicaps. However, such achievements cannot be regarded as singular or remarkable in England during this period of social flux and change. Mantell’s history up to this stage essentially illustrates how an able and ambitious youth from a humble background could rise in provincial society by building up a medical practice and cultivating natural history interests. Mantell still had a long way to go to attain the status he so strongly desired. As yet he was only partly aware of the problems of a provincial base, let alone the need to be correctly positioned to take full advantage of a major geological opportunity. It was Mantell’s responses to these key barriers and challenges which makes an analysis of his career informative, and provide fresh insights into the difficulties of establishing a geological career in the first half of the nineteenth century. Mantell had hopes that his 1822 publication, Fossils of the South Downs, would bring him both geological status and “that introduction to the first circles in this neighbourhood which I had been led to expect it would have done”.321 Although this lavishly illustrated book was not a failure, it did not fulfil Mantell’s expectations. It also made him aware of the to the context of this thesis. 321 GAM-PJ, entry 31 December 1822.

259 disadvantages of his provincial location322 – no geological or social networks, the absence of a reference library, the time and cost restraints in visiting London, and experiencing the envy of jealous and resentful neighbours, besides the sneers of the ‘metropolitan monopolists’.323 These difficulties and frustrations would have been accentuated following his election to the GSL council in 1825-26. His election as a member of council at this time was the most noteworthy provincial appointment in the GSL during the period 1807 to 1850. Mantell would have been even further frustrated after Lyell and Bakewell pointed out in 1829 and 1832 respectively that the time was right for him to produce a major work on ‘British Fossil Reptiles and Fish’. In Lyell’s words:

By this you may render yourself truly great which without much travelling you will never become in general geol.y. The field is yours - but might not remain open many years. It is worthy of ambition & the only one which in an equally short time you could make your own in England for ever.324

However, at this stage Mantell was not well positioned to take up this particular challenge. He was married with four young children, and in order to find time for such a task he would have had to curtail his medical practice, and hence his income. In his career to date Mantell had been essentially single-minded in his pursuit of social status and in the fashioning of his image, rather than in geological achievement. His end-of-year Private Journal entries focus on his social standing and not on resolving geological or palaeontological questions. Mantell’s assumption of arms, visions of restored family grandeur, and yearning for a knighthood are indications of how he modelled his self-image around the concept of an aristocratic, cultivated, whig ‘gentleman of science’.325 Consequently, it is understandable that Mantell was not prepared to reduce his stylish standard of living, which was dependent on the earnings from his medical practice. In any case, he did

322 “If I fail this year, I will then remove elsewhere”. GAM-PJ, entry 1 January 1823. 323 Lyell used this term in his letter to GAM , 23 March 1829. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 55). 324 CL to GAM, 23 March 1829, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 62. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 59). 325 The concept of modelling a self-image has been adapted from Shortland’s analysis of Hugh Miller and his contention that Miller self-modelled his image around the concept of manliness, from which he derived his sense of self-worth. M. Shortland, ‘Bonneted mechanic and narrative hero: the self- modelling of Hugh Miller’, in M. Shortland (ed.), Hugh Miller and the Controversies of Victorian Science, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1996, pp. 14-75.

260 not have the capital sum of £13,250 that would have provided the minimum income of £430 required for a gentlemanly life-style. Moreover, there were few, if any, socially acceptable positions in natural science that offered an income near this salary level. Instead, Mantell made his disastrous move to Brighton, where he naively assumed he would be able to combine three major activities: a fashionable medical practice, the establishment of a natural history museum and the pursuit of his geological interests. Although Mantell was able to begin ‘de novo’ at Clapham in the 1840s, his fundamental positioning problem remained unchanged. He was not disposed to follow Lyell’s dictum of “all medicine or all science”.326 Because of this failure to resolve his career-choice clash, as Lyell did with law in the late 1820s, Mantell was never properly positioned to establish a major geological domain. After 1830 this required a virtual full-time commitment to the discipline. During the 1830s Mantell’s geological work was essentially restricted to the publication of popular books on geology. In the 1840s, when Owen claimed the domain of ‘British Fossil Reptiles’, Mantell’s geological work comprised a diverse mix of popular and serious work. Mantell’s strategy of combining medical and geological careers was essentially self-defeating and non-synergistic. In short, patients would not go to a doctor because of his non-medical scientific attainments or reputation. This problem of identity also affected Mantell’s ability to obtain a medical lecturing position in London, where he was known as a geologist and not as a comparative anatomist. Furthermore, it proved very difficult to offset a decline in earnings from the practice of medicine by geological lecturing and writing. During the 1840s Mantell did not earn more than £150-200 a year from both these activities, and in the 1830s Lyell’s average annual earnings from his publications were only £229. In comparison to Mantell, Owen was much better positioned to conduct palaeontological investigations in his capacity as conservator of the Hunterian Collection on a salary of £500, plus free housing. Unlike Mantell, Lyell did not have to bother with self-modelling his image. As a gentleman there was simply no need. However, Lyell was single- minded about fashioning his geological career and in this regard he

326 CL to GAM, 3 March 1836, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 64. (Supp. Vol.-Letter 139).

261 demonstrated his understanding of the key factors involved in his quoted letter to Mantell of 23 March 1829. Unlike Mantell, Lyell followed these precepts. Other factors that had an influence on the geological careers of the two men were health, domestic circumstances, and personal qualities. Although Mantell suffered from almost continual ill-health during the last 20 years of his life, it had little bearing on his key problems of provincialism and the resolution of his career-choice dilemma. On the other hand, Lyell used the weakness of his eyes as an argument to foresake law for geology. The domestic circumstances of Lyell and Mantell provide another contrast between the two men. However, the respective roles of their spouses does not appear to have been a significant factor, even though Lyell benefited from having a socially adroit ‘helper’ as his wife. The correspondence between Lyell and Mantell reveals that the two men exhibited markedly different personal qualities. Lyell was reserved, ruthless, and hard-headed, in contrast to Mantell’s ebullience, romanticism, and commercial naiveté. Nevertheless, besides intelligence and ambition, both men had an extremely important quality in common, single-mindedness. However, as a final contrast Mantell’s single-mindedness was primarily directed to fashioning his self-image, Lyell’s to fashioning his geological career. CHAPTER FIVE

CONCLUSION

In this thesis the central question of why Mantell did not achieve the status of an elite geologist has been approached by examining three aspects of English geology on a decade-by-decade basis. The first aspect encompassed questions concerning the emergence of an elite group of geologists in England during the first half of the nineteenth century and the number and nature of its members. To this end prosopographic and ‘screening’ techniques were used to categorise the social status of members of the GSL council and to identify those who met stipulated criteria relating to institutional power and contemporary geological achievement. The next aspect involved an investigation into the nature, scope, and timing of the geological work

262 carried out by the identified elite, with particular emphasis being given to the work of Lyell and Mantell. In order to analyse the investigations of the 15 identified geologists, the technique of using four different kinds of geological domain was adopted, each of which could be sub-classified in terms of their relative importance. The results from the application of these methodologies then provided a framework for examining the effect that various social and other factors had on the geological careers of Lyell and Mantell. In this concluding chapter the decade-by-decade findings from each of the three main chapters are related to each other and then overall conclusions are drawn.

5.1 1807 - 1820

The prosopographic and ‘screening’ studies for the period 1807 to 1820 indicate that during these years the council was not dominated by any one specific group of members. Although 49% of the 61 GSL members who served on the council for at least one year belonged to the upper class, social category one, their numbers were almost matched by those belonging to the middle class grouping of social category two. The breakdown of these members into occupational categories better illustrates the varied nature of council membership in the 1810s: 25% were gentlemen of independent means and a further 5% ‘gentleman or clergyman-specialists’, 38% engaged in the recognised professions of the law, established church, medicine and the army, 18% were business proprietors, and 8% museum curators and lecturers. In contrast to the 1830s, these percentages did not change markedly when the analysis was restricted to those members of council with more than three years service, including election to one of the senior offices, such as vice- president or secretary. In summary, the GSL council ‘mix’ of aristocratic ‘gentleman-amateurs’, clergymen, successful Quaker manufacturers, ambitious businessmen, army officers, physicians, diplomats, and curators, reflects the varied motivations and interests of those participating in English geology during the first two decades of the nineteenth century. The ‘gentleman and clergyman-specialists’ had not yet emerged as a distinct group. Nor were any members of council for the period 1807 to 1820 identified in the final screening list of an identified geological elite. Moreover, only one member appears on the penultimate listing, Wollaston, whose research focused on physiology and metallurgy, rather than geology.

263 The fact that the screening analyses did not designate any members of an identified geological elite in the 1810s is matched by the paucity of geological domains fashioned during this period. In fact Greenough, one of the two ‘exceptions’, was the solitary member of council who had established a domain by 1820, an idiosyncratic ‘modal’ domain characterised by a sceptical attitude to most, if not all, aspects of geological theory. Buckland’s domain of diluvialism was only in the process of being established in the late 1810s. At the close of this period Mantell was 30 years of age, married with two children. He had built up a successful medical practice at Lewes, established a local reputation in natural history, and had been a member of the GSL for two years. In attaining this position Mantell exploited two key opportunities. First, he was fortunate that his dissenting, radical whig father could afford to pay 200 guineas (£220) for his surgical apprenticeship. Second, his enthusiasm and interest in antiquities, fossils, and geology enabled him to cultivate mentors and patrons such as John Hawkins and Davies Gilbert from the local gentry, Etheldred Benett in Wiltshire, and Greenough in London. During these years Mantell also returned to the fold of the established church, assumed the armorial bearings of presumed forebears, and subdued his political beliefs. In short, his career to this stage represents a conventional case history of how an ambitious young man of modest means could use a surgical apprenticeship and an interest in natural history to climb the provincial social ladder. Nevertheless, Mantell was acutely conscious of the disparity between the status of his present position and his aspirations. Few of his patients were members of the Sussex gentry, and his role as a geologist was essentially restricted to describing local phenomena and sending information and samples to London. Lyell was 22 years of age when he joined the GSL in 1819, the year he came down from Oxford after obtaining second class honours in classics as a gentleman commoner. His privileged background illustrates a different conventional ‘norm’, that of a future ‘gentleman-specialist’. His only misfortune was a weakness in his eyes, which became inflamed after prolonged reading. Both Lyell and Mantell joined the GSL at a felicitous time in the late 1810s. The society was ready for ‘new blood’, there was no rigid research programme, and major investigative opportunities were yet to be determined

264 in most areas of the new discipline.

5.2 1820 - 1830

In most respects the basic pattern indicated in the prosopographic and ‘screening’ analyses of the 1810s continued throughout the 1820s. The occupational composition of the 71 members of council who served from 1820 to 1830 approximates that of the 1810s, as do the relative proportions of the two social status categories. However, some trends can be detected when the members of council are restricted to those with more than three years service, including a term in one of the elected offices. Using these more stringent criteria, the percentage of members of council belonging to social category one increased from 48 per cent in the 1810s to 58 per cent in the 1820s. More significantly, a decline in the percentage of ‘independent gentlemen’ from 32 to 15 per cent was offset by an increase in the percentage of ‘gentleman and clergyman-specialists’ from 4 to 19 per cent. The process whereby this distinctive group came to dominate the activities of the GSL was therefore underway in the 1820s. Nevertheless, Buckland is the only member listed in the identified elite for the decade, while the anomalous figure of Wollaston again appears on the penultimate list. A feature of the ‘screening’ analyses for the period 1820 to 1830 is that Mantell is highlighted as the singular ‘provincial’ member of the GSL council following its foundation in 1807. In this context the term ‘provincial’ has pejorative as well as geographical connotations, provincial members being defined as those situated in the country with no London base, and who could not afford to be absent from their occupational duties for long or frequent periods. The definition excludes Oxbridge academics and established clergymen with a country living. Again, there is a close correspondence between members identified in the screening tests for the 1820s and those instrumental in establishing a geological domain. Buckland, the solitary member identified in the final screening list, successfully fashioned the only major domain, diluvialism. Greenough, one of the two exceptions, maintained his ‘modal’ domain, despite criticisms of his sceptical approach from some of his GSL peers. Additionally, Conybeare, Sedgwick, and Whewell, who were on the penultimate or final ‘screening’ lists for the 1830s, were in the process of

265 developing their joint ‘modal’ domain of the English school, in conjunction with Buckland. Of the others on the selected lists for the next decade, Lyell’s geological investigations became increasingly focused on causal geology throughout the 1820s, although he did not crystallise his concept of absolute actualism until 1829. Murchison, De la Beche, and Sedgwick had not identified their separate future domains, but were well positioned to exploit any suitable opportunities. In particular, their geological ‘apprenticeship’ gave them an understanding of the formations above the Carboniferous system, and an awareness of the potential domain or domains beneath it. Neither Fitton nor Mantell was included on the penultimate or final lists for the 1820s and 1830s, though they were listed on the penultimate list for the 1840s. Both men fashioned minor ‘taxonomic’ domains in the 1820s. Fitton’s stratigraphic domain was maintained over the next two decades, but Mantell’s minor domain, the fossils of Sussex, was too broad and not sustainable, except in the immediate short term. Lyell recognised the situation, and in 1829 strongly urged Mantell to fashion an outstanding major domain – British fossil reptiles. On the personal side, the 1820s were years of both frustration and achievement for Mantell. His two major books, The Fossils of the South Downs and Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, published in 1822 and 1827 respectively, did not give him his intended “introduction to the first circles of the neighbourhood”.1 This yearning appears to reflect Mantell’s priorities in the 1820s: high social status was more important than scientific achievement. Nevertheless, he had some measure of success. The discovery of the Iguanodon gave him recognition, and led to his election to the Royal Society of London in 1825, and to the GSL council in 1826. At this stage of his career Mantell regarded his provincial location at Lewes as the major obstacle to both his social and geological ambitions. He wished to pursue these two goals concurrently and was not well positioned to do so. If he had decided to forge the identified domain of British fossil reptiles, then his most practicable alternative would probably have been to stay at Lewes and curtail his medical practice by limiting the number of patients, or enlisting the services of another practitioner. In this way Mantell could have had sufficient time for his palaeontological investigations, but it would have also entailed a significant reduction in his style and standard of living. However,

266 this was not a sacrifice that Mantell was willing to make. At the end of the decade Mantell therefore faced the problem of how to achieve fame through geology, without compromising his fashionable mode of living – a formidable task. During the 1820s Lyell also faced a crossroads in his career. Having decided on a gentlemanly career in geology, and being financially dependent on an annual allowance of £400 from his father, Lyell’s problem was how to gain his father’s acceptance, if not approval, for his intended career change from the law. By the end of the decade Lyell had achieved this goal, using his weak eyes as a major argument. Additionally, he had also proved that he could supplement his allowance through writing. By 1830 Lyell was therefore reasonably, but not ideally ‘positioned’, to fashion his identified ‘causal’ domain. The 1820s was not a decade for establishing major new domains, and in particular, ‘taxonomic’ domains. Instead, it was a decade for solving stratigraphic anomalies above the Carboniferous; for finding and describing, but not classifying, monstrous fossil reptiles; for substantiating the use of particular fossils in stratigraphic correlation; for developing and broadening the scope of the English school’s approach to geology; and for new members such as Lyell, Murchison, and De la Beche to complete their ‘geological apprenticeship’. In essence, it was a decade for positioning: attaining sufficient geological experience and knowledge to be able to identify a major new domain, and then being in an appropriate position to exploit it.

5.3 1830 - 1840

The prosopographic and ‘screening’ analyses for the 1830s indicate that the incipient trends detected in the previous decade became pronounced during this period. In particular, the GSL council became increasingly dominated by members belonging to the upper class, social category one.

Members of council with min. of one years service 1807-20 1820-30 1830-40

Number of councillors 61 71 60 – Social category 1 49% 53% 68%

1 GAM-PJ, entry 31 December 1822.

267 – Social category 2 43% 41% 29%

– Gentleman and clergyman-specialists 5% 11% 23% – Independent gentlemen 25% 21% 27%

In part, the above trends reflect the retirement of the middle class Quakers, most of whom had been members of the former Askesian Society before they played a significant role in the founding of the GSL. Another factor was the social ‘advancement’ to category one of some of the successful professionals and business proprietors, such as Lyell’s father-in-law, Leonard Horner. More pertinently, control of the GSL council in the 1830s passed to the ‘gentleman and clergyman-specialists’ because Buckland, Sedgwick, Fitton, Lyell, Murchison, De la Beche, Egerton, Conybeare, and Whewell were generally well positioned at the start of the decade in terms of available time, location, inclination and geological experience to effectively ‘take-over’ the society. This development is illustrated below, where the analysis is confined to those members of council with a minimum of three years service, including election to one of the society’s senior offices.

Members of council with minimum of 3 years 1807-20 1820-30 1830-40 service plus election to senior GSL office

Number of councillors 25 26 19

– Social category 1 48% 58% 84% – Social category 2 52% 42% 16%

– Gentleman and clergyman-specialists 4% 19% 47% – Independent gentlemen 32% 15% 32% – Recognised professions 28% 35% 16% – Business proprietors and manufacturers 24% 23% -

– Also served on the Royal Society council 4% 8% 53%

Only two members of council appeared on the penultimate ‘screening’ list for the 1820s, and one on the final list of the identified elite. During the 1830s these numbers increased to seven and five respectively. All were ‘gentleman or clergyman-specialists’. These figures suggest that it was not until the 1830s that a geological elite emerged or could emerge. Furthermore, with the exception of De la Beche who was on the

268 penultimate but not final list, all members identified in the final two ‘screening lists’ for the 1830 to 1840 decade fashioned a diverse range of major geological domains. De la Beche’s, ‘modal’ domain at the Geological Survey was in the process of being established. Additionally, the two ‘exceptions’, Greenough and Phillips, respectively maintained and forged their domains. A further point in common is that all of these geologists were in a position to engage in geological activities on a virtual full-time basis if necessary, or alternatively, were employed on a full-time basis in a geological capacity. In this respect Mantell was the exception. During the 1830s he was so beset by financial problems and the failure of his Brighton medical practice that he failed to capitalise on his discoveries of the Iguanodon and Hylaeosaurus and fashion a domain. In fact his position retrogressed; in the latter half of the decade Owen moved into the area of British fossil reptiles. Mantell’s intentions, when deciding to move to Brighton, were to forsake the provincialism of Lewes, obtain a ‘higher’ class of patient, maintain his income, and enhance his geological reputation through his museum. He envisaged that the Brighton public would regard him as both a medical practitioner and cultivated man of science, and that his geological and fossil collection would attract the ‘right’ type of patient. In essence, his strategy focused on the enhancement of his social, rather than geological status. The necessity of making a firm decision concerning choice of careers was brought home to Mantell after the failure of his Brighton venture in the mid-1830s. In his letters Lyell succinctly summed up the choices open to Mantell: “I believe there is no alternative but all medicine or all science”, and with the wisdom of hindsight, “I went through the same struggle when I cut law”.2 Mantell’s dilemma was that he was only recognised as a medical practitioner in Lewes; in London, he was known as a geologist and was therefore precluded from obtaining a lecturing position in comparative anatomy. On the other hand, it was unlikely that Mantell could have earned more than £100-£200 a year from lecturing on geological topics in London, and his earnings from writing ‘popular’, yet successful scientific books, never exceeded £105 a publication. Even after he sold his collection to the British Museum for £4,000, Mantell’s capital barely totalled £6,000 – sufficient to provide a private annual income of £175 if invested in ‘consols’.

269 The total of these three potential streams of income would have approximated £430, the figure required to maintain the minimal life-style of a married ‘gentleman-specialist’. However, in this instance the required lecturing and writing activities would have left insufficient time to devote to serious geological investigations. The situation might have been different if he had been able and prepared to take up a curator’s position in the country, but Mantell was not a John Phillips, prepared to bide his time and carry out his investigations from the modest base of a Yorkshire museum. In contrast to Mantell, the 1830s proved to be years of achievement for Lyell. Although he had resolved the key question of his future career choice during the previous decade, Lyell was only moderately well positioned by its close. However, after making a judicious marriage and lecturing at King’s College, London, for two years, Lyell found that he could adequately supplement his income by regularly updating his Principles of Geology and to a lesser extent, the Elements of Geology. As a result of these measures Lyell’s annual income increased by an average of £229 to around £850, a figure that enabled him to enjoy a modest, but not lavish life-style, as a ‘gentleman-specialist’. In summary, the late 1820s and early 1830s marked a significant period, if not a watershed, in the development of English geology. Enough of the distinctive group of ‘gentleman and clergyman-specialists’ had so positioned themselves that not only did they effectively take-over the running of the GSL, but on an individual basis they fashioned a wide and important range of new geological domains. Mantell was never a member of this particular social category and his failure to suitably position himself in the 1830s highlights the advantages enjoyed by the ‘gentleman-specialists’.

5.4 1840 - 1850

The marked trends revealed in the prosopographic and ‘screening’ analyses for the 1830s continued into the 1840s. Eleven members were identified in the penultimate and seven in the final list for the decade, against seven and five members respectively for the 1830s. However, the basic pattern of the geological work carried out by the identified geologists during the 1840s was

2 CL to GAM, 3 and 18 March 1836, (Supp. Vol.-Letters 139 and 140).

270 one of consolidation and retention of domains, rather than the fashioning of new ones. The only new major domains were claimed by De la Beche and Owen, while Egerton established a minor domain in the taxonomic field of fossil fish. Even so, the basis of each of these three domains was established in the latter half of the previous decade. Mantell and Owen were included on the penultimate list for the period 1840 to 1850, the only two such members from social category two.3 Neither man made the final ‘screening’ list of seven, primarily because they were not elected to the GSL presidency. The final list of seven members was exclusively occupied by ‘gentleman and clergyman-specialists’ who had met this requirement. This point raises the question of whether Mantell, or others in his position, could have achieved the status of an elite geologist by election to the GSL presidency, rather than through the fashioning of a geological domain. Two points can be made in this regard. First, it is difficult to envisage some of the members who served as GSL president as having elite geological status. During the 1840s, for example, Warburton4 was president from 1843 to 1845, and Leonard Horner5 from 1845 to 1847. Neither of these men were the recipients of any medal for scientific achievement from the GSL or Royal Society, and their geological publications were of limited significance. Moreover, neither man fashioned a domain. Second, the primary focus in this thesis has been on the nature of an English geological elite, as distinct from an elite based on institutional or social status. The fact that all members listed in the final ‘screening’ lists for the 1830s and 1840s were ‘gentleman or clergyman-specialists’ who had also fashioned a geological domain, indicates at least a tenuous connection between social, institutional, and geological status. It is concluded that this connection was only causal in an indirect, and non-exclusive sense. Unlike Mantell, ‘gentleman and clergyman-specialists’ had the time and financial circumstances to devote themselves full-time, if necessary, to geological investigations and allied institutional matters. Major ‘taxonomic’ domains, in particular, could not be

3 The ‘exception’, John Phillips, would also have been regarded as having category two social status in the 1830s. 4 Henry Warburton (1784?-1858). Educated Eton and Trinity College, Cambridge. FRS 1809. Timber merchant. Political radical. MP for Bridport 1826-41 and for Kendal 1842-47. Member of GSL council 1812-38 and 1842-47, President 1843-45. Published four geological papers 1817-1845. 5 Leonard Horner (1785-1864). Member of GSL council 1809-10, 1810-14, 1828-32, 1837-64. GSL president 1845-47 and 1860-62. FRS 1813. Published 13 geological papers during the period 1811- 1860 which had no specific theme and were mainly descriptions or notes on varied geological phenomena.

271 fashioned on a part-time, ad hoc basis. Even so, not all ‘gentleman- specialists’ had the ability or inclination to identify and then establish a significant domain. Mantell again stands out as the major anomalous figure during the 1840s. He was the only member in the identified group of thirteen (including the two exceptions, Greenough and Phillips) who had not established a domain by the end of the decade. By the time he was able to re-enter the field of British fossil reptiles in the late 1830s, it was too late. Owen had seized the opportunity. Nevertheless, Mantell’s wide range of palaeontological investigations throughout the decade was remarkable, and he was successful in re-instating his geological career and reputation. He was not suitably ‘positioned’ though, in terms of health and available time, to fashion a major new domain. In several respects the end of the first half of the nineteenth century marked the close of a particular phase in English geology. Fitton, Whewell, Darwin, Buckland, and Greenough were no longer active in geological investigations. Mantell died in 1852, De la Beche and Greenough in 1855, and Buckland a year later. There were also other changes. ‘Gentleman- specialists’ could not match the more detailed and exacting mapping standards of the Geological Survey. Few major, grand domains such as the Silurian system or British fossil reptiles were waiting to be identified. Geology was to become increasingly specialised.

5.5 OVERALL SUMMARY

5.5.1 METHODOLOGY

It is concluded that the ‘screening’ criteria adopted in chapter two provided a rational basis for identifying members of an English geological elite during the first half of the nineteenth century. The various analyses indicate a good but not exceptional degree of correspondence between members who established a geological domain and those included on the final and penultimate screening lists. However, pre-determined screening criteria cannot be applied too rigidly. Flexibility and judgement are required to ensure that members who greatly exceed the requirements for one of the criteria, but fall short in regard to another, are taken into account.

272 The alternative methodology of using domains to identify members of a geological elite must satisfy two requirements. Domains need to be suitably differentiated in terms of importance, and the net must be cast sufficiently widely. Here the spread of the cast was restricted to senior GSL members of council, although exceptions were taken into account. The table on the following page lists the members of council who fashioned or maintained a major geological domain during the period from 1820 to 1850. This listing comprises three members in the 1820s, nine in the 1830s and ten in the 1840s. It further illustrates the watershed in English geology that occurred after the late 1820s. All members identified in the final ‘screening’ lists for each of the decades are included in the table with the exception of Fitton, who established a ‘minor’, rather than a ‘major’ stratigraphic domain. Inclusions who were not listed in the final ‘screening’ lists are Darwin, Greenough, Owen and Phillips, although Darwin and Owen were on the penultimate list for the 1840s.6 The listing in Table 5.1 supports a key conclusion of this thesis. During the period 1820 to 1850 any aspirant to elite status in English geology needed to fashion a significant geological domain. TABLE 5.1 FOUNDERS OF MAJOR DOMAINS (including joint domains)

1820 - 1830 1830 - 1840 1840 - 1850

BUCKLAND BUCKLAND BUCKLAND (Diluvialism and the English (English school – joint ‘modal’ (English school – joint ‘modal’ school – joint ‘modal’ domains) domain) domain)

CONYBEARE CONYBEARE DARWIN (English school – joint ‘modal’ (English school – joint ‘modal’ (Crustal stability – ‘causal’ domain) domain) domain)

GREENOUGH DARWIN DE LA BECHE (Geological scepticism – (Crustal stability – ‘causal’ (Geological survey – ‘modal’ ‘modal’ domain) domain) domain)

GREENOUGH GREENOUGH

6 It is noteworthy that the founders of the major domains listed in Table 5.1 essentially corresponds to the elite geologists designated by Rudwick in his analysis of the Devonian controversy. See Rudwick, The Great Devonian Controversy, 1985, on p. 421. Rudwick identified his list of elite geologists by a third and more informal method; he used his judgement and historical expertise to ascribe degrees of attributed competence to the various members of the English geological community.

273 (Geological scepticism – (Geological scepticism – ‘modal’ domain) ‘modal’ domain)

LYELL LYELL (Absolute actualism – ‘causal’ (Absolute actualism – ‘causal’ domain) domain)

MURCHISON MURCHISON (Silurian System –‘taxonomic’ (Silurian System –‘taxonomic’ domain) domain)

PHILLIPS OWEN (Yorkshire geology – (British fossil reptiles – ‘taxonomic’ domain) ‘taxonomic domain)

SEDGWICK PHILLIPS (Cambrian System – (Regional geology – ‘taxonomic’ domain) ‘taxonomic’ domain)

WHEWELL SEDGWICK (English school – joint ‘modal’ (Cambrian System – domain) ‘taxonomic’ domain)

WHEWELL (English school – joint ‘modal’ domain)

5.5.2 MANTELL

Mantell did not fashion a major domain and in a simplistic sense this fact accounts for his perceived failure. Such an explanation, however, does not provide a meaningful understanding of his career. In this regard two key obstacles were identified in the various analyses – he was the most noteworthy, if not unique, provincial member of the GSL council during the first half of the nineteenth century, and of the 15 identified geologists, Mantell alone was dependent on non-geological activities for his livelihood. Both of these ‘positioning’ problems essentially relate to his relatively disadvantaged background. Nevertheless, these two critical obstacles were surmountable by others at this time. Phillips lived modestly in Yorkshire when he established his

274 stratigraphic domain. The other non-gentleman by birth, Owen, resolved any potential career conflict at the age of 23 years, when he abandoned medicine and accepted a salaried position where he could develop his skills in comparative anatomy. The geological and palaeontological work of both these men ultimately brought them the status and accolades that Mantell yearned for. Both Phillips and Owen resolved their respective career positioning issues at an early stage in their careers. In contrast, Mantell did not face a major positioning crisis until the early 1830s, when he was 40 years of age with four children aged between three and twelve years. By Mantell’s reckoning, his major problem was the provincialism of Lewes, and at this stage of his career he was not willing to sacrifice his fashionable mode of living in order to forge the major taxonomic domain outlined by Lyell. In hindsight, this could have been achieved by staying at Lewes and reducing the scale of his medical practice. For Mantell, fashioning his social status had higher priority than fashioning his geological career. He failed to realise that cultivating his image as a ‘gentleman of science’ did not lead, per se, to the status that resulted from fashioning a major domain.

275 THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN CHARLES LYELL AND HIS FAMILY AND GIDEON ALGERNON MANTELL: 1821 - 1852

Transcribed and Annotated by Alan John Wennerbom

A supplementary volume to the thesis Charles Lyell and Gideon Mantell, 1821-1852: Their Quest for Elite Status in English Geology, submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Unit for the History University of Sydney and Philosophy of Science

February 1999

1

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

29 Norfolk St. Strand Nov 3 1821.

My dear Sir Your letter was forwarded to me here from the country some days since wh I have delayed answering in the hopes of being able to procure you some little information. I dispatched my packet to you as soon as I returned from my Sussex tour, I believe on the 11 th. or 12 th.of Octr. as you will see I suppose by my letter.1 They did not reach you it seems till the 25th. A fortnight from Southton to Lewes! This was unlucky, for had I known how much they w.d interest you I would have forwarded you a large collection at Stonesfield. Will you endeavour to ascertain the cause of the Waggon’s delay, for it strikes me as so careless that I am afraid to ask you to send any to Bartley Lodge – Southhampton2 lest they sh.d be lost on the way. If you can send me any be sure they are duplicates & only such as you have or can procure in abundance, for as I only wish them for instruction & have no choice cabinet, you would throw away your pearls. Unfortunately, neither Bucland [sic] nor any of the best Geologists were at Oxford the week I spent there, so that I c.d not see Bucland’s fine collection – & the rain prevented anything but a hasty visit to Stonesfield where I procured a good box full, many the same as what I sent you, I left a commission for these to be sent into Hants. Tell me what was the carriage of my box to you? I heard at Oxon. that Bucland was getting his Stones.d fossils engraved on stone in France. [*]3 What weight of Evidence do you require to identify beds? You say you detect decided differences in many of these organic remains. How is it possible it sh.d not be so if they sh.d really contain each the same? Put 2

1 Following their initial meeting at Lewes on 4 October, 1821, Lyell sent Mantell “an interesting collection of fossils”, which was received on 25 October. Mantell’s Private Journal further records that Mantell wrote to Lyell on 27 October. GAM-PJ, entry 27 October 1821. 2 The Bartley Lodge property, near Lyndhurst on the edge of the New Forest, was leased by Lyell's father, Charles Lyell Senior, as the family’s residence in the South of England. K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, 1881, p. 2. 3 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 94. alphabets back in separate box & then take out at random 6 letters from each, would you expect half of them to be the same? And how do the odds increase ag'st us, when there may be 5. or 50. thousand in each. Consider they are both slates both calcareous, both sometimes inclining to sandy slates both contain Amphibia – Aves, Pisces, testacea, vegetables, mixed together - How few have you compared & yet how many of these few agree exactly. Why shd. there not be many kinds of Monitors in each? [*] I have examined Greenough’s collection & copied you a list of his Stones.d fossils with his No.’s affixed.

In G. B. Greenough’s Cabinet. Stonesfield Slate 12015. Monitor. Scapula. - 12086. Scale of Tortoise. 12039. Silurus Ballinia dorsal spine 12137. Fishes Gill ¬ flat 15442. Spine of Echinocidaris Nerifer Palates of fish . 12128. 12134.

12128 Tooth of fish Tooth of fish 12129. 12021.Birds bone 12025. Birds bone

12130 & 12132 & 12131 like teeth I sent you some bent tooth of fish label’d ‘fishes teeth’. 13078. Anomia Terebratula. Shells & Ammonites A few plants & vegetable impressions like those I sent you.

He tells me the Stonesfield slate is extensive being found in the following counties Bucks. Dorset. Glocester. Lincoln. Northampton, Oxon. Somerset. Wilts. His specimens from some of these distant [ink-blob: word indecipherable] agree admirably yet perhaps the Geol.l appearance may differ as widely now & then as yours. In a letter from Bucland to Greenough are these words “Cuvier has no doubt that the great Stonesfield beast was a monitor 40 ft. long & as big as an elephant”. In a small draw [sic] of Stonesfield slates in the Geol.l Society are the following. 1 Madrepore (of wh I have procured a fine one). 2. spines of Echine. 3. Ammonites. 4. Nautilus. 5. Woodcoal. 6 Scales of Testudo. 7. Jaw of lizard with teeth. 8 Tooth – I remember Bucland has some fine Testudines. You tell me the teeth No. 17 to 22 occur with you but very rare so are they very rare at Stonesfield. I c.d hardly get any, tho’ the quarrymen at this last visit had chests full of fossils. Of birds bones I c.d not get one & those I sent you are better than any here in town. I cannot here [sic] of any Euphorbia. I have kept your secret.[*]4 Let me know what Hawkins5 says of the Whin, but do not write to me before Xmas unless I can be of use to your work by getting you any information, for I am buried in the study of Law here & am too fond of geology to do both. It is not so compatible with my Profession as with yours.[*] I cannot give you any answer at your very kind invitation to visit you at Cuckfield, as yet, but can only say that if possible, I sh.d like it in spite of the Sessions. my compl.s to Mrs Mantell & believe me dear Sir yours very truly ChaLyell Jun.r

P.S. In the papers you gave me you placed Plastic Clay over London Clay – You do not mean this? Where w.d come Druid Sandstone?

[ Addressed to: G.Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

2

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

4 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 95. 5 John Sidney Hawkins (1758 - 1842). English antiquary of Bignor Park near Petworth. Friend and correspondent of Mantell. Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folders 48, 49. 29 Norfolk St. Strand Dec.r 19. 1821.

Dear Sir It was with great pleasure that I received your letter on Monday, for it happened by a strange coincidence enough, that on that very morning I had closed my Law Books with which I have been exclusively employed & was thinking of writing to you & begging you would forward the parcel you had been good enough to promise me to “Bartley Lodge, Southampton”. It will be particularly acceptable to me now to have some of your shells, with their names from the beds above chalk, for G. Sowerby has written 2 pamphlets in the Phil.l Trans.s6 to prove that Webster is wrong in regard to Headon Hill & that there is only one freshwater Formation above the London Clay & no upper marine interposed. This made Webster revisit the spot, confirm by large collections (to be sent to Brogniart [sic] & recognised by him) of the freshwater & marine shells, all his observations, & led him also to examine the opposite coast of Hants. at Lymington &c & follow on the freshwater formation there where he has found it in such force as to strengthen me in a guess wh. I had made that some marls close to us at Bartley & wh are over the London clay, are the lower freshwater stretching inland. I embrace with great pleasure your new light concerning the Tilgate beds. The Purbeck stone has never been found oolitic & perhaps in the imperfect state of our knowledge there is not a more characteristic mark than the roe-like texture by which we can discover a certain era which ceased about the time of the deposition of the Portland beds. Nothing like “the oolites” has been found in your great vale of denudation? Now it is remarkable that, close to Cuckfield in Smith’s7 first great Geol.l Map of Eng.d there is a round blue mark in the iron sand near Cuckfield, (rather

6 The two pamphlets by George Brettingham Sowerby (1st.) were: ‘On the Geological Formations of Headon Hill in the Isle of Wight’, Annals of Philosophy, 1821, 2, pp. 216-220 and ‘On the Means of distinguishing Fresh-water from Marine Shells’, Annals of Philosophy, 1821, 2, pp. 309 -312. Lyell made a mistake when he identified the Journal as the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London.. 7 William Smith (1769 - 1839). Land surveyor and stratigrapher. In 1815 Smith published, A Delineation of the strata of England and Wales with part of Scotland. (Scale: 5 miles to one inch). DNB. West it is true) which colour is explained “Purbeck stone, Kentish rag, vale of Pickering” showing his doubts for he c.d hardly have thought the Purbeck & Kentish the same. Some parts of the Stonesfield bed resemble much the specimens of Purbeck in the Geol. Socy.’s Museum & turtles are found at Purbeck, trees, shells, teeth, &c. also the houses are roofed in Purbeck with a coarse slate of that stone. It is true the Tilgate fossils are strikingly more like those of Stonesfield in appearance & nature than to the Purbeck but you are acting much more Philosophically in preferring if possible to identify those with the latter. When the Geognostic position of 2 distant beds is the same it is better in favour of such Evidence to put up with a considerable want of agreement in the organic remains, than in order merely to reconcile the latter, to pronounce on an extraordinary chasm in the usual order of succession. Have you seen the last Vol. of our Trans.s? Webster has there given a section8 from the Chalk of Merstham to Nutfield exhibiting a succession of Chalk. Ch. Marl, Green sand, blue marl, iron sand all in Greenough’s (& I believe your green sand). I told you at Lewes that I felt strongly inclined to believe the iron sand of Shankline chine, & that near Petworth the same. I am confirmed in this now by an examination of specimens & by the important fact that what is truly green sand & the blue marl under it (Bucland’s Tetsworth clay), are known by Webster to feather out near Guilford & the real ferruginous sand to come up close to the chalk with apparently nothing between. Just so is it in all the North of England where Bucland’s Green sand & Tetsworth clay are both wanting, & the chalk resting on the iron sand is tinged with red. So that I would believe in the absence of a positive section to the contrary that almost the whole of Greenough’s zone of green sand, is in truth what assuredly every one who has seen it, must wish to prove it, the iron sand. And why not? Bucland puts the Weald clay subordinate in his syllabus to the iron sand. If our Forest sand is merely a lower bed of the same iron sand & therefore just where the Purbeck ought to come. In the true iron sand of the I. of Wight beds of clay are seen as at Sandown, answering to your weald clay & also beds of limestone exactly like what I have seen in the iron sand near Midhurst. Even therefore if you c.d prove that the Weald clay does lie between the ferruginous sand wh. Greenough paints green-sand

8 T.Webster, ‘Section of the Strata between Merstham and Nutfield to accompany Mr Webster’s paper on the Reigate fire-stone’, TGSL, 1821, 5, series 1, Plate 38. & the forest sand still I sh.d be disposed decidedly to say it was all the iron sand of the I. of W. separate from the green sand (if it were there) by the Tetworth clay wh. perhaps is also absent. With my comp.ts to Mrs Mantell believe me yours truly ChaLyell

P.S. Bucland assured me last month that the Opossum!9 had been found at Stonesfield, & recognised by Cuvier! I am going to Hants in a day or two. C.L.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Lewes, Sussex ]

3

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

29 Norfolk St. Strand Feb.y 8.th 1822.

My dear Sir I hardly know what reception a letter from me has any right to expect from you, comes after I have explained the reasons for my long silence after receiving so handsome a present as that you were good enough to send into Hants. But the truth is I intended to come to town immediately & expected to find you here & therefore having nothing but thanks to

9 Mammiferous remains from the Stonesfield slate were examined by Cuvier and pronounced as belonging to a species of Didelphis. Lyell, POG, vol. 1, ( facs.1st ed.), 1990, p. 150. communicate deferred them to our meeting. [*]1 Tho’ I was detained late in the country I found you had not yet arrived with your book, but I still thought I sh.d see you at our Annual Geological dinner. I now begin to despair or rather to hope that your professional practice has increased so much beyond your expectation that you find it impossible to leave Lewes. Of the collection which came quite safe in 10 days I can only say that I trust among so many invaluable & interesting specimens you have not robbed your own of any which it might might have been more advantageous for Science that you had retained. The Professors of Cambridge & Oxon2 were present at our dinner & Bucland was called upon to explain the vast quantities of bones which he found in the summer in a cave at Kirkdale in Yorksh. of wh. he had a large bag-full with him – innumerable jaws of hyaenas, teeth of Elephant, Rhinoceros &c. unmineralised like those in the limestone – caves in Germany full of bears. He produced some light balls or pellets wh. he said he brought to town at first doubting what they c.d be. Dr Wollaston (I think) first pronounced that they were like some calculi sometimes found in some species of Canis. Upon being taken to Exeter Change by Dr. Fitton the man then recognized the production & exclaimed “Ah that is the dung of our hyaena”! On analysing it they find it composed of carbonate & phosphate of lime, the same as hyaena’s dung, which being an animal it seems of an ossiphagous appetite, has always its dung proportionally more ossified than any other. [*]3 Bucland in his usual style enlarged on the marvel with such a strange mixture of the [humorous? – page torn] and the serious that we c.d none of us discern how far he believed himself what he said. [*]4 Take the following as an example of the whole. “The hyaenas, gentlemen, preferred the flesh of elephants, rhinocerus, deer, cows, horses, &c but sometimes unable to procure these & half starved, they used to come out of the narrow entrance of their cave in the evening down to the water’s edge of a lake wh. must once have been there, & so helped themselves to some of the innumerable water-rats in wh. the lake abounded – thus you see the whole stalactite & the other bones stuck over with the teeth of water-rats”.[*]

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ -CL, vol.1, pp. 114-115. 2 Revd. Adam Sedgwick and Revd. William Buckland. 3 Text between asterisks is also quoted by Wilson. Charles Lyell, p.95. 4 Text quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, ceases at this point but subsequent text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 95. [*]5 The researches I made at Xmas are I am afraid sufficient to prove that I must give up my hopes of discovering the I. of Wight fresh-water formations in our part of Hants, but the shells are not yet come to town wh. will enable Webster to decide.[*] Hoping that your young family are well6 & with my compliments to Mrs Mantell believe me my dear Sir yours most truly ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

4

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

29 Norfolk St. March 7 1822 My dear Sir I was glad to receive your parcel & attacked Konig on Tuesd.y at the Linnean Soc.y who said “I was glad you put me in mind of it, if you will give me a prospectus7 I will ask Lambert8 to subscribe & have no doubt he will.

I have no prospectus which has the names of the subscribers – have they any advantage in price over purchasers?”. This last query I could not answer. Yesterday I saw Dr. Fitton who said he had thought before of subscribing & that there should be several prospectus sent to the Society. I am sorry that in those which I have you have not included all the later subscribers, because some people are led by the number of names, others are apt to think themselves slighted if after subscribing they do not see

5 Text quoted in Wilson ceases but subsequent text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 115. 6 At this stage Mantell had two young children, Ellen Maria, born 30 May, 1818, and Walter Baldock Durrant, born 11 March, 1820. 7 This prospectus was for Mantell’s, The Fossils of the South Downs or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, published in May, 1822, by Lupton Relfe, London. 8 Aylmer Bourke Lambert (1761 - 1842). Vice President of the Linnean Society 1796-1842. DNB themselves among the patrons of Science. You will easily believe me that it does not arise from such vanity that I regret that my name is not there but simply from this that no one can with such good grace ask others to subscribe as one who appears in print as subscriber himself. I would advise you if you have many of the old ones in hand to add the names in writing before you send a good number to town which I think it very desirable you should do immediately. Mr T. Smith9 seems well inclined to exert himself in distributing them. [*]10 I have spent some days lately in investigating the country from Godstone to Merstham – Reigate – Bucland – Betchworth & Dorking & feel sure that the green sand is there exactly as the I. of Wight – & I traced a bed of black blue marl or clay 200 feet upwards in thickness, between the bed in which the firestone is & the ferruginous sand, the whole way from Godstone to Dorking.[*] I hope to continue this hereafter wh. will make me visit you with much more interest & profit for [*]11 if the green sand of Folkestone c.d be traced in a continuous bed to the Reigate bed of firestone I feel sure that Greenough c.d no longer continue to paint in his Map the iron sand as green- sand & nothing was ever more exact in resemblance &c than that country I went over & the I. of Wight as far as those four beds – 1. Hard grey chalk marl. 2 Green sand – 3. blue marl or black Earth – 4. iron sand. But I am aware what great difficulties there may be in reconciling this with other parts of your country.[*] believe me with compliments to Mrs Mantell Yours very truly ChaLyell

P.S. I send you Bucland’s epitaph as well as Conybeare’s stave.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes ]

5

9 Thomas Smith. FRS and member of GSL council from 1820-25. Woodward, History of the GSL, on p. 306. 10 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, on p.104

11 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p.104. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

29 Norfolk St Ap. 11. 1822

My dear Sir [*]1 I fear you may think I have but little motive for troubling you with a letter since it is no other than to inform you that I am today setting out for Winchelsea where I shall pass nearly a week with a friend who will leave me ample time for geologizing if I can find a field for such operations - & for myself I have little doubt of this since the country is so entirely terra incognita to me but can you not also make me useful to you in ascertaining any fact or procuring any specimens. [*] If so you would do me a great service in favouring me with a letter in good time.[*]2 In several short expeditions wh I have made into Surrey I have examined very carefully the junction of the chalk with the beds below about Merstham,3 Reigate, Dorking and Guildford. I have brought specimens from what Webster w.d have us call the ferruginous sand exactly like some brought from the green sand of other parts wh. certainly creates a great difficulty,[*]4 but still there seem to me only partial beds in that wh we should decidedly call iron sand in any other place & I still think that if we were determined to name beds by analogy to those of which Webster first drew the line in the I. of Wight we should be obliged to pronounce that the green sand is wholly wanting at Guildford & Greenough seems clearly to entertain great doubt on this lead himself, but when I have worked more Eastwards in Kent I shall be better able to form an opinion. Since you were here there came up from Stonesfield to the Geol. Soc.y a most enormous bone of some great unknown animal & Clift pronounced it new but finds it belonging to the same animal as one wh. Capt Vetch5 some

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 116. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 116, and also in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 104. 3 Merstham was omitted in the quoted extract in note 2. 4 Quoted extract in Wilson, Charles Lyell, ceases at this point, but continues in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, p. 116. 5 Captain James Vetch (1789 -1869). Served in the Royal Engineers 1808-1824. GSL Councillor time since sent from the neighbourhood of Cuckfield! [*] Beware of Poachers in your ground but you need not fear Vetch. [*]6 Would it not form a strange addition to the wonderful coincidence already discovered by you between your beds & those of Stonesfield if an immense new animal sh.d at the same time be found in each. This animal they say must be as large as an Elephant but I can not learn of what kind they conjecture.[*] Yours very truly ChaLyell

P.S. As I do not know yet my friends No. direct to the Post Office Winchelsea if you please – C.L.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

6

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

29 Norfolk Street Ap. 19 1822

My dear Sir [*]7 Although I did not leave Winchelsea until Tuesd 16th. yet your letter [*] (so tardy is the communication between such neighbouring places) [*]8 did not reach me there but has followed me to town. Had I received it in time I might better have deserved the crown which you held up

from 1830-32. DNB. 6 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol.1, p. 116. 7 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 119. 8 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 119. to my ambition for I had no sooner begun my examination of the cliff there than I found myself in the midst of the limestone beds with every character of strict identity with those of Battel & Hastings particularly that gloss of rather the feldspar appearance wh. you know marks it & in which Webster was one day pointing out to me it closely resembles the chrystallized part of the Fontainbleau rock & no doubt it is owing to incipient chrystallization. The present town of Winchelsea is situated on a rock wh. projects like an island from the alluvial marshland wh. surrounds it & which was once at no ancient date flooded by the sea. It presents a cliff more or less high towards every point of the compass. Close to the road-side near the ancient gate which leads to Rye is a quarry wh affords a most satisfactory section of part of the rock. At the top is sand & sandstone not much indurated nor highly ferruginous, then comes immediately under & distinct from it, with not the least passage from the one to the other a bed of the limestone very hard & siliceous 5 feet thick, beneath this comes the sand again of what thickness I c.d not ascertain - so much for the quarry wh. ends at the level of the road, but lower down the cliff appears another bed of the limestone wh. must be far below the former & proves therefore the alternation. The flat slabs of the limestone when weather-worn afford generally casts of innumerable small bivalves of this size (perhaps cardiums) & so does the sandstone exactly the same. In a walk of 4 or 5 miles along the high cliffs between Winchel.a & Fairlight Cliff I could see none of the limest.e in the ferruginous sand but I w.d have made more particular search had I known you had not been there.[*] I suspect from what I saw of Rye that it stands on just such an isolated rock as Winchelsea, & with the limest.e no doubt. The sand near Pett & Fairlight is sometimes white but never hard except when boulders are indurated by the sea & then it resembles the Druid sandst.e wonderfully. The few specimens wh. I brought of what I have alluded to I sh.d have great pleasure in sending to you but think it not worth while to put you to the expense till you say you wish it. [*]9 What little I c.d see of the Weald clay makes me think it quite subordinate to the ferruginous sand & to doubt more than ever its answering in position to the Tetsworth clay of Bucland’s syllabus. Bucland has received from the Yorksh. Cave in addition, the bones of

9 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 119. the weazel, the rabbit, the pigeon & I believe one other bird in a beautiful state of preservation & wh. are being drawn for the R.S. Do not fear any poachers on your Sussex preserve. I wish I c.d see so much activity as to give cause of fear. At our meet.g this ev. g I will not fail to introduce your prospectus & nothing will give me greater pleasure than to take the first opportunity of paying you a visit.[*] Yours truly ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ] 7

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[5 June 1822]

My Dear Sir I thought it might perhaps save you trouble if I draw up the few remarks wh. I have to make on the Horsham strata in a separate letter that you might send them in the same shape to the Society, but as to this you will of course follow your own plan & I am by no means desirous of being mentioned any further than bearing the responsibility of any errors wh. may probably exist in my statements & observations. [*]1 When I took my specimens to compare them with Battel & Winchelsea, Webster showed me a set from Hastings wh. he had collected 8 yrs. since but had published nothing concern.g them, save that in his ‘Order of Superpos.n in Sir H. Engle.d’s2 I. of Wight3 he tells me he included these beds in Iron Sand Formation. If so he was the first who assigned a proper position to beds wh. from the series wh. he presented to the Geol. Soc.y are

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 105. 2 Sir Henry Charles Englefield. Bart. (1752 - 1822). Antiquary and amateur scientist. DNB. 3 T.Webster, ‘Observations on the Strata of the Isle of Wight and their continuation in the adjacent parts of Dorsetshire’, in: H.C. Englefield’s, A Description of the Principal Picturesque Beauties, Antiquities, and Geological Phenomena of the Isle of Wight, Payne and Foss, London, 1816. strictly identical with those of Cuckfield but if he lays claims to more you have nothing to do with what he knew if he did not publish it to the world. He said he sh.d himself communicate with you on that subject. I am sorry I have given all my Winchelsea specimens to the society but they are all the same rock & you had better lose no time in declaring this to be your opinion.[*] Great complaints were made by T. Smith at Linnean S. on Tuesd.y at his copy being so late & a friend a subscriber in Country having none. I wrote to Relfe & to tell him Fitton’s address whom he sh.d have sent a copy to. In excuse he says he knew not F’s address – that his binder has illused him &c. I fought your battle with T.S. as well as I c.d but it is an unlucky business. The specimens from 2-16 answer to the section. 13 was out of the Coltstaple stone – organic? The slab No. 14 is from Sedgwick part of a large one furrowed on opposite sides at right angles the one to the other. The face marked 14 is the upper one evidently I think worn by waves. The under side on that part of the slab from wh. I struck off this piece had another layer adhering to it into wh. it fitted & part is now sticking on. The small marked 14. Were taken out of the Stammerham limestone. I also send specimens of the marl at Dorking wh. holds place of firestone. of the latter I have now also some from Betchworth of green cherty sand and blue marl. The great escarpment wh. Leith Hill & the others of your Green Sand Format.n present to Weald clay is I think one of the strongest points ag.t Webster’s doctrine. Remember me to Mrs Mantell & believe me Yours very truly ChaLyell

29 Norfolk St. June 5. 1822

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes.] 8

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[June 6 1822] Dear Sir I have visited Horsham on my return to town & have examined the quarries in its vicinity as you requested. I hope the specimens which I send you & the information which I have been able to collect will be at least sufficient to satisfy you that your conjectures were not unfounded, & that the strata around Horsham belong to the same series as those which you have so fully investigated & described in your late work1. The most considerable of the quarries in the neighbourhood of Horsham at the distance of about 2½ miles is that of Stammerham, the property of Sir Tim Shelley2 of which the following is a Section beginning at the top & of which I send you specimens.3

Section of Stammerham Provincial Thickness Quarry Terms ft. in.

1. Vegetable Mould - 1. 6.

2. Strong clay & loam - 9. -

3. Layer of compact limestone with deep Rough - 4. undulating furrows on Causeway upper surface

4. Same rock more indurated,the best in the Scrub

1 G.A.Mantell, The Fossils of the South Downs: or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, Lupton Relfe, London, 1822. 2 Sir Timothy Shelley (1753 - 1844). Lived at Warnham near Horsham. Father of Percy Bysshe Shelley. DUB, p. 593. 3 The following section of Stammerham quarry was included in Mantell’s paper, ‘On the Iron Sand country for roadmaking stone 1. 4. in two layers. Upper layer 4" lower 1 ft. 5.

6. Sandst.e ferruginous which they beat for bricks. 1.

7. A blue soapy marl, has been tried in Agriculture - 1. 6. but with little success.

8. Ferruginous sandstone, same as No. 6. - 1.

9. Hard calcareous sandstone Ground used for roads & rough pinning 1. pavings stone.

10. Compact limestone of finer texture than any of the above,taken out in large slabs & makes 2. an excellent paving stone for kitchens &c. Slightly marked with undulating furrows on the upper surface.

11. Marl sunk thro’ but about not worked. - 4

12. Stone in slabs reached by boring. - unknown.

Formation of Sussex’, [14 June 1822], TGSL, 1826, 2 (1), series 2, pp. 131-135. In the limestone No. 10 the bone of an animal was found some years since which they say was like a hog’s rib, & from the description I have no doubt it was similar to some which you have procured from Cuckfield. But organic remains appear rare. I could discover no shells. But branches of vegetables in a carbonized state are often met with, & I myself, saw some small specimens. The quarry of Tower Hill near Stammerham resembles the former in its products & strata so nearly that it is unnecessary to describe it. Near this a petrifying and incrusting spring occurs which convert[s] the vegetables in the ditches thro’ which it flows into calcareous tuff. Early the following morning I was induced to visit the quarries of Sedgwick about 2 miles from Stammerham by observing in the pavement of the streets of Horsham slabs of that stone with the furrowed surface laid uppermost. In which manner I was told they were placed “because the under side was still more strongly ribbed”. At Sedgwick I found a large quantity of the slabs ready-quarried, & many furrowed on both sides. As I had before felt satisfied that the surfaces had been scooped out by the waves of an ocean (an hypothesis which you have suggested in your work4 ) I was greatly surprised by this fact. [*]5 I will add too, I was greatly disappointed, as I hope every Geologist is when he finds himself compelled to abandon a theory which refers not without probability to the agency of known causes, some of the many obscure phenomena which his investigations daily disclose.[*] I observed that the opposite sides of few of these slabs corresponded; in some the furrows of the inferior were even at right angles to those of the upper side. They could not therefore in such instances have received their peculiar shape from any constitution of the lamina when in a soft state.[*]6 Most of the slabs I found would cleave into thinner laminae & the inner faces were also furrowed, & fitted smoothly into each other. If this last fact should prove on further examination as invariable as I found it, I should entertain

4 In his work, The Fossils of the South Downs, Lupton Relfe, London, 1822, p. 41, Mantell commented that: “the furrowed appearance on the surface of the sandstone, as already remarked, is of frequent occurrence in the arenaceous strata of Sussex, and, doubtless, has been produced by the advance and retrocession of the waves”. 5 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 106. 6 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., pp. 106-107. little doubt that the under side of each layer merely presents a cast of that on which it has been deposited. And when many thin layers succeed each other, we have only to suppose the lowermost to have been deeply worn by the waves & that it then formed a mould into which the next layer was cast, & the others successively into those which preceeded them.[*] But when the furrows of the surface take a new direction we may again suppose the waves to have acted. If it be objected that when a new stratum of sand was washed up it would fill all the inequalities & reduce them to a level, I can only answer that I therefore assume that the beds were precipitated from a fluid in a certain state of tranquility. Nor is this supposition necessarily at variance with the occasional agitation which has worn some of the slabs, for the deposition may have gone on when the land was entirely covered by water, & the excavating power may have operated only when the waves were advancing or retreating. [*]7 That the most indurated of these rocks was in a perfectly soft state when first formed, no one will dispute who observes the manner in which the organic remains are imbedded in them. [*] I regret that I was prevented from prosecuting my enquiries concerning these curious appearances at Sedgwick, as the workmen were not employed there at the time. The ferruginous sandstone of which the town-hall of Horsham is built & which comprises the greater part of the district, is also in general furrowed on its surface, & sometimes to a great extent, & [*]8 presents so striking a resemblance to a sea-beach worn by the waves, that it has not escaped the observation of many of the common labourers.[*] Mr Heath surveyer of the roads informed me that the dip is very variable & that he had known it in every direction. That the beds are however in some places perfectly horizontal, as they work the same strata of stone to a considerable distance without descending deeper. He also favoured me with the following localities of the Horsham stone, which I add as it may prove of service to future investigations & may show the extent round Horsham. Coltstaple 2 miles South Southwater 2 ½ " S.W. Broadbridge 2 " W. Slinfold 3 " N.W.

7 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p.107. 8 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 107. Strood 3 " do. from Horsham Oakhurst 7 " W. Nuthurst 3 " S.E. Birchin-brook-mill 3 " S. Warnham 3 " N.W. Of these the specimens which I saw from Coltstaple & Warnham I thought came nearest to those of Tilgate Forest. You will I am sure regret that your avocations have denied you sufficient opportunities to study with care the Collection of the Society. Among the specimens from Battel presented by Mr Benett9 is one which exactly agrees with the limestone of Cuckfield & contains black carbonized wood imbedded in the same manner in the bluish stone. There is also a series of specimens collected by Mr Webster (8 years since) from the cliff at Hastings which still more closely correspond with those of Tilgate forest. Some of these specimens enclose the teeth of fishes, vegetable remains & the rib of animal wh.I would suspect you would find to answer some in your collection. I have little doubt that the Geological formation of all these distant beds is the same & hope it will not be long before you are enabled fully to clear it up. The beds of ferruginous sand & clay which at Horsham & Winchelsea alternate with the limestone agree with those of the iron sand Formation in all their characters as far as my experience enables me to judge. believe me Yours very truly ChaLyell London June 6. 1822

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

9

9 The Hon. Henry Grey Bennet (1777 - 1836). M.P., FRS. Second son of the fourth Earl of Tankerville. President, GSL, from 1813-1815. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 42. Charles Lyell to G.A. Mantell

29 Norfolk St. 1822 June 16

My dear Sir There was so much in hand at the Geolog.l Soc.y that Dr Fitton1 assured me it was out of his power to read your paper2 which is most unlucky as this is the last meeting for many months. Perhaps the best thing I can do is to present together with those you sent, duplicates of my Section of Stammerham at the next meeting. By annexing a catalogue I can combine to introduce your opinion as to the analogy of the beds. Greenough told me last week that he believed the Battel beds to be the lowest & fast approaching to the character of the Purbeck, a remark which shows how justly he has thought of these formations. I beg you will understand that I never meant to pronounce on the continuity of any of these numerous seams of calcareous rock. [*]3 Webster was highly delighted with the marm rock of W.S.4 but regretted you had given no precise locality. It proves identical with his green sand of the I. of Wight so that no one could distinguish them, & the fossil body contained in the specimen you sent was the same as occurs in all his I. of Wight specimens in our Coll.n .it also is the Reigate firestone. He observes not without reason that he is right because his type of the Greensand is that of the I. of W. Yours & Phillips & Greenough’s may be that of other parts as Wilts. Cambridge &c. Of the Bletchingley fossils he says he sh.d like a section of all the beds there, & that the Galt of Cambridge.sh has never been accurately made out as to its position & relation with other parts.[*] For my own part I do not think the mischief is very formidable for whether the I. of W. must be considered the exception to the general rule in Sussex, it is not a greater discrepancy than we are accustomed to elsewhere.

1 William Henry Fitton was Secretary of the GSL from 1822-24. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 296. 2 Mantell’s paper was a Notice ‘On the Iron-Sand Formation of Sussex. In a Letter to Dr Fitton, Secretary of the Geological Society’, [14 June 1822], TGSL, 1826, 2(1), series 2, pp. 131-134. 3 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 107. 4 West Sussex. [*]5 But if W.’s blue marl No. 3 sh.d prove to be galt as I think possible, it w.d certainly be difficult enough.[*] Your specimens6 were so loosely marked that some no’s. were lost in unpacking but I believe I restored them right – but there was nothing marked on Cuckfield specimens & the drawing did not apply to the bones you sent so as to explain them - the size of the latter alarmed them since they have no accomodation & to go on with glass cases w.d be ruinous. Dr Fitton sent back his copy to Relfe & ordered one of his own booksellers for as he wishes to be known as a Patron of Science he was sore at finding his name omitted in list of Subscribers. I shall go to Scotland soon & must defer your obliging invitation till I return. [*]7 I have set up blow pipe, magnetic needle &c & am working away at primitive formations. Conybeare’s is a delightful book.8 It will make

5 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 113. 6 In conjunction with his paper ‘On the Iron-Sand Formation of Sussex’, op. cit. (note 2), Mantell presented to the GSL organic remains that he considered characteristic of the strata of Tilgate Forest. These included “Teeth and bones of crocodiles and other saurian animals, of an enormous magnitude”. 7 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 107. 8 W.D.Conybeare and W. Phillips, Outline of the Geology of England and Wales with an introductory compendium of the general principles of that science and comparative views of the Geology as fashionable as Botany was, & I hope more so. His style is perfection.[*] With my best remembrances to Mrs Mantell believe me very truly yours ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes. ]

10

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Bartley Lodge July 4 1822

My dear Sir You will I expect be somewhat surprised & I am sure agreeably, to hear that out of the few days which I have spent in Hants prior to my Evacuation into Scotland, I have been able to give 2 days to the I. of Wight & Geology. I directed my course to that fine section of the beds below the Chalk afforded by Culver & Red Cliffs & Sandown Bay with a view of forming my opinion on that multum vexata quaestio, the analogy of y.r I. of W. & Surrey & Sussex. I wish that the short sketch wh. alone I can give you of my observations carefully compared with the series of specimens may

structure of four foreign countries illustrated by a coloured map and sections, Phillips, London, 1822. make it so clear to you as it is to me that the difficulties have all been created by ourselves & that there exist none in Nature. You are aware that the phenomena presented by this part of the I. of W. are the same as those of your great valley of denudation, & that the same beds wh. in the North side dip to the North in the South dip to the S. but in the I. of W. the Chalk & beds immediately below of the S.n side are less inclined than your S. Down whereas, in the N.n as if to compensate for this they are vertical.

When the 2 corresponding sides of this Section have been studied with time & patience wh. you know is required to discover the order wh. once reigned I am confident they w.d be found to fit in as correctly as in the above diagram. But I wish to presume that I have not yet done this. I have merely as yet examined with attention from the grey Chalk of Culver to the iron & green sands of Red Cliff & I have also collected partially specimens from the other innumerable beds of sand & clay wh. follow in succession below them till the order is inverted & you mount again towards the chalk. These last specimens you must merely consider useful as giving an idea of some of the most striking character of these beds & not as a regular perfect section.

Catalogue referring to the Section A & B & to the numbers on the specimens.

1. Chalk without flints.

2a. do. lowest beds more indurated. 2b. do. where alternating with chalk marl. Being whiter than the C. marl it forms a curious striped appearance. streaks of distinct blue & white following each other for a long space, about a foot in thickness each

3a. Chalk marl of Webster. is very blue in the cliff. breaks with conchoidal fracture. contains pyrites. 3b. Do. lower beds. more blue. Inocer. might not this pass easily into the blue chalk marl rock of Western Sussex?

4. Green S.d of Webster. same as firestone of Reigate & marm rock of W. Sussex. specimens also from Brading down about 2 miles from Culver - veins of chert traverse it. Appears at a distance very like chalk. Especially at Culver Cliff where it is seen below the blue marl No. 3 & the blue marl No. 5. 4#. Do. After a diligent search I selected this specimen as being the greenest in the whole bed & this was in very small quantity. Webster’s Green Sand both here & in y r undercliff is in general as white as the whitest specimen from Brading down. Does not the French term “craie chloritee” appear very descriptive of Webster's Green Sand?

5 Blue marl of Webster. This bed you will perceive by the Section B is of inconsiderable thickness & as no peculiar fossils have yet been found in it it does not deserve the distinction wh. Webster has given it. It is merely in my opinion one of the alternating beds of the Series which follows of sand & clay beds.

6. Iron Sand. – this is the same I.S. which occurs so near the Chalk in Surrey, probably. for it resembles that of Guildford &c.

7a. Great beds of this greenish white sand occur in the ferruginous sand traversed by thin seams of blue marl, an inch & sometimes more in thickness. This marl resembles No. 5 apparently. 7b. The blue marl above alluded to traversing the sand from top to bottom of the cliff in black lines.

8. Considerable beds of this alternate with iron Sand & as they resemble the blue marl No.5. they seem to diminish the importance wh. Webster has assigned to that bed. 9. Green Sand in numerous beds alternating with ferruginous S. as they are greener than any that can be found in Webster’s Green Sand, yet not so green as some wh. must occupy nearly the same situation near Shanklin, it is perhaps to be regretted that Webster in his Classification did not assign some other term to them than ferruginous S.d wh. has mislead many.

10. 10. A few specimens from a succession of beds which occupy a 10. great space between Red Cliff & Sandown. iron sands – clays &c &c.

11. Purple & other clays of very considerable thickness – containing 11. subordinately some beds of sand. These I have little doubt are the weald clays but I could not learn that any fossils are found in them. 11* ..... the subordinate sands. 12. Beds similar to the above inclined in an opposite direction 12 of great thickness.

13. Large beds of these green sands between Sandown & Shankton. with ferruginous Sand above & I believe below them the beds of Shanklin 13. -Chine wh. Bucland calls iron Sand are between these and the chalk.

151 Lowest bed at Shanklin-Chine. These masses of Shells occur in concretions in the sand. 14 Upper bed at do. occurs also in concretions in an iron Sand.

I hope at some future time to be able to investigate this point more thoroughly but I still think that if you consider these sections with the

1 Descriptions 15 and 14 appear in this order. accompanying specimens carefully you will come with me to the following conclusions.

1.st That there exists no real discrepancy between the Strata below the Chalk in the I. of W. & those in Surrey & Sussex, but that confusion has arisen from Geologists drawing the line in a different manner without declaring to the World this variance in their Classification.

2.ly That Webster’s Green Sand is the same as yr fire stone of Reigate & not the same as that wh. has been styled by Conybeare, Greenough & Mantell as Green Sand in Sussex & Surrey.

3.ly That Webster’s blue marl is not the Weald Clay.

4.ly That Webster’s Iron Sand is the equivalent of that wh. has been coloured Green Sand in Greenough's Map of yr. Counties of Sussex & Surrey.

5.ly That the iron Sand of the central nucleus of Surrey & Sussex does not perhaps come to the day in the I. of W. but if it sh.d be found it will be in the line I have assigned it in Section A.

I believe if you assent to these inferences you will agree with me that Webster has been unfairly dealt with * (see note at end). Since he first reduced these beds to order he had a right to class them as he thought best, & if those who followed him thought fit to change his classification wh. they virtually have done (& I believe with reason) they were bound to declare that they differed from him. But on the contrary every body professes to follow him on the I. of W. Con.e & Phillips copy his Sections litteration & then accuse him of blundering when in perfect consistence with his previously received arrangement, he classes the Reigate firestone as greensand & the ferruginous & green sands of Surrey & Sussex as iron S.d & the weald clay as a subordinate bed. Bucland has also surely erred in classing Shanklin Chine as iron S.d & the corresponding beds (for so I take the liberty of calling them) in Sussex as green S.d But I am sorry that I must conclude. As I am just starting for Scotland you must not answer my letter. When I return in about 3 months I will write to you again & shall be glad to hear how you got on. With my compliments to Mrs Mantell believe me yours very truly ChaLyell

P.S. I inclose from Brinstead quarry some of the lower freshwater formation. How hard a rock to be younger than London clay! The silicious part almost resembles some of the Horsham.

* Note2 to [Lyell’s] page 6 [ refer to asterisk near top of page ]

I have since learnt that I was somewhat mistaken in attributing to Webster a decided priority in the nomenclature of these beds. The fact is that Warburton, in company with several Members of the Geol.l Soc.y among whom was I believe W.D. Conybeare, had given the name of green sand to those beds which are between the blue chalk marl and the Weald clay, during an exploring tour which they made through Sussex, Surrey, and the South of England, previous to Webster’s labours. Webster then took the term green sand already appropriated and gave it to a different bed which the others have scarcely yet discovered.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

2 This note on Lyell’s page 6 was written by an amanuensis. 11

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell 1

29 Norfolk St. Feb.y 12.th 1823

My dear Sir, If I had not been very fully occupied with the duties of my new Secretaryship2 in addition to my ordinary employments, you should have heard from me before. As my eyes are so weak at present as to oblige me to spare them whenever it is in my power, you will excuse my availing myself of the services of an amanuensis in writing to you this letter. Our joint paper3 on the G. of Sussex was referred in its regular order by the Council. The referee, Mr. Greenough who was called upon to state whether the Society should print the memoir or not, appears to me to have paid considerable attention to it, and I was surprised to find him so well qualified for pronouncing a fair opinion on the subject. He requested me to wait on him at his house, while he went over with me the several parts of the paper, & [*]4 I can assure you that he has not only travelled over the greater part of Sussex & examined the Geological features of the limestone & the ironsand, but has taken very extensive views which he still retains in his memory of the general bearings of these strata thro’ the County, of their various relations with each other there, & with similar beds which appear in the Isle of Purbeck.[*] When I asked why he had not published this information, he replied: “the view which I take of these matters is this, when any knowledge however scanty has been gained of the interior of Africa, S. America, or Canada, some advantage is gained to science by making known, since any thing is

1 Entire letter was written by an amanuensis except the closing sentence. 2 Lyell served as a Secretary of the GSL from 1823-26. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 296. 3 No paper on the Geology of Sussex was published in the TGSL under the joint names of Lyell and Mantell. 4 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 112. better than white paper in the map, & it may be long ere we learn more; but Sussex is at our door, & it is well both for an individual & a Society to beware of publishing, what every man who has time & money to spare may immediately improve upon. We shall be much indebted to Mantell if he will work out the whole history of that interesting tract”. Upon my explaining to him that I believed you had no thoughts of the paper being printed in its present state, he said he should therefore beg me to send it to you for further consideration. When criticising the different parts, he asked on the words “two groups”, “what does group mean in Geology?” On the words Ashburnham, Framfield, Rotherfield, Tofield &c “that cannot be, Rotherfield is quite out of the line”. He said that in the first part of the paper when published, you would of course mark out the rank in the great series of formations which the beds of Limestone & Clay hold, by reference to some system such as Conybeare’s, or the general reader will be all in the dark. He seemed to doubt your being warranted to assign to the two groups or divisions, such distinct organic remains, & upon reperusal I am inclined to think that you have run some hazard of the words “former division”, being referred to your first group alluded to above & not to Hastings, Winchelsea &c to which I suppose you allude. Greenough hinted that as no-one has published as yet an account of the Hastings beds, you will of course take care & not refer to them as if known. Has not Dr Fitton an intention to take up that ground? Greenough asked “what is between Winchelsea and Framfield?” On the words “Whether the Ashburnham limestone is situated above or below”, he observed “It is determined that Ashburnham lies under the other”. He asked “whether any of the fossils of which the drawings are annexed have been published in your work on Sussex”. On my letter on the neighbourhood of Horsham, he said, “he considered that so long a dissertation on the hypothesis of the furrowed surfaces, did not follow naturally as an appendage to the section, & that if you were not likely soon to publish a full & detailed account of the Sussex limestone in which you might insert it, it might as well perhaps be given among the extracts at the end of one of our Volumes”; & he recommended me as I seemed interested with the subject to compile a separate memoir on the theory [*]5 as it is a phenomenon of very general occurrence, and presenting difficulties in some

5 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 113. counties beyond those of Sedgwick.[*] With some of these I have myself chanced to [meet] in the old red sandstone in Scotland since I last saw you, but I will not interfere with the question if you have any thoughts of writing on it yourself; if not I shall probably make another visit to the neighbourhood of Horsham, for I suspect that many facts connected with it might still be detected which are as yet unknown. If I accumulate several new sections there and elsewhere I might perhaps throw them into notes accompanying the essay. On my list of the localities round Horsham, Greenough observed that it was a much more concise & clearer method to throw them into a small outline map. Would you not like to get ready an abstract of your paper for “The Annals of Philosophy”, you might take the opportunity of saying whatever you like in it & I will see that it is inserted. Allow me to remind you that as those who have been to Purbeck say there is a gradual transition from the Sussex beds into the Purbeck, you need not seem to recant your former opinion, but merely to explain it. It must always be kept in mind that formations are for the most part arbitrary, not natural divisions. I was glad to hear from your brother6 that your child7 had recovered from his illness. With my compliments to Mrs Mantell believe me very truly yours ChaLyell

P.S. Your plates were folded and I believe injured, not my hands but I believe in Greenough’s.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

[ The following undated text was contained on a separate page

6 Joshua Mantell (1795 - 1865). Surgeon and writer on horticulture. DNB 7 Mantell’s eldest son, Walter Baldock Durrant Mantell (1820 - 1895). accompanying the previous letter and was written by the same amanuensis.]

I have laid before the table of the Society a small specimen of sediment deposited from water in the bottom of a steam boiler. It has happened accidentally in this case, that the uneven surface of the original nucleus has occasioned in miniature, a resemblance to those slabs which I have been describing. Although there is nothing singular or unusual in this instance, yet it is worth observing through how many successive layers the same inequalities are preserved, becoming however less indented by repetition and affecting that uneven surface, to which they would ultimately attain. Some of the stone at Stammerham consisted of an accumulation of thin seams not the tenth of an inch in thickness. I may add that it will not appear inconsistent to those who are familiar with the Sea beach, to suppose at different times, furrows on the sand to take every various direction, resulting from the changes in the course of the waves, which the wind and the form of the coast produce.

12

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

29 Norfolk St. June 11th 1823

My Dear Sir, [*]2 My expedition to the Isle of White [sic] has very much confirmed the views which I before entertained of the geology of Sussex. Professor Buckland who was of the party, tho’ he did not altogether give in to a theory which he admitted was new to him, was still clearly surprised, when I pointed out to him the fact, that there was every where in the I. of W.

1 Entire letter written by an amanuensis except the closing sentence. beds of sand below Webster’s blue marle greener than those above. [*]3 You are aware that Webster never found in his blue marle any fossils except 2 ammonites. At Compton Chine, however, I found several small Inocerami, I. sulcatus, I believe, & altho’ I was only there 5 minutes, I saw so many fragments of shells in this same blue marle, that I am inclined to believe the identity of this bed with the blue marle of Folkestone & the Gault, might be made out by a further search for the organic remains which it contains. The section from Compton chine to Brook is superb, & we see there at one view the whole Geology of your part of the world, from the chalk with flints down to the Battle beds, all within an hours walk, & yet neither are any of the beds absent, nor do I believe they are of less thickness than with you. This is so beautiful a key, that I should have been at a loss to conceive how so much blundering could have arisen if I had not witnessed the hurried manner in which Buckland galloped over the ground. He would have entirely overlooked the Weald clay, if I had not taken him back to see it. This clay however is only partly exposed, the softness of it having caused a ruin of the cliff just at the point where the Petworth marble ought to be looked for. Soon after this Sandstone containing layers of limestone with Bivalves appears, then some mottled beds purple & white, then Pyritous coal like that at Bex Hill I suppose. The white sands of Winchelsea & Fairlight are magnificently exposed [*]4 &c &c. I staid [sic] a day longer than the rest of the party, for the purpose of searching in the Weald clay of the Culver cliffs section for Petworth marble, but the cliff is there also in ruin; I found however a rounded block of it 2 feet or more in diameter on the sea shore, nearly opposite the Weald clay, specimens from which I have brought to town, some of which are at your service, with many specimens from the Freshwater formations which I collected for you, & will send you when I have more leisure to pack them up.[*] If the specimens of the Petworth marble which you were to send me are not ready soon, I would have you defer sending them till I return to town in the beginning of next Nov.r

2 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, pp. 120-121. 3 Text between asterisks is also quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, pp. 114-115. 4 Text quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, ceases at this point, but that quoted by K. Lyell continues. [*]5 Almost the whole of the back of the I. of W. is in such a dreadful state of ruin, that I believe it has been the cause of much of that confusion, which has found its way into the heads of some of our Geologists with regard to your Sussex beds, & some of those very same Geologists whom I have heard ridicule De Luc6 for supposing that he had there discovered chalk beneath the Greensand. You will be very glad to hear that Mr Warburton on whose accuracy above all men we may rely, says that above the Gault in Cambridgeshire greensand occurs as well as below it; this upper greensand as well as the firestone of Reigate, he chooses to consider as part of the lower chalk. Yet both he & Dr Fitton choose to call the beds at Beachy head Greensand, supposing it to belong to that which is below the Gault. In this they are completely mistaken. I am going to Paris towards the end of this month; if you wish to send any presents or book or anything to any one, I shall be very happy to be the bearer of them, indeed, it will be of advantage to me, as affording me some introduction to the donees & as this visit of mine is principally to perfect myself in the language I court everything which brings me in contact with Frenchmen. I like De Beaumont much,[*] as for Brochant7 we have not much hopes of him, for he appears to possess anything but that locomotive disposition, which is essential to Geology, at least to this branch of it. They cannot persuade him to make any tours in the neighbourhood of London, & altho’ unwilling to take the field, he hardly possesses that knowledge which we might look for in a cabinet Geologist. He is, however, good humoured & intelligent, & would not appear as dull if he were not so deaf. My compliments to Mrs Mantell & believe me yrs very truly ChaLyell

N.B. I set out for Paris on the 21 st. of June.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

5 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, pp. 120-121. 6 Jean-Andre De Luc (1727 - 1817). Swiss chemist and geologist. who settled in England in 1772, serving as Reader to Queen Charlotte.Sarjeant, G &H of G, vol. 3, p.1609. 7 Andre Jean Francois Marie Brochant de Villiers (1772 - 1840). French geologist who undertook early mapping of the geology of France. Professor of Geology and Mineralogy, Ecole des Mines, 13

Paris. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 1, p. 622. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell 1

London Dec. 4. 1823

My Dear Sir I hope you have not ascribed my delay in sending your copy of Moore’s2 works, to my requiring your prior payment of their price. When the money arrived today I felt the reproach was no more than I deserved, but the fact is, I have deferred from day to day your packet, in expectation that I should have found time to have looked over my Paris collections, and selected from them some specimens that might have interested you. I will not however allow the opportunity to escape, of putting you in possession of those fossils which you gave me in charge, and if any should be wanting I hope I shall find them when I unpack the rest of my treasures. I found it impossible to purchase for you any animals of the Montmartre gyps, the men are all in pay of Cuvier & some few others which we ought not to complain of as such monopolies have been heard of nearer home. I paid a visit to Prof Buckland at Oxford the other day and mentioned your Rhinoceros’ tooth3 of the Tilgate beds, he seemed as much inclined to believe it as if we had asserted that a child’s head had been discovered there, and he made a remark that well deserves your attention, viz. that diluvium debris with its accompanying fossils is sometimes mixed up with, and as it were introduced into the upper and exposed surface of older strata, which occurrence is not at all difficult to account for in a calcareo arenaceous bed, which would soon be cemented together again, and thus the most recent remains might be found intermingled in the same rock, with fossils of an ancient date. I do not mean to give any opinion myself as to what may be the case at Cuckfield but you should examine it with caution for Buckland enumerated to me several instances not very dissimilar in which he had been

1 The entire letter was written by an amanuensis except the final sentence. 2 Thomas Moore (1779 - 1852). A popular but minor poet. Born and educated in Ireland but settled in London in 1799. DNB. Mantell recorded in his Private Journal that Moore was his favourite poet. GAM-PJ, entry 16 February 1833. 3 Lyell took to Paris a worn fossil tooth of an unknown herbivorous animal which Mantell's wife purportedly discovered near Cuckfield during 1822. To Mantell’s astonishment, Cuvier without hesitation pronounced it to be an upper incisor of a Rhinoceros. G.A. Mantell, Petrifactions and their Teachings, H.G. Bohn, London, 1851, p. 228. himself deceived. You remember you made out a list of fossils found in the Blue marl of Bletchingley and the marm rock of western sussex. I believe when I last talked with you we were pretty well agreed that there were two different beds. I mention this because some of the members of the Council when considering whether your list should be published in the extracts of our forthcoming number, but I said I would put this question to you first. A Catalogue of the fossils exclusively belonging to the blue marl of Bletchingley would be very desirable, but if [it] were confounded with the formation above, which I am well assured now is the craie chloriteé of the French, I think we might do more harm than good. Webster does not seem to have cleared up his views of the blue marl at Eastbourne, and no wonder for so little of it is seen there that there is by no means evidence enough to force conviction on a man who is naturally very desirous not to give up the opinions which he formerly published, but in which I am well assured there are inconsistencies but I have not room at present to enlarge on this point. I shall not be able to move from London before Christmas but am much obliged to you for your invitation. With my compliments to Mrs Mantell believe me yours very truly ChaLyell [ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes ]

14

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

29 Norfolk Street London Feby.17. 1824

My dear Sir, [*]2 Your very obliging present of the Outlines of the Geology

1 The entire letter was written by an amanuensis except the final sentence and the Post Script 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p.151. of Lewes3 came to me almost as a reproach for having so long delayed sending you my letter on the Isle of Wight which I ought to have returned to you long before.[*] I was desirous of copying my notes because Dr Fitton wished to compare my specimens of the I. of W. with his of Sussex and Kent. [*]4 Your little volume is a very elegant illustration of your native town and your contribution to it is an excellent proof how much the sphere of local interest is enlarged by Geology. A few years since a history of Lewes would scarcely have yielded any glimpse of information so far back as the seventh Century. The Geological Antiquarian can safely rank his treasures of the youngest date as of an age of which the builders of your old Castle had no traditionary knowledge.[*] I have found since I sent you the last parcel a small additional Box which I believe was one of those which you gave me to take to Paris. It contains one of the Larch Cones if such they be on which the French would not pronounce also two detached specimens of the univalve of the Sussex marble on which I could get no opinion but unfortunately I omitted to show it to Baron Ferussac with whom I had the pleasure of being very intimate and who would have been the best authority. I hope to see him here in Town this Spring and shall therefore keep your specimens for the present. [*]5 W.D.Conybeare is in Town and has been with us for some time [.] he is waiting for the arrival of the new Lyme Regis Plesiosaurus of which he has an excellent drawing. The Duke of Buckingham6 has bought it, but it will be exhibited for some time at our rooms 20 Bedf.d St.7 It affords a great anatomical triumph to W.D.C. as most of his hypothetical restorations in his former memoirs turn out true to nature. The new animal is a very perfect skeleton and a prodigy for it has 40 cervical vertebrae whereas existing quadrupeds range from 7 to 9 reptiles from 3 to 9 Aves reach no higher than 20 the Swan being the maximum. What a leap have we here and how many links in the chain will Geology have to supply.[*] I regret that I had not an opportunity of reading over the M.S. of your

3 G.A. Mantell, Outlines of the Natural History of the Environs of Lewes, John Baxter, Lewes, Sussex Press, 1824. This small book of 24 pages was also included as an appendix in vol. 1 of T. W. Horsfield, History and Antiquities of Lewes and its Vicinity, 2 vols, J. Baxter, Lewes, Sussex Press, 1824-1827. 4 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, p. 151. 5 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 151 and also in Wilson, Charles Lyell, pp. 124-125. 6 Richard Nugent-Temple Granville, first Duke of Buckingham and Chandos. (1776 - 1839). DNB. 7 The rooms of the GSL were situated at 20 Bedford Street from 1816-1828. Woodward, History of last work before publication as your statement of the identity of the Druid Sandstone with calcaire Siliceux is unfortunate8 and the more so because there are so many sandstones in the Paris basin which are really analogous mineralogically speaking. Not less than three. But the calcaire Siliceux is a cherty pure chrystalline Limestone containing no shells. It lies above the plastic clay as you state and although the area of its formation is somewhat problematical the best authorities incline to refer it to the lower freshwater formation. Some suppose that it is parallel to the calcaire grossiere and only found when that is wanting. My own observation would have led me to this latter opinion but Prevost who has seen more and whose opinion I would rather take than Bro[n]gniart’s, decides for the former. The two annexed diagrams will explain to you the two theories.

In the Paris basin there are three descriptions of grés or Sandstone from which hand specimens might be selected which you could scarcely distinguish from the Druid Sandstone. The oldest of these is at the bottom of the calc. gross. in those parts of the basin where the calc. Sil. does not exist. Part of this bed when full of green earth has been termed by Bro[n]gniart, Glauconia Grossin. When I arrange my French specimens I will endeavour to send you some. The second grés is an upper bed of the calc. gross. and sometimes looks very like the Bognor rock and incloses similar fossils. The third grés or gré de Fontainbleu belongs decidedly to the upper marine for I have myself seen the “calcaire d’eau douce superieure” reposing in situ upon it. But there is no sand sandstone or gré whatever belonging to the calc. Sil. I the GSL, p. 51 and p. 73. 8 In his Outlines of the Natural History of the Environs of Lewes, (note 3), Mantell stated on p. viii, that the Druid Sandstone “is evidently identical with the calcaire silicieux of the French geologists, subjoin an ideal section of the superposition of y/r Paris tertiary strata in which I do not enter into more details than with reference to the point on which I am speaking.

You say that the tooth plate 29. 14 is of an herbivorous animal, how do you know this? Cuvier as I understood him when searching for an analogy to it looked among the reptiles. When you mention the Sussex marble & vivipara I wish you had added that Geo. Sowerby inclines to think it turbolittorareous. He is [a] better authority than his Father in conchology which is said to be above the plastic clay”. and as Geologists we ought not willingly to admit freshwater formations there. When you happen to be sending a parcel to town small Slabs of Sussex marble with moderately sized specimens in a rough state with the shells standing out in relief will always be acceptable to me if you will have the goodness to charge me with the expense of polishing. Our new Vol.9 is in the press and as Sec.y I am too busy to look over my foreign specimens or I would have continued to find you some duplicates. With compl.s to Mrs Mantell believe me yours most truly ChaLyell

P.S. Read my new note to I. of Wight letter.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes ]

15

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell10

29 Norfolk Street. Strand. 20 th. April 1824.

Dear Sir, I send you a small packet of specimens one suite of which viz that from Shine I recommend first to your notice although I was doubting

9 TGSL, 1824, 1 (2), series 2. 10 The entire letter was written by an amanuensis except the final sentence. whether I had not already sent you specimens from that place[.] they are put up together in one parcel and I enclose the section to which they belong. They are of importance as proving that Guildford does not as some have supposed form an exception to the general rule and that the ironsand of the green sand formation does not there meet the chalk without an intervening bed of blue marl and of chlorite chalk resembling the under-cliff. The other specimens from the I. of Wight will possess the advantage that they were all collected by myself with great attention to Geological position. There are no beds where this is more necessary or from whence specimens collected by the uninitiated would be more totally worthless. The rocks which come from the grand section of the lower freshwater near Bembridge were I believe never examined with so much attention as I gave to them and although I cannot send you a suite of the fossils of these beds yet it will be something to possess specimens of the rocks in your collection which nature manufactured at a period evidently subsequent to the most recent which you have seen in your County. As I have explained each specimen on the ticket which is enclosed with it it will be unnecessary for me to trouble you with any more in the latter. I hope that in looking over my collections from Paris that I shall find duplicates which will serve as equivalents to the I. of Wight formations. [*]11 I ought to observe that there is a remarkable and somewhat unaccountable discrepancy between the beds of the lower freshwater formation at Headon Hill and the same beds at the eastern side of the Island between Bembridge ledge and Culver Cliff [*] from whence I have sent you a section. The numbers 1.2.3.4.5.6 which you will observe are attached to the labels refer to this section of which I have sent you a copy because there is no accurate published account of the Whitecliff Bay freshwater beds. believe me My dear Sir Yours truly ChaLyell

11 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 126. [ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq ]

Section presented by the Cliffs near Benbridge Ledge, Isle of Wight, at the junction of the horizontal and vertical strata in White cliff Bay. 16

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 9 July 1824 ]

My dear Sir [*]1 The three letters which you have sent me & which are still unanswered arrived in town when I was absent on a tour with Mons.r Constant Prévost a French Geologist whom you know from his works.[*] We travelled by Oxford, Dudley, Malvern, Gloucester, Tortworth, Bristol, Exeter, Cornwall, Plymouth, Lyme Regis, Weymouth, Isle of Portland &c [.] a most interesting Geological Excursion. One of your letters was sent after me en route, the other two were forwarded to this place & I now receive them on my return. [*]2 I am glad you are persevering in enriching your collection which is becoming generally celebrated & will be soon more well known since the visit of our Oxford Professor3 who was very much struck with it. My friend Prévost studied anatomy for 3 y.rs under Cuvier, & as he is intending to visit England again this summer he will if possible call on you at Lewes. I gave him your address & assured him that he would meet with a welcome from you. It would be of use to his Geological work on Normandy to see your fossils & I doubt not you will derive much light from his remarks on

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 153. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 153. 3 The Revd. William Buckland, accompanied by Lyell, visited Mantell at Lewes on 6 March 1824. GAM-PJ. your osteological treasures. Three weeks since a magnificent specimen of an icthyosaurus (tenuirostris?) was discovered at Lyme by the celebrated Mary Anning. It is about the size of the Plesiosaurus which you saw in Town. M. Prévost took a drawing of it which I have traced, & I send it you that you may see it as it will be long probably ’ere it is published. The sketch was taken by measuring & altho’ rapidly, yet may be depended upon.[*] If you are sufficienty interested with it pray copy it & send mine back to me “to the Geol.l Soc.y London” that I may have it when I pass thro’ town in 4 or 5 days on my way to Scotland.[*]4 While we were at Lyme we witnessed the discovery of a superb skeleton of Icth. vulgaris by Miss Anning. It was perfect, save the tail, wh. a cart wheel had passed over. It was 2 f.t long. [*] I will enquire whether Cuvier which you speak of is at the Geol.l rooms & if I have time try to borrow it for you. I hope Mrs Mantell is recovered & believe me yours very truly ChaLyell

July 9 1824 Southton Bartley Lodge

P.S. You will remark the minuteness of the largest tooth of so large an animal.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

17

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 24 November 1824 ]

4 Text betwen asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol.1, p.153. Most of this extract is also quoted My dear Sir I have been absent from town first on my tour with M. Prévost & afterwards in Scotland, ever since the end of May. I find a letter of yours waiting me here to which I need not now reply & have only to hope that you suffered no material inconvenience in the preparing your publication in consequence of my not being on the spot. Is your work out?5 Am I among the Subscribers? if not I intended it & beg you will put it down as a matter of concern to every work with which you favour us & the more the better. You have seen Dr. Fitton’s paper6 in the Annals of Phil.y on the old story of the firestone, gault, & greensand. You will also be struck with the concordance of all the opinions there (except one or two blunders to wh. he pleads guilty) with those which I detailed to you in my long letter of July 1822. Dr F. had seen that letter & kept it 3 weeks in order to copy it but had so completely forgotten it & all the other circumstances which I had told him of these matters that he has been discovering them all himself in the I. of Wight. You will see however a handsome acknowledgement of my claim to priority in the number of the Annals which comes out tomorrow which I did not want him to publish but both he & Bucland thought it right. I regret much now that that you had not published in some of your works 2 y.rs ago all that we both knew on this lead for it would have done you much credit which has been now preoccupied but you will be satisfied with me that the confusion which we have long felt is at length in a fair way of being cleared up & the truth of being known. Fitton has said something of you too & what with Bucland’s Megalosaurian compliments7 & some that were paid you at our last discussion you will have come off moderately well. [*]8 I have made a very detailed Geol.l Map of 2 thirds of the county of Forfar. this year besides many more labours on rock marl, serpentine &c in Wilson, Charles Lyell, pp. 128-129. 5 Mantell’s next work, Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex: The Fossils of Tilgate Forest, Lupton Relfe, London, was not published until December 1826. 6 W.H. Fitton, ‘Inquiries respecting the Geological Relations of the Beds between the Chalk and Purbeck Limestone in the Southeast of England’, Annals of Philosophy, 1824, 8, new series, pp. 365-383 and 458-462. 7 On February 1824 Buckland read his ‘Notice on the Megalosaurus or great Fossil Lizard of Stonesfield’, TGSL, 1824, 1(2), series 2, pp. 390-396. In doing so Buckland favourably commented on Mantell’s fossil discoveries and highly valuable collection at Lewes. 8 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 131. [*]. I also made a 5 weeks tour with Bucland in the North of Scotland. I hope to see you in town soon to talk over my travels with you. With my comp.ts to Mrs Mantell yours very truly ChaLyell

29 Norfolk St. Strand Nov.r 24. 1824.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes ]

18

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 8 January 1825 ]

My dear Sir The Secretaries of the Geol.l Soc.y 1 were requested by the Council to make out a list of such papers as had been read, with a view of going to press as soon as possible with a new number, to redeem our character if possible after the delay last time. Among others “Mr Mantell on

1 T. Webster, 1819-17, C. Lyell, 1823-26, and P. B. Webb, 1824-25, were the then current Secretaries of the GSL. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 296. the Iron-Sand of Sussex”2 appeared in the list as one referred to Mr Greenough & not reported on by him but still in the hands of the Author. I was asked about it & said that I would communicate with you on the subject, thus leaving it open to you to get anything ready if you like before our next meeting of Jan.y 21. You would have been surprised to see how many papers stood before yours but really the Socy’s Council are not to blame, for even those worth publishing are in such a state that it requires much more time for a referee or Secret.y to prepare them than he w.d take to make a new paper himself. I have just been reading a longish paper of mine entitled “On a recent formation of freshwater rock marle in Forfarshire (Scotland) with some remarks on the origin of shell marle.”3 I was much flattered with the manner in which the memoir was received & discussed. If it is ordered to be printed I fear it will not come into the next number for those papers only are to appear in that which are ready by our Anniversary and as each is of course entitled to priority in the order they were read & the number of pages is to be limited to 200 I fear that number will be occupied before my turn. If you can give me any hints on shell marle I shall thank you as I could put them in before the referee gets my paper next week. I know you have not neglected alluvial deposits near Lewes for which I have quoted you. The following are some of the leading points on wh. you may have some opinions. 1. Is shell marle entirely derived from shells? if not why does it abound in a part of Scotland in wh. limestone is almost unknown, & is wanting in the Chalk & Oolite tracts of England? 2. Is there marle deposited by water in the Chalk? 3. In alluvial valleys in Chalk, in wh. freshwater shells occur, does calcareous marle accompany them? 4. Testacea multiply excessively in Scotland in the clearest lakes. when the water is charged with too much lime, as is perhaps the case in Chalk countries are not the mollusca killed, or injured? 5. If marle be derived from shells, why does it not form in England where I

2 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Iron Sand Formation of Sussex. In a letter to Dr Fitton, Secretary to the Geological Society’, [14 June 1822], TGSL, 1826, 2(1), series 2, pp. 131-134. 3 C. Lyell, ‘On a recent Formation Of Freshwater Limestone in Forfarshire, and on some recent Deposits of Freshwater Marl; with a comparison of recent with ancient Freshwater Formations; and an Appendix on the Gyrogonite or Seed-vessell of the Chara’, [1824], TGSL, 1826, 2(1), series 2, pp. 73-96. am told shells lie a foot deep at the bottom of ponds, as at Deptford? 6. If marle be a mechanical deposit from water ought it not to be most abundant in calcareous districts in England, & least, in the old red sandst. of Scotland in wh. there is scarcely any carb.te of lime? yet there it is accumulated enormously. 7. If marle be a chemical deposit from water why is it rare in England where evaporation is greater, where tuffaceous incrustations are common which are entirely unknown in the part of Scotland in wh. marle abounds? 8. Again, if it be chemical, why does its formation entirely cease in Scotland when a lake is drained, tho’ the springs wh. bring up calcareous matter, still flow? 9. Do canals in Chalk countries fill up with a kind of marly matter? 10. Near Romney in Hants. I have found a large quantity of shell marle in the alluvial tracts, overlying peat, wh. comes near to the Scotch. It is in the plastic clay formation. Do you know any English localities? 11. Is marle ever found where there are no springs? 12. Do freshwater testacea live in ponds in Chalk?

With my compl.s to Mrs Mantell & with the hope of hearing from you soon believe me yours very truly ChaLyell

29 Norfolk St. Jan 7. 8. 1825.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ] 19

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

London Jan 14 1825.

My dear Sir I am much obliged to you for your answers to my queries which are quite in print1. Warburton tho’ he seems to have assumed in his former paper2 the animal origin of the shell-marl in Scotland, has now changed sides & thinks a large part very probably a deposit from water. On the contrary I think I think I can prove that in Forfarsh. it is derived exclusively from testacea. There is much to be said on both sides. Nothing is so difficult to account for as that there is so little marl in Chalk or oolite countries. indeed is there any? Bucland can tell me of none. Your pipe clay interests me much. Do you know any facts with regard to decomposition of shells in alluvial deposits or in ponds? or ditches? I am in hopes that in thinking over some of my queries you may be led to some observations that may assist me for I shall endeavour thoroughly to go to the bottom of the subject which I find deepens as I attempt to fathom it. Your clay with turbo ulva is exceedingly pretty. it reminds one of some clay of the upper marine in I. of Wight enclosing shells. Warburton has undertaken to prepare the iron sand paper for the press therefore pray send it & I will see about a note which shall assert the date of your communication of the Iguanodon tooth. I cannot agree with you that Mr Webster’s or any paper since read have superseded the facts in yours. Yours should have been published as a notice in the last vol. but Greenough’s reason for not recommending it was, that the facts were after all but a scanty

1 There is no acknowledgement of any assistance which Lyell may have received from Mantell in Lyell’s published paper, ‘On a recent Formation of Freshwater Limestone in Forfarshire’, TGSL, 1826, 2, series 2, pp. 73-96. 2 H. Warburton, ‘On some Beds of Shell Marle in Scotland’, [1814], TGSL, 1817, 4, series 1, pp. 305-09. contribution towards the history of a bed so near home & so accessible that he could not persuade himself that you could not with care render it much more full & that it would then be more valuable both to science & your fame. He was perhaps mistaken but it was done with the best intention & was the sole reason of the papers publication being deferred.[*]3 Konig tells me he has no fear of your becoming F.R.S. What I can do, I will.[*] You must not decline being on our Council from your incapacity to attend it. It is a compliment which is thought the more due to you from the laboriousness of your professional engagements which make your exertions in Geology the more meritorious, at least in the eyes of every lover of that Science. yours truly ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

20

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 19 May 1825 ]

My dear Sir Relfe has been here today & showed me your letter. Dr Fitton gave me (& said he sh.d write to tell you of it) some days since the Rhinoceros horn4 & another bone, which I took to [Shouts?] & he promised in a week to do them.[*]5 I have shown your other new & interesting Tilgate

3 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 143. 4 The ‘rhinoceros horn’ was described by Mantell as “a very remarkable appendage, with which there is every reason to believe the Iguanodon was provided.This is no less a horn, equal in size, and not very different in form, to the lesser horn of the Rhinoceros..”, G.A.Mantell, Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, Relfe, London, 1827, Plate XX, figure 8. After Mantell’s death in 1852 the ‘horn’ was shown to have been a claw. Spokes, G.A. Mantell, pp. 26-27. 5 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 142. fossils to Stokes, G.Sowerby, Dr. Woolaston [sic], Konig & others. All declare that it is new, remarkable & unintelligible & therefore may be what Mr Mantell chooses & I informed them that you wished it to be an insect. Dr W. says “it shall be an insect”.[*] As the Spartans of old decreed “quoniam Alexander Deus esse vult est Deus”.6 Konig made a miserable wax cast of it with which dissatisfied I took to [Sarte?] who promised to make a chef d’oevre of it in 5 days. I ordered a dozen, in plaster of Paris, & have got back the original safe. It was as much as I could do to prevent the learned from trying their skill in cutting away more of the matrix. I am wicked enough to rejoice that the growing taste for organic remains makes you pay dear for them at Lewes. You must be satisfied with the monopoly of the Tilgate gold-mine. If Bristol had been as near as London there would have been long ere this a joint-stock Company formed for working it. As I am busy I cannot write a longer letter but write to me if I can do anything for you here. yours most truly ChaLyell

29 Norfolk St. May 19, 1825

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

21

6 “ because Alexander wishes it to be God it is God”. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 23 May 1825 ]

My dear Sir I send Relf[e] 3. models of the horn & 3. of the bone to do with them as you may have directed. [Shouts?] c.d not get them done before this morning. I keep 2. of each here because I thought you might hereafter wish me to give them to some one in town. I send also the two originals. I shall retain the Tilgate Entomolite, tho’ I have shown it now to so many that I am sure nothing will be made of it. Macleay1 has not seen it yet. The models are not yet come from [Sarte?]. Our general Meeting & dinner to celebrate the Charter is to take place on next Frid.y week on the ordinary meeting day. Can you not come? I am so busy that you must excuse a short letter. yours most truly ChaLyell 29 Norfolk St. May 23. 1825.

P.S. I forgot the Juli & univalves unless they are those I took to Paris? I will search at 20 Bedf.d St. in my Paris box for them but cannot send them today. If I find them I can send them with the entomolite.

22

1 It is more likely Lyell refers to William Sharp Macleay (1792-1865), natural scientist and entomologist, rather than Alexander Macleay (1767- 1848), entomologist and colonial statesman. DNB. Both men were in England in May 1825. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Bartley Lodge Southhampton July 20 th. 1825 My dear Sir [*]1 I went to Fitton’s when he came to town for a few days in the beginning of this week & was not a little gratified at being there when the Clathrarium,2 my namesake, was found. You might have felt secure that so beautiful a specimen as it really is, would never have been thrown away even by mistake at the house of a Geologist. Though I did not see Chantrey3 about the Iguanodon’s teeth yet I have no fear of their safety & they will at length in his hands like the teeth of Cadmus’s4 dragon, be productive of a fruitful crop. Fitton has promised to enquire about them. He has just returned from examining the “valley of Elevation” as Bucland calls it at Highclere which I consider as caused by a continuation of that Elevating force which acted in a line along the central axis of your great saddle of Surrey, Kent, & Sussex, & which if prolonged w.d have elevated the firestone beds (for such they prove to be) at Highclere. All this took place after the deposition of the London clay; & before it happened the Plastic & London clay of the Hants & London basin were horizontally connected. The Chalk which now separates them was pushed up thro' them, for as Bucland observes, the highest chalk summit at Inkpen Hill is still covered by decided Plastic clay. Your great valley is not a valley of denudation. I do not agree with Bucland that much chalk has been carried away, between the N.th & S.th downs for as two sides of a triangle must be longer than the base, so when the horizontal chalk was inclined from below London to the N. downs, & again from Lewes to heaven knows how many miles under the Sea, how could

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, pp. 160-161. 2 A genus of fossil stems first discovered by Mantell in the Wealden beds in Sussex. One species was named Clathrarium lyelli. D. Page, Handbook of Geological Terms, 1859, p. 117. 3 Francis Legatt Chantrey (1781 - 1841). Sculptor and painter who also served three terms on the GSL Council. Knighted 1835. DNB. 4 Greek mythological figure who slew a dragon, had its teeth sown in the ground and saw them grow into armed men. there be other than an opening of some miles? [*] Some little was washed away between b & c.

The chalk in the I. of W. & Purbeck became vertical at the same epoch that your Sussex valley was formed & was the effect probably of a continuance laterally of the same force, causing waves. Alum Bay proves that in the I. of W. it took place after London clay was deposited. [*]5 I remain here for a month or more & perhaps may go to Dresden to learn German this Summer or rather autumn but I am not sure. Bucland you know is made by Ld. Liverpool6 a canon of Ch. Ch. a good house, £1,000 per an.m & no residence or duty required. Surely such places ought to be made also for Lay Geologists. with my compl.s to Mrs Mantell believe me yours very truly.[*] ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ] 23

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 3 Nov. 1825 ]

5 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol.1, p.161. 6 Robert Banks Jenkinson, second Earl of Liverpool (1794 - 1854). Statesman. Premier 1812-1827. DNB. My dear Sir I only arrived in town last night where I found your letter. I quitted London for Hants at the same time as Stokes & Chantrey whom I saw here somewhat in doubts as to making you a visit, & urged them much to do so, knowing that it would be of advantage both to them & to you & to Geology. I am glad you saw them. I cannot learn whether Bucland is to be here tomorrow, indeed we seldom know till within a few hours of the meeting, but Webster tells me that Ad. Bro[n]gniart is to attend the meeting which will I hope be a sufficient inducement to you to give us your company. As I read a paper of Fitton’s on New Holland1 compiled from Capt. King’s2 notes & specimens your intended present will perhaps make a greater show at some future meeting, besides we shall I suppose not be quite in full force. Your present of a coloured copy will be most acceptable to the Soc.y it is a desideratum which was once regretted at the Council but our small book- fund was thought at too low an ebb to purchase. I will enquire about a French Dictionary. I was much interested with your discovery of the horn3 which Stokes convinced me was right. I have so little time to prepare for the meeting tomorrow the paper being in an unfinished state, & still more the maps that you must excuse a short letter which I hope you will get in time to come. If you come breakfast with me Sat.y morn.g & I will get Bro[n]gniart to visit you. With my comp.ls to Mrs Mantell yours very truly ChaLyell 29 Norfolk St. Nov. 3 1825 24

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

1 W.H. Fitton, ‘An Account of Some Geological Specimens’, in P.P. King, Narrative of a Survey of the Intertropical and Western Coasts of Australia, 1818-22, Murray, London, 1827. 2 Philip Parker King (1793 - 1856). Royal Naval officer who surveyed the Australian coast 1817-22. DNB. 3 See note 1, Letter 20 (19 May 1825). [ 4 Nov. 1825 ] My dear Sir As the Post will go out before we know whether you come I will not run the risk of losing a day without writing to say that Ad. Bro[n]gniart whom I saw this morning will not be able to visit you. He begs me to say that he is extremely sorry as one of his great objects in visiting England was to make your personal acquaintance. He leaves England in about a week. Wishes to see all your drawings of fossil plants, to show you his magnificent collection made in England, to talk over these with you. Hopes you will bring up all your drawings & portable specimens of plants. Pray come. Bucland will be here I have just heard, & stays 3. or 4. days in town. Yours ever most truly ChaLyell

Fridy. 29 Norfolk St. 1825

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

25

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 10 Dec. 1825 ]

Dear Mantell I am going to send to Ad. Bro[n]gniart before I leave town which will be about Saturday next, Dec. 17.th & will enclose any thing you like. I shall probably be at the R.S. on Thursd.y I asked D. Gilbert for a frank the night of your election at which I was present, but as he assured me he would write himself, I felt it unnecessary but beg most heartily to congratulate you.4 I think if you brought up your packet with you it would do very well. in haste believe me yours most truly ChaLyell Athenaeum London, Dec. 10, 1825.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Lewes, Sussex ]

26

The following letter, dated 7 February 1826, was written by

William Buckland to Charles Lyell who added his own comments

and then sent both letters to Mantell on 9 February 1826.

[ 7 Feb. 1826 ]

My dear Sir In Reply to your Questions arising out of Mr. Mantell’s Letter, I have to observe: 1 st Is not the Term Malm applicable, rather to Chalk Marl, than to Firestone? Ascertain this by reference to the Counties where the term Malm is provincially used. I believe Smith will furnish this Information. 2.d I would certainly retain the term Firestone to express the Ryegate & Merstham Beds, and I would add to it, as a Synonymet, “Upper Green Sand,

4 Mantell was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society of London on 25 November 1825 and admitted on 22 December 1825 when he was introduced by C. Babbage and J. Herschel. GAM-PJ. or, Merstham & Ryegate Beds”. 3.rd To the term Galt, I would add “or Folkestone Marl” & exclude the Term Blue Chalk Marl as belonging to the Bed wh. is burnt at Guildford for underwater Lime. 4.thly I object to the Term Blackdown Sand, because there are so many Hills of that name, and, who for a work on Sussex, would advise the Adoption of “Haslemere & Leith Hill Sand”, or Lower Green Sand. 5.thly I approve the Term “Hastings Sand”, but object to the Term “Forest”, unless “Tilgate” or Ashdown be prefixed to it, or both. 6.thly Are not the Ashburnham Limestone Beds to be referred rather, to the Purbeck Limestone Beds, not the Marble, than to the Hastings Sand? Moreover, I would refer my Readers to the Section presented by the Hills, immediately, on the North & South of Godstone, as one of the most obvious and unequivocal on the line of any of the Public Roads, and, as being that which is published by Smith in his Sections, in its true and proper Order of Succession. 7.thly I hope you mean to vote for Mr. Estcourt1 against Sir Charles Wetherell,2 & if you have not already done so, will give me Authority to mention your Name to the Committee. 8.thly Dr.Bostock3 has, with his characteristic modesty, consented to accept the Office of President, if it be deemed for the Benefit of the Society that he should do so; his Conduct on the Occasion has been most handsome. I have written to De la Beche & desired him to send his Reply to Mr.Webster. I hope to be in Town on Saturday, but regret I shall not be able to come to the Council on Friday, therefore make my Apologies, & believe me, very truly Yours, W.m Buckland Feb.y 7. 1826

[ Addressed to: C. Lyell Esq. Norfolk St. Strand, London ]

Letter from Charles Lyell to G.A.Mantell written on the

1 Thomas Henry Sutton Sotheron Estcourt (1801 - 1876). Conservative statesman. M.P. for Devizes 1805-27 and for Oxford University 1827-47. DNB. 2 Sir Charles Wetherell (1770 - 1841). Lawyer and politician who strongly opposed reform. M.P. Oxford 1820-26, Hastings 1826, Plympton Earl 1826-30. DNB. remaining space of Buckland’s letter to Lyell.

[ 9 Februaruy 1826 ]4

Dear Mantell I only received your letter about a week ago when I returned to town & have immediately attended to it. Dr. Fitton sent me his paper5 & appendix published in ‘Annals. of Phil’, but as you read them I suppose need I send them to you, but if so how? I shall now offer some remarks first observing that I agree with all Bucland’s particularly with N.o 4. 5. & 6.

1.st Chalk with flints is better than Upper Chalk.

2.d Chalk without flints much preferable to Lower Chalk. Middle Chalk w.d be more appropriate but pray avoid new names. “Lower” sounds as if the whole Chalk was divided merely into upper & lower & not that a great bed of true genuine chalk was still lower, than the Lower Chalk. Chalk Marl is established.

3.d The greatest objection to malm-rock is that malm in Hants is applied to friable shell marle & elsewhere to soft malm-lands. Besides how badly it applies to loose beds of green sand as at Beachy H.? 4. Blackdown sand is bad for more reasons than Bucland & Fitton have given you but I have not room to add more & it is not necessary. Weald clay, good – Hasting sands best alone & by all means no “Forest”. 5. Galt or Folkstone marl will do very well. Shanklin or Lower green-sand may perhaps do tho’ I cannot make up my mind about that. You must use your discretion. The Ladies & Lovers of the picturesque have always attached romantic associations to Shanklin Chine & we ought not to allow ourselves to be laughed out of it because some people’s associations are ludicrously opposite. Yours most truly

3 Dr. John Bostock (1773 - 1846). Physician who moved to London in 1817 and abandoned medicine for general science. Elected President GSL 1826. DNB. 4 Postmarked 9 February 1826. 5 W.H. Fitton, ‘Inquiries respecting the Geological Relations of the Beds between the Chalk and the Purbeck Limestone in the South-east of England’, Annals of Philosophy, 1824, 8, pp. 365-383 and 458-462. ChaLyell

P.S. I was made F.R.S. on Thursd. last.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

27

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 27 February 1826 ] My dear Sir I enclose you a note which was I believe the last our Ex.Pres.t1 wrote in London or rather “caused to be written”. I hope the opinion is a just one as I believe it agrees with your conjectures? The bearer of this, Sir A. Crichton,2 you know of course by name as V.P.G.S. & no doubt by reputation as a Geologist. I feel therefore that it is quite unnecessary for me to mention him as a friend of mine to ensure him your attentions when at Lewes where I am in hopes he will go expressly to see your collection. I hope you got my letter & Fitton’s. I think you had better leave alone Murchison’s favourite “upper green sand”. Green S. if kept at all should be the name of the whole formation & that merely as an old name & not for any better reason. I have given up the G.S. & am working at Law. As S.A.C.3 has

1 Rev. William Buckland, President GSL 1824-26. H.B. Woodward, History of the GSL, 1908, p.216. 2 Sir Alexander Crichton ( 1763 - 1856 ). Scots physician and amateur geologist. Vice-President GSL, 1826. DNB. 3 Sir Alexander Crichton. given me but short notice I must conclude hoping most sincerely to hear from him when he returns that your domestic anxieties are over. I am happy to inform you that I am F.R.S. with my comp.ts to Mrs. Mantell believe me yours very truly ChaLyell

29 Norfolk St. Feb. 27 1826

[Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ] 28

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 11 March 1826 ] My dear Sir I enclose Dr. Fitton’s supplementary paper1 which you say you have not read. As soon as my paper2 is printed I will endeavour to get you a copy for I fear you may wait forever if you stay till the vol. is out. I hope it will be printed very shortly. I should like you to see it before you publish. Murchison has I believe written to you. Did you ever find granite pebbles or fragments of any primitive rocks besides quartz in the Tilgate beds? Might not some of the quartz pebbles in the Diluvium of London have come from that bed? Do you ever find chalk flints along the central ridge of Sussex, or “the anticlinal axis[”] as Scrope has it? Are not chalk flints rare between the escarpments of the N.& S. Downs compared to their abundance on the S. side of the S. & N. side of N.

1 W.H.Fitton, ‘Additions to Inquiries respecting the Geological Relations of the Beds between the Chalk and the Purbeck Limestone in the South-east of England’, Annals of Philosophy, 1824, 8, pp. 458-462. 2 Lyell presumably refers to his paper, ‘On a Recent Formation of Freshwater Limestone in Downs? What pebbles besides those derivative from chalk occur in the latter diluvium? Are you not of opinion that the diluvium of the S.W. part of Sussex is partially of a local character? These are queries which a paper I am now writing on the Plastic clay between Xch. Head Hants & Studland Bay, I. of Purbeck have suggested.3 Dr. Bostock is our new Pres.t Greenough might have been if he had wished it. But I suppose Sir A. Crichton has told you all the news. With my compl.ts therefore to Mrs Mantell I will conclude in haste yours very truly ChaLyell 29 Norfolk St. Strand. March 11. 1826

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ] 29

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 2 April 1826 ] My dear Sir By your letter receiv.d today I presume that Mr Relf[e] has not forwarded you my last letter as you do not allude to it.

Forfarshire, and on some Recent Deposits of Freshwater Marl’, TGSL, 1826, 2(1), series 2, pp.73-96. 3 C. Lyell, ‘On the Strata of the Plastic Clay Formation exhibited in the Cliffs between Christchurch Head Hampshire and Studland Bay Dorsetshire’, [17 March 1826], TGSL, 1827, 2(1), series 2, pp. 279-286. I hope you have not lost a letter a long one which I wrote to you on the subject of the greyweathers &c & their equivalents in [y r] Paris Basin.1 It contained much more information than I can now give as it was extracted from my Geol.l Memor.dum Book which fell into the sea from Highcliff last summer. It is dangerous to talk of equivalents between any beds in the 2 basins younger than the Plastic clay. Perhaps there was a communication up to that formation & then the seas must have been separated & no mineralogical resemblance again occurs. The Fossils of the Calc. gross. are similar owing perhaps to the similarity of Epoch, but in other respects the Calc. Gross. is no more like Lond. Clay than the Oolite. There are three grés in the French Basin like the Druid sandst., one is between the Plastic clay & Calcaire grossiere, the 2.d is in the upper part of the calcaire Gross below the Gypse or Lower Freshwater. The 3.d is the upper marine formation of which there is a grand display in the Forest of Fontainbleu where they stand out like our greyweathers. The sands of the Plastic Clay near Studland near their junction with the Chalk of I. of Purbeck on which I have lately read a paper2 pass often into sandst. Query, would fragments of these rounded & left by a debacle have resembled the fragments on the S. downs? I will send C. Prévost’s Paper on the Gres de Beauchamp in which you will see the 3 grés ment.d & hope Relf[e] will find an opportunity of forwarding it. But do not attempt to assimilate in such details the totally dissimilar formations of London & Paris. 2.dly The Craie chloriteé is our Firestone. 3.dly The Craie Tufeau is not our chalk marle, at least it appeared to me that they never called it tufeau till it began to get micaceous & in part to be passing into firestone. 4. I would certainly include Firest. in the Chalk form.n & it is hard to exclude Galt, in this case it seems a pity that the Shanklin beds are left to stand alone as they unquestionably belong more to the former series than to the Weald C. & Hastings & Purbeck. The Shanklin w.d not do with the chalk & are not enough for a group by themselves.

1 CL to GAM,17 February 1824, [ Letter No. 14 ]. 2 C. Lyell, ‘On the Strata of the Plastic Clay Formation exhibited in the Cliffs between Christchurch Head, Hampshire, and Studland Bay, Dorsetshire’, [17 March 1826], TGSL, 1827, 2(2), series 2, pp. I start for Sessions tomorrow morning at 7 ock A.M. & find a moment to scrawl this with difficulty. Let me see Prévosts memoir again some time or other when you send to town. Yours very truly ChaLyell 9 Crown Office Row Temple3 Apl. 2. 1826

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes ]

30

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 16 May 1826 ]

My dear Sir As I know not that I may see Fitton for several days to ask him about Pewsey & Devizes4 (neither of which I can answer myself tho’ I believe your conjecture is right), I will write at once and thank you for your specimens, & now that I am [*]5 in Chambers, fixed in my own house,[*] I will have a small collect.n arranged & am glad of so beautiful a beginning. Warminster is now settled to be firestone. I have been writing a chapter addressed to the general reader on “Freshwater Formations” as an appendix to an account of Hordwell cliff which I have now examined in minute detail

279-286. 3 In early April 1826 Lyell moved from 29 Norfolk Street to larger rooms at 9 Crown Office Row, Temple. Wilson, Charles Lyell, p.148. 4 The reference to the Vale of Pewsey, to the east of Devizes, concerns the nature and causes of seemingly simple valleys of denudation and relates to Buckland’s paper ‘On the Formation of the Valley of Kingsclere and other Valleys by the Elevation of the Strata that inclose them; and on the Evidences of the original Continuity of the Basins of London and Hampshire’, [1825], TGSL, 1829, 2, series 2, pp. 119-130, on p. 123. 5 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p.148. The context refers to Lyell’s as you will perceive hereafter. It will appear in a small Christchurch Guide which my friend W.S. Rose6 is going to publish for the benefit of our Hants fashionable watering place dilitante savons.[*]7 I have pronounced as Fitton stated, (see Ann. Phil. Nov.r 1824)8 That if a line be drawn between the Weald C. & Shanklin S.d all above to chalk and further is marine all below to Portland freshwr.[*] As for the beds of oysters found in the Weald clay (query where?) and in the Purbeck I contend there are no more objections in so great a thickness of freshwater (800? feet) than the oysters of upper marine I. of W. occurring in the 200 ft. wh. the united Lower & Upper Freshwat.r scarcely exceed. The oysters of Weald & Purbeck are accord.g to Sowerby, genuine marine shells. As to the whales of Tilgate, two whales have been found in the freshwater alluvial deposits of the Firth & one was stranded last year near Hamburgh, having mounted the Elbe in a storm. As to the Sharks teeth of Tilgate (query if sharks?) what can be said? I attribute the oysters to the minor oscillations of the land lifting up & depressing the estuary alternately, the grander alternations arose from extensive earthquakes. You will be out long before me & mine will not be a scientific thing but anonymous, I hope amusing. [*]9 Do not conceal any evidence of marine in the Tilgate, indeed this you will not I know, but do not throw it in the shade. All will come right, & it is a freshwater formation undoubtedly & the grandest discovery in Geology since Cuv. & Bro[n]gn.t10 came out. If in an estuary it must still have been above the mean level of the sea. How stupendous a conclusion with respect to beds below the chalk so widely extended a formation! [*] I am much hurried & wish you were here to tell you all I have been doing on this lead. If you do not come this season I will try to write again. If you doubt about any freshwater shells of this group, send them here & J.Sowerby11 shall give his opinion. Send me any further proofs you possess

move to 9 Crown Office Row from Norfolk Street. 6 William Stewart Rose (1775 - 1843). M.P. 1796-1800. Reading clerk of the House of Lords. DNB. 7 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 151. 8 W.H.Fitton, ‘Inquiries respecting the Geological Relations of the Beds between the Chalk and the Purbeck Limestone in the South-east of England’, Annals of Philosophy, 1824, 8, pp. 365-383 and 458-462. 9 Text betwen asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 151. 10 G. Cuvier and Al. Brongniart, ‘Essai sur la Geographie Mineralogique des environs de Paris’, Journal des Mines, 1808, 23, pp. 421-458. 11 James de Carle Sowerby (1787 - 1871). English conchologist and artist. Son of James Sowerby (1757 - 1822) DNB. pro & con the fresh.r origin of the group. You know that Webster in Sir H. Engle.d I. of W. letter 9 th p. 192. & p. 237 pub.d 1814.12 wondered that the freshwater beds of Purbeck containing limnaea & Planorbes had not attracted more attention. See also Sowerby's description of Pl. 31 Min Con.13 publ.d in 1813 on cipris & vivipara below chalk. Soc. Trans. will be out in 3 weeks. I expect your notice14 in. I heard to be in. I have not heard from Ad. Bro[n]gnt. James Sowerby has acquired great knowledge of freshwater shells & is always working on them. Avail yourself of his willingness to communicate it. I prize your considerable pebbles from the Brighton Diluvium. Your accident was frightful15 & I sincerely hope will not be hereafter troublesome. Excuse my hurried scribbling hand. Yours very truly ChaLyell

P.S. I spend the whole day in the courts of Westminster. Your observation on the abscence of ammonites &c is most important & new. Speak out & fearlessly your opinions & the World will do you justice. However, the daws may peck a few holes[.]

May 1826

12 T. Webster, ‘Observations on the Strata of the Isle of Wight and their continuation in the adjacent parts of Dorsetshire’, in H.C. Englefield’s, A Description of the Principal Picturesque Beauties, Antiquities and Geological Phenomena of the Isle of Wight, Payne and Foss, London, 1814. 13 J. Sowerby and J.de C. Sowerby, The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, 7 vols, London, 1812- 26. 14 G.A. Mantell, Notice 1, ‘On the Iron-sand Formation in Sussex. In a Letter to Dr Fitton, Secretary to the Geological Society’, [1822], TGSL, 1826, 2(1), series 2, pp. 131-134. 15 There is no mention in Mantell’s Private Journal of any accident he incurred at this time. [ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

31

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

9 Crown Office Row Temple. June 22 1826 My dear Sir [*]1 I much regret missing you, particularly as I had just got a copy of my paper ready for you. I live near my old rooms. Do not talk of the G.S.[*] Between ourselves I have washed my hands of them. As long as Webster2 takes a passive lethargic part & Greenough an active part in these concerns [*]3 as long as Warburton4 allows the whole to rest on his sole shoulders, & has a large mercantile business & a hundred other hobbies besides the principal one, the London University (to which is now added M.P. for Bridport) so long publication or real utility is out of the question & a secretary might as well try to bring about reform, as Warburton in his new capacity to throw open all the rotten boroughs. But enough of this; I must not spot radical as [*]5 I am become a Quarterly Reviewer.6 You will

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, pp. 164-165. 2 T. Webster was a salaried secretary GSL 1819-27 and a joint secretary with Lyell 1823-26. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 296. 3 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, pp. 164-165. 4 Henry Warburton was a member of GSL council from 1812-38 and M.P. for Bridport 1826-1841. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 307. 5 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 153. 6 The Quarterly Review was founded in 1809 and was generally regarded as a ‘Tory’ publication. During the 1830s its circulation was 9,000-10,000. R.D. Attick, The English Common Reader, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1957, p. 392. see my article just out on “Scientific Institutions”7 by which some of my friends here think I have carried the strong works of the enemy by storm. I am now far gone with a 2.d 8 & hope to be delivered9 in less than 3 months.[*] On Our last vol. Geol. Trans. – When mentioning the Megalosaurus10 I sh.d have no objection to giving the Profess.s a gentle hint not to appropriate too hastily a thigh or any other bone that you may claim for the Iguanodon.[*]11 I mean to help myself out of Cuvier largely for I must write what will be read. The Plesiosaurus is delightful, so is Stonesfield & Cuckfield. If you can send me comments on Buckland12 I will use them delicately. Also say how much of the great skeleton you have now got together. I would give 8 or 10 lines to your museum – more I hardly can – if you would put down on this osteological topic any fact that is marvellous, also anything about the vegetation that you have gathered from Ad. Brongniart. This w.d come in in another place.[*] was it quite tropical? What are the grounds for this hypothesis? If you will give me the title of your new work,13 I will advantage it in a note which cannot fail to do it good. Slips of the first part of my paper will be printed before I go circuit July 2.d so lose no time. As I know you have imagination enough I trust to you seizing on points such as would do for the Quart. Rev.w I will send my paper wh. cannot be understood without the plates,to Cornhill with a request to send it at once, if nothing going.[*]14 I am now full of work so believe me yours faithfully [*] ChaLyell

7 C. Lyell, ‘Article VIII - 1.Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. i.. 2. Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, 1824, iv., 2 d. series, London. 3. Transactions of the Royal Geological Society of Cornwall, instituted February 11, vols i and ii, Penzance. 4. Report of the Liverpool Royal Institution, 1822. 5. Bristol Institution. Proceedings of the Second Annual Meeting, held February 10, 1825 &c. 6. Annual Report of the Council of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society for 1824’, The Quarterly Review, 1826, 34, pp. 153-179. 8 C.Lyell, ‘Article IX - Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1824, 1, series 2’, The Quarterly Review, 1826, 34, pp. 507-540. 9 In the quoted extract of this letter in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL., the words “get it out” have been substituted for “be delivered”. 10 W.Buckland, ‘Notice on the Megalosaurus or great Fossil Lizard of Stonesfield’, TGSL, 1824, 1, series 2, pp. 390-396. 11 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol.1, p. 165. 12 Henceforth, Lyell uses the correct spelling of Buckland’s surname. 13 Mantell began the M.S. of his next work, The Fossils of Tilgate Forest, on 11 August 1826. GAM- PJ, entry 11 August 1826. 14 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol.1, p. 165. [ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

32

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

July 19. 1826 Bath

My dear Sir I seize a hasty moment to write & say that in 2 intervening days which I & my fellow barristers had to spend between Warminster Sess.s & Exeter Assizes the latter of which begin this Ev.g, I made it my business besides visiting old Mr Lambert at Boyton & seeing Longleat, Fonthill & Wardour Castle, all within reach, to examine the country around Warminster where Miss Benett1 has procured so many greensand fossils. She was not at Norton Baranther herself so I missed seeing all the coll.n that was locked up. [*]2 The country is clear enough, & all right.[*] All her cup-alcyonia, tulip.d & lobed come from the firestone , below which lies the Galt with small & large irridescent ammonites as remarkable in this respect as those of

1 Miss Etheldred Benett (1776 - 1845). Daughter of a Wiltshire squire. Fossil collector and correspondent of Mantell from 1813-1843. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 119. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 154. Folkest. I did not arrive on my excursions at examining the Shanklin beds, altho' I entered the Tisbury (Portland) quarries but the country betwen them & the chalk was covered up. I expect that the Purbeck & Portland have been in that quake pushed up so violently that like the transition limest. of Dudley, they prick up like a pin thro’ the rest. Perhaps it is only when the heaving force has had good broad shoulders that we ought to expect that full & regular development of formations that appear on the sides of great chains. Not that I feel sure they may not all be found for the inclination at Tisbury is great as is the dislocation & they may pack close. I have bought a set of lobed alcyon.a & some others in case Miss Benett sh.d not have already presented you with them for your Museum. You did not mention the Whale at Cuckfield. I hope Buckland was correct in supposing there were cetacea at Cuckfield. Am I not correct in saying that the shells are quite diff.t birds not yet identified in species with those of Stones.d Plants d.o fish d.o Lizards d.o for you can not be sure it is the Stonesf.d species? In fact is there any species distinctly common to both formations? Is it not the analogy of Estuary animals? Is the Anarhicas Lupus in each? same species? Is it not also in Chalk? If mammiferous cetacea in Stonesf.d, in Cornbrash, Enslow3 & Cuckfield, why not Didelphys?

3 Mantell began the M.S. of his next work, The Fossils of Tilgate Forest, on 11 August 1826. GAM- PJ, entry 11 August 1826. Sect.n at Boreham between the Lower Chalk Escarp.t & Warminster Henslade quarry.

Veget. mould & angular chert

Green earthy sand with chert

Green sands of various shades with numerous irregular veins of chert used for building. In the chert Tulip Alcon.a & Lobed 18 ft.

A kind of chalk ! with green specks 4 ft & ½

Chert

I shall be in town in 8. or 9. days & sh.d be very glad to find a letter from you on these subjects. believe me ever yours most truly ChaLyell

P.S. Send me the date, page, & reference of your first publ.d observ.n on the analogy of Stonesf.d & Cuckf.d that I may do you justice in Q.R.4

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

33

4 In Lyell’s Quarterly Review article on TGSL, 1824, 1, series 2, [See note 5, Letter 31 ], Mantell is cited as the first observer of the analogy between the fossils of Stonesfield and Cuckfield, the Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

9 Crown Office Row Temple Nov. 6 1826 My dear Sir I see that by your last letter of September that you had not understood or I had not sufficiently informed you that the circuit (from which I last wrote to you from Warminster) would detain me till the beginning of Aug.t & that from that I was to go direct to Scotland & be there till the end of october when the Wilts. Sess.s would again prevent my remaining here. This is my reason for not having had time to write to you but being at length in my Chambers again I beg to thank you most particularly for your letters. That concerning the comparison of Stonesfield & Cuckfield Fossils came in good time as you have perhaps observed from my Art. in Quarterly, which Lockhart5 has inserted with scarcely a single alteration; but with one grievous blunder of the Press in spite of my having once corrected it. Pray alter it if you have the Quart. Rev. – Erratum – For Monster, read Monitor – p. 114. line 11. from bottom. Sept. No. 1826. When I saw Jameson lately in Edinb.g he began to sound me as to your Geolog.l knowledge & on my giving my opinion he said: “I am glad to hear it for I have just printed a paper of his in my journal6 on an interesting & important question”. From what he said I cannot be sure whether it was then out or not. That was in Oct. Of my review the Professor said there were three weak points, the weight attached to the authorities of Mrs Graham, Strangways & Jack.7 There

reference being Mantell’s Geology of Sussex, 1822, pp. 59-60. 5 John Gibson Lockhart (1794-1854). Publisher and son-in-law of Sir Walter Scott. Editor of The Quarterly Review from 1825-53. DNB. 6 G.A.Mantell, ‘Remarks on the Geological Position of the Strata of Tilgate forest in Sussex’, in a letter to Professor Jameson, Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1826, 1, pp. 262-265. 7 In his Quarterly Review article on TGSL, 1826, 1, series 2, Lyell emphasized the role of earth- quakes in raising land levels and referred to three papers to illustrate this point. The three papers in the TGSL, were: Mrs Maria Graham, ‘An Account of some Effects of the late Earthquake in Chili: extracted from a Letter to Henry Warburton Esq., V.P. G.S.’, pp. 413-415; W.T.H.F. is something in this as far as relates to the two last, but with respect to the Chilean earthquake the fact of the chief consequences it stands on as good evidence as can be required. In truth it was not “a thing done in corner” & we might dispense with Maria Graham’s testimony who as a woman is of course incompetent in any fact relating to science or physics. I have some greensand fossils which I doubt I mentioned in my letter from Warminster & will get them ready soon. I have been in such perpetual motion since I wrote that I have had no time. I return you many thanks for the Weald specimens. When I have looked over them more carefully I will remark on them. Excuse a short letter at present. I should be glad to hear that Mrs Mantell is better[.] with so many domestic, professional, & legal interruptions one wonder is how you do so much. Fitton talks of it sometimes with some jealousy, who has all the time to himself & can not find enough even to write an occasional Art. in a review now. I have been going on in Scotland with my great County Map which to do in the minute detail with which I wish to complete it will cost me several Autumns yet. believe me most truly yours ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

34

Strangways, ‘An Outline of the Geology of Russia’, pp. 1-39; and W. Jack, ‘On the Geology and Topography of the Island of Sumatra, and some of the adjacent Islands’, pp. 397-405. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 3 January 1827 ]

My dear Sir I have been absent from town, at Cambridge & am now too busy to write you more than a few lines to thank you for your handsome present of Tilgate fossils & the crag shells which will be useful to Fleming as far as they go. Dr. Fitton begged me before he left town to thank you for your note &c. He said “tell him I have received his very handsome book & will study & recommend it whenever I can – is the shell I now return to you certainly In. concentricus? It probably is – but it is also something like a gryphite”. This shell I have for you. I will find you some rock marle & fossil chara, tho’ my gyrogonite is rare & all gone. [*]1 I have received your book2 & paid for it which I hope your subscribers will do more punctually than Macculloch3 swears his do. Your eulogium on my “profound legal knowledge”,4 though a severe quiz upon me has not been quite so much a subject of amusement to my friends as I anticipated. Buckland, however, was not a little merry yesterday at my expense. I told Murchison not to laugh too freely for I should get you by way of a set off to omitt [sic] it in the 2.d Ed.n & to substitute for it “but more particularly to Mr Murchison, Sec. G.S. whose scientific acquirements no less than his splendid military achievements in the Peninsula under the Duke of Wellington during the late war are so well known & appreciated”.[*] Every one admires your plates amazingly & the book seems well received but have only heard the price complained of.

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 164, in which it is dated 1826. 2 G.A. Mantell, Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex: Containing a General View of the Geological Relations of the South-eastern part of England; with figures and descriptions of the fossils of Tilgate Forest, Lupton Relfe, London, 1827. The price of the book was 55 shillings. 3 John Macculloch (1773 - 1835). Scottish physician and geologist. President GSL 1816-17. DNB. 4 In the Preface of his Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, (see note 2), Mantell especially thanked “Charles Lyell, Esq. F.R.S., Barrister at Law; a gentleman whose classical and scientific attainments, and profound legal knowledge, are well known and appreciated”, for his suggestions. I shall be glad of a copy of the map,5 but not unless you have plenty. I will have in mind your deficiency of cave animals. [*]6 Buckland has got a letter from India about modern hyaenas whose manners, habitations diet &c &c are every thing he could wish & as much as could be expected had they attended regularly 3 courses of his lectures.[*] We are to hear it on Friday I believe. Yours very truly ChaLyell

Temple Jan.y 3 1826 7

[ Addressed to: G.Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

35

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

London March 2 1827

My dear Sir [*]8 On my return from the circuit yesterday I found your second letter having received the first with Lamarck9 at Dorchester. You know that half my time is now spent at Sessions, Circuits &c & must not

5 The Map in Mantell’s book, op. cit. (note 2), was “intended to convey a general idea of the geological structure of the area inclosed by the chalk beds of Sussex, Surrey, Kent, and Hampshire”.

6 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol.1, p.164. 7 Lyell inadvertently dated the year of this letter 1826 instead of 1827. 8 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, pp. 168-169. 9 J.B.A.P. Lamarck, Philosophie Zoologique ou Exposition des Considerations relatives a l’Histoire therefore be surprised when you receive no immediate answers to your correspondence which I always receive with great pleasure. I devoured Lamarck en voyage as you did Sismondi10 & with equal pleasure. His theories delighted me more than any novel I ever read & much in the same way for they address themselves to the imagination at least of

Geologists who know the mighty inferences which would be deducible were they established by observations. But tho’ I admire ever his flights & feel none of the odium theologicum which some modern writers in this country have visited him with I confess I read him rather as I hear an advocate on the wrong side to know what can be made of the case in good hands. I am glad he has been courageous enough & logical enough to admit that his argument if pushed as far as it must go if worth anything would prove that men may have come from the Ourang outang. But after all what changes species may really undergo! how impossible will it be to distinguish & lay down a line beyond which some of the so called extinct species have never passed into recent ones. That the earth is quite as old as he supposes has long been my creed & I will try before 6 months are over to convert the readers of the Quarterly to that heterodox opinion. I sh.d like to discuss these matters with you at Lewes but between Law excursions & town studies I have never a moment to spare, if ever I can I will & give you notice & can assure you that I know I shall receive a welcome & you need not therefore repeat your kind invitation. I wish among your new Groombridge fossils there had been a good cetaceous quad11 for theoretically it would have been of more importance than the iguanodon. Not that I doubt some of the oolitic cetacea.[*]12 I am going to write in confirmation of ancient causes having been the same as modern & to show that those plants & animals which we know are becoming preserved now are the same as were formerly, e.g. scarcely any insects now, no lichens, no mosses &c ever get to places where they can become embedded in strata. But quadrupeds do in lakes, reptiles in estuaries, corals in reefs, fish in sea,

Naturelle des Animaux, 2 vols, Dentu, Paris, 1809. 10 Presumably Angelo Sismonda (1807 - 1878). Italian stratigrapher and palaeontologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 2118. 11 In K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, p.169, the word ‘cetacean’ has been used instead of ‘cetaceous quad’. 12 Text between asterisks is also quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 162. plants wherever there is water, salt or fresh &c &c.[*]13 Now have you ever in Lewes levels found a bird’s skeleton or any cetacea. If not why in Tilgate & the weald beds. In our scotch marl tho’ water birds abound in those lakes we meet with no birds in the marl; & they must be at least as rare as in old freshwater formations for they are much worked & exam d. You see the drift of my argument – ergo mammalia existed when the oolite & coal &c were formed. Broderip says that in spite of all the dogs & cats which float down the Thames none of their remains have been found in recent excavations in the Thames deposits. Send me your thoughts on the subject. If I am asked why in coal there are no quadrupeds I answer why are there none nor any cetacea nor any birds nor any reptiles in the Plastic clay or lignite formation a very analogous deposit & as universal in Europe. Think of these matters & believe me yours most truly [*]. ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

36

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

13 Quoted extract in Wilson, Charles Lyell, ceases at this point. [ 6 June 1827 ]1 My dear Sir I was glad you did not arrive yesterdy. morning at Maidstone before we left not only because there was less done than we had hoped but because I am sure your idea of riding so far after such fatiguing duties would have been exceedingly imprudent. We regretted your not having been able to dine with Murchison very much to fight the battles of the green sand & the Weald which engaged us more warmly than the hyaenas. The party consisted of Prof. Buckland, Dr. Fitton, Mr. Greenough, Mr. Murchison, Mr. Randolph,2 Dr. Burton,3 & myself all Fell.s of the G.S. & Mr. Lennie,4 Rev.d a cambridge man friend of Dr. F. who is to F.G.S. Mr. Braddick5 of Boughton Hall & his wife are a description of animals whom we were more surprised not to find extinct than any cave bears or mastodons who might have issued from the quarries in a living form. He entered into the navy it seems & then turned merchant in America, gained much money, had been much in Germany with his family & in other parts both sides of the Atlantic, a great gardener, planter, architect, savon – Geol. Trans. Annals of Phil. &c on his table. Had been building a most expensive house, farm offices, walls for grape green houses &c all in peculiar construction. Grottos in the garden with Greek inscriptions, a mint of money buried without much taste. His manners those of a yeoman who had made a fortune by farming. His wife waited at table like a servant, yet was his wife & received us as Hostess. Everything on the table wine, beer, cakes, bread & cheese homemade, never dependent on anything but the estate pride themselves in living precisely as if they were literally in the back settlements of America which the whole concern much resembles. In some quarries of Kentish rag used for the piles of buildings with which he is loading the estate are huge rents filled with rubbish & in these

1 No date given by Lyell but the letter was post-marked 6 June 1827. 2 In 1827 there were two GSL members named Randolph, the Rev. Francis Ralph Randolph (1752 - 1831), Divine, who would have been 75 years of age at the time of this episode, DNB, and the Rev. John Honeywood Randolph who served on the GSL council from 1827-32 and is more like to have been a member of this party. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 305. 3 Henry Burton M.D. Member of GSL council 1825-26 & 1828-29. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 300. 4 No Rev. Lennie is listed in Cantabrigiensis Alumni over this period. However, Lyell may have referred to the Rev. Christian Lenny (1803 - 1882) , who was a deacon at Rochester in 1827. 5 A J. Braddick presented some Pleistocene fossils from Boughton Cave, near Maidstone, to the GSL in 1827. R.J. Cleevely, World Palaeontological Collections, Mansell Publishing, British Museum (Natural History), London, 1983, on p. 63. caves not such as are in thick strata of limest, but such as an earthquake shaken mass may present, in the fox-col.d mould of these have been found remains belong.g to at least 2. hyaenas but the teeth & bones are few. It is the extinct Kirkdale species. The rubbish filling the pipes up contains not only this mould but fragments of chert & chalk which when sent to the G.S., was called album groecum – also a few shell flints. All this has been washed in. Buckland says the hyaenas too may have been washed in but he sh.d not wonder if it had been a cave & much may hereafter be produced as the workmen have often found bones. The teeth of horse, rat, & rabbit? were of doubtful age but the first probably as old as hyaena. This was all at present for as it is not a positive cave or if so filled up we must wait for the prospect of quarrying before we get much. I got no bones & there were hardly enough for the Soc.y & Dr. B. I was glad to see the Kentish rag quarries. It was just like Pulboro’ but there are some beds of pure limest. like mountain limest. Braddick says they contain above 90 per cent carb. of lime. Such a collection of chalk & plants might be made there! We observed the following – Shells – Ammonite 4 spec. one immense size. Nautilus – 2 sp. – Cyrrhus large one – Cucullaea – Gervillia -Pholadomya – a new one – Gryphea sinuata & another small – Mya ? – Trigonia 2 sp. – Pecten orbicularis common – Serpula – Fistularia (a boring shell), – stems of alcyonia – small belemnite – dicotyledonous wood apparently more than one kind & a fine palm. One soft green bed which they call hassock & which alternates with the building stone is not distinguishable from the malm rock of W.Sussex & contains sometimes to complete the resemblance, alcyonia stems. So there are two green sands. We went on a wild-goosechase to look after Martin’s6 notable discovery of a bed of cyclas sandst. above the uppermost Sussex marble of the weald & found none but what if it be there? 4 ft. thick & a sandst. not worked & where the beds are inclined is easily overlooked. Fitton says it is

6 Peter John Martin (1786 - 1860). Pulborough physician and geologist. DNB. A correspondent and friend of Mantell from 1827-1851. Mantell mss, ATL- NZ, Folder 68. in I.of W. It makes no difference in the propriety of separating the beds as you have done. yrs [illegible] ChaLyell

P.S. Fitton would be much obliged to you for a list of your fossils of the beds from the Firestone to Portland inclusive. If you do not want them to publish he w.d acknowledge them handsomely.

[ Addressed to: G.Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

37

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[30 June 1827 ]

My dear Sir My friend Mrs Whitby7 of Newlands near Lymington Hants, is to be at Eastbourne shortly & intends to take Lewes in her way from thence to Brighton. I promised to write to you & inform you that about the middle of next month you may expect a letter from her concerning the day she will be

7 Mrs Mary Anne Theresa Whitby (1784 - 1850). Daughter of Captain Thomas Symonds R.N. Married Captain John Whitby R.N. (d. 1806) by whom she had one daughter. The widowed Mrs Whitby did not re-marry and lived out the remaining 44 years of her life on her estate at Newlands in the parish of Milford, Hampshire. She was an antiquarian, accomplished artist and investigated the feasibility of producing silk in England. R. Colp, ‘Charles Darwin and Mrs Whitby’, Bulletin in Castle Place to see your Museum. She has an estate in Hants in which Hordwell Cliff is situated, & is fond of Geology. She is a lady of more accomplishments than any other I have ever been acquainted with & I shall be glad if you chance to see her, as she will only be in Lewes while her horses bait. She is a most admirable draughty woman & you will find that she will be interested in everything, antiquaries &c. her daughter will be with her & I at least hope that Mrs M. may be at home. If you find any difficulty in collecting your subscription for your last work8 which Mrs Whitby has, I can assure you that Relf[e] is much to blame. In the first place I hear continual complaints that people cannot get copies – then the price is not sent then Relf[e] sends a note of that but does not send his own address so that half the would-be-purchasers cool in the arduous undertaking to get the work, & must then turn duns to be permitted to pay. It would be a good mutual arrangement for relations in different Professions to agree never to employ one another.9 I hope you like my Review in the last Q.R. on the State of the Univers.s10 & expect you will see another in the next on “Scrope’s Geology of Central France”.11 Most of it is printed & I fear it will annoy Buckland but “amicus Plato sed magnis amica veritas”12 should be a geologist’s motto. Perhaps it may annoy Scrope too. In fact reviewing is an unwholesome trade to a man who has any conscience altho’ I have not found it hitherto because I never before reviewed any man’s work. believe me ever most truly yours ChaLyell

Temple June 30 1827

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ] of the New York Academy of Medicine, 1972, 48, pp. 870 - 876. 8 G.A. Mantell, Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, Lupton Relfe, London, 1827. 9 Lupton Relfe, Mantell’s publisher, was also his brother-in-law. GAM-PJ, entry 6 May 1822. 10C. Lyell, ‘Article VIII – State of the Universities’, The Quarterly Review, 1827, 36, pp. 216-268. 11C. Lyell, ‘Article IV – Memoir on the Geology of Central France; including the Volcanic Formations of Auvergne, the Velay, and the Vivarus, with a Volume of Maps and Plates. By G.P. Scrope, F.R.S., F.G.S.’, The Quarterly Review, 1827, 36, pp. 437-483. 12 “A friend of Plato but a greater friend of truth”. 38

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 6 August 1827 ]

My dear Sir You may safely consider me out of town either on circuit or Sessions or some other of the tours which render me a rolling stone accord.g to the present as well as an investigator of stone whether rounded or not when I do not acknowledge for so long a time your letters & presents. I am much obliged to you for your duplicates & as I have now commenced a cabinet in earnest you cannot do me a greater service than by giving me any duplicates you may really have to spare from time to time. Mrs Whitby was amazingly gratified by your collection & she has written me a letter which convinces me she is really determined to follow your example as far as she can. She particularly admired the connection of the rock specimens with the fossils. As having been absent I have had no opportunity of consulting Sowerby about the shells & the persons for whom you have put up some duplicates are all out of town, but when I return in Nov.r or before, I shall learn about them. Every thing connected with the freshwater nature of your beds interests me much. Ferussac seems to assert that not one positively freshw.r shell has been found in the Green sand (meaning the Tilgate beds) below the Chalk in England. I must learn of him about them. I write in haste & must be brief. I admired your simile of the broken vase, it is as good as Goethe’s comparison of Hamlet &c. I leave this for Scotland immediately. I will certainly have a look at your collection before next Spring. With compl.s to Mrs Mantell believe me most truly yours ChaLyell Temple Aug.t 6. 1827

P.S. Excuse my keeping Daubisson1 on. I expect a copy which I have ordered tomorrow & then I had better give you the new one for I think I have marked yours & that there are no marks of yours which you will want? I find a specimen marked Inoceramus concentricus. Probably the one I believe which we had a search for & which is quite safe for you.

P.S. 2.d I forgot to say that Lockhart when I last saw him begged me to say that he felt much obliged to you for your present of your work & that he sh.d have acknowledged it but that it was a general rule for the Editor as they so frequently receive presents of this kind not to spend a large part of the day in writing notes of thanks. Accept therefore his thanks thro’ me.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes. Sussex ]

1 Jean Francois d’Aubuisson de Voisins (1769 - 1819). French engineer and mining geologist who examined d the Auvergne volcanoes. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 452. 39

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

London Temple Nov. 12. 1827

My dear Sir I beg you will not imagine that I can “be tired of seeing your writing”, but from the length of Time your letters usually remain unanswered you might suspect it. But numerous as are my absences from town I cannot but think your letters have a singular knack of exactly hitting those periods which they have done now, for I have only just returned. I have brought you some specimens of soft & of rock marl with gyrogonites which I was never able to procure till now. They are not yet come from the wharf. Many thanks for your Geol.y of Rape of Bramber1 which is a very good sketch & will be of great local use. Where is Patrin & Graydon’s2 theory stated? pray let me see it if you have it. As we only know of silex from volcanic thermal waters I always lean to supposing a volcano when it occurs, that is to say a volcanic source. but such numbers of fossils could only have accumulated in ages, & such changes in organ.c beings as are

1 G.A.Mantell, A Sketch of the Geology of the Rape of Bramber in the County of Sussex, W.Lee, Lewes, 1827. Mantell's aim in producing this 16 page publication was: “to illustrate the Rape of Bramber as an epitome of the Geology of Sussex”. 2 On pp x and xi of Geology of Rape of Bramber, (note 1), Mantell stated: “And from the fact that many of the fossil fishes [in the chalk] appear as if they had been surrounded while in a state of progression, the conjectures of M. Patrin and Mr Graydon, that these strata have been formed, and the animals destroyed by submarine volcanic eruptions of calcareous stone ejected in a calcined state, appear to merit attention”. found between upper & lower Chalk? What you say of the Cherry Hintons is curious for Dr. Fleming tells me he has just made out some puzzles among the Scotch Coal plants by the analogy of roots of aquatic plants in modern peat moss & marshes. If you can lend me a “larch cone” to show him it shall not be lost this time, & he will get you the recent analogies to compare. You say the Tertiary Form.s were formed in a “cavity of the Chalk?” Were they so? There were inequalities & valleys & cavities no doubt in the chalk when the Tertiary were formed but the basins, or great cavities wh. w.d now be in chalk if the tertiary were removed are from the elevation of the chalk on each side of the basin? Why no stony corals in Chalk? Are they not now confined to tropics? If so, Dr. Fleming would rejoice as he says the temperature has never changed! Do you find in chalk & other beds abounding in Echine the hard beaks or long mouthpieces of these animals? They ought to be very abundant as they are harder than the shell? Have you remarked any difference between the remains preserved in chalk flints & those in pure chalk, indicating the power of silicification as to hand down to us some organ.c remains which Time would have otherwise effaced in mere chalk? De France3 discovers that in French Tertiary beds univalves perish first. Are there more univalves in the flint than in the Chalk? Dr. Fleming of Flisk will exchange modern British shells named for any British fossil shells or org.c remains you may possess duplicates of. I hope my last Article on Scrope’s Geology4 will please you (Oct.r Q.R.). I have still your Lamarck. Have you ever wanted it? if so, I will send it. Indeed it is parsimony not to buy it. I wish D. Gilbert was to continue P.R.S. but Peel5 it seems is the man. I am glad however the compliment is paid D.G. With my compl.s to Mrs Mantell & hoping to hear from you soon believe me ever most truly yours ChaLyell

3 Jacques Louis Marie De France (1758 - 1850). French invertebrate palaeontologist and chemist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 876. 4 C. Lyell, ‘Article IV – Memoir on the Geology of Central France; including the Volcanic Formations of Auvergne, the Velay, and the Vivarais, with a Volume of Maps and Plates. By G.P. Scrope, F.R.S., F.G.S.’, The Quarterly Review, 1827, 36, pp. 437-483. P.S. Query.[*]6 Are Fissures & faults common in the Sussex beds, in chalk &c? Are they more numerous where inclination greatest. Does one occur upon an average in every pit? [*]

[ Addressed to: G.Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

5 Sir Robert Peel (1788 - 1850). English Statesman and Premier 1834-35; 1841-45; 1845-46. DNB 6 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, on p. 183. 40

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 28 Nov 1827 ]

My dear Sir

[*]1 I have often wished to be able to send you some good specimens from our Scotch recent freshwater formations but have never till this last year been able to procure any soft or rock marl with seed vessels of charae & stems which form the most perfect analogy to the Isle of Wight beds. I have now a few specimens but hope to add still more next spring if not before. In a small piece of the freshwater limestone you will see my modern gyrogonites & I believe the stem consisting of a tube surrounded by small tubes beautifully exemplified. I have put in several specimens of the rock as they might be useful as duplicates. In the soft foliated argillaceous marl you will find (if in luck) the elytra of coleopterous insects besides gyrogonites a circumstance of the more interest because they occur low down in these recent deposits & afford an analogy to the 1.st & 2.d freshwater formations of M. de Serres in S. of France as also in the lignite beds in the submarine forest of the Suffolk coast.[*] The following is a section of the deposits in my father’s diamond lake, Kinnordy, of perhaps 300 square acres Scotch.

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, 1972, p. 183. The laminated clayey marl which I send is No.5.[*]2 Is not this a good modern analogy? All the organic remains are living Forfarshire creatures.[*] The rock marl as you know from the Geol. Trans.3 is from another lake. I think I recollect your expressing a wish to have some specimens of primitive rock. I have only put in one or two but shall be happy to get you more if they would be acceptable. I kept Lamarck so unreasonable a time with the intention of buying a copy & transcribing into it some marks which I had made with a pencil in yours. This I have now done & hope you have not wanted it. Murchison will get your copy of Fitton’s paper4 or a new one from him forthwith.

2 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 184. 3 The reference is to Lyell’s Paper on Freshwater Marls, TGSL, 1829, 2(1), series 2, pp. 73-96. 4 This probably refers to W.H. Fitton’s paper, ‘Observations on some of the Strata between the Chalk and the Oxford Oolite in the South-east of England’, TGSL, 1836, 4(2), pp. 103-378, read on 15 June 1827. With my comp.ts to Mrs Mantell believe me very truly yours ChaLyell

Nov 28 1827. Temple 9 Crown Office Row

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

41

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Temple Dec.r 10 th 1827

My dear Sir I was very sorry to find you had been seriously ill1 & had become anxious at not hearing. I fear your renewal already of professional studies cannot be quite prudent. The sick house which you mention would have made me doubt the propriety of paying you a visit at present, if the concluding invitation did not appear so earnest & was not put upon the score of its being beneficial to you as you are good enough to say my Article was. I had fully resolved to pay you a visit this season but had fixed no time merely supposing it would be in better weather. The subject on which you would be interested in Geol.y to exchange opinions & ideas upon at present are so fully engaging my mind in consequence of a work I have in hand that I should not want the better motive of being the companion of a sick friend, to be induced to pass a day or two with you. I will be with you on Friday next by some coach or other. Trusting

1 On 8 and 16 October 1827 Mantell recorded in his Private Journal that he was very ill with a tumour in the groin. His next entry, dated 10 December 1827, indicated that he was recovering after a severe disposition lasting several weeks. you will write if anything whatever in your domestic concerns & arrangements should make this inconvenient that you will write & fully explain it. I will also write if anything should impede my notion. If I do not hear from you nor you from me expect me on Frid.y by a day coach.2 With best remembrances to Mrs Mantell believe me ever most truly yours ChaLyell

[Addressed to: G.Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex]

42

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 29 December 1827 ]

My dear Sir

2 Mantell’s Private Journal records that Lyell visited him on Friday 14 December when all his children were ill with hooping cough. On Saturday, 15 December, Lyell examined all of Mantell’s chalk fossils and they sat up very late conversing on geological subjects. On 16 December the two men drove to the Rocks at Uckfield. Lyell returned to London on 18 December, GAM-PJ, entries 14- 18 December, 1827. [*]1 I am on a visit here to an uncle2 where some of my sisters are staying & for a short session am to be [*]3 in a continued round of dinners & balls [*] but shall at least secure a half hour in writing to you from these amusements. I hope Dr Fitton & Mr Murchison has said something to you about filling up the map of Sussex & certain corrections of greensand etc near Portsdown Hill.[*] When I returned I found on enquiring that my clerk had never taken your last present to the President but only Murchisons but I sent it forthwith. Your box arrived safe & I will send some of the specimens to Dr Fleming others I think I can supply him better ones of from the duplicates of your former liberal donation to me. [*]4 I marvel less at Dr Toulmins5 anticipations (as I supposed them) in Geol.l speculations now that I observe he followed Hutton6 & cites him. I think he ran unnecessarily counter to the feelings & prejudices of the age. This is not courage or manliness in the cause of Truth, nor does it promote its progress. It is an unfeeling disregard for the weakness of human nature for as it is our nature (for what reason Heaven knows) but as it is constitutional in our minds to feel a morbid sensibility on matters of religious faith I conceive that the same right feeling which guards us from outraging too violently the sentiments of our neighbours in the ordinary concerns of the world & its customs should direct us still more so in this. If I had been Sir A. Campbell7 I would have punished those Christian soldiers who dug up the idols of the Burmese temples in the late campaign & sent them home as trophies. To insult their idols was an act of Xtian intolerance & until we can convert them should be penal. If a philosopher commits a similar act of intolerance by insulting the idols of our European mob (the popular prejudices of the day) the vengeance of the more intolerant hand of the

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 173. 2 Captain Gilbert Heathcote R.N., who married Ann, the sister of Lyell’s father. Ibid., p. 13. 3 Text between asterisks is also quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 185, until the asterisk after the word ‘balls’. 4 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol.1, pp. 173-174. 5 Toulmin’s name was excluded in this quoted extract in ibid., p. 173 and the space left blank. George Hoggart Toulmin (ca.1750 - 1817). was an English theologian and writer who theorised on the indefinite antiquity of the earth. Sarjeant, G &H of G, vol. 3, p. 2280. 6 James Hutton (1726 - 1797). Scottish geologist. Author of Theory of the Earth, with proofs and illustrations, 2 vols, Cadell and Davies, Edinburgh, 1795. 7 Sir Archibald Campbell (1769 - 1843 ). British General who defeated the Chief of The Burmese Army in 1825 and dictated terms of peace 1826. Governor of British Burma 1826-1829. DNB. ignorant will overtake him, & he may have less reason to complain of his punishment than of its undue severity.[*] I got well laughed at for telling of the membrana nictitans of a fish as fishes have none? What have you to say to this. I suppose I mistook you & said so to those who laughed at the idea at my expense? You will be glad to see in the last Linnean Trans. the tables so completely turned on the gardeners & seedsmen by the zoologists & also a paper with plates on testudines.8 After all my memoranda I came away without the green board for pasting on shells – your specimen of breccia (diluvium) from a fissure in Hastings sand near Lindfield interested me much for such fragments of chalk where none are strewed over the country seem to indicate that when the mouth of that fissure was first opened there was more chalk near? Was the chalk ever continuous from N. to S. downs? Or were not outliers at first left all along? I sincerely hope you will be able to send me a more favourable report of your own health & that of the rest of the family than when I was with you. I return to town in a day or two. believe me most truly yours ChaLyell

Southampton, Dec.r 29. 1827

[ Addressed to:G. Mantell Esq., Castle Place, Lewes. Sussex ] 43

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 17 January 1828 ]

8 In the Transactions of the Linnean Society of London, 1827, XV, eighteen of the twenty five papers concerned zoological and not botanical subjects. The paper on testudines was by T. Bell Esq., ‘On two new Genera of Land Tortoises’, pp. 392-401. My dear Sir I should be very glad to hear how you & your museum animals at home have been going on since I last left Lewes as it is now a long time that I have been expecting some news from you. [*]1 The best I can send you is the safe arrival in Bedford S.t of the Ava fossils of which you see a brief account in Jamieson’s last Journal from the Calcutta Gazette. To say that they surpass in value any collection ever brought to Europe from any other quarter of the Globe is to say little. In a few days the Embassy have done us a service which a man’s lifetime might have been deemed well bestowed in rendering. Crawfurd2 late Governor of Singapore F.G.S. & author in our Trans.3 was sent Ambassad.r to the Burman King. On his return from Ava, down the Irriwaddi which they descended in a steam boat they were detained many days in Lat.21 N. the river having been half dried up & the boat stranded. There was a line of hills on each side. between the river & the hills an irregular sandy lowish region (about 300 ft. above the sea) all over the surface which was nearly bare silicified fossils sticking up whose weight perhaps had resisted where loose sand & gravel washed away. Crawfurd employed his servants & bribed the natives to collect & they filled 12 chests!! Almost entire jaws of a new species of Mastodon as big as an elephant! different from the 5 species described by Cuvier, smaller teeth of mastodon Clift says may be young ones of same. Silicified ivory tusk. teeth of rhinoceros (Qy. a new one) – fragment of a bone of Hippopotamus. jaws & skull of an enormous Gavial, Jaws & teeth of an alligator – large scales &c of Tortoises. Shells apparently freshwater – only one species, Sowerby says a Cyrene. Wood trunks of trees, monocotyledons & perhaps dicotyledons – no botanist has seen them, structure beautifully preserved. As are all the teeth &c. They appear to me to have been all converted into a ferruginous chert while most of them were quite perfect, both bones & plants. Jamieson is wrong in saying they are not at all rolled. They are in some instances slightly rounded by attrision [sic], done of course when in a soft state. Inside the hollow trunks & adhering to the bones is a ferruginous gravel exactly like Tilgate aggregate

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, pp. 175-177. 2 Sir John Crawfurd (1791 - 1862). Visited Ava to negotiate a treaty ending Britain’s first Burmese war. DNB. 3 J. Crawfurd, ‘Geological Observations made on a Voyage from Bengal to Siam and Cochin China’, TGSL, 1824, 1, series 2, pp. 406-408. bed. [*]4 The whole room & yard in Bedford S.t looks as if it were filled with magnificent Tilgate fossils. They are of a yellow ferruginous colour. Saurians lying in all directions, here an immense femur there a long stem like Clathraria Lyelli, here the scale of a large Tortoise. There a shell & teeth of alligator &c &c.[*]5 They will be exhibited tomorrow6 & Buckland is expected to lecture on them in the Evening after the Anniversary dinner. Jan.y 15 th. With my remembrances to Mrs Mantell believe me very truly yours. [*] ChaLyell

Temple Jan.y 17. 1828.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

44

Charles Lyell to G.A.Mantell

Temple 5 Feb.y [1828] My dear Sir I thought I had told you that Stokes purchased the Annington fossils in a lot at one of Heulands7 sale[s] who received them with some minerals & who can get no more nor as it appears any one else that Stokes

4 Text between asterisks is quoted by Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 186. 5 Text quoted by Wilson, on p. 186, ceases at this point. 6 Mantell visited the Exhibition in the Geological Society’s rooms, in Oxford St., Covent Garden, on 26 January. GAM-PJ. 7 J.H. Heuland (1778 - 1856). Served on the GSL council from 1818-1829. Fossil and mineral dealer. J.M. Chalmers-Hunt, (comp.), Natural History Auctions 1700-1972, Sotheby Parke Bennet, 1976. knows. Every one is enquiring about Ad. Brongniart but no number arrived. [*]8 I have been out of town for 10 days in Hants with some of my family (2 sisters) who are there on a visit from Scotland. We also went to stay at Dr & Mrs Bucklands at Oxford. The Canon has a glorious house & [*] but for the daily everlasting chapel going & long chants [*]9 is admirably set down for himself & geology. I at first intended to write Conversations on Geolog.y It is what no doubt the book-sellers, & therefore the greatest number of readers are desirous of. My reason for abandoning this form was simply this that I found I should not do it at all without taking more pains than such a form would do justice to. Besides [*]10 I felt that in a subject where so much is to be reformed & struck out anew & where one obtains new ideas & theories in the progress of one’s task when you have to controvert & to invent an argumentation, work is required & one like the Conversations on Chemistry11 & others would not do.[*]12 It should hardly be between the teacher & scholar perhaps but a dialogue like Berkeley’s13 Alciphron between equals. But finally I thought that when I had made up my own mind & opinions in producing another kind of book I might then construct convers.s from it. in the meantime there is a cry among the publishers for an elementary work & I much wish that you would supply it, anything from you would be useful for what they have now is positively bad for such is Jamieson’s Cuvier.14 [*] I will send Toulmin very soon. My absence has made me in arrears in reading. [*]15 Buckland has been very quiet as yet as to the manifold difficulties of the Ava fossils but will no doubt hold forth at the general meeting.[*] The Stonesfield didelphys came out & I will tell Broderip to send it for you. I am very glad to hear your health & Mrs Mantell’s is improving. As I have a world of things to do after this long truancy, I shall conclude. I

8 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol.1, p. 177. 9 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 177. 10 Text between asterisks is also quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 186. 11 Mrs Jane Marcet, Conversations on Chemistry, 2 vols, Longman, London, 1805. 12 Text quoted by Wilson on p. 186 ceases at this point. 13 George Berkeley (1685 - 1753). Bishop of Cloyne. His work Alciphron was published in 1732. DNB. 14 R. Jameson (1774 - 1854). Scottish geologist who edited the English version of Cuvier’s, Discourse on the Revolutions of the Surface of the Globe and titled it Essay on the Theory of the Earth, Blackwood, Edinburgh, 1813. 15 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 177. should be glad to lionize your friends the Trevors16 over our Chaos [.] if you give them a little though, the want of glass cases makes it very uphill work. How different in your Museum & Buckland’s! yours most truly ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G.Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

45

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Sund.y 17 th. Feb.y 1828

My dear Sir I would have sent Toulmin with a note which I had written last week but I forgot that Thursday was the last day that it was to have gone to Oxf.d St. so I will now send it with a letter.

16 In his Private Journal Mantell mentions visiting his friends, General and Mrs Trevor of Glynde Place, Southover, three times during the period 30 October 1826 to 4 May 1834. Following the death of John Trevor Hampden, third Viscount of Hampden, in 1824, the estate passed to General Brand who took up the name of Trevor. T.W. Horsfield, The History and Antiquities of Lewes and its Vicinity, 2 vols, J. Baxter, Lewes, 1824-1827, vol. 2, pp. 114-117. I had hoped that you might have been here at the Anniversary which was well attended in spite of the snow. At Fitton’s1 right & left were the Presidents of the Royal & Astron.l Soc.y. The 2 Professors of Oxf.d & Cambridge2 also attended & others of the best men.[*]3 The Even.g discussion on the Ava bones was improving. Buckland reconciled all to his diluvium hypothesis, as what facts would he not, but be his theory wide of the mark or not, he is always worth hearing. They think the remains thus hastily picked up belonged to from 10 to 20 individuals of the genus Mastodon to begin with a pretty good haul. It was larger & quite different from the largest European Mastodon. The rest of the menagerie is rhinoceros, hippopotamus, ox #, deer, gavial Alligator (very large), trionyx – turtle (gigantic), horse? doubtful – shells supposed to be a cyrene & very like a species now living in the Estuaries of Indian, nay in the

# & a Nil Ghan? Irrawaddi, river. Buckland gets over the shells by saying that Crawfurd is not clear that they were in the same continuous stratum.[*] The associated wood is monocotyledous & dicotyledous all the former is silicified or agatized – very little of the latter, but this is converted into carb. of lime. Their theory being that there is much silex naturally in caves, palms, &c & this attracts silex. ## [*]4 The Mosaic deluge of course did all this.[*] None of the species are positively identified yet with any known diluvial animal. [*]5 The bones are never silicified. They are charged with hydrate of iron not more so it seems than some diluvial bones possessed by Buckl.d & Sedgwick. Be it so – then modern post – diluvial causes as you suggest can do every thing, at least as far as mineralising is concerned.[*] Crawfurd promised you some bones & wood a month ago & I will keep an eye on it. Many will be given away for we are breaking down with their weight. Did I not tell you that the Annington fossils cannot be procured. At least no one knows how.

1 William Henry Fitton was President of the G.S.L. from 1827-29. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 286. 2 Rev. W. Buckland and Rev. A. Sedgwick. 3 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 186.

4 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 186. 5 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 187. Murchison & I are working hard to redeem the Scotch part of the Soc.y’s collection which you justly say is chaotic, from great confusion. We have done half & it is a beautiful series. Think of the Hastings or Weald fossils being so decidedly on the uppermost beds of Skye! these of the same species & associated with other freshwater shells! for I think you have not a neritina? You will be able to refer to this in Murchison’s6 paper which will be out soon.

But as to our collection you must know that Greenough undertook to arrange the whole & worked assiduously till he got it into the state of confusion in which you now see it. But Greenough is gone abroard & Webster is engaged as lecturer & we shall see better days very soon. Hesiod7 the first cosmologist whom we know says that black night was born of Chaos & that from night sprung day, a curious pedigree, but I hope we shall see it realised in Bedfor S.t.

## Crawfurd has since told me that Buckland is wrong, that there is quite as much silicif.d dicoted.s wood & that turned into carb. of lime the botanists say is not wood ! A fine theory thrown away. If half that Daniell says in his paper8 in Brandes Journal9 vol.4. p. 227 on the Rottingdean formation be true it is a most curious page in Geolog.l history of modern date. I was very glad to hear Mrs Mantell was recovering & expect to hear ‘the bright side’ soon. There were many brilliant effusions of eloquence at our dinner, but none equal to a high mathematical flight of South,10 the astronomer, at their anniversary for he said that the society of Sir W. Herschell [sic] & his son formed together a circle of which the centre was everywhere & the

6 R.I. Murchison, ‘Supplementary Remarks on the Strata of the Oolitic Series and the Rocks associated with them in the Counties of Sutherland and Ross in the Hebrides’, TGSL, 1828, 2(3), series 2, pp. 353-368. 7 Hesiod (ca. 8 th. Century B.C). Greek poet who wrote a number of epics dealing with mythology, geography and astronomy.

8 J.F. Daniell, ‘On the Strata of a remarkable Chalk Formation in the vicinity of Brighton and Rottingdean’, The Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature and the Arts, 1818, 4, pp. 227-232. John Frederic Daniell (1790 - 1845) was a physicist. FRS 1813. DNB. 9 The Quarterly Journal of Science, Literature and the Arts, published under the auspices of the Royal Institution of Great Britain, and edited by William Thomas Brande (1788 - 1866). DNB. 10 James South (1785 - 1867). English astronomer. President Astronomical Society 1829. Knighted circumference nowhere!! believe me most truly yours ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

46

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Temple.Lond.n Apl. 11. 1828. My dear Sir I will send this letter to Woods & beg him immediately to forward it either by Post or with Ad. Brongniart’s 1.st N.o which I perceive you have not received with my note explaining why I had been so long in writing. In fact I had been out of town for a great part of the time, tho’ the only news I had to communicate was my intended tour to Auvergne with Murchison. I hope to get away by the 1.st week in May, but shall have difficulty in so doing as [*]11 I am much pressed in completing some literary business12 which I had promised to assist a friend [*] in (not geologising) before my departure for Paris. When I first read a few lines of your note I began to hope what my dreams often turn to, to hear that you had discovered the mammiferian animal which I intend you to find some day before you have done, in the Tilgate beds. The division of the Ava spoils does not seem to approximate, and unless our move to Somerset H.s should accelerate it I see no chance of its being done speedily. I have not a doubt that an immense deal will be done in the Brighton Subappenium breccia or diluvium of the Crag epoch, or marine diluvium of

1830. DNB. 11 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 188. 12 The literary business concerned a review by Lyell, in conjunction with his father, of Gabriele Rossetti’s edition of Dante’s, Divine Comedy. Ibid., pp. 187-188. Dr Fleming whenever you go to Brighton & this would reconcile us to your crossing the Chalk which would in other respects diminish our chance of being acquainted with the limestone contemporaneous of the Iguanodon. By the way have you seen Dr Flemings British Animals13 one vol oct.o Mammal.a, Aves, Amphib., Pisces & Mollusca. fossil species arranged with recent & a new sketch of geolog.l strata divided according to zoological epochs? It is too great an undertaking not to lay him open to the cavils of critics here & is in many respects imperfect but it has much merit & is an example in the right road. I do not know the price as he sent me a copy but there are no plates & it cannot be dear for the quantity of matter.14 I think you will be satisfied with A.B.’s first No.15 tho’ the fuci are the least interesting perhaps. Believe me with kind remembrances to Mrs Mantell yours very truly ChaLyell

P.S. I fear I shall only be in Paris 2 days. Murchison a fortnight.

[ Addressed to: G.Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

47

13 John Fleming, A History of British Animals, exhibiting the descriptive characters and systematical arrangement of the Genera and Species of Quadrupeds, Birds, Reptiles, Fishes, Mollusca and Radiata of the United Kingdom, Duncan, Edinburgh, 1828. 14 The retail price of Fleming’s book was 18 shillings. R.A.Peddie and Q.Waddington (eds.), The English Catalogue of Books, 1801-1836, London, 1914. 15 Adolphe Brongniart, Prodrome d’une Histoire des Vegetaux Fossiles, Paris, 1828. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Apl. 21. 1828

My dear Sir I paid £1-8-0 to Sowerby for 2 livraisons which he says B. has the shabbiness to insist on having paid for. But as he is not to go on unless 150 copies sell & as I hear 16 only are sold in Paris or rather France I suppose A.B. is obliged to adopt some precautionary measures. Germany I hear has bought 40 copies. Pray send to Dr Fleming your work [.] I will convey it to him. I will also take a small parcel to Paris & think C. Prévost well worthy of preference. If your list of fossils1 comes up I doubt not they would print it in next vol. I spoke to Fitton on the subject. I agree with him that the great value w.d arise from your accurate local knowledge for you are the only great collector in England who combines Geol.y with fossils, so if your list is general put a mark on what you can answer for from personal observation. There was a crowded meeting on Friday. More than £400 subscribed towards expenses of moving into Somerset House. Clifts2 Paper on Ava Bones & drawings magnificent, best thing of the kind I have seen in Engl.d Shaft’s3 [sic] lithography infinitely superior to Ad. Brongniart’s. Buckland’s paper4 on same & his discussion or lecture excellent. Too much of the unfortunate diluvium theory mixed up with the Ava bones. I should be much obliged to you for a few of the Plates you speak of. I

1 G.A. Mantell, ‘A Tabular Arrangement of the Organic Remains of the County of Sussex’, [6 June 1828], TGSL, 1829, 3(1), series 2, pp. 201-217. 2 W. Clift, ‘On the Fossil Remains of two New Species of Mastodon and of other Vertebrated Animals, found on the left Bank of the Irawadi’, [18 April 1828], TGSL, 1829, 2, series 2, pp. 369- 376 3 George Scharf (1788 - 1860). Bavarian born lithographic artist who arrived in London in 1816. DNB. He was the lithographer for the plates accompanying Clift’s paper (note 2, above). 4 W. Buckland, ‘Geological Account of a Series of Animal and Vegetable Remains and of Rocks collected by J. Crawfurd Esq. on a Voyage up the Irawadi to Ava, in 1826 and 1827’, [18 April 1828], TGSL, 1828, 2, series 2, pp. 377-392. hope to get away by the first of May. Murchison went yesterday. Sedgwick has offered to join Conybeare in the 2.d vol. of Brit. Geol.y Phillips5 being dead & he says he will travel expressly for it for 2 years. Pentland has found 4 new quadrupeds among Colebrook’s6 Indian specimens in our Museum, one an anthracotherium. He has found magn.m limest. in Andes at greater height than M. Blanc, full of fossils, & sand, loose with recent living shells of the W. Ocean raised up in Peru to more than one thousand feet so much for modern causes! & repeated shocks of earthquakes like the Chileans! in haste yours very truly ChaLyell

Temple Ap. 21. 1828

[The following sentence was written in the upper right hand corner of the first page.]

Answered & the 28/- with 1 Copy of South Downs Fossils & 2 Tilgate. April 24. 1828.

[ Addressed to: G.Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

48

Charles Lyell to G.A. Mantell

[ 3 May 1828 ]

My dear Sir Allow me to return my thanks & warmest acknowledgements to

5 Conybeare’s co-author, William Phillips, died on 2 April 1828. DNB. 6 Henry Thomas Colebrooke (1765 - 1837). A member of the Supreme Council of Calcutta who also wrote on the geology of India. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 67. Mrs Mantell and yourself for the joint present which you have made me & which I assure you I shall value doubly both for its contents & for the regard I feel for the donors. I have been too much engaged with the business1 that prevented my accompanying Murchison to Paris to write before & say that I should be happy to take the things sent by you to Paris for which I shall leave town the day after tomorrow. Murchison writes me word from Paris that he has been very handsomely received by all the savans in Paris & has learnt that the plant which formed the roof of the Brora Coal was an equisetum of which I believe you have Ad. B.’s figure in the last plate of your first livraison. Konig has published it under another name & denied I understand its affinity to equisetum & will be sufficiently annoyed at a note in Murchison’s paper, the paper of him who has always cried him up as his magnus Apollo – et tu Brute. Broderip says he will digest the vegetable as Ancient Pistol2 did his leek. But it is capital for M. that this very species is known as a lower oolite fossil on the continent. Conybeare is up here[.] there is some hope of Sedgwick joining him in 2.d vol of Eng.d & W. I hope you will not hesitate to send up your list of fossils immediately; don’t lose a day & I hope those fossils are marked which you can answer for. I have little doubt it w.d appear in next vol as I have given my opinion it should but whether or no, send it up & do not in your letter say anything about former delays & queries &c for which God knows neither Fitton nor any of the present active members have to answer & the work they have to do & the time they lose about the Soc.ys concerns is enough to tire any one’s patience & make me doubt whether Geology gains or loses most by the existence of a Soc.y I shall only have a day in Paris but will deliver your presents &c. remember me to Mrs Mantell & believe me ever most truly yours ChaLyell

1 See foot-note 2, letter 46. 2 In Act V, Scene 1 of Shakespeare’s, King Henry V, Pistol was cudgelled by Fluellen and made to eat a leek. [ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

49

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Bains du Mont Dor June 15 1828

My dear Sir I was so hurried in passing through Paris that I could not write to you to report progress in my endeavours to procure some models for you of Cuvier’s fossil animals. I had not time to go to quarries myself but left word with Prévost to buy a jaw that we heard of as just found in one of the gypsum excavations. I did not get a sight of Cuvier but requested his daughter Mm. Duvansel1 to take me to the workshop where Lauriller2 [sic] manufactures the casts. He would not sell me any under the ruse on his own account & when I afterwards let out they were for you he said that if Cuvier knew you were so anxious he w.d have given an order to him & that at all counts it would be as much as his place was worth to sell any to you when they owed you for fossils &c already. He promised as soon as he had leizure to make casts for you & that I should have a box on my return in 2 or 3 months. As the colouring is a long affair, I told him he might put some up uncoloured. I hope therefore when I return to be able to get something if not I will make Cuvier promise some, & keep Lauriller [sic] to his word.

1 Miss Duvansel was the daughter of Cuvier’s wife by a former marriage. K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 125. 2 Charles Leopold Laurillard (1783 - 1853). Conservator at the Cabinet of Comparative Anatomy, Jardin des Plantes and assistant to Cuvier. Sarjeant, G &H of G, vol. 3, p. 1525. When I have fixed the time of my return to Paris I will let you know that you may give me a letter at the Poste Restante there. At present we know so little whither Geology may lead us & hold ourselves so unshackled that I cannot tell you. [*]3 We have been here a whole month, (Murchison & I) working hard in a lacustrine formation that I have often thought of your neighbourhood and of you & assure you that our respect for what Humboldt4 calls sweet-water formations is greatly enhanced & even the importance of your Hastings series where the joint efforts of fluviatile & marine agencies were combined shrinks into insignificance when compared with what a series of purely lacustrine sediments here exhibit. There is our grand system of Horsham grits which cut a fine figure & might with their associated oolites bear a comparison with some of the first rate members of our oolitic series & other divisions more than a thousand feet thick may represent different parts of the secondary series, & their extent of which I conceive we have as yet but an inadequate idea is such already as to rival many a boasted marine formation: but “there is nothing in them that has suffered a sea-change” & I have seen five hundred feet of marls composing a line of hills in which the cypris was the only fossil & of which the myriads were such between each lamina that you could only compare them to the mica that divides the micaceous shaly sandst. of the Bristol Coal-field. Scrope was accused of having exaggerated the extent & importance of the indusial limest. but I assure you he much underrated it. Yet so great have been the disturbances & volcanic action & waste since the form.n of this rock which you thought looked so modern that I assure you I have acquired an immense idea of its antiquity.[*] We have been much favoured by weather & have worked from morning to night & hope to throw light at least on the Tertiary strata of Central France if we add little to the Volcanics information. The former has been much neglected tho’ capable of throwing more light on the latter. [*]5 I am sure that a much greater number of quadrupeds might be found in this formation than Cuvier has got out of the Paris gypsum. For in

3 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 199. 4 Friedrich Wilhelm Heinrich Alexander von Humboldt (1769 - 1859). German scientific polymath, historian and traveller. Sarjeant, G &H of G, vol. 2, pp. 1317-1343.

5 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 200. some quarries the men find many bones every day but there is not a soul who attends to them in earnest, & none who visit quarries to encourage the workmen. All are thrown away. It will give you some notion of the interest & geological importance of a lacustrine formation when we can have been in doubt for days whether certain hills belonged to the old red sandst. or the freshwater, whether certain others were granite or freshwater i.e. a primary crystalline unstratified rock or a sedimentary deposit, & that in both these cases we have come at last to a decided opinion that the strata in question were the undoubted property of the Lacustrine formation. Indeed I cannot imagine where it is to end & shall not be surprised if this lake should afford a parallel to a large number of our secondary formations & the strata in dislocation, elevation above their former level, alteration by trap dikes, [sic] verticality in parts, great inclination in others, induration, thickness, faults, &c will, believe me, compare with almost any part of our series, & you may therefore attribute our having been left so much in the dark on these matters or rather having been completely misled, to the accident of so much interesting volcanic phenomena being in the neighbourhood & engrossing all attention.[*] As our work & theories are only in progress, you will of course not commit us for any of these opinions which I communicate. I hope you & your family have been enjoying better health & with my best remembrances to Mrs Mantell believe me ever truly yours ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes ]

50

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell Nice Aug. 22 1828

My dear Sir I have been intending for some time to write to you & inform you of a purchase I have made for you but knowing how long the box would be en route I felt there could be some advantage in you not being tantalized too much. At Aix en Provence we found the quarries had not as yet been visited & that the fish which are something in the Monte Bolca style were to be had very cheap - compared indeed to what they asked me for the Bolca things at Verona, for nothing. So I laid out in fish, plants &c & a box 55 franks for you. The whole will I expect get to Lewes for 4 or 5 pounds or perhaps much less. There is one large fish which Murchison & I estimated at about £5 at any sale in London & there are some 40 smaller & pretty entire fish many of which are duplicates of a kind of perch. Of the latter I shall probably wish a few at the price you receive them at. A fine palm will I fear be broken notwithstand.g the care I took. It is Palmacites Lamanonis Cuv. & Brong.t Env. de Par. The large oyster Murchison I believe will claim for the Geol. Socy. The small box of Montpelier insects I must get you to keep for me till opportunity offers to send them to me in town. The few imperfect insects will I hope be prized though as Aix insects. They are 3d. each. The fact is a wonderful mine of insects has been opened since a year. No doubt it will soon fail. As M. & I may want the species for a paper on Aix I could only purchase for you what were rejected but I got them for a few sous each & barring 2 or 3 in London you will have in them the best fossil remains of octopods save ours. All in the box is from the freshwater of Aix en Provence – except the oyster. I will give you a full & minute account of the whole habitat of these creatures when we meet. In the mean time I may say that the Aix form.n is generally referred to the Paris Upper freshwater & it is supposed that like the Crag & Subappenium beds a considerable percentage of the animals & plants are still living. But the beds in which these fish, palms & insects & shells lived now form parts of hills 4 or 500 feet above sea & the strata in places dip at 30 & 40!! There are great beds of gypsum like Paris but I believe nothing so ancient as Paleotherium. I said that there was nothing but Aix specimens but I forgot some others which I put in as being so like some of the Hastings bivalve cyrene beds. I believe I marked them Fuveau. They belong to a freshwater formation, much older than lias!! in which the coal resembles in quality some of our genuine old coal. Solid beds of limest. & sandst. associated with it in which are found in abundance Potamides, cyclas, cyrene, unio & in the red marl beds with gypsum marked ## we found what we are persuaded will prove lymnea & planorbis!! The lias is full of terebratula, belemnite, & ammonites, & thousands of feet under in this ancient freshwater & coal format.n, & proved to be under by both sides of an anticlinal axis! So much for the aboriginal universal ocean! It was a singular thing to see Potamides, cyclas, cyrene, plants & lymnea in the two format.s given in the sketch at the two extremes of the series. I give you these things in confidence for our joint paper1 is not yet written & Murchison would be jealous if these affairs were to be stale when we give them to the Geol. Soc.y. Our insects, out of 15 genera at least some as perfect as they were born. Marcel de Serres who is the only one save us who ever got any has 60 genera. He swears he can identify some species with living Mediteranean insects but some are unknown. I am too much engaged to write more but will say in conclusion that [*]2 one must travel over Europe to learn how completely we are in our infancy in the knowledge of the ancient history of the globe & to feel as I do now what splendid discoveries must be

1 R.I. Murchison and C. Lyell, ‘On the Tertiary Fresh-water Formations of Aix, in Provence, including the Coal-field of Fuveau, with a Description of Fossil Insects, Shells and Plants, contained therein; by John Curtis, F.L.S.; J. de C. Sowerby, Esq. F.L.S., and J. Lindley, Esq., Professor of Botany in the London University. (Communicated by the Authors)’, ENPJ, 1829, 7, pp. 287-298. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, pp. 214-215. on the Eve of coming to light even within the time which we may hope to see. [*] I forgot to say in my last that Prévost was much pleased when I delivered your present to him myself and that on Ad. Brongniart’s table I really found his book of Plants with your name on it. But he had been waiting as they always do “pour un occasian”, till doomsday. Remember me to Mrs Mantell & believe me your sincere friend ChaLyell

P.S. The box was directed to Hunnerman Agent Queen St Soho & sent by ship from Marseilles. The banker has not written as he promised to say by what ship he had forwarded it.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

51

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 14 Feb. 1829 ]

My dear Sir I have arrived a few days in Paris & hope to be in town in 8 more. I have seen Vesuvius & Etna well as perhaps you have heard having extended my tour to the greater part of Sicily & Southern Italy as far as Naples. I cannot find any letter here from you tho’ I expected one merely from one of your other letters which were sent from London. Cuvier’s workmen had done nothing as they promised so I blew them up in fine style & they now declare that there shall be sent immediately models of all the Paris animals which are done whether painted or not for I find that if you are to wait till a certain Painter who has been ill ½ a year & more is recov.d you will see them about the end of the next geological epoch. Your late present here was well timed for my diplomacy. An opportunity of sending this to London having offered at Cuvier’s this morning, I have only time for a short note. Ad. Brongniart said at a party the other day of geologists while talking across the table that you had done more for fossil botany than any one in England, so that I conclude you have at least been more useful to him than anybody else. Geology is more alive here than I expected to find it consid.g the lamentations of the french that they do not get on so fast as us. De Beaumont thinks he has proof that the Serpentine throughout the alps turns the lias into which it enters into gneiss mica, schist, chlorite slate &c &c in short that beds full of belemnites &c are primarized & granitized so as to become everything that the Grampians can show. Old Brochant has given into this extraordinary innovation. I regret that deep snow prevented my visiting on my return some of the localities. 20 species of coal plants have been found in a belemnite bearing bed believed to be Lias to the dreadful discomforture of A. Brongniart, in the Taren[ ? ].1 1200 species of extinct shells well made out in Paris basin!! A new plesiosaurian just receiv.d from Dep.t of Ardennes, France s.d to be in Oxf.d clays. While I write this, some specimens for you are being put into a box but the man says “we have not got a perfect set” so Cuvier tells them “take a note of them & then re-examination shall follow”. In haste with remembrance to Mrs Mantell believe me very truly yrs ChaLyell

1 The letter has been torn after the letters ‘Taren’. Paris, Feb.y 14. 1829.

[Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq., Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex, Angleterre]

52

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Paris Feb. 19 1829

My dear Sir One of your letters, (for I gather from yours of which I have at last reclaimed that there were two) has been today extracted from the Poste Restante & I have given to Ad. Brongniart the notice on your catalogue of fossils &c. He has given me some things for you, a prodromus &c & observed that if you had discovered it was too large to translate you might still insert perhaps in Annals of Phil a translation of the smaller pamphlet also sent. As I had a general order to seize on all the moulds I could I sent off coloured & uncol.d every thing ready but Cuvier unluckily has done hardly anything in the lizard way which could as I told him have been more useful to you. Pentland promised to write to you about casts of reptiles which he was still to get sent from Cuvier & to put the note in the box. I hear from Murchison that our Entomological boxes waited many months at the bankers at Marseilles but that he has written for them; if you have been disappointed it is to us still worse in as much our Ordnance coloured maps of the Aurillac freshwater basin are in our box and our Central France paper is in danger of being seriously deferred by the want of this document. Your fish however, were safe when the last news of them was received at Marseilles. As you told me to spend about £7 for you I am in treaty with Deshayes for a small suite of about 100 Calcaire Grossiere shells for £4-0-0. Leman1 is just dead, the only scientific dealer. [*]2 Deshayes, now the strongest fossil conchologist in Europe has lost so seriously by his fine work on the shells of the Paris basin that he is not only obliged to stop, so miserably is it encouraged but his circumstances are injured for a time by it. I have bought a copy (70 franks) to help him & as I find he has amassed in his researches for new things a multitude of fine duplicates I trust thro’ Prévost to negotiate a purchase for you.[*] I must proceed in delivery or I shall fail.[*]3 The grand thing will be to get the names of perhaps 100 genera from such a man who is acknowledged to be the cuvier of tertiary shells, no mean acquirement now that they amount in his museum including those living in the Medit.n & the channel, to above 3,000 species. His drawings of microscopic shells of the Paris basin are most curious. Such incredible forms of multilocular shells & some so elegant. God knows whether the work will ever come to these. It is one 3d finished. 20 th. Feb.y. Just heard a good lecture of Prévosts to a numerous class. It was on diluv.m & caves, a good logical refutation of the diluvium humbug. The news of the day is that a Dr — has just read a memoir at Institute on a new small tapir & produced the head & jaws. It inhabits the mountains of upper India & they swear that the species is not distinguishable hardly from one of the Montmartre Paleotheriums. In return I announced Mary Anning’s new Pterodactyl of Lyme [*] which Murchison informs me is to devour like another dragon of Wantley all the Soi-disant birds bones of Stonesfield & Tilgate. [*]4 How grand your Museum will look when under every bone of which the ornithologists could make nothing you write Pterodactylus Dorsetianus & Tilgetanus. Prévost has a beautiful large machoire of an anoplotherium which he showed me imbedded in gypsum intended as a present for you & if we succeed in getting the shells it is to go with them. He

1 Sebastian Leman was admitted as a foreign member of the GSL in 1816. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 278. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 246. 3 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 247. 4 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 247. observed “this will be better for it will cut a mighty figure among the cockles but if it is thrown into Cuvier’s large caisse it will be drowned”. I have no fear of getting the shells & if it answers expectations I shall be allowed to enlarge the commission in future should you incline to be sumptuous. In the meantime, prepare to disburse 100 franks which I shall pay Deshayes before I leave Paris, which I suppose will be in two days, for town. Young Brongniart protested at breakfast on Sunday at his father’s before a large party of savans that you knew more of fossil plants than any man in England. I could have told him that a certain Mr Stokes had recently accumulated a quantity of fossil & recent woods, plants &c which with no small study & that too aided by Brown, had placed him in a situation to become the critic of Ad. Brongniart himself, which moreover he will be as I learn – but I kept this to myself as it will be time enough when he learns it [*] & in meantime you are a magnus apollo in the two kingdoms. Part of my Aix section was quite wrong. The coal, true coal, Newcastle coal, is tertiary after all. I had no moment for epistolizing & only hope you kept my true facts & my blunders to yourself. I care as little about Postage, on geological subjects as if an M.P. So you need not scruple another time on that [score?] to send letters to P. Restante. Remember me to Mrs Mantell & believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

Prévost & Deshayes say “if M. Mantell w.d make moulds of all curious casts to French savons [sic] he w.d do infinite service to Anatomy here, for the devil a one did C. ever give to a frenchman”.

[Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex, Angleterre]

53

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell London Feb. 24 Tuesd.y Even.g [ 1829 ] My dear Sir I hope you got my last letter from Paris. Pentland begged me to say that you should write to Cuvier immediately on receiving the box from him a hint which I could not help thinking you might usually give to French savans when you send them presents. I am just arrived & lose no time in applying to you in furtherance of a scheme which I have just set [in] foot & which I planned with Deshayes during my last meeting when I was negotiating you 100 franks worth of Parisian shells. But first of the latter. He is to give you about 120 species & about 100 genera in that number, a large proportion freshwater because I thought that might afford you more instruction about lacustrines & I. of Wight & Tilgate analogies or non-analogies. All to be sent named. On discussing these matters he offered to name all my Sicilian shells & rather begged it as a favour to himself, & we planned together a grand scheme of cataloguing the tertiary shells of various European basins that I might draw geological inferences therefrom. As it will become necessary for him in the execution of this plan that he should see himself as many English tertiary shells as possible of well-ascertained localities I am going to exert myself in procuring the loan of several collections, which will return from Paris with Deshayes’ names, a good return in general for the trouble & slight risk. I am sure you will second my wishes by letter & have such Plastic clay & other tertiary shells as you have. Deshayes is no Cuvier in delay & your things will return forthwith. Duplicates which Deshayes wants would be carefully exchanged for calc. gross. shells named. This I will tell him. So be so kind as to pack up first a parcel containing the best specimens you have & all the varieties of every tertiary English shell or madrepore from Lewes levels thro’ crag downwards in a separate parcel which will return named & thereby secured for our grand European catalogues. – 2dly. another parcel of duplicates if you have any of d.o which you can give for a present & in fact in exchange to the s.r conchologist. Pack them so I may add them to a parcel which I have to send without having to open them here. So that shells of the same formation are together it will not be necessary to add precise localities. Before the work I have in hand comes out I hope to get approximate lists for comparison of shells in most of the basins of Europe, not to publish the lists, but to give the results which I am sure will be important & which I already have discovered from the study of museums in Italy & France will be unexpected for the most part either by collectors or geologists. My results will be an indication from nearly (perhaps more than) 3,000 species in the tertiary form.s alone, & I hope by other aid than Deshayes to carry it on through older strata also. I have already made much way in it. No-one but yourself & Deshayes is privy to these state secrets as yet & till I get in further I have no wish to advantage them. I treat you in this request as a friend sans ceremony. However small the number (for I forget what you have) favour us with them [.] if any partial damage occurs which I do not anticipate we will make it good to you from our Sicilian & Parisian duplicates. I have brought with me named at present some Sienna duplicates of my collecting, some of which you shall have shortly. Just arrived & have travelled so fast that I shall stay quiet & incognito in chambers for a day & ½. With remembrances to Mrs Mantell believe me ever most truly yours ChaLyell

Did Murchison send the saurian relics which Cuvier gave him of yours?

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

54

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell March 19, Temple 1829

My dear Sir Pray breakfast here on Sund.y morning & we will be alone, but any morning you will find me disengaged to you – however Sund.y is a good day. I am delighted to hear that Ure’s book1 has had so good an effect, for I told Murchison in a letter from Italy where he wrote quite in a rage that Longman had paid down £500 sterling for the cant of an [*]2 unprincipled hypocrite & libertine of Dublin well known in the annals of crime [*] [illegible 2 or 3 letters] &c that now that we are too far on with the public to recede the name of such writers the better for it has the effect of making hundreds of dupes look into the evidence & see clearly that the case stands the other way & then some turn geologists & the rest are less of bigots. Such fellows once did as much mischief & not long ago as the inquisitors, but now that the philosophers have got the upper hand I wish Irving3 to preach against us as he sometimes does, every Sunday. Don’t put yourself out of the way about the things for Deshayes the sooner the better but it does not press at present. very truly yrs ChaLyell

55

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

1 Andrew Ure, A New System of Geology, in which the Great Revolutions of the Earth and Animated Nature, are Reconciled at once to Modern Science and Sacred History, Longman, London, 1829. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 265. 3 Lyell probably refers to the Scotch Presbyterian minister Edward Irving who attracted large crowds to his London sermons in the 1820s, expressing his belief in an imminent millenium. See N. Rupke, The Great Chain of History, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983, p. 210. March 23 . 1829. London

My dear Sir I had arranged with Greenough that you should dine there & see a splendid specimen just received from Ockley near Dorking, Surrey said to be from Weald clay. On one side apparently a fish with an immense number of scales regularly imbriated & terminating in tortoise like pieces fitted in to one another on the reverse was embedded as if accidentally, an iguanodons tooth with sections in the shale of other long crocodile like teeth. I write as an ignoramus but it must be an important morsel for you to see. They call it fish & till I showed the tooth thought it all icthyological. I was not at the dinner not being returned – altho’ not advertized 70 to 80 persons came – never before so many. All agreed that the chair at a scientific convivial meeting had never been so well filled as by our new President Sedgwick4 who off-hand on the list of tracts being given to him on coming up sported an inexhaustible number of bright & original ideas in innumerable speeches. On coming to the Pres.t of Astron.l Soc.y, Herschell [sic] he made fine play about his intended marriage – for H. has since married a beautiful & accomplished Scotch lassie aged 18.5 He talked of the house of Cassini having been illustrious for 3 successive generations & in astronomy so might that of Herschell prove – &c. Gentlemen, “may the house of Herschell be perpetuated, may all the constellations wait on them, may ‘Virgo’ go before & ‘Gemini’ follow after, & may their off-spring resemble the stars of heaven in number & brilliance &c”. This was received by a roar of laughter for 3 minutes & H. tho’ at first put out of countenance recovered & made an admirable speech. The Society & the subject have gained vastly in strength & followers within the last 2 years.

4 The Reverend Adam Sedgwick succeeded W.H. Fitton as President of the GSL and served in that capacity from 1829-31. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 287. 5 Sir John Herschel married Margaret Brodie, the second daughter of Rev. Dr. A. Stewart of Now that Mantellias are becoming numerous & other honours you must keep up to your reputation which is high by confining your attention & concentrating it in future on that department of Geol.y where you are strongest & least in danger of being rivalled. I feel my own honour a little compromised in the affair, as a friend of mine had the impudence at the Soc.y on Friday to call you as he addressed another celebrated geologist “the man whom Lyell here & some folks abroad choose to make much of” – of course in private conversation; in a coterie of which I was one. Now I have sworn with myself that you shall show them ere many years are over who & what you are & put to the blush the jealous unwillingness which most metropolitan monopolists in Science both in France & here exhibit towards all such as happen not to breathe their own exclusive atmosphere. But you must concentrate . Cut Botany, except as a collector. Give up all idea of a popular book on wonders of Geol.y which would yield cash only. Of course you will not attempt to tilt with Fitton & me “on the general principles of Geol.y” which we mean soon (mine will be soon) to give you. After all my travelling & reading I find it too much to dare & only excusable when I measure my strength against others & not with the Subject. But from this moment resolve to bring out a general work on “British fossil reptiles & fish” – Clift has not time & never will have – Buckland is divided amongst a 100 things & no anatomist. Conybeare no time to devote himself to such a branch. Cuvier can not come to fossil fish in 4 or 5 years & must then quote you. His new book on fish enables you to start fair with others as to modern fish. Your book may be made popular even & contain recent zoological geology like Cuvier’s last. Our fossil fish lie within small compass as yet. You must run up often to town. After you have worked quietly to the point for a year & ½ or more, then out with a prodromus a la Adolphe B[rongniart]. Fish & reptiles will then be sent & lent in abundance from all Museums. You must purchase some from Lyme Regis & many books & say nothing for a while. By this you may render yourself truly great which without much travelling you will never become in general geol.y. The field is yours – but might not remain open many years. It is worthy of ambition & the only one which in an equally short time you could make your own in England for ever. Lindley will soon be our Adolphe Brongniart in botany (fossil) i.e. in

Dingnall, Ross-Shire on 3 March 1829. DNB. several years but before others. I have not space for more. Vallenciennes6 was to have spent 2 days at Lewes (Cuvier’s collaborator on fish) but was dangerously ill for two days & then obliged to return. ChaLyell

No news of Aix box – nor Deshayes, expected dayly.[sic] Get ready crag fossils &c at your leizure.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

56

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 9 April 1829 ]

My dear Sir A letter just arrived announces the approach of the Aix boxes. They are on the Thames at least & I have ordered yours forthwith to Lewes. I will send you the account of the damage when I have settled with Hunnerman.

6 Achille Valenciennes. A pupil and then successor of Cuvier at the Jardin des Plantes, Paris. Joint author with Cuvier of Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, 22 vols, Paris - Strasbourg, 1828-1849. Do not forget the shells for Deshayes or if you like a pack first & if you choose omit the more fragile & rare crag shells. I know it is cruel to remind you when you have 50 times more to do than you ought to have. No particular news except that Dr Young1 is thought dangerously ill. If he, Davy2 & Woolaston3 [sic] died in one year! Davy is still going on. A party of Geologists at Horners to day. I wish you were to be there but next year you will run up like the Oxf.d & Cantab. Prof.s once a month at least. believe me with rememb.s to Mrs Mantell yrs very truly ChaLyell

Temple Ap. 9. 1829

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

57

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Temple April 20 1829

My dear friend, I found your letter here this morning on my return from dining yester.dy in the country & might have written on Sat.y to tell you that when I proposed to a very full council that you should have the privilege of buying casts of the Ava fossils it was voted that they should be sent to

1 Thomas Young (1773 - 1829). Physician, physicist and Egyptologist. Foreign Secretary of the Royal Society from 1802-29. DNB. 2 Sir Humphrey Davy (1778 - 1829). English chemist, physicist and inventor. Died 29 May 1829. DNB. you4 & amongst arguments for so far departing from a former resolution was urged not only your own former presents of casts &c, but your catalogue of fossils. Certain other 2 members who shall be nameless added a due demonstration of feelings of gratitude for favours yet to come hinting that as the new curator Mr Lonsdale of Bath was completing the oolitic series so when the chalk was hereafter rendered more perfect your future donations might be important. I took upon me to say that one reason no doubt of many presents having been lost from you & others was their seeing the state of Chaos of the collection which I had heard you compare to Byron’s “first out of & then back again to Chaos”. Lonsdale is installed5 & a glorious reform you will see made by him. Webster of course will throw himself into the Thames when he understands that £200 a year are to be given to an alter Webster out of which however L. is to find his clerk. He has that humility of character about him that I fear not his being above the place. He is not to be like Webster a member of council which medley of legislative & executive power formerly clogged the movements of the machine. As to little W. I am told that in the I. of Wight & Bristol last year he pocketed considerable cash & made no small number of enemies. The engagement between him & little Millar6 of Bristol are imitated to the life by Broderip who saw them. I cannot think of M.’s german dialect when he told W.r he was master of his own house, & the sharp vein in which W. communicated to the conservator with an insufferable air of authority, that the council had commanded him to give up the keys of Museum to him, the tone in which the offended custos denied to the itinerant dignitary his charge without a written order, without laughing. He also had an affair (not of honour) with Lonsdale at Bath but out of compassion L. declined pulling his nose. To sum up all this singular being who is like a species of oscillatoria which can only live in thermal water at a high temperature contrived on his return here to quarrel with Baldwin the

3 W.H. Wollaston died on 22 December 1828. DNB. 4 Mantell received these casts on 16 June 1829. GAM-PJ. 5 William Lonsdale was appointed Curator and Librarian of the GSL in 1829. Thomas Webster had been appointed Keeper of the Museum and Draughtsman in 1812 and then Secretary in 1819. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 308. 6 Johann S. Miller (Muller). German born curator based at Bristol. Author of A Natural History of the Crinoidea, or Lily Shaped Animals, Bristol, 1821. Prop.r & Smedley7 the Editor of the Encycloped. Metrop.n & Daubeny his appointed coadjutor in writing for them an article on Geol y. All is off with mutual recriminations. Fitton in the style of my uncle Toby, says “Poor fellow, it is all owing to his having upon an occasion lost his ______”! hilarious. believe me with rememb.s to Mrs Mantell yrs very truly ChaLyell P.S. Your things are gone to Paris. of the others I know not what to say. We have not our box from Aix either. Deshayes tells me his shells for you are just ready.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

58

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 16 May 1829 ] Dear Mantell

7 Edward Smedley (1788 - 1836). Author and editor of Encyclopedia Metropolitana. DNB. Deville1 got your box one hour after it entered my rooms. When I see Clift I will learn where the man is whom he employs to make skeletons of fish &c. [*]2 A splendid meeting last night. Sedgwick in chair. Conybeare’s paper3 on valley of Thames directed against Messrs. Lyell & Murchison’s former paper4 was read in part. Buckland present to defend the “diluvialists” as Conybeare styles his sect & us he terms “fluvialists”. Greenough assisted us by making an ultra speech on the impotence5 of modern causes. No river he said within times of history has deepened its channel one foot! It was great fun for he said – our opponents say, “give us Time & we will work wonders, so said the wolf in the fable – to the lamb – why do you disturb the water? – I do not you are further up the stream than I – But your father did – he never was here – then your grandfather did so I will murder you, give me time & I will murder you, so say the fluvialists”! Roars of laughter in which G. joined ag.st himself. What a choice simile! M. & I fought stoutly & Buckland was very piano. Conybeare’s memoir is not strong by any means. He admits 3 deluges before the Noachian! & Buckland adds God knows how many catastrophes besides so we have driven them out of the Mosaic record fairly.[*] Many thanks for the fish, to tell you the truth I have not to this moment found time to look at them. I was glad to hear you are better. I was so fagged that I ran down to a find in Bedfordsh. a new quarter for me & I picked up some new ideas in Geol.y yours very truly ChaLyell I can’t tell you yet what you owe me.

1 It is probable that Lyell refers to Henri Sainte-Claire Deville, (d. 1881) rather than his brother Charles (1814 - 1871). Both were French mineralogists. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 2031. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 252, where the letter is incorrectly dated April 1829. This extract is also quoted by Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 264. 3 W.D. Conybeare, ‘On the Hydrographical Basin of the Thames, with a view more especially to investigate the causes which have operated in the formation of the Valleys of that River and the tributary Streams’, PGSL, 1826-33, 1, pp. 145-149. 4 C.Lyell and R.I.Murchison, ‘On the Excavation of Valleys, as illustrated by the Volcanic Rocks of Central France’, ENPJ, 1829, 7, pp. 15-48. 5 In the quoted extract from this letter in K. Lyell’s LLJ-CL, the word “importance” has been used instead of “impotence”. [ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Lewes, Sussex ]

59

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Sat.y May 23 1829 My dear Sir Hunnerman has just sent his bill & I believe I may now dun you for what I have paid. Hunnerman for carriage £ 1 - 8 - 0 of Aix bones Pentland for box for Cuvier’s fossils etc 14 - 0 Deshayes for shells 4 - 0 - 0 Aix fossils as mentioned I believe in my letter to you dated Aix. 2 -15 - 0 ______£ 8 - 17 I mean to put in a note when speaking of the difficulties with which Geology had to contend & your Lewes Dr. ? [Hopkins]1 (what was his name again I always forget) as an instance of the Inquisition which survived the times of Galileo. Be so good as to state it to me. It is a good fact that an author of a work which would now be visited with no general blame if not applause should have felt his situation so insupportable as to be obliged to de camp. Just state the year & where he went to afterwards. I shall throw it into a brief note so give me what little you have of the affair. My work will be 2 vols. & out before this time [next] year. I shall at least avoid the mistake of not offending either party. I shall be glad to hear that your health is better & you are prepared if rest be indispensable to sacrifice much rather than persevere in attempting

1 In the original letter the name Hopkins has been written in pencil in the space left blank by Lyell. However, in an undated letter to Lyell, [letter 131], Mantell wrote: “You may recollect Dr Toulmin who wrote on the Eternity of the earth, lived at Lewes as M.D. & was obliged to leave the place”. too much. I have no news yet of my Sicilian boxes which ought to have arrived. if they are as long in proportion as my Aix fossils I must wait for 2.d Ed.n . I hear that even Ure’s book sells & that the 500 guineas which Longman paid will answer to him. Conybeare’s paper will be concluded this 5 th. June & the Diluvialists mean to muster strong, it is better written than the first part. We shall have a regular engagement. Scrope is to be here tomorrow & I hope to enlist him for the action of the 3 rd. (not 10th) June. Broderip & I misbehaved at the R.S. on Thursd.y by giving way to a fit of laughter during the Seance, on overhearing that old twaddle, Josh. Smith2 F.R.S talking to a friend about our last Geol l. debate. He said, “I was glad they argued so temperately for that was quite right, for you know Sir the facts are all against Moses & Mr Greenough proved in an impressive speech that "Time can do everything"! but they (the G.S.) showed I think that they do not wish to abrogate the Xtian dispensation as some might think.”!! Your friend Sir R. Phillips3 was uninvited at D. Gilberts party last Sat y. I hope he will not serve us up in print as he did 2 friends of mine at Bedford one of whom Dr.Hunt fed him never having heard that he would be shown up as large as life. With rememb.rs to Mrs Mantell believe me yours ever ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

2 Further details about this particular J. Smith have not been found. Five J. Smiths are listed in the F.R.S. Record as having joined the Society between 1773 and 1829. 3 Sir Richard Phillips (1767 - 1840). Author, publisher and founder of the Monthly Magazine (1796). Knighted 1808. DNB. 60

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

London 7 June 1829 My dear Sir [*]1 The last discharge of Conybeare’s artillery served by the great Oxford Engineer against the fluvialists as they are pleased to term us drew upon them on Frid.y a sharp voley [sic] of musketry from all sides & such a broad side at the finale from Sedgwick as was enough to sink the Reliquiae Dilae.2 for ever & make the 2.d vol shy of venturing out to sea. After the memoir on the impotence of all the rivers wh. feed [the] “Main river of an isle” & the sluggishness of Father Thames himself “scarce able to move a pins head”, a notice by Cully3 [sic] land surveyor was read on the prodigious power of a cheviot stream “the college” wh. has swept away a bridge & annually buries large tracts under gravel. Buckland then jumped up like a council said Fitton to me, “who had come down special”. After his reiteration of Conybeare’s arguments Fitton made a somewhat laboured speech. I followed & then Sedgwick who decided on 4 or more deluges & said the simultaneousness was disproved for ever &c &c & declared that on the nature of such floods we should at present “doubt & not dogmatise”! a good meeting.[*] Murchison & I read next time a paper on the Aix Freshw.r form.s4 Can you say a word on the fish? if it be only as to the number. Blainville5 told some he had a perca from Aix. He also says Mem. de la Soc.e d'Hist. Nat.

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K.Lyell, Lyell LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 253. 2 W. Buckland, Reliquiae Diluvianae or, Observations on the Organic Remains Contained in Caves, Fissures, Diluvial Gravel and on Other Geological Phenomena, Attesting the Action of an Universal Deluge, Murray, London, 1823. 3 Mathew Culley, ‘A few Facts and Observations as to the Power which running water exerts in removing heavy bodies’, PGSL, 1826-33, 1, p.149. 4 R.I.Murchison and C.Lyell, ‘On the Tertiary Freshwater Formations of Aix in Provence, including the Coal-field of Fuveau’, [19 June 1829], PGSL, 1827-33, 1, pp. 150-151. 5 Henri Marie Ducrotay de Blainville (1777 - 1850). French artist, anatomist and palaeontologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G. vol. 2, p. 565. “Une espece de cyprin pourvue de deuts”6 – also Perca cernuar or like it. How many species have you. The shells & gyrogonites prove I think the whole to be pure freshw r. If in reading Ure any of his numerous blunders struck you pray mention them to me for altho’ I shall never have patience to read him thro’ I fancy I must say a word or two in the Q.R. on the gross mistakes for the work will soon come to a 2.d Ed.n & all the errata be perpetuated such as those about Weald clay, which specify in your letter. Also that where the lias is placed between the oolites & green-sand. I receiv.d your check & got the money but more than enough especially as I receiv.d from you some Aix fish. The Fuveau coal wh in a letter from Aix I made out so old turned out as I think I told you afterwar.ds to be tertiary with its freshw.r fossils & my section was wrong. Pray point out to me any decided blunders made by Ure about you, your county & your discoveries. I shall only write a few pages to point out gross errors for as the book is read it will do much havoc to the progress of Truth. I sh.d have passed by the cant as I did Pens & Bug’s7 but if taken for the real Elements of Geol.y it will play the devil with our beginners; unless we force him to revise. Send off as little at a time as you please just as anything strikes you. They all protest I must insert a few pages in it for Brande the Lity. Gazette New Monthly & all choose to puff it as 2.d only to G. Pen!!! We sh.d not grudge him this commendation, but the confusion of org.c rem.s & arrangement is a crying sin. London clay fossils you see are figured Pl.4 as Upper oolites &c. You had better confine yourself to a hint or two as to points where he mistakes yours.[*]8 I am to start for Scotland June 20 &[*] see the Crag in my way.[*]9 shall be there 2 months.[*] With rememb.s to Mrs Mantell believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

6 Literal translation: “A species of carp provided as a pair”. 7 Granville Penn and George Bugg were biblical literalists and authors who believed Buckland downgraded the significance of the deluge by restricting its geological effect to no more than superficial gravel deposits. N.A. Rupke, The Great Chain of History, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983, p. 82. 8 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 253. 9 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 253. [ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

61

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 15 June 1829 ]

My dear Sir My review1 is at the Printers, will be finally corrected on Thursd.y & on Sat.y I leave town. If you chance to have some small remark to make concerning Ure which may not have struck me when pointing out his Sussex blunders in arrangement &c write at once. But for heaven’s sake buy not the book & if you cannot borrow it leave it alone. I have not had time yet to go through your fossils, the list I mean but I will try tomorrow. The Lamarchian names must be given as you have mixed up new & old names. I mean of the recent shells which alone I have read & corrected almost all. Greenough I think will do the rest. As to the Brighton cliffs I should like to know what is the greatest height you consider the breccia, containing marine remains to rise.

1 An unpublished review by Lyell of A. Ure’s, A New System of Geology, Longman, London, 1829. Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 265. What is there to prove that it is not Crag? Perhaps not evidence enough yet to prove anything.

In your plate of Rottingdean do you mean that B is the marl bed[.] if so what marl. Why colour it in the same manner as the shingle bed A? Is A. & B. of same age? Are C.C. & D.D. flint veins? If so they are posterior to B.B. & B.B. looks like same age as shingle bed. Besides you leave as white space at Z as if the chalk overlaid the extremity of the shingle bed A. The brighton will turn out to be a true Littoral form.n like part of Crag & all the tertiary of the Loire in France. But there are littoral form.s of various ages & many more recent than Crag which I will prove to you next spring is of enormous antiquity. I suppose the marine shells in Brighton conglom. can not be made out? Deshayes has got your Crag shells & much interested apologises for not having sent others, has been abroad on a tour, & when the Crag are named all are to come back together & some. If you c.d come up on Frid.y & see our Fossil insects, I will send you a plate of them by Curtis2 before I go if printed off. The paper will only be out in Jamieson in Oct.r 3 remember me to Mrs Mantell & believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

2 John Curtis (1791 - 1862). Entomologist and skilled engraver. DNB. 3 R.I.Murchison and C.Lyell, ‘On the Tertiary Freshwater Formations of Aix, in Provence, including the Coal-field of Fuveau’, ENPJ, 1829, 7, pp. 287-298. P.S. If tide once 40 feet higher at Brighton (a Severn tide) w.d the old cliff be explained without Elev.n supposing it marine?

Temple Mond.y June 15 1829.

P.S. 2.d Don’t tell a soul I wrote on Ure – put them on a doubtful scent as to the author, you will soon see it out.

62

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 22 Oct 1829 ]

Dear Mantell I am just returned from Scotland & being 500 miles nearer to you will give you a few lines which when I was moving about with Dr Fleming geologising in Fife I could not do & I had no success when at home. Dr. F. was much delighted with some recent communication from you I forget what. A letter does him good & whenever you will send one for him to me I will get it franked on. Sedgwick & Murchison are in Paris & expected in a few days[.] they seem to think Auvergne a formation of modern date one of my ‘contemporaries’ zoologically so you may say “canis vulpis” if you like. Mrs Murchison magnifies your museum as I have no doubt it deserves. Conybeare after his accident of which of course you heard (thrown out of a gig) was 14 days miserable, having fallen on his head, but he has recov.d his senses slowly. No limbs broken & they think he may get over it. Sedgwick has become as complete an anti-Bucklandite as to diluvium as I ever was & means to hold forth on it, a diversion very favourable to me. I hope to be out with my book in the spring, indeed I must as I trust I shall then sail for Iceland, so if you have any commands to Hecla you have only to draw them up in time. Mary Anning seems to have been fully successful, it seems the Auvergne folks have taken a leaf out of her book for they would not let our friends have a fossil tortoise under £36 sterling which they did not give, in this country a prodigious sum. Yet it is satisfactory as showing the zeal of collectors. Thirty six pence would not have been given 20 years ago. Fitton is at Frankfurt & has been geologizing. His wife much recovered, & both in good spirits. I found the usual quarrels in Edinburgh as I passed thro’, all in hot water. Jameson out of humour because his Journal1 no longer pays now that Brewster2 is in opposition. But the latter is out of pocket by his & they both work hard assisted by the generous reflection that they are injuring one another. It is an illustration of the old proverb of the quarrel of friends. I am glad to hear that you are getting on in the anatomical branch for it is there that you may top all on this side of the channel & give us an invaluable help. The field is yours in spite of disadvantages of localization which you have triumphed over. Many thanks for your catalogues of the Museum. Your list of fossils3 will be out in the new vol. about our 2.d meeting. Hoping to hear you are in town at some of our early meetings. I shall conclude with kind remembrances to Mrs Mantell & believe me ever much truly yours ChaLyell

9 Crown Off. Row Temple London Oct. 22. 1829.

1 The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal. 2 David Brewster (1781 - 1868). Editor, Edinburgh Journal of Science, 1807-1829. DNB. 3 G.A. Mantell, ‘A Tabular Arrangement of the Organic Remains of the County of Sussex’, [1828], [ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

63

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Temple Sat. Dec 5. [1829]

Dear Mantell [*]4 We were all disappointed at your not being here yesterd.y for Murchison told us you were to have been here. Sedgwick & his wind up on the Alps5 went off splendidly in a full meeting. You & the iguanodon treated by Buckland6 with due honours when exhibiting some great bones of a little toe from Purbeck. He greatly amused my friend, Sir T. Phillips7 [*] not Dick8 your friend [*]9 by his humour about the size of the sd. giant compared to the small genteel lizards of our days. I am bound hand & foot. In the press on Monday next with my work which Murray10 is going to publish – 2 vols. – the title “Principles of Geology being an attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth's surface, by reference to causes now in operation”. The first vol will be quite finished by the end of this month. The 2.d is in a manner written but will require great recasting [*] during the parturition of the first of the twins.

TGSL, 1829, 3(1), series 2, pp. 201-216. 4 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, 1881, p. 258. 5 A. Sedgwick and R.I. Murchison, ‘A Sketch of the Structure of the Eastern Alps; with Sections through the Newer Formations on the Northern Flanks of the Chain, and through the Tertiary Deposits of Styria, &c’, [Read: 6 & 20 November 1829; 4 December 1829; 15 March 1830], TGSL, 1835, 3, series 2, pp. 301-422. 6 W. Buckland, ‘On the Discovery of Fossil Bones of the Iguanodon in the Iron Sand of the Wealden Formation in the Isle of Wight and in the Isle of Purbeck’, [4 December 1829], TGSL, 1835, 3, series 2, pp. 425-432. 7 Sir Thomas Phillips (1801 - 1867). Lawyer and Mayor of Newport. DNB. 8 Sir Richard Phillips. See note 3, Letter 59. 9 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol.1, p. 258. [*]11 I start for Iceland by the end of April. So time is pressing. You must let us see you here. What particular scheme have you at present in Geol.y. Your list of shells will be [a] grand thing.[*] If Woodward12 annoys you as he does others do not indulge him, for you will find there will be no end to his free & easy requests. Small as his information is however compared to his pretensions it may do some good. remember me to Mrs Mantell & believe me very truly yrs. ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes ]

64

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 31 December 1829 ]

10 John Murray, Lyell’s London publisher. 11 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 278. 12 Samuel Woodward (1790 - 1838). Geologist and antiquary who worked at Gurney's Bank 1820- 1828. DNB. Dear Mantell I have taken my place for Sat.y morning next in Lewes Co from Charing X at 9ock. I should have come on Frid.y & Sat 7 instead of Sat. & Sund.y but De la Beche is likely to have a miserable meeting for his paper1 on Frid.y & I wish to attend. It was a grand blunder having a meeting on New Years Day. I hope to show you my first sheet printed. It is the printers fault that I have not time before then. Scrope writes me word this morning that he expects great things & that I have “to create a science”. This is in fact the difficulty. There is nothing down in examining into the principles of the Science & the chapter I am now preparing is half on metaphysics but intelligible I trust to all the ladies who are not like Lady M. Sheppard2 metaphysicians. Scrope has sent up a paper on valleys3 so I expect another field day between us fluvialists & Buckland. We should make something of it at luncheon. Would it be possible to go to Rottingdean on Sundy – perhaps not on Mond.y I sh.d like to get back here by an early Brighton coach. I apologise I have refused 6 invitations this Xmas & will only stir out for you & must steal away & make it a seventh. I will tell you the news when we meet for I am hurried now. Remember me to Mrs Mantell & believe me very truly yrs ChaLyell Temple Dec. 31. 1829.

1 H.T. De la Beche, ‘On the Geology of the Shores of the Gulf of La Spezia’, [ 1 January 1830 ], PGSL, 1826-33, 1, pp. 164-167. 2 Lady Mary Sheppard was the author of Essay on the Perception of an Eternal Universe, Hatchard, London, 1827. 3 G.P.Scrope, ‘On the Gradual Excavation of the Valleys in which the Meuse, the Moselle, and some other Rivers flow’, [5 February 1830], PGSL, 1827-33, 1, pp. 170-171. [ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

65

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[11 January 1930]1 Dear Mantell I have purchased Playfair & had it bound – £ 2-9-0. The transactions are £ 1-12-02 but you can pay those to Lonsdale. It is found that the Printer omitted one sheet of the supplement to the former vol. so you must take the first opportunity of returning it & a perfect one will be sent to you. Many thanks for the Relliquiae [sic] which you sent me. I send you the Wood Block & abstracts. Shall I buy for you the Quarterly Review with Fleming’s paper on systems in Natural History or can you get it. Only 2 of my sheets fairly done yet. I fear Murchison is not in town as he has not answered a note of mine. Work away at the shells in the bed at Shoreham.3 I am sure they are other than the chalk flint – rubble – plateau – & many may be found. I should even a la Vernon get some one to dig in for me when the good weather comes. You have a mine there. With rememb.s to Mrs Mantell believe me ever yours ChaLyell Temple Jan 183[0]

1 Lyell dated this letter 11 Jan. 1831. However, the context, references, and address of the letter indicate that 1830 was the correct year. 2 This was the cost to GSL Members of TGSL, 3, series 2, part 1, pp.1-240. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 311. 3 On Sunday, 3 January 1830, Lyell and Mantell visited Shoreham and examined the cliffs as far as [ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Lewes ] 66

G. A. Mantell to Charles Lyell

Shoreham Bridge. GAM-PJ, entry 1 January 1830. [late January? 1830?]1

My dear friend You must excuse the rambling style of my letters: if I do not gossip with you in this manner for a few minutes when opportunity offers, I can never enjoy the pleasure of an epistolary chitchat with you. In Capt. Wilson’s2 first voyage to Otaheite there is an acct. of the following tradition among the natives. p.344 “they have a tradition that once in their anger the great gods broke the whole world into pieces; & that all the islands around them are but little parts of what was once venooa noe the great land, of which their own island is the eminent part”. How exactly this accords with what must have been the fact. As the same language is spoken by these south sea islanders whether at Taheite or New Zealand (although 2,000 miles separated & no means of communication till visited by Europeans) must we not conclude that the vast continent now sunk beneath the waters of the Pacific was inhabited by these people before its submersion? How amusing it is to perceive that as the israelites include the whole world in their local deluge, so the south sea islanders extend to the whole globe the destruction which took place in their own country. So I find you have had the Toe hashed up again: what a dish would the Professor make of my grand bones: they would serve for a month. I have again been looking [at] Scharf’s drawing of the fox: how difficult it is to get anything done accurately but by an anatomist who is an artist – such as one as Clift for instance. I learn that enormous vertebrae have been found & exhibited by Dr. B. could no one have the charity to send me one, who have given away so many hundreds to others? I should have liked to have seen them. Woodward has deluged me with prospectuses: he is very troublesome, & I think with Konig, his book3 will not be worth it.

1 Transcribed from a xeroxed copy of the original letter at APS which was undated. However, the reference to looking at Scharf’s drawing of the fossil fox from Oeningen ties in with GAM-PJ , entry 20 January 1830. 2 Captain James Wilson (1760 - 1814). Following his retirement from the East India Company in 1792, Wilson was converted to Christianity and offered his services to take missionaries to the South Seas. In 1799 the Directors of the Missionary Society published, A Missionary Voyage to the Southern Pacific Ocean, performed in the years 1796, 1797, 1798, in the Ship Duff commanded by Captain James Wilson compiled from Journals of the Officers and the Missionaries, London, 1799.

3 Samuel Woodward, A Synoptical Table of British Organic Remains, Longman, London, 1830. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 114. Once more with best wishes for your fame, & health & happiness believe me ever my dear friend Yours most faithfully GMantell

Can you remind Mr. Stokes to send back my woods &c.

[ Addressed to: Charles Lyell Esq. 9 Crown Office Row, Temple ]

67

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 5 Feb. 1830 ]

My dear Sir Dr. Fleming’s box has just arrived which I begged him to send to me as the best way of securing its going to Lewes safe. Many thanks for your extract from the globe about the Scotch River which I had not seen. When I tell you I have only got to p. 80 & more is yet at a tortoise pace you will excuse my not writing as I live in dread of missing the season. The fact is that [*]4 I cannot resist the temptation of throwing in at the beginning of vol.1 certain essays on the uniformity of the order of Nature, on the ancient Climate of the globe & other magnificent subjects which I had intended for vol.2. But they will come as well now & thus I have been writing each essay as it went to press.[*] I will give you a receipt which will give you any time position you require for the tilgate beasts. On reviewing the whole phenomenon & especially my Sicilian & Italian collection of shells & the evidence demonstrable in Southern Europe not from arguments from analogy but direct proofs. I am sure the climate has changed much since the tertiary & immensely since the secondary strata were formed. Fleming fights well but clearly against the weight of proofs. Horsefields5 remarks on vulpes were only in private conversation & not those by others who could answer him. Murchisons paper6 was well drawn up, the meeting full, the discussion unusually animated & your description or summing up of evidence read excellently & full of a sort of Caution which is deplorably wanting in Buckland’s last paper on the Iguanodon’s toe. He can swear to a genus from a rolled vertebra in Swanage bay whereas Cuvier cannot when he saw 20 from Loxwood & a femur &c &c. Your anatomical description of the fox7 c.d not have been read at our meeting. Pray be so kind as to let me have a large paper copy of your catalogue. With compl.s to Mrs Mantell believe me yours very truly ChaLyell

Temple Feb.y 5. 1830.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes , Sussex ]

4 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 271. 5 Thomas Walker Horsefield (1773 - 1837). M.D., F.R.S. Naturalist and for some years Keeper of the Museum of the East India Company. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 67. 6 R.I.Murchison, ‘On a Fossil Fox found at Oeningen near Constance, with an account of the deposit in which it was embedded’, [18 January 1830], TGSL, 1835, 3(2), series 2, pp. 277-290. 7 G.A.Mantell, ‘Anatomical Description of the Fox’, TGSL, 1832, 3 (2), series 2, pp. 291-292. 68

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 15 Feb. 1830 ]

Dear Mantell I shall be happy to send a box from you to Dr. Fleming & should thank you to make it larger than your things require & fill it up with hay in which case I will add things which he has written for. Leave me a third of the space if said box be larger & half if small. I am sorry that the blunder was made after I had seen “by waggon” written on it & expressly give directions but my clerk gave the box to a rascally temple porter instead of my own man. Your hand work in the front is really terrible & I am vexed to hear the partner does not work. You will be oblige[d] to take some decided step about him I anticipate for I think I remember you said you could be off on certain terms. I have positively only to report progress to page 96 out of 500 perhaps. The fact is [*]1 I have scarcely used a sheet of my prepared materials since I saw you & am now engaged in finishing my grand new theory of climate for which I had to consult northern travellers Richardson2 Sabine3 & others to read up Humboldts & Danniells last theories of meteorology &c &c. I will not tell you how till the book is out but without help from a comet or any astronomical change or any cooling down of the original red hot nucleus or any change of inclination of axis or central heat or volcanic hot vapours & waters & other nostrums, but all easily & naturally. I will give

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, pp. 261-262. 2 Sir John Richardson (1787 - 1865). Scottish naval Arctic explorer, surgeon and naturalist. DNB. 3 Captain Edward Sabine (1788 - 1883). Astronomer to Arctic expeditions in search of a N.W. passage, 1818-20. Appointed a scientific adviser to the Admiralty 1828. DNB. you [*]4 a receipt for growing tree ferns at the pole or if it suits me pines at the equator, walruses under the line & crocodiles in the arctic circle.[*]5 And now as I shall say no more I am sure you will keep the secret. All these changes are to happen in future again & iguanodons & their congeners must as assuredly live again in the latitude of Cuckfield as they have done so.[*] Did I tell you that Bakewell6 with a sort of complimentary apology for not allowing me to send the account of Niagara as I had given it? He says that the severe winter or Siberian as he truly calls it makes him a prisoner. [*]7 You have always some new discovery to announce. I believe with you it would be difficult to exterminate pentacrites yet don't make too sure for if my new heating & refrigerating theory holds water I may perhaps give you a cold at the line which may freeze up the pentacrites. I have been reading at the Admiralty the last dispatches of Cap.t Forster8 from S. Shetland. They mention fathoming the sea at borders of Antarctic circle to depths of 900 fathoms! with a self registering thermometer. What a glorious depth. Ben nevis could not make an islet if sunk there & they find the warmth increases from the surface downwards, as you know in the Spitzbergen seas. Our new Hydrogropher, Beaufort9 is very liberal to all geologists & you may get what unpublished information you like from the Admiralty & there is an immense deal there.[*] Remember me to Mrs Mantell & believe me yrs very truly ChaLyell

Temple London Feb.y 15. 1830.

P.S. You will learn much from Sedgwick’s speech at anniversary. Come if possible.

4 Text between asterisks is also quoted by Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 272. 5 Text quoted by Wilson ceases at this point. 6 Robert Bakewell (1768 - 1843). English geologist. Correspondent and friend of Mantell from 1829-43. Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folders 5-7. Author of An Introduction to Geology, London, 1813. 7 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 262. 8 Captain Henry Forster R.N., F.R.S. (1796 - 1831). Navigator. Commanded the sloop Chanticleer to determine the specific ellipticity of the earth in 1828. DNB 9 Francis Beaufort (1774 - 1857). Hydrogropher to the navy from 1829-55. Knighted 1848. DNB. [ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

69

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

March 10 Temple 1830 Dear Mantell I beg to enclose you a little piece of fun which De la Beche threw off the day after our anniversary, only 15 copies. Murchison did not altogether like the quiz but was obliged to take it as a good joke. Pray observe the likeness of one of the waiters to Lonsdale. De la Beche says it was unintentional. Did Murchison tell you that Featherstonhaugh1 in a letter from America says seriously that he thinks Geology will become “the Religion of Mankind”!! If so Adam the first of men as they call our Prest.2 at Cambridge shall be an archbishop & you & I arch-deacons. F. is quite serious. He says they have a new Saurian in America to be Xtened Saurodon. Col. Silvertop3 has brought vertebrae of Paleotherium from S. of Spain! & it is quite right for the lacustrine shells are those of Paris basin. Fitton means to take his Maestricht shell I believe to your museum to compare. How well your list looks in the Trans!4 Upon my word it astonishes me & I would rather have been the author of it than almost of any paper except

1 George William Featherstonaugh (1780 - 1866). British agriculturalist, geologist and traveller. Resident in U.S.A. from 1806-39. Sarjeant, G &H of G, vol. 2, p. 986. 2 Revd. Adam Sedgwick, President GSL, 1829-1831. 3 Colonel George Silvertop. (d. 1849). Non-resident F.G.S. Author of Geology of Granada and Murcia, Longman, London, 1836. 4 G.A. Mantell, ‘A Tabular Arrangement of the Organic Remains of the County of Sussex’, TGSL, Con. & Buc. on S. W. Coalfield5 & one or 2 others. I have only reached p.144 not having yet got through my introductory essays. I suspect when you see them you will not think that Gibbon-like I allowed bold speculations to be cut out. I was so much threatened with a cold on the chest last week that I began to think Mrs Mantell might be taken at her word, but I am well again. Buy S.H. Davys, Consolations in Travel.6 7s. Some fine things in it. With remembrances to Mrs M believe me yours very truly ChaLyell

70

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

April 23 1830 London

Dear Mantell

1835, 3, series 2, pp. 201-216. 5 W. Buckland and W.D.Conybeare, ‘Observations on the South-western Coal District of England’, TGSL, 1824, 1, series 2, pp. 210-316. 6 Sir Humphrey Davy, Consolations in Travel, or the Last Days of a Philosopher, J. Murray, 1830. [*]1 It is nearly the same to pursue a hobby as I am doing & to be professionally engaged & so you must excuse bad correspondence, but I assure you I am a mile or two further on by aid of the encouragement held out in your letters that the production will excite a sensation which tradesman2 Murray says is the great virtue of a superior author.[*] as to merit he says that is not so much Sir, what we have to consider is sensation! [*]3 So much for the market value of commodities. By the way Sir Philip Egerton said at R.S. last night [*] in commending you in a conversation with some one who had never heard of you (I wonder if he ever did of a certain Napoleon) said [*]4 you were the author of the grand catalogue of Fossils in the Trans. which knowing your other works he selected as an extraordinary proof of your being “bien fort”. He brought parts of 31 individ.s of Ursus Speleus from German caves & a great jaw of Felix spelea pronounced by Clift & Co. to be equal in size to a horse! Buckland first pronounced your bone to be that of a deer & stood out for a long time ag.st its being that of Goliah [*] & when at the club others inclined to take your word told him he must be wrong he said “perhaps so – you know I knock under for not only had Mantell first taught what Coprolites were, but in Jamieson’s last he tells you that they are parts of animals, a piece of anatomical information somewhat new”. This was a fair joke against you in truth.[*]5 He declared the bone to be postdiluvian & not mineralized & made light of it, but did not scratch it. He is gone down to Lyme so there is something in the wind – a paper on the new beast perhaps, that fish-like concern which Mary A. wants to make a grand wonder of, & the Dr a memoir as I suppose. His & D la B.’s on Weymouth6 read last time is good, but some diluvial heresy tacked on at which I fired a shot. The iguanodon’s bones brought by them from I. of W. are rolled ugly unmeaning pebbles save one “subquadrangular vertebra” as Dr. B. says which he declares proves it to be an Ig.n Even that is imperfect.[*]

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, pp. 264-265. 2 The word ‘tradesman’ was omitted in this quoted extract in ibid., p. 264. 3 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 265. 4 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid.., p. 265. 5 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 265. 6 W. Buckland and H.T. De la Beche, ‘On the Geology of the Neighbourhood of Weymouth and the Adjacent Parts of the Coast of Dorset’, [2 & 16 April 1830], TGSL, 1836, 4, series 2, pp. 1-46. Sir H. Davy as you observe is full of genius in his ‘Consolations’. Featherstonaugh has made an ass of himself by a poem on the deluge which is despicable low & vulgar to a degree that would disgust you. A few copies sent to Murchison which I suppose out of regard to F. he will suppress. I am at p. 256 & still in hopes of saving my distance – the last milest. will I hope be reached at p. 440. I am clearing 30 such a week. believe me most truly yours. ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes ]

71

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 13 May 1830 ]

My dear friend I suppose you have heard from Fleming who thanks me for my small additions & says your presents were invaluable. Write to him when you have a moment as it is a charity so to do for he is not in a happy position & a little disappointed so that he feels any attention much.

Take care how you have anything to do with Lardner1 for although I have never had & always determined never to have any connection with him I have seen in his conduct to Fleming the most bare-faced shuffling want of good faith. I am almost sorry to hear that so good a man as Conybeare is thinking seriously of writing for L. a popular treatise on Geol.y yet you will rejoice

1 Dionysius Lardner (1793 - 1859). Took Holy Orders but devoted himself to literary and scientific with me that the Oxonian Logician is redivivus2 & also that we have some chance of his general views. I forget where I was when you said it would require a 40 [page?] manpower to finish in time. I am now at p.320 expecting soon in a day or two not further than p.336. Now the question is whether if I can get it all into 440 or 450 pages. I may not be out in middle of June when I believe Murray would be glad to publish, for so much expectation has he raised that he John, begins to be eager to launch it. I hope to have done at latest by June 20 & care little now whether it comes out then or Oct.r for what I must think of now as my reward is a run to the Pyrenees where I go post haste. Could you go as you once proposed as far as Paris with me about 14 th or 20 th of June as future plans may require. I should know within a month at least the precise day. In case of your being with me I could give one day & ½ to important tertiary geology on the way. I will look after Deshayes when I go there at all events. I must if possible get to the Pyrenees the moment the snow is melted. I cross there with Cap.t Cook3 R.N. a good old Spanish traveller & just returned from the country. Have you seen the admirable plate of Buckland & Delabeche’s [sic] concreting of Duria antiquior4 or Dorsetshire as it existed at the era of the lias? It is really a a glorious restoration & has done much to popularising the the subject. You must positively have Tilgate forest restored to flesh & blood. The Plate was done for Mary Anning & will put much money in her pocket. Buckland was most entertaining last Frid.y on Capt. Basil Hall’s5 N.American mastodon bones. Have you heard that Goldfuss has got a new Pterodactyl perfect says report even to the feathers (of which says Buckland they had none). I am now doing volcanoes – earthquakes still to come besides a theory

writing. DNB. 2 redivivus ( latin.) – ‘lives again’. 3 Samuel Edward Cook (d. 1856). Retired from the R.N. and settled in Spain in 1829. DNB. In a letter to his sister, Marianne, dated 9 July 1830, Lyell described him as follows: “Cook is a commander R.N., son of a country gentleman near Newcastle, well-informed, a good linguist, a botanist, and gets on in geology”. K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 275. 4 This drawing by H.T. De la Beche is shown in N.A. Rupke, The Great Chain of History, Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983, p. 147. 5 Basil Hall (1788 - 1844). Royal Navy Captain who served on the GSL council from 1831-1833. Son of Sir James Hall. DNB. about the wonderful changes now in progress in the organic world. [*]6 You may form some idea of my book by a friend one of two who has read 200 pages asking me “Pray is vol.2 to contain facts – I trust not, for really we have had enough of them before”. He was no geologist, but a good judge of readable philosophy.[*] with remembrances to Mrs Mantell & regrets that I am not ill enough to justify a visit to her believe me yrs very truly ChaLyell

Temple 13 May 1830

[Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Pl. Lewes]

72

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 31 May 1830 ]

Dear Mantell I have been too busy to write to you but was very glad to hear of your new Hastings bed & per [Relfe?] that you have sent up some trionyx. I hope Lord Cole has paid you a visit as he proposed – & exchanged some cave fossils with you. Pray has Fitton been with you? Is the room still hired for his fossils? I have only reached p.384. But the printer owes me what would make it top 400 & I work on still under the hope of being out in June for though late in that month I think Murray could come out with it. Broderip is evidently much hurt at not having a copy of your list of

6 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 273. shells with which he had so much labour & trouble. He told me one way assuring him it was some mistake is that perhaps one that I brought up might have been for him that he ought to have had one long before. The fact is he laboured 5 years as Sec.ty 1 & all he got for his pains were 2 or 3 quarrels with authors, & an illness in consequence of his hard application which if directed to his own hobby conchology might have produced a good work. So now he is rather in a morbid & irritible state about it – tho’ the best tempered fellow in the world. Do not send anything now. But take an opportunity by & by of giving him a good copy of some of your works with the list in it, bound up with it. You may then say you believe you sent one before &c. I am just called away & will try to add a few words by & by – sorry you cannot go to Paris. I think now I may take a different route. 6 o'ck. I must despatch this letter as it is post-time. Phillip & Conyb. I am told is reprinting.2 This is good news as is the fact of your being in premium. for P. & C.’s work tho’ full of good matter is on the whole heavy for general readers. with remembrances to Mrs Mantell yours very truly ChaLyell Temple 31 May 1830

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

73

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 22 June 1830 ]

1 William John Broderip was Secretary, GSL, from 1826-30. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 297. 2 W.D.Conybeare and W.Phillips, Outlines of the Geology of England and Wales, William Phillips, London, 1822. Dear Mantell In great haste. when getting into the coach I send you an introduction to the principal Parisian Performer for a friend of his. I have sent last page to printer when stepping into coach. Go by Havre this morning. must conclude ever truly yrs ChaLyell Temple 22 June 1830

A copy of book will be sent to you when out.

P.S. Don't lose the Kentish story & go there by all means if you can. I believe it.

74

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Hotel du Rhone Rue de Grenelle St Honore Paris Oct. 10 1830

My dear Friend Since my arrival here I have been so fully occupied in matters that I could not defer that I have scarcely had time to write any but letters of business & I have put off for the last 4 days an intended letter to you which I am sorry for as [*]1 I find from Pentland you have had the disagreeable job of dunning Deshayes again. The Sieur D. as Murchison calls him is undoubtedly one of the most

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 306. “imperturbable” characters in these respects I have met with, nor can I defend his conduct in this & some other such matters. It does not however arise from anything dishonourable in his conduct or intentions. He was you must know for 10 years a medical man, in considerable practice for a beginner, in one of the unhealthy & therefore not well (or wealthy) inhabited quarters. He had about 15 patients a day who kept [him] constantly at work & never paid.[*] After a time he found that unless he prosecuted, dunned &c continually he could never get a farthing out of the majority & he had not enough “chien” in him as they say here, in plain english too little of the devil in his composition to equal to the task. Many of the people too were insolvents.[*]2 At last he determined to cut the affair & try to live on Nat. Hist.y which altho’ his passion he had abandoned.[*] He had reason to hope for a place but here again he was twice out manoevred & out-jockied by persons more fit for bustling thro’ this world, & the humble task of collecting for the Museum &c. He has too independent a mind to be a courtier & he made such rapid progress as a philosophical observer as to excite the jealousy of Ferussac & others while Bory St. Vincent3 after engaging him to go to the Morea in order to prevent him from getting a Govern.t appointment did not name him, knowing that he could have got the credit in that case of the zoology.[*]4 He has earned his bread with great difficulty by writing for encyclopedias &c & spent every sixpence on works very expensive, on fossils & recent conchology between £30 & 40 worth & on shells. Just as I obtained the crag shells from you & Taylor,5 Rozet,6 who has published a small work on Geol.y of no originality or value whatever, engaged him for 500 franks to write a small conchological appendix & this prevented him entirely doing any thing for me. Had I known this situation it would not have happened, but to tell the truth his bearing was so independent that I should as soon thought of asking Broderip or Deshayes to name my shells for argent comptant as D. Now I am better informed I see that he is not justified in going on a day without pay for he has sacrificed his existence to make himself for the benefit of science the

2 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 307. 3 J.B.G.M. Bory de St. Vincent (1780 - 1846). French Naturalist DUB. 4 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, p. 306. 5 Richard Cowling Taylor (1789 - 1851). Worked on the Crag and Chalk of Norfolk. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 114. 6 Antoine Rozet (1798 - 1858). French soldier and amateur geologist. Studied the stratigraphy of Alsace and the Boulonnais. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 2010. first fossil conchologist in Europe. I have now engaged 3 months of his time to enable him to teach on conchology & to construct tables which I have planned for my second vol. of tertiary shells & to name all my Pyrenean specimens &c. At the same time I am enabling him to cut inferior work & to use the same materials for a Manual of Conchology. It will make a deep cut into the small sum wh. Murray is to pay in for vol. 2.d , £200 7 & will indeed consume all which the amanuensis & other extraordinary expenses had not eaten up but I find already that it will pay me in the satisfaction of giving an essential push to our favourite science. Already the results of D.’s collection [*] containing of Tertiary shells 35,000 individuals & above 3,000 species, examined according to my views, [*]8 are yielding fruits unexpected by himself & very confirmatory of the order of succession of tertiary formations which I had arrived at from purely geological observations. The crag though probably older than almost all the tertiary format.s of Sicily is still a formation containing a decided preponderance of living species & between it & the London clay you will see how magnificent a series of events I will describe. As your fossils could not be properly compared till we come to those genera, for I am going through the whole comparing with D. you must let us keep them a little but I will not leave Paris without them. Cuvier last night spoke with great pleasure of having made your acquaintance & hopes you will visit Paris. He is not in spirits about Political affairs & consequently I got him for the first time to talk about fossil anatomy freely.[*] The Pyrenean fossils as far as my collection is yet examined proves them to belong to the chalk era precisely. You would be quite at home there. Plagiostoma spinosa are in great abundance. Deshayes has examined this summer 400 Maestricht shells & cannot identify one with a single one of his 3,000 tertiary species. Those which are true chalk species he says are rolled casts but this is a point for a geologist rather. The true upper green sand of Belgium near Mons has yielded about 200 shells mostly new species in a wonderful state of preservation from

7 The sum of £ 200 was excluded from the quoted extract in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, p. 307. 8 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, ibid., p. 307. having fallen into certain vents in the old blue transition limest. in which the sand did not get lapidified as elsewhere. The annexed is a section of all the beds near Mons. The surface of the old limest. is eaten into at B.B. by Pholadidae or at least marine perforators so it was a shore once & for some time.

Upon the whole the Maestricht is a distinct zoological type having perhaps a distinct connection with the chalk era “longo sed proximus intervallo”9 & no connexion [sic] whatever with the London clay. I hope you have got some new bones. write to me here. Do you want anything in Paris? [*]10Remember I have heard no geol.l news for 3 months save the dinner to Cuvier & a note from Murchison saying that Conybeare had fired a shot at me in Annals of Phil. What is that about?11 Politics absorb all the thought of geologists here. There are croakers enough about the state of France but I see no ground for it & I believe if left to themselves they will get on. To do without some odious taxes, with an increased army & with commercial bankruptcies innumerable is the difficulty for the moment.[*] With remembrances to Mrs Mantell ever truly yrs ChaLyell

[Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex, Angleterre]

9 “long but near if taken at intervals”. 10 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, p. 307. 11 In his review of Lyell’s, Principles of Geology, vol. 1, Conybeare accused Lyell of minor plagiarism regarding the citation of classical authors. W.D. Conybeare, ‘On Mr Lyell’s “Principles of Geology”: An Examination of those Phaenomena of Geology which seem to bear most directly on theoretical speculations’, Philosophical Magazine, 1830, 8, pp. 215-219. 75

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 10 Nov. 1830 ]

My dear Mantell Just arrived. saw your parcel of crag shells & all my own boxes safe to Calais where they were embarked direct to London to avoid expense – not yet come. In the near term I send you a set of what I may fairly style a handsome set & characteristic of the products – chiefly volcanic of the Island of Ascension. If you are not rich in volcanic rocks & those deposits of opal carb. & sulph. of lime, silex &c & aggregates which are now constantly forming in volc.c archipelagos it will adorn your collection. Most of the crag shells are quite identical with recent – yet as to its antiquity see Lyell’s Geol.y vol.2 now furthering i.e. in 5 months. I am building a cabinet, have purchased very largely in tertiary fossils & hope to send you some duplicates named of the Paris basin ere long with your crag shells &c. In the mean time I lose no time in sending you Adolphe Brongniart’s present who was highly delighted to hear of your new botanical discoveries. I send also a number of E. de B.’s & Duf.y’s1 memoirs, they having sent me one as a present, in addition to one I had procured, which I beg you will accept. I made Pentland set about getting you presents out of the Dieppe donanne which I was sorry to find had not been done & as I suspect forgotten. Look to it when you next visit. I worked with zeal, diligence & much delight at the principles of fossil & recent conchology with Deshayes & shall after a time be of some use in that way. Meanwhile I must spare what time my book allows to collecting which I have so much & so carefully neglected.

1 Ovis Pierre Armand Petit Dufrenoy (1792 - 1857). French geologist. Ecole des Mines, Paris, (1823-47). Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 928. Any fossil shells which you have pray spare me & think of me from time to time when collecting, especially when they are really conchological & not geological specimens. I may say I have nothing yet in the secondary way which is really good & any species whether of shell or zoophyte & of whatever age will be highly prized. with rememb.s to Mrs Mantell believe me ever most truly yours ChaLyell

Temple Lond.n Nov. 10th. 1830.

[ Addressed to : G. Mantell Esq. ]

76

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 20 Nov. 1830 ]

My dear friend The French & Belgians having turned out their ministries, & the parliament having done the same for once the fellows of the R.S. have justly considered that a radical reform was wanting in their institution. I suppose I need not tell you that Pettigrew1 has been urging on the D. of Sussex, that

1 Thomas Joseph Pettigrew (1791 - 1865). Surgeon at the Charing Cross Hospital and antiquary. FRS 1827. DNB. our friend D.G.2 retired, & that 50 of the best men including Fitton, Sedgwick, Brown, Stokes, Broderip, Warburton, Chantrey, Wallich,3 Whewell,4 Babbage, Murchison, myself & others have signed the corrected requisition adjoined. I was asked to get your signature almost all the others have signed. It seems the only thing that can save us & there is a threat on the part of the Pettigrewity to put the Duke to a cross list!! It is now a mere question between the Duke & Herschell [sic], D.G. being quite out of the question. You will I believe join us in our endeavour to put a man of science at our lead. On Wednesday a Mr Pratt5 of Bath presented to the G.S. the jaw of an extinct deer & the teeth of both Paleotherium & Anoplotherium from the Quarries of Binstead I. of Wight.6 He was on a tour & reading my book, saw the doubts about Allan’s7 specimen & the importance of the subject & set off to the point & in 3 days, with the few workmen who are there made these prodigious discoveries! I have written to Allan & am sure he will excuse my scepticism which has led to such results. Many thanks for your generous offer of duplicates – for a long time I shall be too much engaged with vol.2 & getting up my new cabinet to profit by them. Let me assure you I shall lose not a moment in controversy, but recollect that the Q. Reviewer has misrepresented me. I always steered clear of assuming that the system had no beginning & in speaking of introduction of man I state that the experience of 3,000 years is thereby shown to be insufficient &c but enough of the siege of [Belliste?]. The critics have greatly helped the sale & I find that people not geologists buy it. Pratt says many at Bath have turned geologists in consequence. I am trying to stick to my work as much as this vile R.S. resolution will permit. As to the new ministry we may at least say they cannot do less for science than the last.

2 Davies Gilbert. President of the Royal Society of London, 1827-30. DNB. 3 Nathaniel Wallich (1786 - 1854). A Dane by birth. Botanist. F.R.S. 1829. DNB. 4 William Whewell (1794 - 1866). Professor of Mineralogy, Cambridge, 1828-32, later Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. DNB. 5 Samuel Peace Pratt (1789 - 1863). English Geologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1919. 6 S.P. Pratt, ‘Remarks on the Existence of the Anoplotherium and Palaeotherium in the Lower Freshwater Formation at Binstead, near Ryde, in the Isle of Wight’, [17 November 1830], TGSL, 1835, 3, series 2, pp. 451-454. 7 On p. 153 of Principles of Geology, vol. 1, (facs. 1st. ed.), Lyell has a foot-note concerning an Anoplotherium tooth in the collection of Mr Allan, labelled, “Binstead, Isle of Wight”, and on which Lyell commented that a sceptic could suspect it was a Parisian fossil ticketed by mistake. I hope you are well again. Of course you remember that we meet on Wednesdays now. I believe we should see more of you if you came up on Anniversary days. with rememb.s to Mrs Mantell believe me very truly yrs ChaLyell

9 Crown Office Row Temple

I have been quite exhausted with my exertions for Herschell – but glory in what I have done – Herschell is highly gratified himself – Fitton, Robert Brown & myself were chief workmen.

[ Addressed to: G.Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

[ Set down below is the Petition for Mantell to sign and that accompanied Lyell's letter of 20 November 1830 ]

The undersigned Fellows of the Royal Society being of opinion that Mr. Herschel, by his varied and profound knowledge and the elevation of his personal character is eminently qualified to fill the office of President of the Society, and that his appointment to that Chair would be peculiarly acceptable to Men of Science in this and every foreign country, intend to put him in nomination on the ensuing day of election. x x

17 th. November 1830.

P.S. sign between the x x

77

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

2 Raymond Building Grays Inn1 Dec. 14 th 1830

My dear Friend I am sorry I did not see Mrs Mantell in town but the letter was left here when I was out. I am just starting for a hybernation in a colder country, in other words I am going home, to Scotland for 5 weeks – although I am sorry to interrupt my work & have put it off, yet I find after a good long absence that I am somewhat homesick & fancy that I shall work with better heart after my return besides gratifying others who wish to see me home again. I am glad to hear that you are about again. I am the more annoyed at the practice you speak of when I recollect there are literally hundreds of quarries in England where amateurs might get things as good as Tilgate if they had but [rss ?] enough to examine them & that Tilgate is merely

1 In late November, 1830, Lyell moved from 9 Crown Office Row to larger rooms at 2 Raymond Buildings, Gray’s Inn. In a letter to his sister, Marianne, dated 14 November 1830, Lyell described them as “very light, healthy and good”. K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 313. scratched because within your reach. You should however reflect that the impulse you have given this branch of organic remains is thus stirring up others, & you may feel some satisfaction even in the exertions to which interlopers are excited. I should certainly publish what you have, & the new collection might probably on promise of being celebrated in your work give you the use of his things. I would not merely out of jealousy of his possessing them, miss collecting his good will & getting the possession which is the most real of the two, as anatomist & publisher – you might perhaps if you got the loan of them make him useful in paying for what you would then have the use of equally well. This of course would depend on the man’s disposition. all I mean is that I trust you will not come into needless collision with one who is free to sport on what is no man’s manor. If he is a gentleman & came to the meeting here we can all set at him & make him sensible how much to his own credit it will be to let you add all the facts & discoveries he makes to your work. As I have refused every invitation except this which I now pay to my own family, you will believe me when I say that a visit to you would have given me more pleasure than to any other friend. You will see in the next annals of Philosophy a reply2 not to Conybeare’s paper but to a somewhat personable & most unwarrantable charge of plagiarism in his last article of the preceding number.3 As Buckland had I am told given out the same thing at Oxford I am glad of the opportunity to give them a brief set down. Nothing in his paper provokes or deserves an answer on philosophical questions. The D. of S.4 summoned a council at Kensington & many went & took down the mace! but as young Lubbock5 protested against the affair as beneath the dignity of the Soc.y, as he w.d not go, & declared the proceeding illegal the Duke gave up the point it was called a presentation & not a council! Others now declare all the acts of the Duke are illegal & that he was

2 C. Lyell, ‘Reply to a Note in the Rev. Mr Conybeare’s Paper entitled “An examination of those phaenomena of geology which seem to bear most directly on theoretical speculations” ’, Philosophical Magazine, 1831, 9, pp. 1-3. 3 See footnote 11, Letter 74. 4 The Duke of Sussex, newly elected President of the Royal Society. 5 John Lubbock (1803 - 1865). Astronomer and mathematician. Treasurer and Vice-Pres. Royal . Society. 1830-35. Later knighted. DNB. not a fellow when elected as he had never been admitted, nor paid fees as by bye-laws &c. Fine work this for Babbage’s 2d Ed.n ! With rememb.s to Mrs Mantell believe me ever truly yours ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

78

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[16 ? March 1831]1 My dear Mantell You must have indeed begun to give me up but I have been running a new case which I will blab to you in justification, though in confidence since the case is not yet done. [*]2 About 8 days ago I asked Sedgwick to sound Bp. of Lond.n3 on the propriety of adding a geological chair to King’s College & me as a Professor & as he & others bit immediately & our least of all great men, our Oxford Coppleston,4 Bp. of Llandaff, alone expressed scruples I was obliged to canvass through my friend the Archbp. of Canterbury5 & several leading big- wigs who all declared in the most handsome & liberal manner that they were disposed to allow the utmost latitude to a geologist provided he came by his theories as straightforward deductions from facts & not warped expressly to upset scripture. Such were nearly their words – an interview with Copleston did not quite assure me that he would not oppose, but I have already set so

1 On the first page of this letter the date 1 Dec. 1830 has been inscribed on the top right corner. However, mid-way through the letter Lyell gave the date as 17 th. March. Both Wilson and K. Lyell, when referring to selected extracts from this letter, use 16 March 1831, as the date. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 308. 3 Charles James Blomfield (1786 - 1857). Bishop of London from 1828-1856. DNB. 4 Edward Copleston (1776 - 1849). Bishop of Llandaff and Dean of St. Pauls 1828-1849. DNB. 5 William Howley (1766 - 1848). Archbishop of Canterbury from 1828-1848. DNB. many orthodox reverend & one venerable & one Episcopal friend, to work upon him, that he seems disposed to stand neutral & we ask no more. “A local habitation and a name” will be desirable to me & perhaps a good set of lectures under such auspices may afford me a profitable & pleasurable way of giving vent to some of the unreadable stories of geolog l information amassed in my travels. Scrope says “if all your views are thus taken at once into the bosum of the Church instead of having to fight their way for half a century, it will astonish me more than the passing of two reform bills”.[*] Scrope has been reading a paper on the ripple-marked oolite sandstone6 of age of cornbrash with lots of long worm marks or things thrown up by burrowing animals & on the same slabs the most clear foot prints of an animal no-one knows.

A slight mark in the middle where the tail or body touched seemingly - there being only two marks is a puzzle – but had there been 3, it c.d not be a bird because they don’t leave 2 lines. 17 th. March. – Went to Council of Geolog.l yest.y & got a frank for one of our young & active geologists for today & on returning home at night found your letter inclosing Sauls dream. A Sir J. Byerly Bart. has also sent me 4 sheets of a similar theory which poor fellow he says has kept him awake at night 6 months. An American of Philadelphia, Spafford, also writes on seeing my book in the same strain, whether Sir R.P. has bitten them all or whether at certain seasons the rabid influence seizes on certain victims I know not but a French man called last y.r with a bundle of papers & had

6 G.P. Scrope, ‘On the rippled markings of many of the Forest Marble Strata north of Bath and the Foot tracks of certain animals occurring in great abundance on their Surfaces’, [1831], PGSL, 1826- 1833, 1, pp. 317-318. come to Engl.d to publish them – just the same sort of notions termed “Astronomical Geol.y ”. Murchison is our President7 & receiving Members on the Sund.y Ev.g following the meetings of G.S. good musters. As the Proceedings have been most punctually sent off to you the very day they come out pray write at once to Relfe or whoever your wretched Lond.n agent is to have no more to do with it & let me send them. Until next order they must go on as before. [*]8 I have been within the last week talked of & invited to be Professor at King's College of Geol.y – an appointment in the hands entirely of Bp. of Lond.n , Archbp. of Canterbury, Bp. of Llandaff & two strictly orthodox Doctors Doyly9 & Lonsdale.10 Llandaff alone demurred but as Conybeare sent him (volunteered) a declaration most warm & cordial in favour of me as safe & orthodox, he must give in or be in a minority of one. The Prelates declared “that they consid.d some of my doctrines startling enough, but could not find that they were come by otherwise than in a straightforward manner & (as I appeared to think) logically deducible from the facts – so that whether the facts were true or not, or my conclusions logical or other wise, there was no reason to infer that I had made my theory from any hostile feeling towards revelation”. Such were nearly their words. Yet Featherstonaugh tells Murchison in a letter that in the Un. States he sh.d hardly dare in a review to approve of my doctrines – such a storm would the orthodox raise against him! So much for the toleration of Ch.-Estab.t & No ch.-Estab.t countries. It is however mainly a proof of the comparative degree of scientific knowledge diffused.[*] Don’t talk of this till you see it announced. [*]11 Pray be so kind as to give me the earthq.s: A shock in Sicily which threw down Melazzo seems to have occurred nearly on if not on [the] same day as Dover. Another just announced in China has killed they say a million of men – all in favour of modern causes – it is an ill wind &c.

7 Roderick Impey Murchison succeeded Rev Adam Sedgwick as GSL President and served from 1831-1833.Woodward, History of GSL, p.287. 8 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 316. 9 George D’Oyly. (1778 - 1846). Theologian and biographer. Rector of Lambeth, Surrey and of Sundridge, Kent 1820-1846. DNB. 10 John Lonsdale (1788 - 1867). Prebendary of Lincoln, 1827, of St. Pauls, 1828, and Principal of King’s College, London, 1839. DNB. 11 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, p. 317. The young Prince G. of Cumb.d 12 told me the other day of you & the great lizard which last has taken much hold of the imagination. Tis clear as Abernethy13 s.d you will ride on that beast &c. Don’t throw away any great big specimens for if I lecture I shall be as greedy for them as I have hitherto been shy of them. I will get a scene-painter to put Etna & Auvergne on scenes as large as in a theatre, on canvass from Scrope’s & my sketches. Scrope writes “If the news be true & your opinions are to be taken into the bosum of the church instead of contending ag.st that party for ½ a century, then indeed shall we make a step at once of 50 years in the science – in such a miracle I will believe when I see it performed”.[*] I send you a piece of De la Beche’s fun. Buckland shows it & says it is Lyell’s skull – which is lectured on, & the whole may peep into [futurity?]. If you cannot get the proceedings published, I will try to send you them & another pamphlet on R.S. on a large frank. ChaLyell

79

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

2 Raym.d B. Grays Inn

12 Prince George of Cumberland (1819 - 1851). Son of Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland. Both were later Kings of Hanover. S. Weintraub, Victoria, Trunam Talley Books, New York, 1987. On 8 February 1831, Prince George of Cumberland and Prince George of Cambridge, came over from the Palace at Brighton to see Mantell’s collection. GAM-PJ, entry 8 February 1831. 13 John Abernethy (1764 - 1831). London surgeon and lecturer in anatomy. DNB. March 18 1831

My dear Mantell Marcel de Serres says that he & another chemist found human bones in a Gaulish sepulchre 1,600 y.rs old which were harder or “more solid” than those of a part skeleton though the “cellules of their tissue were empty”. They were of a yellowish-white like cavern bones. When mentioning this I wish to bring in “The hard solid femur found by Mr Mantell in a Saxon tumulus”. I think Buckland said it was not mineralised – how many years will you guess it to be old? & have you a sentence to help me to, well turned, about it.1 I am talking of human bones in French caves – analysed & comp.d to old buried bones. Let me trouble a word on a less agreeable subject. My father has been obliged to have a truss for a rupture on one side. He got it of Salman & Ody. Are they amongst the best makers? The direction was, by some Edinb.g Doctor, to order a truss 42 inches. My mother writes me word that altho’ it fits yet he fancies the pressure must be rather too great. Now I suppose that the degree of pressure must to [be] useful, be a little inconveniently great? & still probably be felt? Any hints as to best makes or caution as to wearing one too tight or too easy will be most acceptable. Mr Th. Bell of 17 New Broad St. is going on with speed & the Hospital is going to have a whole room of comparative Anat y. In haste believe me most truly yrs ChaLyell

80

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

1 Lyell cited Mantell concerning the superior solidity of the Gaulish bones, compared to those of a fresh skeleton, in Principles of Geology, vol. 2, (facs. 1st ed.), p. 225. 31 March Lond.n 1831 My dear Mantell I did the honours of your skull & read an extract from your letter on the homo diluvium testis to the satisfaction of a summer meeting last night – which told the better as there was a very short paper only read by Archd.n Scott1 on Swan River.

The whole Paper was in a few words a Sienite range & primary inland a few miles & near the shore blown calcareous sand like Cornwall concreted into rock a.a. & including petrified trees or as some will have it stalactites. I rather think the sand & carb. of lime does form round trees & their branches, that there is a solution of carb. of lime by rain water acting on fine dust from shells comminuted & which containing animal matter give out carb. acid gas on putrefying – b.b. is a ferruginous – cal.s sand below level of sea containing existing species of New Holl.d shells of same easily petrified. From a cave (in that district we suppose) but Jamieson keeps that close till next No. were sent bones in stalactites as at Kirkdale & what do you think Clift found them to be? A Kangaroo & a Wombat! & with them one great bone (humerus or what I forget) some beast as big as a rhinoceros!, a terrestr.l mammifer, Clift fancies! If I remember to bring down with me my correspondence with a refractory Bp. about the K.C. when I am ill & want Mrs Mantell’s nursing, you will be amused. The terror evinced by my openly declaring that I meant

1 Archdeacon T.H. Scott, ‘Geological Remarks on the vicinity of Swan River and Isle Buache or Gordon Island on the Coast of Western Australia’, PGSL, 1826-1833, 1, p. 320. in vol. 2. to attack the universality of the deluge was such that if printed it would frighten folk more than all T. Payne’s work. But yet I believe I shall be elected nevertheless but these councils don’t sit often. I believe the reform bill will pass with some units added. “you know,” said D. Gilbert to me, “that I always was for reform” &c preface to a speech to explain his voting ag.st it & now, to compleat his character he is s.d to be about to vote for! At the Roy.l S. club, the Duke of S. not knowing that Guillemard2 was D. G.’s brother in law said in Guil’s. presence “Well so D.G. is not here today, what a providential thing it was, that he was not made a woman eh? he must have been a whore eh? he could never have said nay”. “If D.G. was to hear that[”,] said Guilemard with his smiling countenance [“]no doubt he would be delighted, please your Royal Highness”. His R.H. took this as a comp.t to his joke. A great Botanist a violent opponent of D.of S. but one who was equally ag.st D.G. s.d “Well, if the Pres. says two things more as good as that I shall say he deserves the chair”! The R.S. have got the room in the middle of our suite in Somerset H. but perhaps the R.S. will get the R. Acad. rooms soon & the R.A. some others. I don't know why but I am hardly writing vol. 2 with the spirit of v.1 – yet tho’ slower I hope it will not be inferior. most truly yours with many thanks for Mrs Mantell’s hospitable wishes for my being an invalid, believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

I have sent off one of Cole’s machines.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Pl., Lewes ] 81

2 John Louis Guillemard (1765 - 1844). M.A. (Oxon.) 1789, FRS 1806, FGS 1814. Of 27 Gower Street and Woodford, Essex. Alumni Oxoniensis 1715-1886 and Phil. Trans., 1835, 125. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[21 April 1831] My dear Mantell Mrs Mantell paid me a flying visit the other day but went away in fear of trespassing on my valuable time after only taking a glance at my cabinet, or rather one or two drawers in it. I did not even learn when she was to be back, or where I could send a note to her in town. I have been putting off & off a visit to Lewes under the hope that I should be able to show you my first sheet of vol.1[?] so that an equally good omen might attend it, & the more so that it relates to the organic world & your own department. But I have not got the press yet – though I move on regularly – but I am nearly done up notwiths.g Mrs M paid me the compl.t of looking too well. I will take my chance of finding you disengaged next Sat.y Ap.l 23d. the day after tomorrow to return here on Monday or at latest Tuesday. I shall not have time to get an answer but am so engaged in different ways that if I put it off till Sund.y I should be unable to stay a whole day for certain tho’ I hope to get 2 days returning here early on Tuesday which I think I might do.1 If you can continue to go with me, not to the coast near Brighton for that I think we have done but somewhere into the Tilgate beds or in fact anywhere you like so that I could be idle & geologising in the book of nature & not printed book, least of all my own, it would set me up I am sure. I must do this by stealth & not let my uncle at Brighton nor other folk to whom I owe visits know that I have been away from town. I forgot to tell Mrs Mantell that I had been unanimously elected for King’s Coll – a week. I have much to tell you of New Holland caves, regular Kirkdale with Kangaroos &c & other news but shall reserve them. meantime believe me my dear friend very truly yours ChaLyell

1 Mantell’s Private Journal records that Lyell followed this planned schedule but it does not contain any other details of his visit. GAM-PJ, entry 2 May 1831. [ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes ] 82

G. A. Mantell to Charles Lyell1

Castle Place May 15. 1831

My dear Friend I am very anxious this fine weather should not pass by, without our availing ourselves of it, to visit Horsham and therefore I earnestly entreat you will name as early a day as possible for meeting you there. Let me hear from you on the day previously, and I will engage to meet you there.2 Mr Smith3 came over on Thursday and made a very interesting sketch of the valley of the Ouse from the turrets of the Castle. I called on him last evening, and had the pleasure of seeing all his sketches. Some of them are very beautiful, and all of them interesting. The Castle Cliffe at Hastings I quite covet. He leaves Brighton by the end of next week. Dr. Fitton has written to request me not to wait for his papers!! as he declines figuring & describing my unpublished shells of the Hastings series, lest he should be compelled to hurry on his paper on my account. What an excellent successor Dr. F. would have made to Lord Eldon4! “and the chancellor said – I doubt!” I am very desirous to know what you did with Mr Murchison’s paper on the Fox5 pray inform me. Why I am most solicitous about it is this – that if he gives me ‘honour due’ I shall like to have a few copies of the paper printed at my own expense for my friends – if he does not, of course I shall

1 Transcribed from a transcribed copy at ATL. Original letter at APS. 2 Lyell arrived at Horsham on Saturday morning,21 May, and was met there by Mantell and visited Stammerham quarry. On Sunday Lyell wrote and on Monday the two men visited the pits at Pounceford. GAM-PJ, entries 21-23 May 1831. 3 Revd. Thomas Smith, was an uncle of Lyell on his mother’s side. His visit to Mantell is recorded in GAM-PJ, entry 13 May 1831. 4 John Scott, 1st. Earl of Eldon (1751 - 1838). Barrister who became Lord Chancellor in 1801. A trustee of the British Museum. DNB. 5 Refer footnote 6, Letter 67. not care about them. I went to Shoreham yesterday to visit a manufactory of cement: the septaria from Bognor rocks are employed. I was delighted to find blocks of wood with teredines, & beautiful groups of shells of various kinds. I treated the workmen and expect to get a good supply of beautiful fossils. On my way I examined a recent section of the low cliff between Shoreham and Brighton beneath the rubble, and with a little shingle at the base. Depend upon it you are right – it is crag & nothing but crag: on the french coast it is the same. Dover Cliffe I mentioned to you. Near Chatham, in the Valley of the Medway, there have lately been discovered in a deposit of fragmentary chalks, flints, clay & sand, teeth, & bones of Elephants & Hippopotami. At Herne Bay on the Kentish coast, bones of mammalia are as abundant as at Walton in Essex. The Elephantine remains at Brighton are well known to you. They are as abundant on the Suffolk & Norfolk coast. The prevalence of the shells in the crag of Norfolk &c & their absence in Sussex, is nothing more than is observable in other deposits – the Shanklin sand of Sussex does not contain a single fossil except at Parkam & Pulboro’. The chalk which filled up the English Channel appears to have been the grand basis of the Crag deposit, & the surrounding countries must at that era have been peopled with Elephants &c &c. In the sand at Shoreham Cliffe I found some concretions which I think are like the lightening tubes - I reserve them to show you. A poor fellow of the name of Thomas Anguish! (what an appropriate name) who has been collecting fossils many years, & exhibiting them about the country unfortunately for him was induced to bring them to Brighton to exhibit. Alas! for our trade, he has not had half a dozen visitors, and is obliged to dispose of the collection if possible. He offered me the whole for £ 20. There are numerous polished sections of Ammonites from the Lias, some coal plants – many shells from various formations. The collection would form a good nucleus for a museum. It occurred to me that £18 or £20 would be well expended if you have the privilege to purchase for your University, and I ventured to refer the poor fellow to you. He knows nothing of Geology, but is a dear lover of organic remains. The collection is quite miscellaneous but contains many good things, & must be cheap at from £20 to £15. It is not a little curious that this man discovered on the beach near the Chain Pier at Brighton, an enormous orthocera from the transition limestone, which had probably been brought there as ballast. I gave him 10/- for it out of charity – it is two feet long! Did you remember to write to Mr Scrope for the impression of the unknown feet? – Pray do your utmost for me. I have this morning heard from Prof. Goldfuss of Bonn. He has sent me a long list of desiderata – principally secondary shells figured Sowerby, which he wishes sent to the University in exchange for Cavern bones, Maestricht fossils &c. I have sent him, & can send him more, fossils of the chalk & Tilgate Beds, but I have few others for him. Can I hand over the list to any one who will undertake it? He will give in exchange “quelqua cranes tres bien couservees de l’hesus spelaeus de Gaileurauthe, a present tres rares et precieux”.6 When you see Dr Fitton pray present him with “mille compliments” from Goldfuss whose 3 d livraison paraitrait incepaciment [sic]. Let me hear from you my dear friend as soon as possible. Can you send a parcel to Dr Fleming? Ever yours G. Mantell

Lord Cole did not send me a single fossil in return for a beautiful series I sent him. Will you remind his Lordship.

[Addressed to: Charles Lyell Esq. 2 Raymond Buildings, Grays Inn, London]

83

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 22 June 1831 ]

My dear Mantell

6 “some very well preserved skulls of the [hesus ?] cave of Gaileurauthe, now very rare and precious ”. [*]7I take the largest sheet I see near me at the Athenaeum to write an apology for my remissness. A visit to Cambridge of a week with Buckland, Conybeare, Daubeny & other Oxonians who were returning a visit which the Cantabs made to them was the first cause of silence. [*]8 We were lionized with a vengeance, lectures, experiments (optics polarization), feasting, geologising & even.g party going, & nocturnal smoking cigars [*]9 & by way of finale Conybeare & I took our ad eundum degrees & were admitted M.A.’s of Cambridge. Then came an arrear of work here, & my father & brother in town gave me lots of interruptions. Notwithstand.g all which as also much lionizing of Conybeare who wanted to be introduced to divers persons, I have reached p.110 of printing vol.2. The 4 great slabs are 2 of them worth nothing but the other two are as magnificent specimens of the forms of ripple as I ever saw. Many thanks. Murchison & his wife are gone to make a tour in Wales, where a certain Trimmer10 has found near Snowdon “crag” shells at the height of 1,000 f t. which Buckland & he convey thither by the “deluge”.[*] It must be looked after – what an elevation in the “post-pliocene” period of Lyell’s vol.2. would this make! We know nothing of our island yet. De la Beche will, in a fortnight he says, come out with his vol.on Geol.y 11 For heaven’s sake, don’t buy Macculloch’s ‘System’,12 £1-12-0. I am in for it though I had the whole 10 years ago i.e. vol.1. – the arts verbatim sold by him to Brande’s Journal – vol.2, a reprint of his costly spun-out book on “classification of rocks” which was filched out of his Western Isles.13 Not an illustration in this £1-12-0 book, 2 vols., ill printed. Wed.y De la Beche I fear has been writing his in too great a hurry. [*]14 You heard of Fitton’s accident? Changing his residence as usual – going from his country seat near Sevenoaks to a new place 11 m. N. of town –

7 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, pp. 318-319. 8 Text between asterisks is also quoted by Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 314. 9 Quoted extract in Wilson ceases at this point. 10 Joshua Trimmer (1797 - 1857). Managed a N. Wales family copper mine from 1814. Became GSL member in 1832. L.G. Wilson, Sir Charles Lyell’s Scientific Journals on the Species Question, Yale University Press, 1970, p. 68. 11 H.T. De la Beche, A Geological Manual, Treuttel and Wurtz, London, 1831. 12 John Macculloch, A System of Geology, with a Theory of the Earth, and an Explanation of its Connexion with the Sacred Records, 2 vols, Longman, London, 1831. 13 John Macculloch, Description of the Western Isles of Scotland including the Isle of Man, Constable, London, 1819. taking a maid serv.t to Harley S t in a gig – horse ran away in Regent's park – dashed ag.t a gate. Fitton’s arm s.d to be broken high up but Brodie15 can’t make out where – feared that the blade bone was injured but hope not as Dr F. is doing so well.[*] I shall make my clerk transcribe a piece of Conybeare’s fun which he has composed here this morning hoping Delabeche [sic] will add a caricature. I helped him to the “tories & thieves”. I can turn over this side & not betray our secrets. The fructif.n of the fun was a catch – much was paid for a case of that in a coal plant by Brown. I know there is a super-crag elephant bed in Norf.k like Broughton’s.16 [*]17 Lonsdale says that the grand femur of which Trotter18 has given us a cast was of an animal that had paddles. What is the largest paddle bone you have? No room to talk of age of reptiles.[*] With rememb.s to Mrs Mantell believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

Londn Wed.y June 22, 1831.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes ]

14 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, p. 319. 15 Sir Benjamin Collins Brodie (1783 - 1862). Surgeon and comparative anatomist. DNB. 16 Samuel Daniell Broughton (1787 - 1837). Army surgeon who also engaged in scientific studies. DNB. 17 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 319. 18 During the second half of 1831 Mantell referred to Trotter several times in his Private Journal as having intruded into Mantell’s ‘territory’ and poached some magnificent fossils from the Cuckfield quarries. GAM-PJ, entries 1 July and 2 October 1831. [ The following transcription is Conybeare’s ‘piece of fun’, which was referred to in Lyell’s letter dated 22 June 1831 and transcribed by his clerk.]

CURIOUS EXTINCT SPECIES

Anoplotherium Paleotorium – Weaponless Old Tory

This is amongst the most recent of the extinct species; it appears to have prolonged a lingering existence long after its congenerous races and to have flourished even during the historical period, its geological site being the newest bog formation as is evinced by the statements of Our King in his able sermon on the Irish Peat Bog, published in the Phil. Trans. 1685. “The bogs”, he said “afforded a shelter & refuge to tories & thieves & some of them as well as an incalculable number of cattle had been lost by falling into sloughs”. A corpse, he adds, alluding evidently to those of tories, will be entire in a turf bog for several years. As its generic name indicates it was totally unprovided with any efficient weapon of defense, indeed from the organisation of the skull, which as in all the congenerous anoplotherix is nearly related to the Swinish Type, it may be inferred that it could only have possessed a degree of instinct so low as must have incapacitated it from employing such instrument to any good purpose. The conformation of the orbital position of the forehead is likewise remarkable & must evidently have incapacitated the animal from viewing objects in more than one direction: this part is furnished with singular projecting proceps forming a sort of natural hoodwink – the animal being apparently incapable of sustaining much light and therefore requiring such an apparatus on the principle of the conservative system. Its organs of progression are (as in the Bradypus) very imperfectly developed and indeed the general appearance of inactivity and inefficiency can be paralleled only in the Sloth tribe. But it should be mentioned that as some kind of compensation, the structure of the claws (as in the Megalonyx) appears to have been singularly calculated for grasping, tenacity, and climbing. Its extinction has been ascribed by theoretical writers to the sudden increase of light in the system, which, as we have seen, must have been perfectly intolerable to this animal. Were Geologists more sentimental they could scarcely fail to be affected with some feelings of pity for the poor defenceless creature thus exposed to be jostled out of existence by newer races whose organisation was more accomodated to the circumstances of the times & which we may suppose to have been only stimulated by causes which must have proved fatal to our Paleotorium. It has been conjectured that the era of its disappearance was accompanied by much partial disturbance, and a considerable change in the constitution of the region which it once inhabited. Many symptoms of bouleversement and dislocation appear in the formations of this geological epoch, and it must be altogether characterised as an age of revolution.

84

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 1 July 1831 ]

My dear Mantell I am obliged to leave town for a few days & to run down (not geologising) so that I must be brief for it has been rather a short summons. L.d Cole whose offices runs these franks begs I will not forget to assure you that he has been prevented only by having being unable to unpack boxes from communicating with you; that you may depend on having the things which you are to expect from him &c &c. How I wish you could see the splendid whale Balenoptina (not mysticitus) which we have just been visiting at Charing X; Cole, Egerton, Lonsdale & I. It is by far the most magnificent skeleton I ever formed a conception of & most imposing, worth coming up to town for. The hamper with chalk fossils is arrived & I have only been prevented from unpacking by the unfinished state of the room at K. Coll which is to receive them. In the meantime for some splendid fish which I saw at the Town receive my thanks. Egerton & I by way of putting Lonsdale on his mettle said you had written me a letter which settled the affair of the tibia of Troth & that L. was clearly wrong.So he got Cuvier & lots of bones.– gave us a lecture. He protests it is no tibia - says that the bone having radiated striae shows it to be – (I forget what) but showed you to be wrong. That it must have had a paddle. He lectured on Deville’s cast – which by the by looks a splendid performance. On reexamination I find the slabs of Horsham stone all useful – for some point or other. As I have not your last letter by me & cannot go home for fear of missing the Post I may miss answering something but excuse it. I thought the age of reptiles1 excellent & very susceptible of an amplification into a longer essay. You do much for popularising the science & not a little by turning it to political squibbing in these days of politics. Conybeare is a strange fellow don’t ask me to account for his doing this or that. He carried a letter of introd n, sealed, to a french nat.t in which his friend called him “an odd fish” which came out from Mons.r le zoologer who had difficulty in interpreting at last seized on that part & said “Ah, je vous suis bien oblige mais ou est le Singulier poisson”? When he went down to Herschell’s [sic], Mrs Stewart, H.’s mother in law said “H. is so busy he sees no one, yet he is so kind to foreigners I dare say he will see you”. He was so much pleased with your letter that it was queer his not recollecting that a reply was a natural civility. He has hair gone long. Fitton is getting

1 G.A. Mantell, ‘The Geological Age of Reptiles’, Edinburgh Philosophical Journal, 1831, 11, pp 181-185. better. I am at p.150. Be assured I shall not dare publish the weald theory without your aid. As I shall insert the comber,2 the view looking up, I should much like a hypothetical section of the fault & give it as yours.3 Never fear dashing at it like this; but as it might really be.

with rememb to Mrs Mantell believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

London July One 1831

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Lewes, Sussex ]

85

2 The Coomb, near Lewes, is a ravine resulting from a narrow opening in the chalk. C.Lyell, POG, vol.3, (facs.1st ed.), p. 300. 3 In ibid., (note 2), p. 301, the following figure was significantly modified (No.76). Lyell’s footnote acknowledged his indebtness to Mantell for the section. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 13 August 1831 ]

My dear Mantell I am just returned from an expedition for my health to the Rhine volcanoes & those of the Eifel between the Rhine & Moselle, of 5 weeks which was suddenly determined on the peak of a monastery & which like many off-hand schemes has turned out very well, Noggerath1 & Oeynhausen2 at Bonne [sic] having provided me so well with maps & instructions as to render me independent of the cramming which I should otherwise have previously thought it necessary to get at home before embarking on such an excursion. I found the Eifel craters differ essentially from any in Central France or Covior, or Tuscany, or Naples, or Sicily, or Catalonia – & still more from any of the submarine volcanic phenomena of modern periods such as Val di Noto, Euganeans, Vicentin &c – principally in this that altho’ every explosion has been one of fire & fusion not “of air” as some have asserted, yet the transition sandst. & shale has escaped so marvellously from being burnt, it has been blasted so often without being melted or altered that there is some ground for saying that they were holes blown out by clastic fluids. The wind took the scoria to one side – most of them were single eruptions, on one spot each, & perhaps short eruptions, & 3 parts of a crater may exist of walls of the original sandst. &c the other side of lava scoria &c but more of this in vol.2. Buckland’s case of diluvium posterior to one of these cones (the Rothenberg near Bonne) is a clear blunder. The gravel was there before the volcano & contains not an atom of scoria &c. The eruption burst out in a platform of older rock covered by a dense old alluvium & if the latter is seen on one side of the cone & crater it is mainly because so also are the unscathed aboriginal rocks of the district.

1 Jacob Noggerath (1768 - 1840). Professor of Mineralogy and Mining, University of Bonn. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1796. 2 Karl August Ludwig Oeynhausen (1795 - 1865). German stratigrapher and mining geologist, Bonn. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1814. Goldfuss was ill in bed when I called first – afterwards when I got a sight of him & offered to take any thing to you he said he was to hear from you first &c before he proceeded – but Noggerath at last sent me a packet in which is a little tiny parcel for you written I think in Goldfuss’ hand-writing. opened at Customs House. The paper on the ripple-marks3 is excellent & am sure will call attention. Have you seen Scrope’s paper in Roy.l Irish Journal on the subject.4 Goldfuss parcel contains I believe a few teeth of Maestricht lizard. Where shall I send this packet abt the size of my fist. This tour has not accelerated vol. 2 – but I am always crawling & have scarce arrived at correcting proofs of middle of book[.] with kind remem.s to Mrs Mantell believe me ever most truly yours. ChaLyell

2 Raymond B. Grays Inn Aug. 13. 1831

P.S. Fitton’s arm is in air again & he can travel to & from his country house & will I hear get quite over it. Do not dub me Professor Lyell the title I think is at a discount in Lond.n & with reason after L.U. concerns.

3 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Ripple Marks made by the Waves, observable in the Sandstone Strata of Sussex’, The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1831, 11, pp. 240-241. 4 There is no paper on this subject by Scrope published in the Royal Irish Journal. Lyell may have had in mind Scrope’s paper, ‘On the rippled markings of many of the Forest Marble Strata north of Bath and the foot tracks of certain animals occurring in great abundance on their surfaces’, PGSL, 1826-1833, 1, pp. 317-318. [ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Lewes, Sussex ]

86

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 30 August 1831 ]

My dear Mantell [*]1 I hope you got my letter after my return from Germany? – since that I have been detained here much longer than I expected & am now on my way to Scotland – first to Edinb.g thence to Forfarshire. I wish much to hear from you as your silence has made me uneasy – write to me here – & your letters will be forwarded free to me wherever I may happen to be at the time in the country.[*] I told you I had a little box from Goldfuss for you which I will now send to Relfe – containing teeth of Maestricht animal. If you wish to send anything to Dr. Fleming my man follows me a few days after my departure & if you packed it up forthwith he would take it. A letter also to the Minister would be useful for I see by a letter just received that he feels himself deplorably out of the world. [*]2 Barrow3 has sent me a box of specimens from the new island thrown up off Sicily in a spot where I did not at all look for a submarine eruption but am nevertheless well satisfied therewith. Chocolate-coloured sands & scorie of same hue. The Brittania man of war passed over the spot some months ago & feeling her bottom struck as if by a rock (slight earthquake) she sounded & found 80 fathoms[.] now the isle is 200 f.t above

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, pp. 329-330. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 329. 3 John Barrow (1764 - 1848). Traveller and author. Second Secretary to the Admiralty. Created baronet 1835. DNB. water – & is still growing. Here is a hill 680 feet with hope of more & the probability of much having been done before the Brittania sounded. I congratulate you, one of the first of my twelve apostles, at Nature having in so come-atable a part of the Mediterranean thus testified her approbation of the advocates of modern Causes. Was the cross which Constantine saw in the heavens a more clear indication of the approaching conversion of a wavering world? – more especially as the first box of specimens from the new isle came through the Post office by the Mediterranean steam packet & was presented by Barrow to me before he had opened them himself 8 or 9 days after they had been thrown up, hissing hot.[*] It is a miracle which beats Sodam & Gomorrah hollow, especially now that Daubeny & others have had the audacity to prove that that was a mere ordinary event. remember me to Mrs Mantell & believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

Aug.t 30, 1831

P.S. Sedgwick in a letter to Lonsdale today says “How does the green sand fall through Fitton’s hour glass?”

[Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex]

87

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[Sept. 1831?]1 My dear Mantell I have received the box from Dr Fleming within a day or two from Scotland, he promised that I sh.d have it in time to bring it with me but in consequence of his delay it has followed me. The Dr writes me an irascible sort of letter about his geological ‘faes’ & seems as savage & dangerous as a dog chained up, as he is unfortunately at Flisk & is therefore obliged for the sake of excitement to work himself up into a rage. Seriously however the letter is such a hostile demonstration in terms of proposed peace, & against the most amicable of our friends who bear him no ill-will that I am quite concerned to see it. I got him to come to my father’s for two days & was in hopes I had pacified him. I am happy to think that I am on excellent terms with all my controversial antagonists as yet – altho’ I might not be so if shut up at Flisk. I have printed 350 pages only – & shall be 8 weeks before I am fairly out I fear. My occupations have left me little time to answer since my return two letters from Lewes. First I beg to return my thanks to Mrs Mantell for the amusement which Horatio Smith’s2 news afforded not only me but the whole party at Kinnordy. I am sorry I am not a poet for her sake. I have also to regret that I have never met Kirby’s niece of whom you say such delightful things “the one” whom you have selected as a fit companion for me, but I will introduce to you perhaps next summer another person, that you may judge how much resemblance there may be between two persons whom we have both selected for the same place. Mine unfortunately has never cultivated any taste for Natural History nor for any branch of science or would not perhaps acquire any easily though sufficiently able as a reader to enter into to enjoy popular works on science. I am quite of your mind in thinking that the enviable qualification in a woman is a power to appreciate her husband’s pursuits & to like them without being so very enthusiastic in them as that they sh.d absorb some of the tenderer feelings of the heart. But I will not mask any mystery to you of my intended marriage. I went over to Germany in a great hurry to ask the hand of Leonard

1 Letter not dated by Lyell. The indicated date has been deduced from its context. 2 Horatio (Horace) Smith (1779 - 1849). Poet and author. Younger brother of James (“Rejected Addresses”) Smith. DNB. Horner’s eldest daughter Mary3 whom I believe you never saw – whom I have known some years, & being successful in my errand had to wait till she got her father’s consent who was then in Scotland. They choose that the marriage sh.d take place at Bonn & according to the formalities there regard (cadre Nap.n) 6 months domicile of one of the parties as necessary after due notice given so that the ceremony c.d not take place till April & as I shall then be just beginning a short course of lectures it is agreed that I am to get over that affair at K. Coll. first & then enjoy my holidays which I shall have earned. Perhaps the delay is fortunate for my reputation, both on account of vol.2. & the lectures, for as it is I know not whether I shall get thro’ all as well as I c.d wish, yet I hope so. The lady is 10 years younger than me & altho’ I sh.d fully agree with you that this is more disparity than may be desirable for one who lives so quiet & secluded a life as a geololgist ought to do at home yet I know you do not prohibit such a difference in your rules, & would grant that the disposition of the lady in these respects is of more importance than the age, & it is in this that I feel quite at ease. I shall have no money with her at all, which is certainly an act of imprudence on my part, but I feel confident that my wife will be satisfied to live in a very quiet way & I know that I shall. I shall not say anything of her accomplishments or beauty as of course you will not consider me a very cool & impartial judge of those matters at present. I gave her an extract of your letter about “the one” and she has been very inquisitive since to know if I ever met her at Lewes. Pray let me hear what you had been doing besides writing letters about the Deacles4 to the great scandal of my tory friends. You will be glad to hear that Bell is lecturing at Guys Hospital to 85 students of comparative Anat.y. He has got over the fossil teeth from Annington a form new to Europe, at least not now European. King’s Coll. made a decent start. There are now 90 regular students and 300 occasional lecture goers & 90 boys in the Junior Department. I sh.d

3 Mary Elizabeth Horner (1808 - 1873). Eldest daughter of Leonard Horner. Engaged to Charles Lyell 12 July 1831. They were married on 12 July 1832. 4 In a letter to Mantell dated 5 September 1831, Robert Bakewell commented: “I was greatly rejoyced to see your hand lifted in the cause of the Deacles. a more violent outrage was scarcely ever committed & yet they were to be born down by the character of the Barings against direct evidence”, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 5. There are several references in Mantell’s Private Journal during the period 1830-32 indicating that he was on friendly terms with a Mr Deacle who lived in the Lewes neighbourhood. think from the weekly recruiting that it will grow in time into a good thing. Believe me with kind remembrances to Mrs Mantell ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

88

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 1 December 1831 ] My dear Mantell I expected to have seen you yesterday at the R.S. or rather as I was not there but on duty at G.S. to have had you with us in the Ev.g for we had a most interesting paper by Horner5 on the new Medit.n Isle & Pantellaria a volc.c isle. I send by coach a few memoirs to Dr Morton in case you send to America & a letter which has been written to him for months at Somerset H.s but we never had an opportunity to send it. I wish you could tell Silliman in a polite conciliatory manner that the Officers of the G.S. have tried both plans that of putting people to the charge of receiving letters of acknowledgment (for we cannot post pay foreign letters or we would willingly) & that of waiting (sometimes years) for opportunities of sending. The former plan has given such offence that several persons one within the last week have returned the letters begging to have no more to pay for. Of the two evils we are obliged to choose the least. Between ourselves the Americans are so peculiarly thin-skinned that I believe it w.d be best to make them pay. We have hardly ever had a present from them without getting into a scrape even when we sent an answer in moderate time. But w.d Dr M. have liked to pay many shillings for the empty form contained in the letters I now send you?

5 L.Horner, ‘On the New Volcanic Island in the Mediterranean, and its Connexion with the extinct volcanic Island of Pantellaria and the Hot-springs of Sciacca on the Coast of Sicily’, [30 November 1831], PGSL, 1826-1833, 1, pp. 338-339. I assure you I do not think I could get Morton made F.G.S. You well know that a few years ago there was a sort of understanding that as in the early days of the G.S. the honour was conferred too easily, the number sh.d be as much limited as possible. Buckland tried to get M. De Serres in & after the certificate was signed & suspended we decided in Council that 20 or more w.d come before him. I would rather vote for Morton than for De S. but do not hold out prospects. The only one now proposed is the celebrated mineral.t and geol.l chemist, Miterlisch6 [sic] of Berlin & he is not to be put up till a 2.d council has discussed his precedence. All the last day men have been carefully chosen. I really don’t know the respective merits of the American geol.ts & unless I was prepared to carry a case thro’, I w.d not bring it on. Maclure7 & Silliman # I believe are our only American F.G.S. I am very busy today having done nothing yesterday. The Duke I hear got on well & they have now a strong council & first rate papers sent to them. with rememb.s to Mrs Mantell believe me very truly yrs ChaLyell Dec. 1. 1831. London

# & Webster8 of whose merits I know nothing but these were before the reform.

6 Eilherd Mitscherlich (1794 - 1863). Professor of Chemistry, Berlin.Did noted crystallographic work. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1732. 7 William Maclure (1763 - 1840). Scottish born stratigraphic geologist who settled in U.S.A. 1797. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1632. 8 John White Webster (1793 - 1850). U.S. chemist and mineralogist. Harvard University. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 2391. 89

Charles Lyell to G.A. Mantell

[ 18 January 1832 ]

My dear Friend I hope Relf [sic] sent you a copy of my book1 which I sent to him last week before it was fairly out to all the world. I have been very busy since & should have written to ask you for news for I want much to hear how you & Mrs Mantell are & I have not an idle curiosity but a wish prompted by the feelings of friendship to hear whether Sir T. Mantell’s2 will has assisted you as I always hoped. Something I think he had promised & I flattered myself much more would have come. But I have seen too much of wills to be surprised at any thing. [*]3 Sedgwick in town & has been rather I should say wasting his giant strength on a barren primary district in Wales, which he owns was like “rubbing himself against a grindstone”. Conybeare is here & in good feather & spirits but does not seem to have made much progress in his promised work on Geology. Henslow4 is to be at the meeting tonight so I much wish we could see you amongst us. Buckland has also promised to come up. They say he will give us the Cave Book v. 2 soon but I shall believe it when I see it. Two or three pages of green sand fell thro’ Fitton’s hour glass & then he has positively talked of giving it up till next vol!! after printing something. How lucky your chalk tables came out. Buckland is reported to have said to his wife when she asked him what he sh.d do for the Bridgewater prize of £1,000 “Why, my dear, if I print my lectures with a sermon at the end it will be quite the thing”.

1 C. Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. 2, (1st ed.), was published in January 1832. 2 Sir Thomas Mantell (1751 - 1831). Died 21 Dec.1831. Surgeon and mayor of Dover. Antiquary. Knighted 1820. Distant kinsman and friend of Mantell. DNB and GAM-PJ, entry 28 December 1831. Sir Thomas Mantell (1751 - 1831). Died 21 Dec.1831. Surgeon and mayor of Dover. Antiquary. Knighted 1820. Distant kinsman and friend of Mantell. DNB and GAM-PJ, 28 December 1831. 3 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 367. 4 Revd. John Stevens Henslow (1796 - 1861). Professor of Botany, Cambridge, 1827-1839. DNB. I am working hard in the hope of getting out vol 3 before I go abroard for if I do not I suppose it will not see the light in a great hurry.[*] I hope to send you by & by the Weald theory but I am half alarmed when I think how many chapters I am in my M.S. from it. My book has had I think more success in Germany than in France. v.1. I mean. Delabeche [sic] will I expect do you justice in 2.d Ed.n.5 I am just obliged to go to admiralty by a summons from Barrow to try & cram Sir J. Gore6 (Admiral going out to India) to learn the desiderata about the Maldives & other coral isles & reefs, so adieu. Hoping soon to hear & with kindest rememb.s to Mrs Mantell believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyel

18 th. Jan.y 1832 Lond.n

[Adddressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

90

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 10 April 1832 ]

My dear Mantell I met Sir A. Cooper7 at Dr Doyleys at dinner yest.y who talked of Mary Anning & of an icthyo.s he had bought. I spoke of you on which he chimed in very handsomely & on my speaking of his present to you

5 H.T. De la Beche, A Geological Manual, (2nd ed.), Treuttel and Wurtz, London, 1832. 6 Vice Admiral Sir John Gore (1772 - 1836). Served in the East Indies 1831-1835. DNB. 7 Sir Astley Paston Cooper Bart.(1768 - 1841). Surgeon and comparative anatomist. DNB. of his work & your showing it to me & others he was particularly pleased. I felt very uncomfortable at the hasty hurried meeting at my rooms when I & you were both worn out & another time whether on the press or not mind you dine here & I hope you will run up soon. For now I am bound hand & foot & expect till June. This morn.g I was talking with Lonsdale about a chapter of mine on Secondary strata in which I wish to make a few gen.l observ.s on the comparison of species. It occurred to us that next to the Bristol collect.n which I cannot just now get at y.r list w.d be the most important had you not happened to leave out precisely the most interesting information of the whole, viz. the repetition of the names of species common to 2 form.s as for example to lower chalk & green sand. Now I suggested to L. that if I sent you down my Tables drawn up by Deshayes with some queries which I had put to Lonsdale you might perhaps be able to give me an answer to some of them at least. If you c.d respecting the beds you know best I sh.d be most benefitted & be glad of the opportunity of referring to y.r collection & pub.d lists. As to Fitton’s lists which he off.d to me they are not in a state to be used[.] God knows if they ever will be. He says in a month they will – credas Judaeus.

Queries 1. What number of fossil testacea in English Chalk – or in Sussex? 2- What difference twixt Upper flinty chalk & lower chalk – how many species out of a given number common to both? 3- How many species common to Chalk & Malm rock or upper G.S.? – How many to flinty chalk & upper G.S.? 4- Difference twixt Upper G.S. & Gault? – How many common to both? – how many to Upper & Lower G.S. – to Gault & Lower G.S. – To Chalk & Lower G.S.? 5 Wealden includ.g from weald clay to Purbeck – Have any vertebrated animal species of Wealden been found in any other formations older or newer? 6 Are any wealden species common to any other formation? 7 Do you know any fossil species which occurs both above & below the Wealden, as for example, in Low.r G.S. – & Portland.

You will see the gist of these queries & know better than I grieve to say most of our F.G.S.’s the importance of a rigid austere determin.n of the specific characters. I know your increased business & therefore shall not require any apology if you cannot help me at all, but any part of the information w.d be of great value. It is for the statement of a few leading results – & y.r table comes so much nearer to giving me those than any other document & yet does not give me them that I hope you will be able to furnish some of them. I am at last correcting proofs. Cooper said “If Mantell went to Brighton & succeeded he w.d have no time for science”. I s.d you c.d not have less than now. He remarked that if you wished the R.S. to undertake expensive illust. of the Iguanodon you sh.d send up a series of papers for too much at once w.d frighten them. believe me with kind rememb.s to Mrs Mantell ever most truly yrs ChaLyell April 10 1832

P.S. Deshayes’ Tables are of course to show you the drift of such comparisons – don't show them.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Lewes, Sussex ]

91

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

May 26. 1832. 2 Raym.d B. Grays Inn Lond.n My dear Mantell I have delayed writing for a long time & when I find how much a little interruption such as lecturing twice a week occasions to my regular work & correspondence I really do wonder you can find time for any works of susserogation. I introduced you not I believe for the first time in my lecture this morning, when pronouncing an éloge on Cuvier,1 which came naturally into my lecture this morning for I was brought to the mammifers of the Paris basin. Among other anecdotes I related his compliance with your request to have models of reptiles & my introduction in consequence to his model room &c. I was glad of the opportunity of allud g. to your anatomical research. I have been able to lecture ex tempore with satisfaction to myself, a point which I was most doubtful of before I began. I have generally from 110 to 125 persons present – Subscribers 71 – each paying £1-11-6 – College deducting 1/4 for themselves – Ladies admitted for this term only. As a source of emolument I never realised on it & as far as that is concerned w.d have paid much more to have the same time for my book but I have the satisfaction of having succeeded greatly beyond my own expect.s & those of many of my friends as a popular lecturer. My class began with 36 & many entered when course was half over. I am to reprint vol 1. immediately & leave instructions for reprinting vol. 1. soon after, both with some necessary corrections but no recasting. This is to keep it marketed till an improved ed.n can be got out, in which I will carry the subject further a q r. & ½ hence vol. 3 only half printed. I will not lecture next year, nor be Pres.t nor anything that will interupt my great work, save the interuption of a new wife, & seeking & then getting into a new house & cetera & cetera. You w.d be amused to hear how boldly I proposed my new views to the K.C. dons who are really as liberal an audience as any philos.r could wish to lecture to. Babbage, Fitton, Murchison, are constant, Webster, Delabeche [sic] & others occasional. Buckland & Sedgwick each once. Basil Hall & others of G.S. regular. Hallam,2 Sotheby3 & some other literary characters now & then – 7 titled ladies & some days 3 or 4 coronetted carriages – Lords Northampton,4 Selkirk,5 Cole, Kerry,6 3 last regular subscribers, in short a

1 G. Cuvier died 13 days earlier on 13 May 1832.

2 Henry Hallam (1777 - 1859). Historian and barrister. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 90. 3 Either Samuel Sotheby (1771 - 1842). Auctioneer and antiquary or more probably, his son, Samuel Leigh Sotheby (1805 - 1861). DNB. 4 Spencer Joshua Alwyne, Marquis of Northampton (1790 -1851). A ‘Gentleman of science’, President of the Royal Society, and a member of the GSL council for four 2 year terms. DNB. 5 The sixth Earl of Selkirk (1809 - 1885). G.H. White (ed.), The Complete Peerage, v., xi, p. 620. good set both for rank & talent. Mrs Sommerville7 regular & Mrs Murchison. They say I have made the subject much talked of, & have got trumpeters for myself & K.C. by it. This only in part consoles me for the lamentable fact (I tell it to you who will keep my secret) that my reprint is less improv.d than it sh.d have been if no lectures, this is earning ephemeral applause for less permanent reputation, but we cannot have all things in the world & if I have for once in a way been catching at the shadow, I will not do it again or too often so as to lose the substance. I go 10 th. or 13 th. of June – every hour employed. Sat.y Mr Phillips8 called this morning & I have given him the privilege of free entry to my coming lectures – & shall introduce him to G. Soc. meetings. I suspect he saw my letter to you nearly full or you would have thought I had written when prompted. Your section redrawn by Gardner is before me excellent. Only sh.d there be at one end, instead of Dover Cliffs 820 ft. Ditchley Beacon or South Downs – you call the Surrey Hills North Down do you not. The objection made was that Dover Cliffs are not 820 feet high – Are they? As to y. theory I am more than ever confirmed as to sea cliffs – & will still make my Lond.n & Hants basins filled while Wealden was rising. But as to denudation I really incline to it & think that we are on the horns of a dilemma, since we must admit such denudation in some valley near the chalk. Think of it on your rides. Indeed I need not give you that hint. But think especially of those places where the chalk must have been & is not. in haste believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

6 Henry Thomas Petty Fitzmaurice (1816 - 1866). Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 357. 7 Mary Somerville {nee Fairfax} (1780 - 1872). Scientific writer and geomorphologist. DNB. 8 Almost certainly John Phillips (1800 - 1874), nephew of William Smith and Keeper of the Yorkshire Museum 1824-34. DNB. 92

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

June 14 [1832 ]

My dear Mantell I was in hopes you c.d have cut in from last night & sh.d have certainly written spite of my hurry & bustle had I known that I sh.d have been at G.S. But I had always intended to be here geol.ing had not an unexpected hitch occurred in regard to thousand & one strange ceremonials incurred in a marriage in Rhenish Prussia. They required me to get 2 barristers & one magistrate to declare that public.n of banns in Eng.d was not necessary for a german marriage & that this document like 4 others sh.d be signed by Home & For.n Sec.’s of State & Prussian Ambassador! But enough of these things. [*]1 My lectures were splendidly attended [*] (chiefly by persons who honoured me) to the last. As yet, far less profitable for purse, & surely for solid fame than writing. But I won’t be hasty. [*]2 I have shown the public & made the discovery myself that I can do the thing – & it may yet provide travelling money. But I shall not give much time to it at least for several years. When the course was over I [*]3 rec.d from some of the class whom I never saw most enthusiastic letters expressive of their admiration & gratitude. This is worth much[*]4 – especially as they had the good taste not to applaud in the theatre.[*] One day I had the Bp. of Llandaff & 2 saints Lord Henley5 & Sir R.t Inglis.6 That very day I demonstrated that 12,000 y.rs narry the period was

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 388. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 388.

3 Extract between asterisks is also quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 360. 4 Quoted extract in Wilson ceases at this point. 5 Robert Henley Eden, 2nd. Baron Henley (1789 - 1841). Barrister. Master in Chancery 1826-40. DNB. 6 Sir Robert Henry Inglis Bart. (1786 - 1855). F.R.S. Tory politician who opposed parliamentary reform. DNB. but a tittle in age of Etna & the whole of Etna the newest of the tertiary periods. That day Babbage, W.V.Harcourt,7 D. of Somerset,8 & a variety of persons of science & rank was present. Sir D. Brewster & his lady, Ladies Guildford, Bute, Ellenboro’, Lords Kerry, Cole, & others. My net profits were £86 & I sh.d have earned more than that in same time (best working time of year) by getting forward with 3.d vol – but then another year might yield more. Buckland came to last lecture & Whewell. I made at both them heretical opinions. [*]9 B. was really powerful last night on the Megatherium – a lecture of an hour before a crowded audience – only standing room for a 3d. – lots of anatomists there – paper by Clift10 – the gigantic bones exhibited & still to be seen there but likely to be removed by & by. Try by all means to get to G.S. & see them. Buckland made out that the beast lived on the ground by scratching for yams & potatoes & was cov.d like armadills by a great coat of mail (wh exhib.d on table) to keep the dust from getting into his skin as he threw it up. As he was as big as an elephant the notion of some that he burrowed under ground must be abandoned. “We may absolve him from the imputation of having been a borough-monger indeed from what I before said you will have concluded that he was rather a radical”. He concluded with pointing out that the structure of the sloth was beautifully fitted for the purposes to wh. he was intended, so megatherium for his habits. Buffon,11 therefore & Cuvier even in describing the sloth as awkward & C. the Mega – erred. They are as admirably formed as the gazelle” &c. It was the best thing I ever heard Buckland do.[*] I cross the water tomorrow. Write to Raymond B. & your letters will reach me in a parcel – write in 4 days if you can. remember me to Mrs Mantell & believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

7 Vernon William Harcourt (1789 - 1871). Rector of Wheldrake and Botton Percy. General secretary to the first B.A.A.S. meeting at York in 1831. DNB. 8 Edward Adolphus Seymour, 11th. Duke of Somerset (1775 - 1855) DNB. 9 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol.1, p. 388. 10 William Clift, ‘Some Account of the Remains of the Megatherium sent to England from Buenos Ayres by Woodbine Parish Jun.’, TGSL, 1835, 3, series 2, pp. 437-450. 11 Georges Leclerc Comte de Buffon (1707 - 1788). French zoologist and botanist, famous for his 44 vol. Histoire Naturelle. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, pp. 654-658. In your sect.n you give highest points so give me for S.Downs besides Dover Cliff the height of Ditchbury Beacon or some other culminating point. I go by Calais & Brussels to Bonn then with my wife to Switzerland.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Pl. Lewes, Sussex ]

93

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 10 September 1832 ]

My dear Mantell I am passing thro’ London in a great hurry on my way to Scotland with my wife & in hopes of getting off from here in a day or two & returning in beginning of Nov.r I made a tour by Bonn, Frankfurt, Heidelberg, Strasbourg, the Black Forest chain by Freiburgh & Borsdorf, Schaffhausen, Zuric [sic], Zug, Thun, Berne, Freiburg in Switzerland, Vevey, the Vallais, the Simplon, Domo d’Ossola, Lago Maggiore, Milan, Turin, the Mont Cenis, Chamberry, Geneva, Chamonix & Mont Blanc, then Vallorsine near Chamonix, Geneva again, the Jura, Dijon, Paris, Calais, Dover. Both my wife & I in the enjoyment of perfect health every hour of our tour & never having been once annoyed by quarantines. Your letter giving me an account of the Oxford meeting1 & your tour reached me in Switzerland & was a great treat to me for I had heard nothing. When at Paris I made acquaintance with Agassiz whose prospectus I send you having obtained a duplicate for you whose name he knows & means to pay you a visit next spring. Cuvier consid.d him so strong in fossil fish that he meant him to do that part of his great work & put the materials into

1 Mantell attended the second meeting of BAAS at Oxford from 17-24 June and then made a weeks A.’s hands of wh. he has amply availed himself at Paris. [*]2 Agassiz being naturally desirous of the advertizement wh. my 3.d vol. w.d give to his intended labour on fossil fish wh are now far advanced, & being moreover a young man about 25 only of great liberality in communicating inform.n has offered to answer any queries I may send him while I write vol.3 or rather print the remainder of it.[*] If you can suggest questions on fossil fish send them to me by letter as soon as you can. By way of example I give you some of mine with his interesting responses of wh. I shall avail myself in v. 3.

– How many fossil fish have you seen & exam.d? Answer 500 species, all of which save one are decidedly extinct. Qy. Where was that one? A. An Icelandic fossil. Qy. Do you not make species too easily? A. So far from that, that I have been obliged to throw together many species of recent & fossil fish distinguished as separate by many writers. Qy. How many Monte Bolea fish have you seen & of what age are they? A. 100 species all extinct & none of them found in any other fossil format.n yet known to me. Qy. [*]3 Are any secondary species identical with tertiary? A. Not one – all the secondary genera are extinct without exception. Many of the tertiary genera are living ones.[*] Qy. Are not fish distinguished with difficulty. A. So far from it, that a scale will do for the genus, a single scale, & a tooth often for the species. Qy. Are any Annington fish recent? – none – Qy. What is age of Seafeld by fish? A. I sh.d conjecture lias.

tour of geological sites in Southern England. GAM-PJ, entry June 1832. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 372. 3 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 372. [*]4 He said that the so-called diodon teeth of chalk are not so but one of the great family Squalus that the so-called balistes is “le rayon d’un squale”5 & other things new to me.[*] He had drawings of the scales of the great Tilgate fish fairly done & drew me what he imagines must have been its shape from the mere scale. He says you will judge whether the drawing was a true one. In haste, believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

Write at your leisure to me at Kinnordy Kirriemuir N.th B.

2 Raymond Building Grays Inn 1832. 10 Sept.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. ]

94

G. A. Mantell to Charles Lyell6

Castle Place Sept. 29 1832. My dear Lyell It was delightful to see your writing once more, and to find that

4 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 372. 5 “the flexible bone in the fin of a shark”. 6 Letter transcribed from a transcription ex ATL-NZ. Original letter is at APS. you and your lady had safely arrived in England. Had I known that you would have remained two days in London I should have come up to see you for I was but little engaged, and had many things to do in Town, whenever anything of interest called me there. I congratulate you most cordially on your marriage which though it may occasion some loss to science will be a gain to your friends, as you will now have a local habitation, as well as a name, and will not be such a wanderer as heretofore. I am very much obliged by your kind remembrance of me. Agassiz’s prospectus & plates afforded me a high gratification, and I am much pleased that there is a chance of my seeing him here, for nothing do I long for so much, as to have my fish examined by a competent naturalist. I like the idea of the scales being fixed on for the generic character and think it must be right. Clift has already told me that the leeth palates of the Bath Oolite were similar to the testa of a Squalus in the Mus. Colleg. Chiruag and we had inferred that the diodon like teeth in the Chalk were also referable to the genus; so that your statement of Agassiz’s opinion came very opportunely. I have had a host of scientific visitors. Balfour,7 Clift, Daubeny, Gilbert, Bakewell & the latter is still at Brighton studying your second volume, and very inquisitive about the third.8 In his remark on your refutation of Lamarck’s theory, B. observes “Believing as I firmly do in an intelligent first cause as the simplest and most satisfactory solution that can be offered of the origin of things, I still confess that I have never met with any satisfactory arguments against what is called spontaneous generation, or against the convertibility of species by changes of condition – both may follow from general laws, as much ordained by a designing cause, as the common laws of generation”. Herder9 in his beautiful work on the philosophy of man says “whenever any situations are found well suited to peculiar modes of organic life, there such forms of organisation will be found ‘to exist’”. But I must leave this perplexing but most interesting subject.

7 John Hutton Balfour (1808 - 1884). Edinburgh educated M.D. and botanist. DNB. 8 In a letter to Mantell dated 22 September 1832, Bakewell suggested that Lyell refuted Lamarck in his Principles of Geology, vol. 2, in order to appease the orthodox supporters of King’s College, London, who may have been offended by some sections of his first volume. Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 5. 9 Johann Gottfried von Herder (1744 - 1803). German writer and philosopher. Author of Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menscheit, F.A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, 1869. Agassiz’s replies to your enquiries are indeed of the highest importance: like the philosopher’s stone you extract gold from whatever you touch! Can the remains of freshwater fish be distinguished from marine? The herbivorous or rather phytivorous from the carnivorous? You will be much pleased with some of my late chalk specimens: my grand fish is now carved out most beautifully – quite in alto-relievo! During your stay in Scotland you will doubtless see or hear from Dr. Fleming: do tell him I am quite anxious to hear from him. I wrote to him several times, have sent him a box of specimens by the Dundee Shipping Company and yet I cannot get any acknowledgment: I am at a loss to guess the cause: I hope no domestic calamity has befallen him. Dr. Fitton and I have been in hot correspondence for some time: I do hope my stimulating him a little will quicken his “hour glass”, we have made out (on the authority of James Sowerby) several marine genera – viz Melania, Nerita and Hiatella &c – but I will not admit that it must be concluded that these species are marine, because others of the same genus are known to be so: it is true they may have been inhabitants of the sea & carried by tides into the estuary or river, but even this assumption does not appear to me necessary until we are certain that the arbitrary generic distinctions of conchologists can be relied on as enabling us to decide on what are marine & what are freshwater. You recollect what they were compelled to do with Cerithium – form a new genus, Potamides! for the fresh water species. I shall be very impatient to hear of your arrival in London that I may pay my respects to your lady & have a long gossip with you. Mrs. Mantell went to London this morning – she desires her kindest regards. Have you heard of the dreadful misfortune which our poor friend Clift has sustained – You know his only son – a clever fellow about 30: on the very day Clift was at my house, his son was thrown from one of the villainous cabs in Chancery Lane, carried senseless to Bartholomews Hospital and died there in the course of a few days! His father went on to the Isle of Wight & knew nothing of the matter till he returned to Brighton at the end of the week! He bears his loss better than I expected! With sincerest wishes for your health & happiness, & begging permission to present my respects to Mrs. Lyell! I am my dear friend Yours most faithfully GMantell Have you read Arago on Comets in the Annivaire10 for 1832?

95

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 26 Nov. 1832 ]

My dear Mantell I had imagined that you were to have been with us last Wed.y & had prepared my wife to expect the pleasure of seeing you to an early bkfast the morning of the geol.l meeting, but I now find it is our next meeting that you are expected to attend. We have only returned from Scotland about a week & are still in the bustle of furnishing & in that you will perhaps still find us when you come, but I have now my own room to myself & after a long vacation am busily

10 This query may have been prompted by Bakewell’s letter to Mantell, dated 22 September 1832 (see note 3), in which Bakewell asked: ‘Have you seen Arago on Comets in the French Almanach “Annivaire du Roi” which you may purchase for 1d at the French Booksellers in Soho Square’. Dominique Francois Jean Arago (1786 - 1853). French astronomer and politician. D.S.B. engaged with getting on with vol. 3 which I hope to send you in two months from this time. It will close the work. When I have printed the sheets touching the weald denudation I will submit them to your criticism. Meanwhile I inclose a drawing which Gardner made with care after your sketch & he says the proportions are correct. But I want you to suggest amendments. – 1.st Should it not be “Highest point of north Downs 858 feet”? 2.dly – Would it not be better to put at the other end “Highest point of South Downs .... feet”? What w.d be the maximum of elevat.n Should we write Crowboro’ so abbreviated?1 I inclose a table which Von Meyer gave me of classif.n of Reptiles accord.g to organs of motion. If you cannot make it out Mrs Lyell will translate it for you when you are here. Last wed.y we had a notice by Sedgwick on the discovery of a bed of recent shells resting on the London Clay at the height of 140 ft. above the level of the sea in Sheppey – 5 or 6 species – turbo littoreus, ostrea edulis, cardium eduli, buccinium antiguum? & some others of our coast. They think it not crag because recent shells but I doubt, for I fancy they are all common to the crag & so few w.d show nothing as to proportion. But at all costs it is important & Captain Kater2 seems to have found a similar deposit near Ramsgate on Lond.n clay – 6 ft. high above beach. But I have not yet seen his specimens. I am printing my 2.d vol. 2.d Ed.n corrected not enlarged – the first vol. was enlarged 80 pages not by additions, for they were not numerous but by opening the type & making it uniform with 2.d vol. Vol. 3 will be about intermediate in size between vols 1 & 2. Before June we are to be inundated by a flood of knowledge from all the Bridgewater prize essays or feed essayists. Buckland’s thousand pounder threatens I am told to be extremely orthodox but I hope for the sake of the science & his fame he will put the matter on a broad ground & not involve himself & all of us by tempting the public once more to believe that Moses was a consummate geologist. In my present position at King’s College I feel

1 Lyell’s, Principles of Geology, vol. 3, (facs. 1st ed.), wood-cut No. 64, (p. 288), gives a cross- section from the highest point of the South Downs, 858 ft., to the highest point of the North Downs, 880 ft. Crowborough is used and Mantell is noted as having drawn up the scale at Lyell’s request. 2 Captain Henry Kater (1777 - 1835). Army officer who lived chiefly in London and engaged in scientific pursuits. DNB. the great mischief done by the cave book. Remember me to Mrs Mantell & believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

Nov. 26. 1832. 16 Hart S t. Bloomsbury Sq.

P.S. I forgot to send you Prévosts pamphlet with the plate before sent. Don’t forget to bring up the section with you or send it before.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Lewes ]

96

G. A. Mantell to Charles Lyell1

1 Transcribed from a xeroxed copy of the original letter in the Archives of John Murray (Publishers) Castle Place Thursday [10 January 1833]2 My dear Friend, I know how much you are engaged and I trouble you with this note with much reluctance, for till your 3d. volume is out, it is a shame to intrude on your time. But Murray has now had my MS &c3 nearly a fortnight & has come to no determination upon it: and as this delay, should he decline the publication, will be as useless as it is vexatious. Can you then assist me in hastening his reply? If you have occasion to call on him, could you not enquire when he intended to write to me? I do not like to trouble him with a letter.4 I am quite anxious to learn when your volume will be ready. Have you seen the American Journal of Science?5 Mrs Mantell writes with me in best regards to Mrs Lyell. Yours my dear Sir most faithfully. GMantell

I cleaned one of the detached processes of the Hylaeosaurus, since my return, and found a small dermal bone lodged in the [indecipherable word] at the base: they are not chevron bones, but must have been a dermal [indecipherable word].

[Addressed to: Charles Lyell Esquire, 16 Hart Street, Bloomsbury Square, London]

97

Ltd., London. 2 Letter was not dated but post-marked Lewes, 10 January 1833. 3 On 1 January 1833, Mantell sent John Murray a box containing: the MS of The Fossils of the South Downs, 1822; a copy of Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, 1827; plus numerous drawings with the aim of Murray publishing a new edition of Mantell’s works that were out of print. John Murray (Publishers) Ltd. Archives. 4 On 21 January 1833 Mantell received a note from Murray declining the publication of the proposed new work. Mantell’s Private Journal subsequently records: “that through my kind friend, Mr Bakewell, the manuscript material was sent to Longmans”. GAM-PJ, entries 21 and 23 January 1833. 5 Professor Benjamin Silliman, was the founder (1818), proprietor, and first editor of the American

Journal of Science. DAB. He was also a friend and correspondent of Mantell for over 20 years. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 9 Feb. 1833 ]

My dear Mantell I received yesterday your prospectus1 & beg to have my name put down. But do not call it on “The South of England” but on the “South-East”. The former name may be very well for a bookseller’s advertizement to catch the inhabitants between Hants & Cornwall but would decidedly be deemed by the scientific world as presumptuous, & throwing out hopes to the said population of a description of regions which they would find never mentioned. The sooner you can fix the price of the book the better for few will subscribe even to an oct.o book with plates unless they see their way.2 I have printed nothing about the S. East of England yet. My brother has just arrived from the West Indies which must be my excuse for a short letter. With rememb.s to Mrs Mantell believe me ever most truly yours ChaLyell 9. Feb. 1833.

My bookseller Meason has 3 or 4 uncut copies of y.r work on the S. Downs which he offers for £2-2-0.3 I only saw one of them.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Lewes, Sussex ]

1 The prospectus was for Mantell’s new book, The Geology of the South-east of England, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green and Longman, London, 1833. 2 The price of The Geology of the South-east of England, was 21 shillings. R.A. Peddie & Q. Waddington (eds.), The English Catalogue of Books, 1801-1836, London, 1914. 3 The original price of Mantell’s book, The Fossils of the South Downs, or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, Relfe, London, 1822, was 63 shillings or £ 3-3-0. R.A.Peddie & Q. Waddington (eds), The English Catalogue of Books 1801-1826, London, 1914. 98

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

[ 22 February 1833 ]

My dear Mantell As I found on my return from a 2 days absence on a visit to some friends & connexions [sic] of my wife a parcel from Martin inclosing a letter which he stated was merely to beg you to put his name down as a subscriber & ventured to open it & add a PS. I am glad you print S.E. When Martin was here at the G.S. anniversary at wh. I hoped to see you I gave him the leads of my 2 chapters on the Weald denudation. unluckily the MS was all in the printers hands & I have not yet got the sheets from him. I wished to try the brunt of his objections ag st my views. His local knowledge of anticlinal ridges is considerable but he did not shake me by any facts. When I can get the sheets I sh d. like to submit them to you. I suppose you will print soon2. I wish we c d. have visited together the spots where Martin says the wealden beds & lower green are intermersed in order to see whether the freshwater & marine shells were contemporaneous. I cannot from cross-examining Martin satisfy myself that he seems to have good junction sections. We are having the [mount?] altered by our own artist wh. I hope will do justice to the great original. Many thanks from my wife for your attentions to her. With rememb s. to Mrs Mantell believe me yours very truly ChaLyell

1 This letter was written by Lyell on the blank pages of a one page page letter which P. J. Martin had written to Mantell, dated 19 February 1833. Both letters are in Folder 68, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ. 2 G.A. Mantell, The Geology of the South-east of England, Longman, London, April 1833. 22 Feb. 1833

99

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 11 March 1833 ]

Dear Mantell Can you dine with me on Wed.y & then go to the club. I wish this both for the pleasure of your company & that between dinner at ½ past 5 ok. (punctual) & going to Somerset H. we may do business in my own room instead of drinking wine below. I cannot give you a morning for [*]1 every hour is occupied with my last difficult chapter & 2 courses of lectures – to be begun both of them next month.[*] If not inclined to send a letter & if you have only to answer “yes” or “no” Send a newspaper. If you write to 16 Hart St. Bloomsbury it means “yes” if you put Bloomsbury Square “No”. With compl.s to Mrs Mantell believe me ever most truly yours ChaLyell

11 March. 1833

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 376. [ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Lewes, Sussex ]

100

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 30 April 1833 ]

My dear Mantell [*]1 Like all the world I have had the influenza which went through my house servants, visitors & all save Mrs Lyell who remained well to nurse us. This embarass & getting out 3.d vol. & up 2 courses of lectures must be my excuse for not having written to you or any one. My introductory lecture at Royal Instit.n last Thursdy was attended by 250 persons,[*] 95 of them proprietors who pay nothing.[*]2 This morning the first King’s College lecture by 200 persons or some compute 250. Nevertheless I doubt whether I shall have any class, scarce any having as yet entered & Jones3 the Prof.r of Polit.l Economy a very eloquent man having had an audience of 200 the first day & on the third not one individual & now he goes on to 5 which I would not. I was very happy to have my 200 to preach the true doctrine to, gratis. I am glad you have got your book4 out so soon. I mean this summer to geologise in the Tyrolian Alps – & make up my mind on Von Buch’s dolomization theory. I start June 9.th with Mrs Lyell.

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 395. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 396. 3 Richard Jones (1790 - 1855). Professor of Political Economy, King’s College 1833-35. DNB. 4 G.A. Mantell, The Geology of the South-east of England, Longman, London, 1833. I have been taking lessons with her on shells from G. Sowerby who is a bankrupt & now wishes to be a teacher in Nat. Hist. for which he is better qualified than for shop speculations.[*] The Medical Professs. of Lond.n University have entered into a bold speculation. The concern being in a bad way (we cannot brag much at King’s College) & the Univ.y in debt & threatening to shut up the said learned sages of your Profession undertook to keep open the college at their own expense or out of their fees if the council would begin to build a hospital! only 2,000 £ being subscribed for that purpose, £10,000 required! So I am told the hospital is begun. This is tying a new stone round the drowning dog’s neck & even the Midd.x Hospital & others near there can barely keep above water where the buildings are up & the beds! The sickness here has been most general & often serious. They say that all over there are 70,000 ill. Two of my sisters are come to stay with me, I hope they will escape. This morning I was on Auvergne which took very well – it is a grand subject. I suppose my book5 will be out in a way in a day or two. I have seen one copy & sent it to Murchison to whom it is dedicated. Remember me kindly to Mrs Mantell & your children & believe me yours ever most sincerely ChaLyell

I was much relieved by discovering the thief in my house & to find it was a new clever servant but not the old confidential one. You remember my trouble when you were last here.

P.S. I lecture at Royal Inst.n every Thursday for next 6 weeks at King’s College. I have a class on Tuesdays & Fridays – you will always be admitted.

Ap.l 30 th. 1833 - Lon.n

5 The third volume of Lyell’s, Principles of Geology, Murray, London, was published in March 1833. [ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

101

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

May 25 th 1833 Lond.n My dear Mantell I shall be happy to send you any wood-cuts I can but I only had one duplicate of each. I wish there had been more of them, for spare copies. When I read to my King’s College class the other day some passages from your new work especially those about Portland, & the city & inhabitants turned into stone, they were much pleased & several asked me what it was, when you had written & published the book &c. You have taken good care to advertize my book at all events – you will much assist me by sending any criticisms on the 3.d vol. or indeed on any vol. for altho’ of course the time may be distant when a new Ed.n may be wanted yet Murray says that time is sure at length to arrive & I am therefore anxious to prepare for it as my long geological expeditions will interfere with improving it. Do not talk of the bare possibility of a new Ed.n to any one when there are still 1,000 or 1,500 copies unsold!6 I trust yours will succeed & believe you are in good hands. Mrs Lyell must hasten to her mother from whom she was never parted before & she is dying to see her again so we must go there when released in June but if we can take Lewes in our way back you shall see us & I will write – before our arrival. Could you not if you do not mean to use your glossary let me insert it into my interleaved copy for a new Ed.n? I should then avail myself of several technical terms which I before avoided to use. Mine was done too

6 2,500 copies of the first edition of Lyell’s, Principles of Geology, vol. 3, were printed. much in a hurry & is very deficient, tho’ liked with all its imperfections. The influenza is in the house & my two sisters & Mrs Lyell are sufferers. Mrs Lyell desires to be rememb.d & believe me ever most truly yours ChaLyell

P.S. The German Translation of my work proceeds with speed & success & the Translator Hartmann writes that Von Buch has come round to my theory. Boue7 omits my 2.d vol. in the account of the work of 1832 & Deshayes in his letter expresses his wonder that my book is not translated into French. The fact is there are many interested in keeping it out of sight as it overthrows too much of what they are committed to – believe me ever yours – CL

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ] 102

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 15 July 1833 ]

My dear Mantell

7 Ami Boue (1794 - 1881). German igneous geologist who settled in Paris around 1820. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 590. Once have I written & twice have I called on Albermarle St. to try & see or hear from Murray & have succeeded in neither but at last I have seen his son1 & was assured that the father had written to you & as far as I could learn had declined printing the work2 on the ground of its being too scientific to be popular. I remarked that the book had sold & he said that perhaps his father had erred & he had relinquished the scheme not without doubts on his mind yet in these times every [hasard?] of a book not very popular in its subject matter was dreaded by the bookseller. In fact they are almost in a panic by which I have suffered, for he has printed so small a number of my 3.d vol. (at least the first half) in proportion to the first editions that we are now under the necessity of printing it twice over & thus losing the profit of a large number. I was greatly disapp.d at the result & cannot yet understand upon what he is proceeding if indeed he knows himself for really he has been doing business of late in a strange irregular way & from the extreme of rashness by which he fooled away 2 fortunes has gone into that of excess of caution. Have you thought of Fitton’s friend Longman who is now to publish the Hastings guide as a separate pamphlet. Jack Fuller3 has endowed a professorship of chemistry at Royal Inst.n & appointed Faraday first Prof.r & talks of making next year a chair of Comparative Anat.y. I suppose £100 a y.r. Oh that it were 1,000 £ & that you had it! Then sh.d we work together & make something of the age of reptiles. Last Wed.y we had a paper4 by Hutton5 showing that every variety of Newcastle coal retains the vegetable structure! when you cut thin slices & magnify them. I have agreed to give 7 lectures in the theatre of Royal Instit.n after Easter besides my course of 12 at K.C. so that I must get on with my book of wh I am printing the 17.th Ch. the 26.th to be the last. When you were here I was only at the 9.th. Webster was not to have lectured at the R.I. so that I do not interfere with him. He has his hands full of other matters now, what I know not, but

1 John Murray, Junior (1808 - 1892). London, publisher. DNB. 2 See Letter 96, (notes 3 and 4). 3 John Fuller (1757 - 1834). Of Rose Hill, Sussex. M.P. for County of Sussex 1801-12. A rich eccentric. During his lifetime he gave £1,000 to the Royal Institution where he founded a Professorship of Comparative Anatomy and Physiology a few weeks before his death. The Gentleman's Magazine, 1834, II, p. 106. 4 W. Hutton, ‘Observations on Coal’, PGSL, 1826-1833, 1, pp. 415-417. 5 William Hutton (1797 - 1860). English stratigrapher and palaeobotanist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, we can get him to do nothing as of old in way of teaching or drawing. With my rememb.s to Mrs Mantell & many thanks for your attention in sending the nice section wh was just what I wanted[.] believe me ever most truly yours ChaLyell

16 Hart St. July 15

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes ]

103

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Bonn, July 25. [ 1833 ]

My dear Mantell

vol. 2, p. 1358. I am just leaving this place for a tour of about a month by Mayence & its environs which I mean to explore, Heidelberg, where I stay a day or two with Leonhard1 – Muggendorf and its caves, Solenhofen – Baireuth & Count Munster2 & the Munsterian Museum – Frankfurt & then by Spessart & Taunus mountains to Bonn again. I fear that those pertinaceous Dutch men will effectively shut me out from visiting Maestricht on my way home. I shall however see the Maestricht beds in part of Belgium & France. My clerk, who is returning to town will take this which is principally to inform you that on my way from Calais to Paris I stopped at Beauvais & went over a small part of the “Valley of Bray” with M. Graves3 & found it as I expected – counterpart to the Weald denud.n & Elevation. His collection being the most extensive yet made of the fossils of your beds I requested him for the sake of science to promote an exchange of fossils with you for he is very rich in duplicates. He said he would do it with pleasure & had long wished it but could not presume to offer to begin without being introduced to you. Perhaps he has already written to you, if not, it is because he has a great deal of modesty which his country men are not usually troubled with. He will be delighted if you open a correspondence & as I know by experience will give most liberally even without exchange. He has a vast opinion of you & your work but does not read English – so write in french. I begged him among other things to send the Pecopteris of Tilgate from his country & other supposed proof of the Wealden beds being in valley of Bray. They have there a set of clays & ferruginous sands underneath the regular firestone beds which look just like our English green sand series. In some white sands like some in Sussex, veget. rem.s numerous, said to be like Tilgate & if so certainly associated with marine which over & underlie them & are I believe Green Sand. An active exchange between you & Graves would do much to settle these points & enrich your museum. You know how difficult it is to find time to write when on the move. I shall be continually travelling till beginning of Sept.r when I hope to be in town for a while before going to Scotland. My wife begs her kind rememb.s I

1 Carl Casar von Leonhard (1779 - 1862). Professor of Mineralogy and Geognosy, Heidelberg.Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1553. 2 Count Geog Augustus Frederik Munster (1776 - 1844). Palaeotologist who made a particular study of fossils from the lithographic stone at Solenhofen, Bavaria. Woodward, History of Geology, p. 54. 3 Louis Graves (1791 - 1857). Fossil collector and Secretary of Prefecture, Beauvais, France. beg mine to Mrs Mantell & believe me ever most truly yours ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ]

104

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 16 September 1833 ]

My dear Mantell

Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 1135. I was sorry to find that you had not opened a correspondence with M. Graves whose address is in full as I gave it – Secretaire de la Prefecture, Beauvais. Pray begin your communications with him1 prepared as you doubtless have been by reading the bulletin of the Soc. geol. of Paris in which the valley of the Braye was so much spoken of. [*]2 I have just arrived from Dover having passed thro’ Belgium in my way. I saw there at Liege the collection of Dr. Schmerling3 who in three years has by his own exertions & the incessant labour of a clever amateur servant has cleared out some 20 caves untouched by any previous searcher & has filled a truly splendid museum. He numbers already thrice the number of fossil cavern mammalia, known when Buckland wrote his “idola specûs” & such is the prodigious number of the indiv.s of some species, the bears for example of which he has 5 species, one large one new, that several entire skeletons will be constructed. Oh, that the Lewes chalk had been cavernous! – & he has these & a number of yet unexplored, & shortly to be investigated holes all to himself – but envy him not – you can imagine what he feels at being far from a metropolis wh can afford him sympathy & having not one congenial soul at Liege, & none who takes any interest in his discoveries save the Priests – & what kind they take you may guess more especially as he has found human remains in breccia imbedded with the extinct species, under circums.s far more difficult to get over than any I have previously heard of. The three coats or layers of stalagmite cited by me at Choquier are true. Talking of the Priests they have obtained grants for new monkish establishm ts. in Liege while the University of Ghent falls to the ground, & the Protestant Prof.s are cashiered, & King W’s4 patronage of Nat. Hist. excluded. The movement was mainly one of catholic bigots ag.t a King who wished to introduce schools, & who whatever faults he committed was of all European sovereigns the greatest promoter & most judicious patron of phys. science. Leopold5 has nothing left for it but to lean on the priests reinforced as they are by the Jesuits exiled from France. But as yet the Belgian Press is

1 The Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 44 contains 2 letters from Graves to Mantell dated 30 May 1834 and 10 February 1830. The former letter is a reply to one from Mantell. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 401. 3 Phillipe Charles Schmerling (1791 - 1836). Belgian palaeontologist and speleologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 2063. 4 King William I. (1772 - 1843). King of the Netherlands and from 1815-1830, King of the United Netherlands, created from Belgium and Holland. Collins Encyclopedia, vol. 23, 1975, p. 493. 5 King Leopold 1. (1790 - 1865). Constitutional monarch of Belgium following the 1830 revolution. free, with that there is always hope. I examined near Mons strata of the age of Maestricht & collected shells of wh. 250 spec. have been found & were shown me by Count Duchatel.6 I saw those newer beds reposing on white chalk with flints & this on chloritic chalk & chalk marl or malm, very soft & clayey full of upper G. Sand shells (pecten 5 – costatus &c) the ancient shore of the Chalk there resting upon inclined mountain limest. is still seen as the quarries are worked out, strewed with pebbles of coralline limest. (mountain) of old red sandst, coal, shale &c – these pebbles covered with Green sand species of plagiostoma, patella, emarginula &c, the softer old red pebbles bored by fistulana of wh. the shells remain – the subjacent limest. seen in situ perforated by large regular sarcophagous hollows. But better than all rents & sinuous cavities are seen in the underlying limest. into wh. the sand of the “malm” or “firestone” beds to speak Sussex to you, fell & into wh. innumerable shells of the cretaceous era were drifted. These shells escaped being stonified & consequently 200 species the same as in the marl are in a state of perfection rarely equalled by tertiary shells – Terebratula loose & with all the internal parts entire. It is a wonderful country & well ramsacked by Duchatel who took me to the best localities.[*] I have formed a plan for travelling annually for many months in the season best fitted for lecturing in town, & for this reason & because I find lectures interfere with my time which I require for getting on in so vast a science, I have resigned my Profess.p at King’s College & have also intimated that I do not intend to lecture again at the Royal Instit n. I hope & doubt not that some good lecturers will be found for there is a field for some one who can not command opportunities of study & investigation of which I hope to take full advantage. Your Lewes friend & neighbour “Kell”?7 appeared at Bonn & I offered him any assistance in my power but he required none & was on the way. You will be surprised to hear that coming to me as he did a perfect stranger, & having to introduce himself, he called at Mr Horner’s in company with 3 other men! all of whom he presented on the strength of your letter to me for

Chambers Encyclopedia, vol.18, 1973, p. 488. 6 Probably Comte de Duchatel, Chas. Marie T., (1803 - 1867). French Statesman. DUB. 7 Christopher Kell Esq. of Lewes was one of the subscribers to Mantells, The Fossils of the South Downs, Relfe, London, 1822. On 8 April 1841 Mantell recorded in his Private Journal that “My kind old friend Mr Kell of Lewes is just dead”. GAM-PJ. the sake of enabling one of them named Hunter, a vulgarish man whom he (Kell) had picked up acquaintance with that morning, to catechize & consult the Horners on the delicate subject of his son’s education & the Professor under whom he might best place him &c. Notwithstand.g the difficulty of making the party feel that I felt this incursion of the Calmucks most unwarrantable, seeing that I was obliged to comport myself before the ladies with politeness, I flatter myself that without wounding the feelings of your friend, I made his hangers-on depart without any wish to repeat that experiment. It is impossible for either you or me to guard against these things but I write the whole adventure as it took place. Do not let my friendship prevent you introducing any of your friends to Mr. Horner wh. he would much regret. Mrs Lyell is quite well & writes in kind rememb.e to you & Mrs Mantell believe me yours very truly ChaLyell

Sept. 16. 1833 16 Hart St. Lond.n

P.S. I am here for a few weeks on my way to my fathers in Scotland – very busy but shall be delighted to see you when sent here on some profess.l consult.n with Cooper Brodie &c. Enquiries were made to me in Germany in more than one place on the subject of your last vol & whether the former work was still to be had.

[Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Castle Place, Lewes, Sussex ] 105

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 16 Dec? 1833 ]1 Dear Mantell Mr Daniell’s mother has died suddenly & the lectures in Chemistry have in consequence been suspended for a fortnight. Come to breakfast with me punctually at 9ck. I have something important to communicate to you about your Brighton scheme. At 10ck we will be at Turner’s2 Chemistry lecture. ever most truly yrs ChaLyell Monday [Addressed to: G.Mantell Esq. Salopian Coffee H.s, Charing Cross]

106

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 13 January 1834 ] My dear Mantell I happened to be calling at Mrs Phillip’s (R.A.)3

1 Letter not dated by Lyell. The indicated month of ‘query December’ has been subsequently written on this note. 2 Edward Turner (1798 - 1837). Professor of Chemistry, University College, London 1828-37. DNB. 3 Probably the wife of Thomas Phillips R.A.(1770 - 1845). Professor of Painting at the Royal Academy 1825-32. DNB. this morning & she told me as a piece of news that Ld. Egrement,4 at whose house she often stays, had given you £1,000 to assist you in your removal of the Museum to Brighton. I told her that this was premature &c, that I had just heard from you. She said that “rejected addresses” Smith5 had told her the news who had it from you. I am glad to hear you like the look of the collection now. I am certainly as strong as ever in my opinion which I gave you & have had several opportunities of hearing both before & since the judgments of others on the point, but you must form your views on such an important question from your own feelings & after duly weighing not my reasons only & my individual sentiments but those of the majority of advisers whose judgment you can trust & whose disinteredness you are sure of. Nothing certainly will be lost by delaying a little in the first instance to satisfy curiosity, in case of you thinking it afterwards desirable to gratify it in the way which some would recommend you. It is impossible for us to know what may be prudent for you in a pecuniary point of view without knowing more than I can, both of the fair & reasonable chances of advantage from an exhibition, or of your means from other sources. But if a temporary delay could be tried at least till you knew whether Ld. E. will come forward it would I should have thought have been well worth the experiment. Mrs Phillips says that Ld. E. is only just out of his bed room so I think nothing of his not seeing or writing to you. I am sorry to hear you have been ill but do not wonder, such excitement would have killed me but after a time you will get into smooth water. Mr Sterling of Knightsbridge was talking the other day of the beauties of your collection & your great power of making it interesting & instructive to beginners like himself. The other day I spent a day with Fitton & on my offering to give him some facts about the green sand of Aix la chapelle Mrs Fitton cried out “Oh, pray, Mr L. do not give him more matter, for that paper has been more than 11 years doing & all because new matter is coming in”. Lonsdale says the Trans. cannot be out till May at soonest. He has a large cart load of fossil wood wh. looks magnificent & he seemed surprised you had not accepted his offer & taken some of it.

4 George O’Brien Wyndham, third Earl of Egrement (1751 - 1837). Lord Lieutenant of Sussex 1819- 35. Patron of Mantell. DNB and GAM-PJ, entry 1 May 1834. 5 James Smith (1775 - 1839). English author and humourist. Produced with his brother, Horatio, Did you ever hear from M. Graves of Beauvais, or exchange Bray fossils with him. Fitton longs as I do to hear the result. It may settle whether the weald formation is allied to the lower green sand. Mrs Lyell desires her kindest remembrances – with mine to Mrs Mantell believe me ever most truly yours ChaLyell Jany. 13 1834.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. 20 Steyne, Brighton, Sussex ]6

107

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Rejected Addresses, 1812. DNB. 6 On 21 Dec. 1833 Mantell’s family settled at their new address, 20 Steyne, Brighton. GAM-PJ. [ 2? March 1834 ]1

My dear Mantell Mrs Lyell & I have been regretting that we cannot call on Mrs Mantell from not knowing where to find her or seek her address. Will you be so kind as to send it that I may make the ladies acquainted. You must be prepared to wait & I conclude that your great object at present is your medical book. When in full practice you will have no time for it & many get on entirely from having written on some common & often fashionable complaints. You write with facility & if you took pains you might much benefit yourself by that. I have great faith in your talents & genius which under circumstances sufficient to prevent the rise of an ordinary man will carry you thro’ eventually. I have not seen the Lancet. Your medical friends will puff your science now as once at Lewes but as then I am sure you will if prudent & discreet overcome their jealousy. Dr Fitton writes I am afraid that there is chalk diluvium on the cliff- tops near Hastings. At least I came last night (as unexpectedly as I should upon the things themselves) upon a memorand.m in a note-book of 1830 “that a run of mud from the cliffs East of Hastings was composed of clay, including flints of the chalk in worn pieces & I add that if the mass were solidified it would look very like Hertfordsh. Puddingst”. I had previously as I think I told you regular red loamy diluvium (for want of other name) precisely like that which fills the cavities in the top of the chalk, from the top of the Lower green sand & two places near the chalk in Surrey & at a 3d. about 5 miles from the chalk in Kent. Murchison has the same thing or nearly in Hants & you have yourself mentioned another case in Sussex so we are encroaching upon your exempted territory on every side. – Highwood Hill 2.d March. 1834 – Sund.y Your observation this morning about the Elephant bed bears on this. I suggested to Fitton that the Brighton & Dover breccia seemed to show a newer Pliocene elevation & that this may have extended round the coast to Hastings, just as now suppose an elevation & there might be recent deposits all round the hills or tops of the cliffs along the coast of Sussex & Kent on chalk, Tilgate beds & all. But tell me your opinion after reperusing if

1 Mid-way through this letter Lyell indicated the date as Sunday 2 March 1834. However, the letter is post-marked 22 March 1834. necessary all I have said of my exempted district. I am most willing as I am sure you are to modify or abandon any theory & even to take Martin’s extension of crag & all from Norfolk to Brighton, but I do not yet believe it. Must not the Eocene tertiaries even according to Martin’s views have been cleared away before the elephant bed was thrown down upon the downs! It is not the coral here that is the consideration, but I must stick to my work having been absent from town 5 months last summer. Thanks for your hints about Boothia which shall not be lost on me. I have two letters to write now one as For. Sec. G.S. & one to Rome so must conclude or I could go on for hours on the Weald theory. Send me a critique on Lyell on that subject. I have Fitton’s M.S. notes on reading it & it is well scarified I promise you. But for all that it will set people thinking. Believe me ever most truly yrs Charles Lyell

Old Mr Wishaw2 at a party at Mr Principal Otter’s3 the other day was describing with glee the great lizard discovered by you in that country “where one meets with nothing new in every direction but Sir Edward Sugden”.4 Being a very strong Whig & friend of Brougham5 & hating Sugden & evidently deploring the sad change for the worse in these degenerate days, he made some Whig M.P.’s of the Parl. laugh most heartily – since with all their party feelings they had begun to imagine that an iguanodon was no very agreeable country neighbour in the Tilgate woodlands.

2 John Wishaw F.R.S. 1815, The Record of the Royal Society, London, (4th. ed.), 1940. 3 William Otter (1768 - 1840). Principal of King’s College, London, 1831-36. Subsequently Bishop of Chichester. DNB. 4 Sir Edward Burtenshaw Sugden (1781 - 1875). Tory M.P. Solicitor General 1829-30, Irish Chancellor 1834-35. DNB. 5 Henry Peter Brougham (1778 - 1868). Founded Society for Diffusion of Useful Knowledge 1825. M.P. Elevated to peerage 1830. DNB. [Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton, Sussex]

108

G.A. Mantell to Charles Lyell1

20 Steyne, April 11 1834 My dear friend, I am very greatly obliged by your kind letter and note: I had deferred writing in the hope of having something of interest to communicate to you, since I could not give you Mrs Mantell’s address, as she was almost hourly changing her residence in consequence of her mother, son, & daughter being situated in three different & [remote junctions?] of the metropolis. Mrs M. intended to have had the honour & pleasure of calling on Mrs Lyell, but was prevented by the constant demands on her time: she returned last week very unwell, & has been since confined to her bed, but is now better. I have been engaged in a round of visits, and if an introduction to the first circles here had been my object in coming to Brighton I should have completely succeeded. The Bishop of Chichester, Dr Maltby,2 has been staying here, and I have dined in his company three times: last week he came with a select party to see my collection and I devoted two hours to him, with which he was much gratified: I need not mention that he is most liberal in his opinions, for I believe you know him. At my house when I met him on Friday morning, Fairholme’s scriptural geology3 was open on the table and the Bishop asked my opinion of it: I immediately pointed out to him the author’s utter ignorance of his subject, by referring to the page where he boldly states the clays & sands in the south & east of England were brought down by the

1 Transcribed from a copy of the original letter held at Kinnordy House, Kirriemuir. 2 Edward Maltby (1770 - 1859). FRS. Bishop of Chichester 1831, Bishop of Durham 1835-56. DNB. 3 G. Fairholme, General View of the Geology of Scripture, in which the Unerring Truth of the Inspired Narrative of the Early Events in the World is Exhibited, and Distinctly Proved, by the Corroborative Testimony of Physical Facts, on Every Part of the Earth’s Surface, Ridgeway London, 1833. waters of the Deluge and lie in a basin of the chalk! The Bishop expressed his astonishment at the utter ignorance, or persecution of the truth evinced by the author, and his deep regret that the public mind should be so unenlightened as to encourage such publications. My professional prospects are not brighter, but my friends here are still sanguine of my ultimate success and they appeal to the introduction which my museum has given me, as an [account?] of what is to follow. The ladies are all anxious to be introduced to me; and wherever I go, however large & miscellaneous the party may be, I am singled out to be introduced to the Countess — and Lady — &c. I will write a book; and that too forthwith – if I do not succeed it shall not be for want of exertion. I find that it is quite necessary I should see the visitors to the museum, for since I have adopted that plan, I have become more known. I am trying to establish a medical society, and scientific converzationes. I find that it will be impossible to go on with my geological researches in the [weald?] – [I am ?] [four words indecipherable] of every thing – and even the chalk pits at Lewes [will?] no longer [be?] accessible to me. I more than ever long to see you here, and to take you along the cliffs beyond Rottingdean towards Newhaven, and I shall still cling to the hope that as soon as the spring is a little advanced & the weather milder, you will come & spend a day or two with me. I am quite certain you would be deeply interested in some facts I could point out to you here. As I have nothing else within my reach, I shall continue to examine this coast; as well as the action of the sea on the detritus of the coast. I see nothing objectionable in your theory of the weald, and believe it is most agreeable to known facts. This much is quite certain that over the whole of the surface of the wealden there is a remarkable (if not entire) absence of the detritus of the chalk formation: the exceptions best prove the rule. I have asked scores of the road Surveyors if they ever find flints, or gravel for road materials on the surface of the wealden, & all have replied in the negative. On the Shanklin or Lower Green Sand in the west of Sussex there are beds of partially rolled chalk flints extending for miles & from two to 3 or 4 feet in thickness; like that bed which at Barcombe lies on the weald clay. But I could write for hours on this subject. Come down and go with me to the cliffs, hear all I have to say, and then solve the question. The bones of a large saurian have been found in the Kentish rag near Maidstone: the proprietor4 (the avarice of the large quarries) has written to me & sent drawings but they are too undefined to enable me to make anything of them. The man is very civil, but will not part with them, nor lend me a vertebra. I have sent him specimens to compare with them, & I think we may determine it is not an Ichthyosaurus. In girth the proportions of the vertebra are more like those of our Wealden Saurians: if this monster should belong to any of these it will prove that the country of the Iguanodon existed after the ocean of the chalk had covered one of its deltas. The proprietor promises to send me further particulars. I could go to Maidstone (& much I should enjoy a trip thither) but I am afraid to stir from my post. What does Babbage say about the temple of Serapis? Does he dispute your explanation of the phenomenon. Is Sedgwick better? what is the nature of his accident? Did I tell you his friend Earl Fitzwilliam with Lord Liverpool called on me & went into my Museum – but I was from house. Mrs Mantell writes with me in kindest remembrances to Mrs L. Ever Yours my dear friend. Most faithfully GMantell

109

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 20 May 1834 ]

4 The owner of the quarry was Mr. W.H. Benstead of Maidstone. For a full account of this incident see E.W. Swinton, ‘Gideon Mantell and the Maidstone Iguanodon’, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 1951, 8, pp. 261-276. My dear Mantell I am off for Sweden via Hamburgh in 10 hours & have ordered a copy of my book1 if it sh.d appear before my return to be sent to you. You will see what I have said in Ch. in v.4. on Secondary form.s as to absence of mammalia & monopoly of lizards. I have only skimmed your note on Fairholm2 [sic] but shall reread it tomorrow. You are much more favourably placed than I am for seeing what influence such work as F. have on the general reader. It is my daily wonder that with that we are so popular. You will do much good by such musketry as you are firing off in the newspapers, as to bringing down the artillery of a Camb. Prof. are they worth it or is not every man who devotes his talents to Geol.y flying at higher game than writing against men who after all do not wish to look truth in the face. There is one point I wish you would put in one of your short critiques. When a man like F. takes up geol.y for a few months & attacks those who have worked at it for years, he is let off if he commits such blunders as you have exposed with “It was well meant” – “He is not strong but his intentions were good &c” – Instead of being accused of dishonesty for rashly approaching such a subject. Put the other case of a man of science a sceptic equally ignorant of the bible attacking it. what would then be said. Do not be impatient & expect to succeed by miracles at Brighton. You are safe. I am only going to take an 8 weeks excursion in Sweden, a 16 weeks absence from home. If I find our positive proof of recent elevation it will be a sufficient return. with my rememb.s to Mrs Mantell & thanks for your hospitable interest believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

Lond.n 20 May 1834 –

1 In May 1834 a new edition of Principles of Geology was published in four volumes and called the third edition. 2 George Fairholme, Biblical Literalist and author of General View of the Geology of Scripture, in which the Unerring Truth of the Inspired Narrative of the Early Events in the World is Exhibited., London, 1833. See letter 108, note 3. [ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

110

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 1 October 1834 ]

My dear Mantell [*]1 I am here again, returned with my wife a few days ago from the Edinburgh meeting2 which went off in my opinion very well. After my return from Sweden I passed some weeks at my father’s in Forfarshire where among other visitors during my father’s absence in Paris I had to entertain R. Brown the botanist for several days, who was good company & had lately returned from a short excursion with Fitton in Portland where he had collected the ‘cycas’ as he now admits one may call it for he has discovered new points of identity in its structure with the modern cycas. In Sweden I satisfied myself that both on the baltic & ocean side part of that country is really undergoing a gradual & unusually slow rise – a sketch of my observations which I gave in Edinburgh3 to the geological section is already printed by Jamieson & the detailed paper4 on the subject I mean to read to Royal Soc y.[*] I hope a copy of my new Editn. sent to Relfe during my absence for you, reached you at Brighton. I shall be very glad to hear that you are well, & how you have been employing your time & whether as I hope you have made progress in a medical work which is to show the jealous public that you

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 442. 2 In September 1834 the annual BAAS meeting was held in Edinburgh.

3 C. Lyell, ‘On the Change of Level of the Land and Sea in Scandinavia’, BAAS Report, 1835, 4, pp. 652-654. 4 C. Lyell, ‘On the Proofs of a gradual rising of the Land in certain parts of Sweden’, Phil. Trans., 1835, 125, pp. 1-38. have given your time to that as successfully as to scientific researches. I have perfect faith in your ultimate success provided you can keep up your courage. [*]5 In Edinburgh I promised to accompany Agassiz to see your collection; this month, to Brighton & I expect him here in a week but he will be here some 10 days I suppose before leaving for you. He has found about 100 new species of English ichthyolites making 700 fossils in all. He made out that all the supposed saurians of the carbonifs. period of Scotland were only sauroidal fish & that Hibbert6 was so far out but they were very curious & new forms of fish. His readiness & knowledge are surprising & you will find him very skilful in reptiles tho’ he does not profess to know anything about them except that he maintains he can prove the pterodactyls to have been swimming & not flying animals!!! I have been sketching & making some progress in a single vol. which 2 y rs. ago I promised Murray, a purely elementary work for beginners on Geol.y – & which I find more agreeable work than I expected.[*] Have you found any new fossils. I will try & look into some duplicates for you of my recent upraised shell-beds of Sweden. [*]7 I have begun fossil icthyology & am attending Daniells lectures on chem.y so I have enough to do – my wife joins in kind regards to you – with my remembrances to Mrs Mantell believe me [*]

ever faithfully yrs ChaLyell 16 Hart St. 1834.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

5 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 442. 6 Samuel Hibbert-Ware (1782 - 1848). Antiquary and geologist. Assumed the name of Ware in 1837.DNB. 7 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, p. 442. 111

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

16 Hart St. Thursdy. 1834 23 Oct. My dear Mantell At last I have seen Agassiz who is only just arrived in town. I have been waiting in order to name a day & we have fixed on next Wednesday – Octr. 29 & shall go by an early coach in the morning from here. If you have one bed you will of course give that to Agassiz, to have him with you in the same house is essential; but also on the score of economy we must save every shilling for him we can in this, to him most costly expedition. You will probably not have 2 beds so get me one (a bedroom only) near you. My wife will I hope accompany. That is my present plan as she has promised to be with my mother who has no room for me. Be so kind as to let my mother know by 2ry. Post that we come on Wed y. next. I only learnt this morning that my mother was fixed at Brighton & was glad she had seen you there on an unpleasant subject. It was agreed that I should not introduce her to you until she was quite settled. I want to see your hippurite. Are you quite sure it is one. I think I saw it once when you brought it here. I sh.d like a figure. My rememb.s to Mrs Mantell & believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

112 Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 10 November 1834 ]

My dear Mantell I send a copy of my book for Prof.r Silliman & a note, & also the things which Agassiz left which I only got today from him after his departure. As time has been lost I send them not to Relfe, but direct to you, carriage paid. I am sorry to hear that my mother has been ill again, & that the leeches have had so unpleasant an effect. I have done my best in town to tell them how well you are getting on at Brighton & was glad to hear that confirmed by my sister’s letter this morning. Of your professional success I entertain no doubt. I hope Mrs Mantell is better. My last letter from Brighton mentioned that she was. Agassiz’s paper1 went off famously at Geol. Socy. He has given me a great excitement to obtain a knowledge of the vertebrata & I bought a good skeleton of a hedgehog on which he gave me a most entertaining lecture. I am getting Flower to make me some fish skeletons. Deshayes writes me word from Paris that his work on fossils (shells) is just coming out to be completed in a year. Murchison is getting on with his book on the greywacke. My paper on Sweden2 is to be read, at least the first half of it on the 27 th of this month. I send you a Scotchman containing a geological article by Maclaren3. With Mrs L.’s regards to you & Mrs M believe me very truly yrs ChaLyell

1 L.J.R. Agassiz, ‘On a new Classification of Fishes, and on the Distribution of Fossil Fishes’, PGSL, 1834-1837, 2, pp. 99-102. 2 C. Lyell, The Bakerian Lecture, ‘On the Proofs of a gradual Rising of the Land in certain parts of Sweden’, [27 November 1834], Phil. Trans., 1835, 125, pp. 1-38. 3 Charles Maclaren (1782 - 1866). Scottish newspaper editor, classicist and amateur geologist. Wrote in the Scotsman on geology. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1631. 16 Hart St Nov.r 10 . 1834

P.S. One of Agassiz’s papers is yours sent for you & one for Silliman. [*]4 I have sent one or two Uddevalla shells which I had forgot.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

113

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 10 December 1834 ] My dear Mantell I have been putting off writing to you until I could communicate something about the Hippurite of Mr Hudson5 & now I can say that it is no hippurite at all, nor sphirulite nor anything else of the family of the “Rudistes”, but a Linnean balanus of the modern genus Conia of Leach, of which if I mistake not the Balanus porosus of Lenn. was the type. The thing is quite clear & I will give you the details by & by but want first to be sure of my suspicions that yours is another spec. of same genus. I mean to give a small wood cut of Hudson’s specimen & should be glad of one of a piece of yours if you could get some Brighton artist to do it at my expense, – unless you should rather give it yourself in some public.n In that case a rough pen or pencil sketch in a letter would be quite enough now to tell me whether it was of the same genus as H.’s or not. [*]6 I ought to thank you for the warmth of your congratulations on

4 This sentence was written in pencil – not by Lyell, on the back page of the note-paper. 5 Possibly the Rev. Robert Hudson (1802 - 1883) whose fossil collection was presented to the British Museum in 1907. R.J. Cleevely, World Palaeontological Collections, 1983, p. 157. 6 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 443. my receiving the R.S. medal7 which were sent me thro’ my sister & assure you that the pleasure they received from it was doubled by having you to talk it over with & witnessing your ecstasies at the news. You will be glad to hear that Greenough who presided at the Geol. Committee of the G.S. obtained by letter the suffrages of many absent geologists, how many I know not, but a letter of Fitton’s which was read by him to the Council had no small influence, & assisted in overuling G.’s own doubts which were strong on theoretical grounds.[*] Four grounds for granting the medal were drawn up & well conceived to prevent the Soc.y from being compromised to the most disputed of my theme. The medal was to be awarded to work done in 5 preceeding years & not confined to England. [*]8 I can enter fully into your opinion of the importance of the medal as supporting me & my bold views against the power of which a certain party are fully willing to take advantage. The R.S. is most thoroughly above all that humbug & if there had been a little more cry against me on theological grounds I should only have been the more sure of it.[*] Your being at Brighton has been a great comfort to my mother – a great source of amusement & instruction to the whole party & I regret as much as they do that when they move to Hastings, “they will lose their oracle”. I shall be most happy to avail myself of your kind offer to look over my chapter on Reptiles in my Elements. It is skeletal but I shall not finish it for 6 or 8 weeks yet. [*]9 Sedgwick’s prebendal stall is 700 a year, 2 months residence & he is now giving occasional sermons in the Cathedral of Norwich & very popular with the Dean whom I saw the other day.[*] Lonsdale thinks that Buckland means to unsay much of his old diluvial creed in the Bridgewater essay, that this is the last news about it. [*]10 The medal was given me distinctly for the ‘Principles’ not for my paper on Sweden which is half read the remainder to be heard on Thursd.y 18

7 In 1834 the Royal Society awarded 2 Royal Medals, valued at 50 guineas each. Lyell’s award was for his work, Principles of Geology. The other medal was awarded to John William Lubbock for his papers on the Tides. Phil.Trans., 1835, 125, p. vi.. 8 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 410. 9 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell , LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 443. 10 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 443. th.[*] I shall be glad to hear how you are getting on & whether Mrs Mantell is continuing to mend. Mrs Lyell sends her kind regards & believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell 16 Hart St. Dec. 10 1834

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

114

G. A. Mantell to Charles Lyell 1

20 Steyne Dec.r 12 th. 1834 My dear Lyell I avail myself of the opportunity of sending a parcel to town, to comply with your wishes, & enclose the three specimens (all I have) of the pseudo-hippurite. I was, as you know, always doubtful of their claim because of the absence of those curious longitudinal internal ridges; but Sedgwick, Murchison, Conybeare, & Dr. Buckland all pronounced them to be Hippurites when I took them to Oxford the year before last. I care not what you make of them so as you retain the specific name of Mortoni, for I cannot allow Dr. Morton to be robbed of his honours. I enclose two specimens of my own, & four of a friend, which I cannot satisfactorily determine. Also two shells from Gibraltar of which I formerly spoke & which are great rarities: be very careful of these particularly of the one with the markings What is the specimen from Hampstead? I cannot at all understand how you will make my large group balance: but I have never seen the recent species you mention. I do indeed congratulate you most sincerely on your richly merited honour ; it is a triumph for your disciples as well as for yourself. I have sent

1 Transcribed from a transcribed copy ex ATL. Original letter at APS. the news to America. Silliman from whom I heard this morning is impatient to see your new edition & which is now on its way to him. He continues to lecture away to audiences of from 5 to 800! at Boston, & other large towns in the U.S. & he says the subject becomes more & more popular: notwithstanding the ultra-religious prejudices of the Americans, he boldly states your doctrines, and at the same time assures his hearers, that they do not in any wise affect the correctness of the Mosaic record. I cannot condemn him for this: he will do more good than by running a tilt with the saints. He says Greenough has used me very shamefully by neglecting to notice the publication of my book or rather the Hylaeosaurus paper2 in his annual report of the progress of british Geology: I think so too, but I am more than made amends by the good opinion of foreign savans. I very much regret Mrs Lyell is about to leave this place, because I cannot think Miss L. will gain any benefit by the removal. I would not venture to state my opinion boldly respecting Miss L. because I felt it would be improperly interfering with the mode of treatment recommended by your family physician; although entre nous, I cannot but think that treatment very inefficient. Your Mother has so strictly adhered to her determinations not to go out in the evening that unfortunately for us we have seen but very little of her: and altho' I have much wished it, I have not been able to persuade her or your sisters to give one two or three hours of their company that I might show them very many objects of interest that are shut up in drawers or boxes: & which I very much regret. Among the bones recently obtained from Tilgate Forest I have some of great interest: one in particular which is quite new to me, & differs from any I have previously seen or read of. In some of the caudal vertebra of the Mosasaurus the chevron bone is anchylosed to the vertebra, a character which distinguishes it (says Cuvier) from all known fossil and recent reptiles: it is a character belonging to fishes it gives great solidity to the tail. Now a caudal vertebra I found last week in the sandstone of Tilgate

2 Mantell's paper on his Hylaeosaurus discovery comprised Chapter X in his book, The Geology of the South-east of England, Longman, London, 1833, pp. 289-333. Forest has a chevron bone of the crocodile type proceeding from the body of the vertebra; not anchylosed by disease but evidently a normal character. The bone is longer than those of the Iguanodon, and in fact bears but little resemblance to the vertebra of Ig. or Megalosaurus: these last have the true lizard chevron-bone. It is concave on both faces, & there are rudiments of transverse processes proving that it belongs to the middle part of the tail. I have another vertebra which from its shape I think may belong to the same animal but in this there are two tubercles for the attachment of the chevron bone as in the crocodile, but then the situation of these tubercles is not crocodilian. From my present imperfect data I am induced to infer that the vertebra belong to a new reptile (very probably many bones in my possession belong to it also, for I am sure there are many more reptiles than have yet been determined in the Wealden) related to the crocodile, but essentially differing in some of its osteological characters. Who can I apply to for information on the subject? Alas! that Cuvier is taken from us! Mr Martin3 the painter has sent me a proof print of his Deluge before the letters worth 12 guineas! is not this munificent. Nearly 60 were at my house on tuesday[.] I verily believe I do more towards popularizing the science than any one. I am the jackal for you & Buckland, & the great ones of the earth! I put off writing till tonight in the expectation of a quiet hour for you: but I am called away & mirabile dictu – to a patient ! I have some nice plants from the Weald and there are some small seed vessels which I think differ from Brongniart’s [Carpol.?] Mantelli. When you see Dr. Grant4 pray ask him about the vertebra, the question is whether (the Mosasaurus excepted) there are any recent or fossil saurians with the chevron bone “soude” as Cuvier has it to the body of the vertebra. Mrs Mantell is quite well and writes with me in kindest regards to Mrs Lyell and yourself. Ever sincerely yours G. Mantell

3 John Martin (1789 - 1854). Landscape painter who painted the ‘The Deluge’ in 1826. DNB.

4 Robert Edmond Grant (1793 - 1874). Professor of Comparative Anatomy and Zoology at London When the specimens are done will send them to 17 Cornhill. I shall be up the end of January.

[ Addressed to: C. Lyell Esq. 16 Hart St. Bloomsbury ]

115

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 3 January 1835 ]

My dear Mantell As soon as I could so arrange my plans after the receipt of your kind letter I set off to Hastings with Mrs Lyell to see my mother, ascertain how she was going on, cheer her up as much as possible & write an exact accnt of the state of affairs to my father in Scotland.[*]5 All five of them, the 3 ladies & their 2 Scotch maids have had at Hastings a sort of English Cholera [*] which has added much to the fatigues of getting into place. We found them settled in 13 Pelham Crescent, a good house & my mother better, but it was a sick house & our visit well timed, for the invalid Elizabeth6 had actually been transformed into the nurse, at least the 2.d day of our being there. We were there 3 whole days & I introduced the Miss Fittons, Professor Jones (Polit.l Econ.y K. Coll.) & another friend of mine staying there which with a Scotch family from near Forfarth. of the name of Hewart now at Hastings leaves them tolerably well off for a start, for if too much alone they brood over their subjects of anxiety. When not with them I was chiefly writing but went one day for a few

University 1827-74. DNB. 5 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 410.

6 Elizabeth Lyell, born 19 October 1814, the youngest of the Lyell children and Lyell’s seventh sister. hours along the cliffs & collected cyclas, &c. Some of the sandy beds of the white rock contain great abundance of pieces of shale which must have been deposited then immediately broken up & redeposited, often the shale or laminated clay is diagonally placed thus –

but you must know all this & have often said that the Tilgate & other Wealden beds were broken up & a conglom. of themselves. Have you seen Dr. Boase,7 if not I bought him & received a present of it from from the author so shall be glad to send you the duplicate. Much of it is worth skimming. He is generally wrong & it is a book of doubts & objections, a great deal on Greenough’s way & will, depend upon it be eulogized by him. It is an attempt to pull down almost everything & build up as little as possible. Yet to those whose faith is built on observation & study it is good to read such objections. I shall reply to some of his attacks upon my doctrines of stratification; Plutonic theory, metamorphic strata &c in my Elements. He considers granite veins not to be igneous. He has been hardly out of Cornwall & disputes the observ.ns of all the best geologists as well as their theories when it suits him. On Cornish granite & schist he seems strong. By the way, the Tilgate beds if subjected to a gentle plutonic action [word indecipherable] make a beautiful greywacke series, especially those where the shale is broken up as that which I have sketched. The pieces of shale w.d make various schists when baked. I am under orders to get you a present value about £5. I wish I could get a hint from you whether some anatomical specimen from Flower or a scientific book, or some fossil would be best for you. It would be stupid to

7 Henry Samuel Boase (1799 - 1883). Penzance physician and geologist. DNB. Author of Treatise on Primary Geology, Longman, London, 1834. let me send anything you might possess already. I am delighted to hear that you were overwhelmed you & your horse with business in spite of the diversion made by this vile election which Jones thinks will cause him & other “parsons to go & form one of Owen’s8 parallelograms in America”. Mrs Lyell writes in thanks & kind wishes to yourself & Mrs Mantell & believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

116

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 5 January 1835 ]

My dear Mantell A letter from my sister Caroline9 of which I have given an extract has so much alarmed me that it would be of the greatest comfort to us if you could possibly run down to Hastings both to give advice & if necessary peremptory orders to my mother to move to London for advice. I have written to my brother Henry10 today to beg him as soon as possible to join my mother, for after the 5 days I gave to a visit to Hastings I cannot without a complete sacrifice of my personal engagements, leave town, besides I feel that unless I could live with her a visit would do no good. We cheered her up & she seemed better but I cannot help fearing a relapse & the house

8 Lyell possibly refers to Richard Dale Owen (1810 - 1890), a Scottish born geologist, Professor at Nashville, Tennessee, who theorised that the earth was originally of tetrahedral shape. DNB. 9 Caroline Lyell, born 7 November, 1802. Lyell’s third youngest sister. 10 Henry Lyell, born 21 December 1804, Lyell’s youngest brother and the sixth child of the family. was such a hospital of the sick both my sisters & the maids having been ill & still remaining weak that there should be some healthy person with them. You see the difficulty we are in about my father from the distance & his indisposition which increases so much my responsibility that it would be a great relief to me could you visit Hastings where there is no physician as Miss Fitton told me. Our house here is quite ready for my mother if she is ordered up to town. yours sincerely ChaLyell

Jan.y, 5th. 1835 Mond.y

P.S. Would it be useful especially if you cannot go to Hastings, to mention the symptons to some Lond.n medical man & consult him. Whom would you recommend? In this case my mother’s letter to you on the subject if not burnt could be useful if sent to me. C.L.

Extract from Miss Caroline Lyell’s letter sent to Mantell

13 Pelham Crescent Jan. 4.th

I cannot give you so good an account of Mamma as I could have done on Saturday. She was uncommonly well the first two days after you went but yesterday & today the uncomfortable feelings in her face have returned. She has felt it in her foot today as well as her hand too which she had never done before. I suppose she must take more medicine but she has taken so much lately I should not have thought she could want it. We have heard from Kinnordy & Papa had been so ill & was so still that he could not have left home if he had wished it. What can be done? for I should think Mamma certainly ought to have new advice. I shall tell the girl everything about Mamma’s feelings in the letter we send tomorrow & they must do what they think best about letting Papa know.xxx. Lizzey & I are both convalescent again but feel most dreadfully scary still. Lizzey’s cough is remarkably well & she is taking her half glass of port wine yet. Mamma is not feeling so unwell nearly as she did after our first arrival here so I am in hopes it will go off again tonight. I shall send you word tomorrow.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne Brighton, Sussex ]

117

Mary Elizabeth Lyell (Lyell’s wife) to G. A. Mantell

16 Hart Street Bloomsbury Sq 8 th. Jan.ry 1835 My dear Sir Your letter yesterday arrived at the same time with one from Mrs Lyell1 saying she felt much better, which is a comfort to us in the mean- time, & she has also promised to write to you if there is any change. My brother-in-law went down to Hastings yesterday, so if it should be advisable for Mrs Lyell to remove, he could assist her. I hope that your prescriptions will do her good; we had no idea till yesterday that she had not begun them. I will lose no time in giving you any information I can about Bonn & must try to do it as impartially as I can as it is a place I am very fond of. We certainly found it quite a place for a person of small income to live in, as the habits of the people are extremely simple & moderate, but we lived just as the natives do, & perhaps some English people might not like that. Bonn is not considered a cheap place for Germany, though it has many advantages in that respect for an Englishman, short and easy water transport, quick postage

1 Mrs. Frances Lyell, mother of Charles. &c. House rent is high. Papa had one floor of a house which had been a palace, with extremely handsome rooms 8 or 9 of them I think, which cost £ 45 the year. But this was thought dear. Servants wages very low, from £3 to £6 women I mean. Most provisions low – meat I think 2d. the lb., poultry vegetables &c very cheap. Wearing apparel rather cheaper in some things than with us but not much. The climate, though very pleasant to persons in good health, is thought very trying to those with delicate lungs as there is a strong wind coming down the valley of the Rhine. The German spoken by the common people is far from being pure, but there are plenty of good teachers, & the classes of the University if the scholars are sufficiently advanced. We found the society most agreeable as there is a sufficient mixture. The Professors of the university, the officers of two regiments which have been stationed at Bonn above twelve years, & a few rich families of rank. There is a great deal of society & gaiety during the winter in private parties, but it is not a place which offers many resources to an idle person as there is no theatre, except on rare occasions & no other public amusements. There is an excellent Library attached to the University & they are very liberal in lending the books, & the Museum at Popplelsdorf where Prof. Goldfuss resides, one mile from Bonn is another attraction for some persons. Then the country is extremely beautiful affording numberless walks & rides in every direction, & the people are friendly. I cannot think of anything else to tell you but if you have any other questions to ask I shall be most happy to give you any information or to procure from Papa & Mamma who are more competent to give it than myself. Pray remember me very kindly to Mrs. Mantell & believe me my dear Sir Yours very sincerely Mary Eliz.b Lyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Styne, Brighton, Sussex ]

118 Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[26] Jany. 1835

My dear Mantell As Mr Dinkel was busy I gave him a day to make up his mind & then came Sunday & no post. His terms are as follows, 15 s. per day. His journey outside the coach to & from Brighton. If he goes to you early & works a good half day, or on his return gives you a half days work before he quits you will pay him for that half day. He would arrange to go & return on Sundays (which being holidays he would not charge you for) if you choose so to time him. He observed that as he must go on paying his lodging here he understands that you lodge & board him when at Brighton without which he wd. have to charge more than 15 s. He would be ready to start the day after your letter arrives here (Thursday) if you require. You are to let me know in answer to this. Mrs Lyell joins me in kind remembrances to you & Mrs Mantell & believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

119

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 31 January 1835 ]

My dear Mantell I was very sorry to hear of your illness, & trust you have recovered & that you will try & husband your strength for the sake of that success which will attend your Brighton practice & professional career if your health duly stands. It has been a year of great excitement to you but I trust that each succeeding year will be less so, & provided you have no anxiety about your position I believe that excitement may be to you as to my friend Babbage in a great degree necessary to your natural elements. [*]1 I am obliged to be very careful of myself, having never been strong like you nor capable of much mental exertion at a time. My only chance is by never missing a day if possible to make out a tolerable good aggregate amount of work in the year.[*] Poor Greenough is half killed by the labour of the Anniversary speech. Konig was almost exasperated with Buckland’s cool reply about Hawkins swindling transaction (to give it its true name) & had not your letter expressed a little (or no little) honest indignation & rage I know not how the worthy curator would have got over the affair. A more infamous piece of forgery I never beheld, especially the artificial crack in the rock. Tis’ a pity the fellow never was in society, for then he could have been punished by excommunication. He agreed to be fixed to refund. I told Dinkel as you desired, tho’ if you knew the humble fare he & other German students exist on you would know that your most ordinary way of living would be luxury to him. I must go to a committee of the G.S. Museum so I shall send this to Dinkel with a copy of Boase of which I spoke to you & believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell 16 Hart St. London Jan.y 31. 1835.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Brighton ]

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 411. 120

G.A. Mantell to Charles Lyell1

[*]2 [17 February 1835]3 Tuesday 3oClock in the Morning

My dear friend, While sitting up in attendance upon a gentleman whom I am afraid I shall lose from the infernal practice of calomelising4 which is now the fashion, I avail myself of a few uninterrupted moments to write to you in reply to your kind letter by M. Dinkel which I have had no opportunity of answering before. I will first mention that I must again intrude on your kindness by entrusting you will do me the favour to receive the Wollaston award for me: there is no chance whatever of my being in town! – I need not express how acutely I feel the disappointment: & the sacrifice of my feelings on this occasion to the duties of my profession, will I trust (if anything can) convince those who affect to believe I neglect my practice for my scientific pursuits, that they are mistaken. I know not, if I may presume to know until the anniversary, that the Council have awarded me the medal; – if it were permitted so I could send a letter of thanks to the President – it would not be too late to do this, if proper, provided you favoured me with a line by return of post. When I found there was no chance of my being at the meeting, I yet hoped to be in time for the dinner – but I am so situated that I must forgo even that gratification. Byron says “to dream of joy & wake to sorrow – Is doomed to all who love or live” – so I must be content to share the common lot. M. Dinkel will have told you all relating to me & science – how inefficiently I was occupied, how exhausted by illness & fatigue – & how

1 Transcribed from a copy of the original letter at Kinnordy House, Kirriemuir. 2 At this position on the original letter Mantell wrote the following words upside down: “I hope the bulletins from Hastings are good!” 3 Letter was posted from Brighton on 17 February 1835 . delighted with his beautiful drawings – (there is a [word illegible].) I kept him a fortnight, for I could not resist the temptation of having drawings of the monstrous [2 or 3 words indecipherable] Hylæosaurus from his pencil: and he has made me two such exquisite drawings that I shall be very loth to part with them. My memoir will now be of some value. In looking over my collection to select specimens, I have made many interesting discoveries relating to the osteology of my beasts – but of these matters when I see you here – for I shall never get to London. He had not one moment to spare, (indeed he was obliged to take some things to London to finish) and in the hurry & confusion I was in during all his visit, it never occurred to me to have the turritella septarium sketched. Shall I send the piece to London? or will you wait till I can get one for you? a scoundrel here has one unpolished but he asks so unreasonable a price that I cannot afford to have it – 3 or 4 pounds! Do pray satisfy my inordinate organ of “love of approbation” by sending me the best account you can of the meeting & dinner – a newspaper if it contains a notice will save you the trouble of writing: and will you send me the medal on Saturday by coach – unless like yours of the R. S. an empty case be its representative – but I believe we of the G.S. manage these things better than the R.S. I have seen a dirty copy of Morton’s5 book6 – but am rather disappointed in it – I expected more information respecting the saurian remains of the U. States. I am vexed at the notice of the Maestricht beds: for I wrote to him cal. cur. & did not think of my letters being quoted as authority, therefore either never mentioned the name to give a correct [impression?].Morton’s parcel to me has not come to hand. Notwithstanding the harass & anxiety I have experienced I have made a delightful discovery today. I heard that a large fall of the cliff had taken place at Kemptown, & I ordered in men to get me some good masses of the conglomerated shingle bed: on breaking some of these I have got some beautiful bones of the horse – and – such a beauty – not a petrified horse shoe (although I have one of these from another quarter!) but the bony part

4 An emetic medical treatment that frequently resulted in a violent reaction from the patient. 5 Samuel George Morton (1799 - 1851). U.S. merchant, later physician, anatomist and invertebrate palaeontologist. DAB. 6 S.G. Morton, Synopsis of the Organic Remains of the Cretaceous Group of the United States, Philadelphia, 1834. of the hoof : it is of a young animal, & very distinct, & embedded in the shingle; and beautifully displayed.7 * – it is I suppose 3 or 4 inches in its longest diameter: the articulating [word indecipherable] * for union with the bones of the posterior joint, is quite perfect. You cannot conceive how this discovery (which I made with a sudden blow of my hammer while washing my hands) has refreshed [word indecipherable] today. Get M. Dinkel to show you his drawings of my Iguanodon’s teeth – they are perfect for similes: if you would like copies of any for your book let him take them for you – but pray tell him no one must see them but you – I would not have them forestalled for the Bridgewater. This day is my levee – I believe there will be above 50 persons in the museum. Sir Robt Peel’s brother (Mr Laurence P.) with [two words indecipherable] (the [chaplain?] of the [Queen?] ) Lord Bristol & a party of nobility are to come as a special favour on Wednesday. I have lett [sic] Castle Place for three years. I have for the last four weeks been as much engaged professionally as even I can desire. So much for the good news – now for the bad: I have two horses & both unfit for use – and my chaise is worn out & I must have a new one – but seriously my dear friend, I have great anxiety: I feel my health is greatly impaired – although I go through a great deal, it is with the most painful efforts, & know quiet & repose are absolutely necessary to [ensure?] me for my children a few years: & these are beyond my reach. I do not think my lungs are yet affected; for although a few weeks ago I had so severe an attack that I was obliged to bleed myself hugely yet the pulmonic symptoms have left me.

I hope you & Mrs Lyell are quite well - let me entreat you not to over- work your mental powers – let my example be a warning to you – I am worn out at a little past 40! With sincere wishes for your happiness, I am most faithfully yours Gideon Mantell

7 Mantell described this fossil discovery in his paper, ‘Remarks on the Coffin-bone (distal phalangel) of a Horse from the Shingle Bed of the Newer Pliocene Strata of the Cliffs of Brighton’, PGSL, 1834- 37, 2, p. 203. [Addressed to: Charles Lyell Esq. 16 Hart Street Bloomsbury London ]

121

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 18 February 1835 ]

My dear Mantell I write in haste from the Council of the G.S. to say that we shall be very glad of a letter of thanks from you addressed to me who am to receive your medal for you, which medal will not be given but a new £20 note being the balance will be given to me.1 You may consider yourself as having received official notice from the Pres.t of the award.2 I have thought over what I shall say of you on Friday & when deliv d. I will let you know what the speech as spoken really was. I shall go into our old friendship – my having seen your collect n. in its infancy – its successive improvs. when I revisited from time to time – your conjectures & speculations confirmed – the peculiar difficulties of your osteological researches, scattered bones no whole sketches – the animals you have discov d. from such detached Elements – the real existence these gigantic beasts have acquired in our imagination &c &c. Your uncommon mind in having done all this in the leizure hours of a profession in wh you have had splendid & uniform success – &c – conclud g. with “The health of Mr M. the Woolaston [sic] medallist”. This I shall give immediately after The Late Pres.t & my own health have been drunk accord.g to custom. If you can give me any other brilliant ideas or hints pray do so in an

1 Mantell was the second recipient of the GSL’s Wollaston award – a gold medal worth 10 guineas plus £22 in money. GAM-PJ, April 1835. 2 Lyell was President of the GSL, 1835-37. appendix to your letter which I am to read. Anything you wish said at the meeting I will introduce as discreetly as I can. Lord Lansdown3 & a good many others of our best men, Sedgwick & Buckland & others have promised to come. Believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell Wed.y -

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

122

Mrs Frances Lyell (Lyell’s mother) to G. A. Mantell

13 Pelham Crescent 21 st. Feb.y 1835 My dear Sir There was pain as well as pleasure in receiving yours of the 16 th. I hope however that your recovery from an indisposition which I suspect has been of an alarming nature has been progressive and that ere this reaches you your strength will have returned in full force: you will, no doubt, be amused by my preaching to the doctor but I strongly suspect that while your increasing professional practice, and of course anxiety, has harassed & exhausted both mind and body, you have been tempted to borrow hours from that rest without which health & strength must fail; at least so your patients find, the truth is that you take more care of others than of yourself – forgive me for this lecture. I do most sincerely congratulate you on your new honour which I now know how to appreciate, formerly I should have heard of it without being sensible how much you must be gratified by such a distinction. I had not heard of it,and thank you very much for giving me that pleasure. I rejoice

3 Henry Petty-Fitzmaurice, third Marquis of Lansdowne (1780 - 1863). DNB. also very much to find that you have no reason to regret having settled at Brighton and that your increasing practice is among a good class of patients. I wish I had it in my power to send you any good news of my dear girl,4 but believe all that can be said is, that she is not worse, even that I fear is hardly safe, for the expectoration certainly has rather increased, and is often tinged with blood, but Mr Duke assures me not alarmingly; he sees her about once a week which relieves me from some responsibility, as I could not judge so well of its appearance, or her pulse, but informed him at first that I was acting by Dr Gordon’s advice and had promised not to let anything be administered to her without his approbation. You will, I dare say, recollect my writing for permission to try inhalation, as I have since, to make trial of the pills you recommended, I am sorry to say they have not been of use, we are now giving inhalation its trial with the tincture you so kindly sent and all your directions have been attended to, but as it is only three days since we began, we cannot judge of its effect. Mr Duke is sanguine, and I shall be most happy to make a good report to you a little while hence – in the meantime it is a great blessing that Elizabeth’s general health continues good, and that she is not disturbed at night by the cough but as there has been as yet no advantage from climate or anything else, I am looking forward with some anxiety to the summer. Mr Duke is of opinion that passing four months, that is from May to Septer. in Scotland, would be rather in her favour, but does not think that under any circumstances, it would be safe for her to remain there next winter. Do you agree with him? I am anxious to get all information I can on this most interesting subject, as Mr. Lyell intends leaving home to join me early in March and it would be very desirable he should know what [ink blob] to look forward to before he starts. Thanks to your good advice I am keeping free from those miserable symptoms which gave me such a fright, but find it desirable to return to the pills and mixture now and then. I am much stronger again. My conscience reproaches me for having taken up so much of your valuable time and I will only add my kindest remembrances to Mrs Mantell who I hope is well, and my young friend also, my daughters write with me in all good wishes, and begging you will believe me truly grateful for all your

4 Elizabeth Lyell, the youngest of the 10 Lyell children. kindness. I remain, my dear Sir, yours very sincerely Frances Lyell [ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Old Steyne, Brighton ]

123

Mrs Mary Elizabeth Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 21 February 1835 ]

Dear Dr Mantell As my husband has a hundred things to do today, I think he may forget a message of Mr Dinkel’s who asked him to say that he had looked through all the copies of Morton at Rick’s & that they are all more or less soiled but he chose the best he could see. He left also his beautiful drawing & the little box of bones to go in the parcel. I am very sorry to hear you have been so ill but rejoice at your success & congratulate you on the Wollaston Medal. My husband’s has come here & is very handsome. We have very good accounts of Mrs. Lyell but I am sorry to say no improvement in my sister. Pray give my kind regards to Mrs Mantell & believe me yours very truly Mary E Lyell 16 Hart St Bloomsbury 21 st Febry 1835.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. 20 Steyne, Brighton ]

124 Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

[ 21 February 1835 ] My dear Mantell After a day of hard work I shall get the help of my wife’s pen at the risk of letting her into our secrets.[*]2 The dinner went off famously, more than a hundred present. After the toasts had been given of the King, Royal Fam., Geol. Soc., Late Pres.t, & Pres.t, I gave you. I send you a copy of my speech almost word for word as delivered & on looking over my notes I found I had not omitted any of the material points which I had intended to speak of. I assure you I had the feeling of the meeting with me & in some respects it produced a better effect than if you had been there. It was by far the longest toast given but I am sure they were not tired. L.d Lansdowne, who was on my left hand asked all about you. I got him to give Oxford & Buckland. Fitton gave Cambridge answered by Sedgwick. Sedgwick the R.S. answered by Lubbock, Buckland the Linnaean, I the Astronomical, answered by Baily.3 Greenough the Geograpl. answered by Murchison. We then drank Burnes4 the traveller who made a good speech. Warburton also held forth as Vice-Pres.t and I wound up by an eulogium on Lonsdale which I did con amore & it was received with enthusiasm. We adjourned late to hear Greenough’s Address, a matter of fact abstract of the proceedings of last year.[*] As a specimen of the extracts from it which he read he had a list of all the sixteen elementary substances of which DelaBeche [sic] supposed the earth's crust to be made!![*]5 On my right hand at the dinner I had the Belgian Minister Van de Weyer. Among others there were Hallam, Stokes, L.d Cole, Sir Charles Lemon,6 Duncan7 of

1 Entire letter written by Lyell's wife acting as amanuensis.

2 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 447. 3 Francis Baily (1774 - 1844). Astronomer. DNB. 4 Alexander Burnes (1805 - 1841). Political officer in India. Travelled in the Sind and Punjab in 1830 and Afghanistan, Bokhara and Persia in 1832. Knighted 1836. DNB. 5 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, p. 447. 6 Sir Charles Lemon Bt.(1784 - 1868). M.P. for Cornwall W. 1831-41 and 1842-57. M. Stenton (ed.), Who’s Who of British Members of Parliament, 1976. 7 Probably Philip Bury Duncan (1772 - 1863). Succeeded his elder brother as Keeper of the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford in 1826. An advocate of the claims of physical science and mathematics to a more prominent place in Oxford studies. DNB. Oxford, Sir A. Crichton, Ingham M.P.8 &c, &c Drinkwater.9 I received a paper in the morning from Greenough containing the award in your favour, as also a new £20 note & two sovereigns. I cannot tell you how soon the medal, which is of the value of ten guineas will be ready.[*] I do not like to send the money by post or coach until you tell me to do so as it is always a risk. Can I not pay it into some-ones hands for you in London. Dinkel’s drawings are beautiful. With kind wishes to Mrs Mantell. I must conclude for as kittens would say, official business has caused a great arrears in domestic affairs. Believe me ever most truly yours ChaLyell

P.S. If you think it could be of any use to you to print any part or all of my toast in any Lewes or other paper, where you have friends among the editors, do so & send me 2 copies. Greenough’s address on presenting the medal in the morning was perfectly different but perhaps he will take a hint & embody some of my ideas.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. 20 Steyne, Brighton ]

125

8 Robert Ingham (1793 - 1875). Liberal M.P. for South Shields 1832-41. M. Stenton (ed.), Who’s Who of British Members of Parliament, 1976. 9 John Elliott Drinkwater (1801 - 1851). Legislator and educationalist. Surname subsequently changed to Bethune. DNB. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

16 Hart St Bloomsbury London 25 th. Feb ry. 1835 My dear Mantell As I see by your newspaper this morning that there is some chance of some account appearing of our Geologl. dinner, I will send you a few more particulars, for notwithstanding the Political excitement, the Editor may like to give it, there having been no R.S. dinner this year & our’s being admitted as John Murray told me was voted in his house next day to be the most intellectual public meeting of the kind that there was likely to be during the year. I will write this part of my letter in such a manner you may cut off the information about the Anniversary. I may tell you that Sir P. Egerton complimented me warmly on my effusion upon the W. medallist as most effective. Buckland is considered by Murchison, myself, Konig & others as determined to have out the affair of Hawkins’s forgeries by decreeing that whatever may be found to be suppositions is useful as illustration & will always have the money worth in what remains of the specimen. He does not pretend that he knew how much was counterfeit, so that the value of these things must be of a very accomodating nature. Murchison & I are astounded at his audacity & if your letter to Konig had not contained some honest indignation, I think that worthy curator of the Brit. Mus. would have fretted himself to death. I told Buckland pretty plainly my opinion but it made no impression. Pray do not allow yourself to be drawn in by Buckland to cover your own retreat either by shrinking from the avowal that you were deceived or by exaggerating the value of these fossils which the possessors of similar treasures are always in danger of doing. The scientific public will acquit you for not suspecting a supposed enthusiast of such a fraud. Ever yours C.L.

I thought you would like to see all this even if the Editor should think it too long to [indent].But if he does put it all in will you send me two papers.

1 Entire letter written by Lyell’s wife acting as amanuensis. 126

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 20 March 1835 ] My dear Mantell Your medal was sent to me some time ago & very beautiful it was, but as I thought shamefully ill-turned out of hand at the mint. The edges rough & several inequalities & small flaws which they ought to have removed. I laid it before the council who ordered it back to the mint, because as Mr Wyon1 had been ill he sh.d see how his subs do business. I expect it back immediately & it ought to have come before this. I thought the name not so well engraved on it as should have been. In a letter received some time ago from you I saw that you asked me how I could put Cronborough Hill at 804 ft. high when the Trigon. Survey gave only 504. I see that Martin has it at 804 & when you gave me the scale of heights which is at 168 4th. vol. 3 d. Ed. you assented to 804. I have written to Captain Robe2 of the Trig. Survey about it but have no answer yet. I hope you & Mrs Mantell are well with our joint remembrances believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

P.S. When I heard from Hastings they were much the same, rather better. Dinkel’s drawings are beautiful. Sedgwick reads a paper3 on Slaty structure & cleavage next Wed.y March 20

1 William Wyon (1795 - 1851). Appointed Chief Engineer at the Royal Mint, 1828. DNB.

2 Captain Alexander Robe , GSL council member 1834-35. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 306. 3 A. Sedgwick, ‘Remarks on the Structure of large Mineral Masses, and especially on the Chemical Changes produced in the aggregation of Stratified Rocks during different periods after their 1835. Will you be so kind as to tell me what you think of the following note sent me by Walter C. Trevelyan, in criticizing vol.4 p.179. 3 d. Ed.

“Close to Penshurst Castle in Kent which is nearly 10 miles from the escarpment of the Chalk & on the borders of the Forest range is a pit from which gravel is raised, the greater part of which appears to be formed of rolled chalk flints”.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Brighton ]

127

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell4

[ 13 April 1835 ] My dear Mantell I am going in part to pen a letter on a purely scientific question so excuse my using an amanuensis as my eyes are tired. [*]5 I have been getting Dinkel to figure for me some fossil eggs of a Turtle found in the Island of Ascension imbedded in a hard rock something like that of Guadaloupe which contains the human skeleton. It is clear that the eggs were nearly hatched at the time when they perished for the bones of the young turtle are seen in the interior with their shape fully developed, the interstices between the bones being filled with grains of sand which are cemented together so that when the egg shells are removed perfect casts of their form remain in stone. On my showing the specimens containing 7 eggs to Owen of the College of Surgeons he remarked to me that they were hollow whereas the

Deposition’, TGSL, 1835, 3, pp. 461-486. 4 Written by an amanuensis save the opening and closing sentences. 5 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 447. bones of reptiles want the medullary cavity. Struck with this remark & with the extreme hollowness of the bones, only to be compared to that of some Tilgate specimens which you have often shown me I got Owen this morning to dissect for me a young turtle, not a foetus, but so young that the mark of the attachment of the yolk was still a large opening. He immediately showed me that the bones were not hollow, though we both remarked that the outside looked harder than the interior. After we had discussed the matter for about a quarter of an hour we found to our great surprise that the matter in the interior of a small humerus, clavicle, scapular, & coracoid, which had been taken out had dried up & become as hollow as the fossils, or as some of your supposed bird’s bones, which may perhaps be the the foetal bones of gigantic turtles, for the dried bones which I have saved for you are more empty than those of birds & when the ball-joint of the humerus shrink away to nothing on the evaporation of the spirits of wine, it was marvellous to see how a bone previously so dissimilar in form became the facsimile of one of my own small fossil humeri. Owen has promised to get me a set of very young turtle’s bones from the Zoological Gardens, & I am persuaded it will clear up a number of your difficulties.[*] Your medal now is at the Mint. Brande now in office there thought it a miserable performance & will I hope persuade Wyon to put it to rights. Believe me ever most truly yours ChaLyell

P.S. Mrs Lyell quite well & desires her rememb s. Are we to see Mrs Mantell before her return. Mond y. 15 April.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

128 Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 14 May 1835 ] My dear Mantell I thought I should have certainly received from Mr Owen the bones which he retained & his notes upon them but if I do not I shall delay no longer in telling you that I have prevailed on the people at the Mint to strike your medal once again & I must say it is now a very different thing. As the next Council is now so near, & as some few were not inclined to go as far as I & others who declaimed against so unfinished & unworkmanlike a performance it would give me pleasure to exhibit the more perfect specimen as an example to future Councils. Clifts gout kept Owen from attending to the bones for a long time[.] he then had a work with me here & took some to Coll. of Surgs. The result was that in spite of every wish to make them out to be reptiles he thinks them birds. At the same time we wished much we had had [*]1 something more of Pterodactyl bones to compare. I showed the medal at the Council & have at last received the bones from Owen & his notes. He does not express himself so strongly as I expected in regard to the greater part of the bones belonging to birds, but he was very much struck with finding what he did not expect that the longitudinal groove was not wanting in some birds & seemed characteristic of waders. Sir Philip Egerton no doubt told you that he is familiar with Pterodactyles bones having a large collection & that their proportions are so perfectly different from yours that he does not believe they can ever be made any thing but birds. I gave your message about the spines of the Iguana which Clift had promised you but as nothing has been sent I suppose his illness has prevented him. I was sorry that you did not come up on Wednesday to hear my paper on the chalk and Maestricht beds of Denmark2 which produced an animated

1 Mary E. Lyell acted as an amanuensis at this point in the letter. 2 C.Lyell, ‘On the Cretaceous and Tertiary Strata of the Danish Islands of Seeland and Moen’, [13 May 1835], TGSL, 1840, 5, pp. 243-257. discussion. I send you a copy of my paper on Sweden.3 I cannot sufficiently express my thanks for all you have done for my brother Henry and also for the kind advice respecting my sister. My father & mother & all of them are coming to town next Wednesday & will be in lodgings near us, as Mr Duke at Hastings has advised them to leave that place. Miss Benett is in town at present & means to return home by Brighton in order to see you & your Museum. She has found some new fish in the chalk. Ever my dear Mantell faithfully yours ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Brighton ]

129

Charles Lyell Snr. (Lyell’s father) to G. A. Mantell

14 Bedford Place Bloomsbury 20 May 1835

My dear Sir

3 C. Lyell, ‘On the Proofs of a gradual Rising of the Land in certain parts of Sweden’, [27 November 1834 and 8 January 1835], Phil. Trans., 1835, 125, pp. 1-38. Allow me the pleasure of presenting you with a copy of a little work of mine,1 and I beg you let it be a remembrance that your kindness to Mrs. Lyell and my daughter can never be forgotten by me or any one of the family. Among our obligations to you, your services to Henry stand first and foremost at the present moment for he is in the very ecstasy of having just received his six month extension of furlough. [*]2 My report of Elizabeth will not make you happy though she is rosy & full & cheerful, and the expectoration & little cough in the same state as when you saw her, but the pulse has never been so good since the 5th, when three or four bright drops of blood appeared with the expectoration. Both Dr Gordon & Dr Chambers detected by means of the stethoscope a spot in the right side of the lungs where the mischief lies. It is slight they say but alarming, yet that there are so many favourable circumstances that no case of the kind can assure a more reasonable expectation that by assisting nature it will be cured. Taking her to Scotland for the summer is approved, & we are to take ample directions in writing with us. In the meantime there is a medicine taken three times a day which if I can get the prescription I will copy for you. The actual state of our poor girl is carefully concealed from her, and we appear as little anxious as possible from perceiving that her spirits are very easily depressed since the alarm on the 5th.[*] One thing at the consultation surprised me (who was much inclined to lean to Sir C. Scudamore3) that neither Dr G. or Dr C. have the least faith in the efficacy of inhalation after a wholesale experience in the hospitals & in private practice of its failure, that is, inhalation of Iodine & Dr Chambers went so far as to say that he was convinced that “these mineral gases were most poisonous & could not be taken in any way without injury to the constitution”. Thus you doctors differ! Conium, when found to relieve the cough he had no objection to. Do everything he said, for your daughter that conduces to strengthen her as there is no inflammatory symptom whatever!

1 Charles Lyell Senior (1767 - 1849) was a botanist and student of Dante. In 1835 J. Murray published his English translation of The Canzoniere of Dante Alighieri including the poem of the Vita Nuova and Convito. This is probably the gift to which he refers. DNB. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 412.

3 Sir Charles Scudamore (1779 - 1849). Physician. Practiced in London and published medical works. DNB. What is to be our destination next winter is not determined – hardly thought upon.[*]4 I confess (between you & me) I despair for how very small a number of those who are attacked with that insidious disease at the age of twenty ever escape![*] With Mrs. Lyell’s kindest regards and Henry’s & my daughters’ believe me My dear Sir Yours very faithfully Cha Lyell

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. ]

130

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 23 May 1835 ] My dear Mantell I got your letter late today & therefore have not time as you requested an immediate reply to send you news worth postage. Mrs Lyell has hunted in vain in our house for the notes by Owen which she feels sure were put into the box. But I sent off your note at once to Mr Owen who was out & not to return till tonight.

4 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 412. As to Maps I would not advise Ld. Munster1 to give 5 or 6 £ for Schropp’s2 expensive Map of Europe said to be chiefly by von Buch. At Bonn he might procure Oeynhausen & Dechen’s3 joint work & map on the Rhine & bordering countries[.] whether the map can be had separate I know not – but I am afraid not. Prof r. Noggerath of Bonn will inform Lord M or Count Beuist4 For Auvergne Croizet5 & Joberts’ work6 would be useful if Lord M collected fossils there which I hope he will largely. There is much to be done there on Tertiary bones of birds, mammalia &c. No map that I know of the Simplon country. My sister is to see Dr Chambers but I have no news yet. I will see Owen & believe me in great haste & only just in time for the post. yrs truly ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

131

1 George Augustus Frederick Fitzclarence, First Earl of Munster (1794 - 1842). Eldest son of William IV by Mrs Jordan. Promoted oriental studies. DNB. 2 Possibly John David Schopf (1752 - 1800). German scientist and geologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 2068. 3 Ernst Heinrich Carl von Dechen (1800 - 1889). German stratigrapher and economic geologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 873. 4 Friedrich Constantin von Beust ( b. 1806 ). German economic geologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 549. 5 Abbe Jean Baptiste Croizet (d. 1863). French cleric who collected Tertiary vertebrate fossils from the Auvergne. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 780. 6 Abbe J.B. Croizet and A. Joubet, Recherches sur les Ossemes Fossiles du Departement du Puy-de- Dome, Paris, 1826-28. G. A. Mantell to Charles Lyell1

Thursday Midnight [probably May 1835] 2

My dear friend, In spite of my efforts I could not save the post & must send the enclosed by coach tomorrow morning. I must explain this to you when we meet. I scarcely know what I have written – you can leave out anything that you like not, & correct the other. I never required so much self denial as at this time. I shall be glad when tomorrow is over – every coach I see start will remind me that in 5 hours I could be with you. You may recollect Dr. Toulmin who wrote on the Eternity of the earth, lived at Lewes as M.D. & was obliged to leave the place (My practice) as an accoucheur amounting to some thousand cases, is quoted with great approbation by Dr.[Bisset] Hawkins in his Medical Statistics. You will remember Dr, Woolaston [sic] & the Iguanodon teeth Antiquities of Eastern Sussex were principally investigated & brought to light by your humble servant. But enough of this egotism. Two lectures at Brighton – for Hospital & Church – attended by nearly 1000 persons. Above 3,000 visitors to the Museum – I think after all this I shall have the bump of the love of approbation shaved, cupped, & blistered, lest I should become like that impudent varlet of the Brit. Mus. Where do they strike the Medal? or is it like yours of the R.S. sine die. Ever my dear friend yours G.A.Mantell (verte)

1 Transcribed from a copy of the original letter at Kinnordy House, contained in a volume of ‘autographs’ with 2 other letters from Mantell. A transcribed copy of this letter is also held at ATL- N.Z. 2 The context of this letter indicates that it was written by Mantell at Brighton at the time difficulties were being experienced correctly striking his recently awarded Wollaston Medal. Accordingly, it is probable that Mantell wrote this letter in late May 1835. No end to my honours – what do you think? I have become an illustrator of one of the most obscure passages in Scripture! A Mr Thompson read last week before the Hull Philosoph. Society a paper on the Leviathan & Behemoth of Job: and has proved beyond a shadow of a doubt and to the conviction of all the philosophers of Hull that Leviathan is Megalosaurus: a Behemoth the Iguanodon of Mantell, who says Mr. T. “was not aware of the importance of his own discoveries” and he quotes Job in proof of his various qualities “Behemoth feedeth on grass like an ox” – so did Iguanodon - “He plieth his tail like a cedar” so did Iguanodon: & what better simile for his tail of 50 feet long “He (Behemoth) lieth under the shady trees & in the coverts of the reeds & ferns” so Mantell says “To him (the Iguanodon) the forests of Palms were mere beds of reeds”. “The willows of the brook compass him (Behemoth) round about” how descriptive of the place assigned by Mantell to the Iguanodon; whose remains are found on the margin of an ancient river or estuary: that in every respect the Behemoth & Iguanodon tally in description & we may fairly presume that they were the same animals”. Bravo! Mr Thompson – The paper was received with distinct rounds of applause! Somebody (I suppose Mr Thompson) has sent me the paper which contains the report. Moore in one of his beautiful ballads laments his absence from a festive party of his friends in the following lines – believe me I feel them most deeply

My soul! happy friends shall be with you that night Shall join in your revels, your sports, & your wiles And come to me beaming all o'er with your smiles, Too blest for twill tell me amid the gay cheer My kind friends all murmured – I wish he were here!

Once more adieu G.A.Mantell Best regards to Mrs Lyell. Do not forget my having been the first to assert that “ammonites, Nautili, Echine, & Zoophytes were not in the Wealden strata”.

132

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

16 Hart St Bloomsbury London 21 st. June 1835.

My dear Mantell I cannot allow more time to elapse without answering your letter. I hope you are now feeling better than you were. I heard of you the other day from Mr Basevi2 who gave a pretty good account of you though he did not report you quite free from headaches which I hope you are by this time. Last night I talked of you with Lady Shelley3 & upon her telling me of the well & their borings to find the greensand where it was not to be found I told her of your proposed article on Fairholme & the well digger & she said she should endeavour to see you soon & ask you to show her what you had written on the subject. So you must entertain her upon it whether you have anything in print to show or not. I am afraid you did not keep your proposed title. I got your two papers4 into the last Meeting but not without exerting my authority as Pres t.

1 This letter terminates abruptly and was written entirely by Lyell’s wife acting as amanuensis. 2 Probably George Basevi (1794 - 1845). Architect whose commissions included the Fitzwilliam Museum, Cambridge. DNB. 3 Lady Shelley (Francis). Mother of Sir John Shelley Bt. of Maresfield Park, Uckfield, Sussex. M. Stenton (ed.), Who’s Who of British Members of Parliament., 1976. 4 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Bones of Birds discovered in the Strata of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex’, [10 June 1835], TGSL, 1837, 5(1), pp. 175-177, and ‘Remarks on the Coffin-bone (distal phalangeal) of a Horse from the Shingle Bed of the Newer Pliocene Strata of the Cliffs of Brighton’, PGSL, In the first place, I made the Secret.y read only the titles, instead of long abstracts of the papers read at the preceeding meeting, & thus gained more than 10 minutes. DelaBeche, Sedgwick, Egerton, & Broderip & Trimmer had papers, but I enlarged on your birds bones & told the story of the turtles’ eggs in relation to them. You do not seem to me to have made any point about the coffin bone of the horse. Sedgwick has the same from gravel near Cambridge & as to horses after the introduction of man there are still wild ones to this day who have never been shod. I confess, however, I only skimmed your paper which has now been referred to another

[Letter ceases at this point]

[ from C. Lyell June 21st. 1835 ]

133

1834-1837, 2, p. 203. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

[ 14 October 1835 ]

My dear Mantell We shall be very glad to hear of you, & I am sure you will not be sorry to hear of us after our wanderings on the continent.[*]2 I made out the greater part of the tour which I had planned most successfully first visiting Paris where I found Von Buch whom I had never met before & whom I liked well, notwithstanding my opposition to many of his opinions & although there are a few persons who are more noted than he is in geology for conceiving a personal hostility towards those who do not embrace the theoretical doctrines which he has once published. I took a collection of crag fossils from those lowest beds which have been lately called the coralline crag & they were carefully named by Deshayes & compared with his usual patience with the fossils in his rich collection. It was a delightful lesson in conchology for me & the result was that half of them were recent species contrary to the anticipation of some of the worthies who had collected them or talked about them at our G.S. I entered Switzerland by Porrentrui & there I had Thurmann3 for my guide who gave me in a short time a beautiful insight into the structure of the Jura on which he has published & I was glad to verify his observations in the field & to see his beautiful collection of Jurassic shells & his attempt to assimilate the oolitic series & their fossils of the Swiss Jura with our English oolitic groups. I afterwards had a work in another part of the Jura with some geologists at Neufchatel where the chalk as it appears to be by its fossils fills the bottom of the vallies [sic] of the Jura limestone. I next had a work with Studer4 at Berne & then had a work of about six weeks in that part of the Swiss Alps which is called the Bernese- Oberland. I there saw alternations of the gneiss with limestone of the lias or something newer in the highest regions of the Alps of which I shall give the

1 Entire letter written by Lyell’s wife acting as amanuensis. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, pp. 455-457. 3 Jules Thurmann (1804 - 1855). Professor of Mathematics and Natural Science at the University of Porrentrui. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 2266. 4 Bernard Rudolf Studer (1794 - 1887). Swiss geologist and mathematician. Professor of Geology, Society an account during the next season. I also endeavoured to make out the order & age of the strata between the central granitic axis of the Alps & the great tertiary valley of Switzerland in other words the country around the lake of Thun & between the town of Thun & the Jungfrau. We then came down the Rhine to Bonn & spent a week there during the Meeting of the German Association which was about 600 strong. They elected four Presidents for the Geological section, Von Buch, Buckland, de Beaumont & myself & we presided in turn – for two whole days Constant Prevost & I fought Von Buch & de Beaumont on the Craters of Elevation, the discussion being in French & with a crowded audience. I am as convinced as ever that their views are quite erroneous, & if I had to write over again tomorrow my chapter on that subject I should have nothing to retract & many new arguments to add. We had Greenough there & Omalius d’Halloy,5 Goldfuss, Count Mandelstohe,6 and Professor Walckner,7 Von Meyer, Alexr. Brongniart, Adolphe Brongniart, Andouin,8 Berzelius,9 Schmerling of Liege, Hoeninghaus,10 Von Oeynhausen, Noggerath. I mention some of those who first come to my recollection as having attended our section. On my return here I found that in spite of Lonsdale’s exertions & Fitton’s pledge to the Council that his paper should be concluded in July there is still many a green grain of sand yet to fall through the hour-glass. People seem to be in high spirits here on the success of the Dublin Meeting.11 Agassiz looks in good health & is satisfied with the great progress he has made & looks forward with great pleasure to a first visit to Brighton. When I call, I find him sitting in his room with his two horse-power for he has had the spirit to get over a second German Artist. I have been writing this by candle-light after the labours of the day & as you know my eyes of old you will excuse it not being in my own

University of Berne from 1834. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 2210. 5 Jean-Baptiste Julien Omalius D’Halloy (1783 - 1875). Belgian stratigrapher and economic geologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1819. 6 Friedrich von Mandelstohe (1795 - 1870). German collector of rocks, minerals and fossils. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3 , p. 1644. 7 Friedrich August Walchner (1799 - 1865). German scientist and writer. DUB. 8 Jean Victor Audouin (1797 - 1841). French zoologist and palaeontologist. Professor of Entomology, Museum of Natural History, Paris. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 453. 9 Jons Jacob Berzelius (1779 - 1840). Swedish chemist who worked on atomic weights. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 544. 10 Friedrich Wilhelm Hoeninghaus (1770 - 1854). German merchant and amateur geologist whose collection was acquired by the Bonn Museum. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 1272. 11 The 1835 BAAS annual meeting was held at Dublin during July-August . handwriting.[*] I am sorry to be obliged to give you a very unfavourable account of my poor sister Elizabeth. She has during the last few weeks lost strength & flesh very rapidly & is now so weak as to be unable to move from one room to another without fatigue. Nevertheless she still expresses a wish to spend the winter at Clifton thinking she will derive benefit from it. The medical men, both Sir G. Ballingall12 from Edinburgh and Dr Gordon by letter have said it was impossible at present to move her but they must try strengthening medicine for three weeks & they would think it fortunate if she should then express a wish to remain at Kinnordy. When we last heard these medicines had been tried about half the time but without producing any apparent effect. I wish much to hear how your health has been & how Mrs Mantell & all your family are.[*]13 After all our wanderings we hope to be stationary here for the next nine months & shall be always delighted to see you here even for one of your flying visits. My wife writes with me in kind regards to yourself & Mrs Mantell. Believe me, my dear Mantell yours most sincerely [*] ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

12 Sir George Ballingall (1780 - 1855). Surgeon. Knighted 1830. DNB. 13 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 457. 134

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

16 Hart St, Bloomsbury London 9 th. Nov.r 1835

My dear Mantell I saw Agassiz yesterday & I believe he is off tomorrow morning. I had a very long talk with him on your proposal of joining with him in the publication of the chalk fossils & first we consumed more than half an hour on the question as to folio, quarto or octavo. As he laid it down as indispensable that the chalk fish should all be of their natural size & that a great part of yours could exceed a quarto plate, there was nothing left for it but to allow the folio, or much folding. I told him that the idea of your giving a popular account of fish or any other department of fossils in a folio would be in my opinion to throw away your labour & that I should advise you to cut your geological notice as short as possible. We then went into a detailed estimate of costs on the supposition that the work was to be in folio & that he was to print 200 plates extra at Munich with the text that is to say a brief scientific description of the fish by himself. We allowed £40 for Dinkel’s expenses for about 4 months drawing at Brighton then the expense of 500 copies of the lithographic plates together with the paper for them & the letter press & the printing & the wrappers & 2/- for the carriage & duties on each set of the 200 imported brought up the expense from £40 to about £210, nearly £100 of which would fall on the 200 imported copies. Then we allowed about 30 per cent profit for the booksellers & calculated that if all were sold at 30/- each there would be a handsome profit of more than £100. In order to clear the expenses & save yourselves harmless you must sell ninety copies out of the two hundred.

1 Letter written by Mary E. Lyell, acting as amanuensis, on mourning note-paper. Elizabeth Lyell died at Kinnordy on 25 October 1835, aged 24 years. Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 421. I believe that he inclines to this scheme much more than to any other[.] at the same time he assured me that as he was only to give twelve numbers according to his promise to his great work, & as he had already materials for forty numbers he should be sincerely happy if he could give vent in any detached work to a portion of this great mass, if I could suggest any better method & equally consistent with the publishing the fish as large as life which alone he says is consistent with the efficacy of the figures. I admitted that most of the objections I had to a folio applied with almost equal force to a quarto but that I should like to have his work in octavo, & I sent over some No’s of his work which were lying on my table, & proved to him that almost all the figures would get into 8 vo without a single fold & that one might then use it like Sowerby’s thin box with facility & that the real utility depended more on the numbers that could buy a book than on anything else. I believe I made no impression on him & that he is inclined to scout all these trade views & that he thinks a much higher line ought to be taken. You must decide on this question for I am really not competent not knowing sufficiently what the size which the illustrations must be of. I have just received a present of a turrilite from near East Bourne which agrees with Turrilites Bergeri of Brongniant’s Env. of Paris pl 7? & different from any of the three figured by Sowerby. Surely you have made a great mistake in calling one of the Turrilites in your South East of England T. tuberculatus instead of costatus. p.159. The identifications also of the teeth of sharks with recent species p.132 was contrary to the analogy of the shells of the chalk which are all extinct. But all this you will set right in the new edition. Dr. Beck2 of Copenhagen is now here, & after some weeks I suppose will not fail to visit your Museum at Brighton. He is Keeper of the King of Denmark’s Museum & a good naturalist especially in conchology & has studied the chalk fossils more than any others. I have talked with him over your splendid collection. My wife writes with me in kind regards to you & Mrs Mantell & believe me ever most truly yours

2 Heinrich Beck (1796 - 1855). Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 422. ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. 20 Steyne, Brighton ]

135

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 25 November 1835 ]

My dear Mantell My brother1 has given me this letter to send off to you & pay the postage as it is on his affairs. I will not let it go without thanking you for your lecture & hit at Kirby’s2 Bridgewater Treatise to which I mean to give most probably some passing castigation in my Anniversary Speech. You have answered him very well but what is of more consequence to a lecturer I understand from Mr Phillips R.A. that it told in delivery most admirably. I shall be very glad if you & some of your colleagues can furnish my brother with the certificates he requires, & although there was some apprehension when we were threatened lately with a set in India on the side of the Indus, these apprehensions seem to have gone off & the Board will be in their usual indulgent mood. I know not whether it is because we had heard that Henry was deafer after a severe cold with which he is still troubled that we were agreeably surprised in thinking him better on his arrival here than last year when he returned from Hastings. Mr Dinkel has given my brother a parcel which he is to carry to you.

1 Henry Lyell, born 21 December 1804. 2 Rev. William Kirby (1759 - 1850). English cleric, naturalist, and author of the Bridgewater treatise, On the History, Habits, and Instincts of Animals, 2 vols, Pickering, London, 1835. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 1455. With our rememb.s to Mrs Mantell believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

136

Henry Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

16 Hart St. 25 th. Nov.r 1835 My dear Sir

As I have come down from the north expressly for the purpose of seeing you again, in hopes that you may be able to do something more for my deafness either by scientific means or by recommending a further adjournment in this delightful climate, I write these few lines for I fear we should cross each other on the road. Charles and Mary both think I hear better than I did when I left Hastings which is a good report as I have still a slight cold. If I do not hear from you on Friday Evening I will come down for two or three days and with kind regards to Mrs. Mantell, Believe me My dear Sir Yours very truly Henry Lyell

1 Written on mourning paper on the reverse side of the previous letter from Charles Lyell that was also dated 25 November 1835.

137

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell2

[ 10 December 1835 ]

My dear Mantell I have just seen Sir Ch. Bell3 having Cole to ask him if it was true that the Univers.y of Edinb.g had offered him the Professorship of Surgery, a very lucrative chair in Edinb.g & where a man may make I hear a couple of thousands a year by 6 months lecturing an hour a day & then enjoy a long vacation. The offer tho’ not made is coming & & altho’ Sir C. has not yet made up his mind I see clearly that he will take it. He has all his relatives in Edinb.g & she also many. Both of them spoke to me separately of your lecture - she with great admiration, he with decided approbation which he is by no means lavish of in regard to lecturers. He said he wished that you could devote your time more exclusively to science “what a thing it would be if you could get him away from a harassing practice”. He went on to say how much he felt as he grew older, the irksomeness of looking about & the last fortnight he has been ill which made the thoughts of a Professor’s Chair appear luxurious to him. I went on to say how I should like to see you lecturing on Comparative Anatomy in London. He replied that you would do it admirably & when one looked around & saw what miserable performers they have here one felt that it was not much to say how his lecturing would succeed. I went immediately after seeing you & before your last letter to see if Nelson had sailed & found that he had. No doubt an exchange might be managed by & by between the G.S. & the U.S. Museum or both of Bermuda

2 Letter written on mourning note-paper. 3 Sir Charles Bell (1774 - 1842). Discoverer of the distinct functions of the nerves. Knighted and R.S. medallist 1829. Professor of Surgery, Edinburgh 1836. DNB. duplicates ag t. chalk fossils. I see by the list of presents that the Sheppey sheep is entered as given to the the G.S. if so, ask to borrow it for a lecture when you want it. Have you ever thought of lectures on Comparative Anatomy at Royal Instit n. where medical men get certificates for Chemistry lectures which pass at Coll. of Surg s &c. I know nothing however of these matters as connected with the medical line but it strikes me if they knew in town that you had the rare act of lecturing well there could be medical establishments that would be glad of your aid. It had evidently already passed in Sir C. B.’s mind that if you could be devoted to science as a lecturer it would be fortunate[.] he was however chiefly thinking of following up your fossil compve. Anat y. Many thanks for your kind attentions to my brother & with rememb s. to Mrs Mantell believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell London Dec. 10. 1835.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ] 138

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 10 February 1836 ]

My dear Mantell The Anniversary will be on Friday the 19 inst. the morning business at 1ok or ½ past 1ok in the morning. The dinner at Crown1 & due there at 6 ok. [*]2 I shall of course mention your Tilgate birds3 with due honour but

1 GSL dinners were held at the Crown and Anchor, Strand, from 1835-46. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 124. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol.1, pp. 462-464. as I have written my speech exclusively on the Proceedings of last year I would rather defer till my second address your Swanage Gavial & hope before that time that you will send us a brief notice however short for our proceedings on the same, tho’ I hold that no public christening of any new born fossil is valid unless a description accompanies the new name sufficient as Dr Beck would say “for a diagnosis”. I had not time to tell you when you were here how much I apprehend that the Architect will run away with whatever money a zeal for science or friendship & regard for you may raise by subscription at Brighton. I remember that when some £8,000 had by a great effort been got together at Bristol for lectures & for a collection [of] books & other useful aliment for the mind as the misguided projectors thought, in came the architect, gave them a handsome building, pocketed the cash & left them with a room for the newspaper readers & scarce a farthing to pay the invaluable curator Millar. So it was with the Lond n. Lit. Inst. in Moorfields, about 30 or 40 thousand pound sunk & a hundred other cases. Yet unwarned by experience the planners of the Lond n Univ.y follow on the same track & spent several 100 thousand pound in erecting a huge & never-to-be-finished edifice with a splendid portico costing alone £39,000 or 40,000 & leaving nothing for Professors but debt. Then came the King’s College & another splendid subscription, for there is no end to the gullibility of John Bull. Might not anyone have told the poor parson who with an honest zeal for these causes put down their 5 or £50 that it was not science, nor learning, nor religion nor anything but architecture that is encouraged by such munificent donations in England? Had they hired a set of the ugliest houses in the Strand & bribed with their 2 or 3 hundred thousand pounds the first teachers in G t B n. they would have carried every thing before them. But what did they do? reared a huge wing of a building which swallowed up all the money & is now unfinished inside, altho’ part of it contrary to the original plan is fitted up for students private chambers. There is no hope for natural history or science or literature until they precede instead of following the architect. I sat next a pupil of the late J.

3 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Bones of Birds discovered in the Strata of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex’, [1835], TGSL, 1837, 5(1), pp. 175-177. Rennie4 at dinner the other day & he attributed the success & large fortune of that engineer not so much to his civil engineering tho’ he was of course eminent in that as to his knowledge of men & of human nature. He told his pupil that to work the original plans or design was a small affair comparatively – the great business was “to work the committee”. So some skilful architect at Brighton will be found who will have tact enough “to work” your sub-committee with your friend Horace Smith5 at the head of it. He will not frighten them with too large an estimate at first but let it be at least some hundreds under the subscription for he knows that so many gentlemen of taste & leisure will see improvements that may be made as the work proceeds & to these “he who has the working of them” will after a decent show of resistance accede & then he may lay to the charge of their departure from the first plan all excess above the estimate. Having spent all this money & mortgaged the handsome edifice there will be nothing left for the Mantellian collection and still less for lectures. Try and preach against this tho’ I have but a faint hope. The Challenger frigate when wrecked in Chile & in the midst of danger and distress fired a gun to warn a Swedish vessel off the breakers and she was saved. It was a generous act. I am reading their diary & wish some of our bankrupt scientific institutions would fire guns of distress. Believe me with rememb.s to Mrs Mantell yrs ever most truly ChaLyell [*] [ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

139

4 John Rennie (1761 - 1821). Engineer with a considerable reputation in major civil engineering works. DNB. 5 Horatio (Horace) Smith (1779 - 1849). Poet and author. Brother of James “Rejected Addresses” Smith. He assisted Mantell in various proposals concerning the future of the Brighton Museum. DNB and GAM-PJ, entry 31 December 1835. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

March 3.d 1836 My dear Mantell I lost no time in writing to Warburton who is now all day in O’Connell’s1 Committee about the Carlow election and all night in the House so that I have no appointment to meet him yet tho’ I called today to follow up my note which went the same morning that I got your letter. Scarcely anyone knows exactly what is going to be done about the Metrop n. Univ.y but I have heard of several names such as Sedgwick, Airy,2 Thelwall,3 & others said to be about to be examiners & some have said tho’ I beg you not to mention it on my authority (& the less said about it the better) that Warburton himself is about to be examiner in Chemistry. I cannot learn whether all are to be gratuitous services or whether any are. If so the duty will not be well done. I find myself quite incompetent as not being a medical man to form an opinion as to what steps you had best take but should be most glad if you were disconnected from the Brighton Institution so far as lectures or other business were concerned. If you should come up to attend Bakewell you might make out more than I have been able to do about the new Univ y Mr Martin is a friend of mine a well connected flourishing Swiss merchant settled in London, partner to the Swiss Consul, J.L. Prevost – both members of the Geol. Society & geology. March 4 th. Lond n. I have since yesterday been making many enquiries for you & have at last met with a friend who within these few days was requested by a Dr T. an eminent medical practitioner & lecturer to go to the Chancellor of the Excheqr. & sound him as to the Metrop n. Un. & as to Dr T.’s applying for an examinership. The Chancellor, (Spring Rice)4 saw my friend & told him that all the examiners who were at present fixed on were to serve gratis & it was a question whether alternately some few would not be

1 Daniell O’Connell (1775 - 1847). Irish barrister and politician. DNB. 2 George Biddell Airy (1801 - 1892). Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Cambridge 1826. Astronomer Royal 1835-81. DNB. 3 Algernon Sydney Thelwall (1795 - 1863). Clergyman who published religious works. DNB. 4 Thomas Spring-Rice (1790 - 1866). Chancellor of the Exchequor in Melbourne’s second Administration 1835-39. Later created Lord Monteagle of Brandon. DNB. added who might be paid but not much, as their services would only be wanted for a few days in the year. In consequence of this Dr. T. gave it up. My friend on my mentioning you, said “I am sure that if you were to mention a word about Mr Mantell’s science in the way of comparative Anat y of fossils or his collection you would damage him as these examinerships are to be strictly professional & eminence in practice would probably carry it”. He then added “As to Mantell, I regret to hear from you of his wish to leave Brighton, if he could persevere he might succeed in spite of the disadvantage of having made so many acquaintances thro’ geology, he is still known in Sussex as a medical practitioner but in London unfortunately only as a geologist, let him free himself from his museum & the proposed instit n. get Ld .Egrement to take back his last £1000,5 proclaim to the world that he has no time for science but keep a few specimens by him nevertheless & then the sacrifice being notorious, will do him good but he must not lecture nor have anything to do with the collection”. This came from one who has a great feeling for science generally & for Geology in particular & who came to the consideration of your case quite fresh & unprejudiced. The fact is that your hitherto success in spite of Geol y is a triumph implying extraordinary powers & which might if properly viewed give you courage & confidence in your ultimate success at Brighton. I believe there is no alternative but all medicine or all science. The latter would only yield two or three hundred a year if that in London. whether you could give 52 lectures or one a week & clear £25 by each by lecturing at great towns in the country & so clear £1300 a year is a question I cannot solve but I know that it is easier to make £100 at Leeds, Manchester or Newcastle than £10 by lectures in Lond n. I expect that the Council will not agree to pay for the carriage if they do not know about how much it will cost[.] last time I think they agreed to pay the hylaeosaurus one way. Could you say how much the boxes and carriage will be about. Do not imagine that you will ever receive any real friendship from a public body or feeling or gratitude like individuals. As Phillips the book- seller once said to me when [I was?] Sec. G.S. & he out of humour with us “Tis my own fault, Sir, I knew before that public bodies have no [bowels?] &

5 Lord Egremont gave Mantell £1000 towards the cost of the proposed Susssex Scientific Institution on 4 January 1836. GAM-PJ, entry 4 January 1836. they will do unfeeling things of which each member would individually be incapable”. believe me ever faithfully yrs ChaLyell [ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne Brighton ] 140

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

16 Hart St March 18 1836

My dear Mantell I have at last had an interview with Mr Warburton who said he should have answered me sooner if your application had not been made, talked of & considered before my letter reached him. His conversation with me was confidential & therefore I beg you will consider it as between ourselves & he himself did not think himself at liberty to say more than that in such great competition as there was your chance as a simply medical practitioner or human anatomist or anything strictly requiring professional eminence & none would be small or rather null, but as having scientific claims & if you specifically put it as comparative Anatomy as a scientific department, bearing on medical or general Education you might have a chance if your friends exerted themselves. I spoke warmly in favour of you as one who would promote science powerfully if devoted to comparative Anatomy & I think Warburton well inclined to appreciate you, but as far as I can gain an insight into this Metropolitan Board it will be difficult to obtain a place in it & not profitable but only an occasional occupation. My father-in-law Mr Horner thinks that a chair of Comp. Anat y, would be injurious to a medical practice in town decidedly & he has had much to do with these matters. He thinks with me there is no medium between cutting science or medicine. I have often framed schemes & built castles for you but they are in the clouds. To make a large income by lecturing in Geol y. & Nat.l Hist.y would require a person to travel to the principal towns & mechanics Instit s. to have a large caravan to carry & collect illust.s & specimens & I believe he should also have some central Museum to serve as the store-house for duplicates for sale, in short an establishment like that of Leonhard & Bronns1 “mineralien - contoir” at Heidelberg. One must in that case carry on the trade on a great scale turn the travelling to advantage not only for observation but for collecting, to dispose of specimens reserving a certain set of picked things to form a magnificent private collection to be ultimately a little fortune to one’s family. This is the least visionary of the speculations I have been able to form, for Buckland, Brand & others, have doubted whether the publishing of lectures does good & whether it does not take away from their freshness but something might be managed in the way of publication also. The other line is to declare you have cut science & are only a Doctor in Medicine. I believe that you might clear £100 at any great place like Leeds, Birmingham &c by 8 or 10 lectures but I shall be curious to know how the lectures of which you are good enough to send me a report this morning succeeded in a pecuniary point of view. With rememb s. to Mrs Mantell believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

P.S. I have a copy of my Anniversary speech ready for you.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

141

1 Heinrich Georg Bronn (1800 - 1862). Professor of Zoology and Technology, Heidelberg. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, 1980, p. 628. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

16 Hart St. Bloomsbury. London 10 th April 1836

My dear Mantell As Mr Dinkel has offered to take a letter I am glad of the opportunity of sending you my Address, which I believe I have not sent to you before, though as I have often been wishing to do so, this may be the second, & if so pray keep the duplicate & return it to me although if you could make any very good use of it, you should have one. I got Dinkel to display on my table at my last President’s soiree the drawings of your chalk fish, which were exceedingly admired, & made everyone talk of your collections & Dr Fitton remarked to a circle standing round that if your collection was ever dispersed it would be a grand monument for you to have such plates published as they attested the skill of the anatomist who had carried them out. I met Dr Fitton yesterday in great distress. On their way from Tunbridge to Highwood Hill they stopped in Brook St to call on Dr Chambers & Mrs Fitton wished to see her friend Mrs Chambers when the servant informed her at the door that Mrs C. had had been dangerously ill for some days of scarlet fever & it was feared was on the point of death. The shock was so sudden & affected Mrs F. so violently that she was ill & symptoms of an approaching miscarriage soon followed which was delayed about a week, & she was in the hands of Dr Merriman who went to Highwood. She was not out of danger yesterday but I hope to have a note from him tomorrow. I hope things will turn out more satisfactorily for you than you seemed to anticipate in your last letter. One can never receive from a public body such as a County Institution, that personal kindness & consideration which one’s own private friends would show us if separated from the public body & one must not allow one’s feelings to be hurt by what they do in the same way as if they were independent. It struck me that new subscribers entering could never understand (although perhaps strictly speaking, they

1 Letter written by Lyell’s wife, acting as amanuensis, except for the last paragraph. ought to do so) what right you could have to appropriate all donations & I think you are better off now that you are free from such an appropriation clause. You ask me as you did Sir P. Egerton whether you should “throw physic to the dogs”. Neither he nor I, nor anyone can be entitled to offer you advice which ought much to influence you on a subject so momentous to your career. I must say that I think the pledge to give the six lectures if they were on the contents of the Museum could be taking a decided step in another line but you seem inclined to make them at least in part medical. I was upon the whole glad to hear that Mrs Mantell & your daughter were at Lewes for although you & they could feel the separation yet it could take them away from the worry which must attend the arrangements of a removal & the negotiations with the Institution people. I am truly grieved to hear of your brother’s2 accident & its consequences, & hope they will not be so irrecoverable as you fear. I almost wish you could take his practice & keep your collection, but I speak in ignorance. I have little scientific news during this Easter, but you will see that “the Ides of March are past” & no Bridgewater has appeared. However, Broderip says he has corrected even the letter press of the description of the frontispiece sections &c. [*]3 I have greatly availed myself of my wife’s pen to write the above & she joins me in kind wishes for your health which must be tried so much that a run to a new scene of which you speak must be desirable & would I am sure be time well spent in Paris with a view to instructions & amusements. Mrs Fitton was two months gone & the loss of blood was frightful. believe me, dear Mantell ever faithfully yours ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Old Steyne, Brighton ]

2 Joshua Mantell (1795 - 1865). Surgeon and horticultural writer. He received a brain injury when thrown off his horse, which necessitated his removal to an asylum at Ticehurst, where he died in 1865. DNB.

3 Remainder of the letter was written in Lyell’s hand. 142

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

16 Hart St June 3 rd 1836

My dear Mantell Will you have the kindness to render me a great service in trying to get Dinkel to do the drawings which I have begged from him in the remainder of this sheet? Read it & you will see that the matter is urgent & would not have been thus driven off to the last had I not always hoped to have a day with him in town. I sail per steamer on Saty.11th.tomorrow week places taken. Do not mention it but the illustrations are for a 5th Ed. of the Principles now rapidly printing. Miss Sotheby told me yesterday how well you lectured at Brighton for a charity last year & she is a good judge. What you say about lectures serving as good introductions is to me a question in the sense you mean, but I hope to write again & consider this as a letter to Mr Dinkel which I shall try him to pay for. Many thanks for your entertaining newspapers & with best hopes for your health & success believe me ever very faithfully yrs ChaLyell

Accompanying letter to Dinkel, written by Lyell’s wife.

To Mr Dinkel, Brighton

Dear Sir, When Mr Agassiz was in town he gave you instructions for making drawings for me of a reduced size, of several scales, teeth &c of fishes & he made some rough sketches with his own hand & assured me that you would be able from them to know what drawings I want. I had always hoped that you would return to town as you promised before this time, but I fear from your last letter that I shall be gone to Scotland before you come here. Now it is necessary that the wood cuts should be put in hand immediately, before I go, & I leave the last day next week (Saturday, the 11th). Three or four wood cuts would be sufficient of the size indicated below & I send the sketch & memorandum of each as given by Mr Agassiz.

In respect to the two first A & B I do not apprehend that you will have any difficulty. In regard to C the memoranda is unfortunately very scanty, but if you could give me a scale & tooth of the Pyenodus Bucklandi, or any Pyenodus of the Oolite, & teeth of the Gyrodus in the same cut, referring to the species if possible I shall be glad of it. In regard to the last plate D you would have no difficulty if I wanted a Lepidotus of the Wealden, such as L. Mantelli or L. Fittoni, which last is also I believe of the Wealden, but I want the scales & teeth of a Lias or Oolite Lepidotus. I have requested Mr Mantell to have the kindness to assist you in explaining to you clearly what I want. Pray if you can send me the drawings immediately, for as the work in which they will appear will be printed when I am in Scotland at the distance of 500 miles you will see how necessary it is for me to see it all put in hand during the few remaining days that I am in town. believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell June 3 d. 1836. London.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. 58 Old Steyne, Brighton ]

143

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Kinnordy, Kirriemuir N th. B. July 6. 1836

My dear Mantell I was much obliged to you for endeavouring to make Dinkel comprehend my wants about which Agassiz thought he had given him full instructions; but is it not surprising that after working so long at icthyolites with the enthusiasm of his employer before him, he should never have taken any interest or acquired any ideas about fishes? He continued however to do almost all I wished before I left London, & he has much that is good in him. I was glad to hear from him that he had finished your chalk fishes & I assure you that when some of the drawings of them were exhibited at one of my soirees Fitton remarked, & we all agreed, that they will remain a goodly monument of your labours & will show what your museum is & has done for science. How did the matter end between you & our joint adversary who attacked our heresy; I told Dr Buckland it was something for you & me to be grouped with a Bishop & a Bridgewater & very rev d canon which amused him. Did your brother who met with so serious an accident recover. I hope from what Dinkel said that his case was not so bad as you at first supposed. [*]1 Here am I rusticating in a very beautiful country not too hot but with much weather like a fine English spring. I am now & then devoting some stray time to my “Elements” like Buckland’s Bridgewater long promised but not yet reviewed thank heaven. I have received a very pleasant letter from Alexr Burnes who has returned to Cutch & reexamined the delta of the Indus. He reports that the submerged tract which sank in 1819 is in statu quo. He has sent me off some Cutch secondary fossils – ammonites, belemnites &c. His letter came in 9 weeks per steamer from Cutch! I am glad to escape awhile from the excitement of London & wish I could hear of your doing so from Brighton but fear from your last letter that there is no immediate prospect of that.[*] The more I think on your affairs of which you have spoken so openly in your letters the more it strikes me that you will never have anything like rest & tranquility till you take a more decided line either for science or medicine; if for the latter you might do as much as ever in a quiet way & get reputation among the best people in science but appear to the world to be but little occupied with anything but your profession. I went through the same struggle when I cut law. [*]2 A letter from Dr Silliman [*] who takes a most lively interest in all that concerns you,[*]3 informs me that my “Principles” are being reprinted at Philadelphia & nearly ready. John Murray was in hopes he had reduced the price so as to prevent this happening.[*] I fear it is from my 3.d Ed n. so I shall not have the benefit of appearing the Americans in my newest & most correct dress.

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, pp. 470-471. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 471. 3 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 471. [*]4 I shall be here for more than a month then go with my wife to geologise in Arran then return here & afterwards in Sep r. or perhaps Oct r to London. If you send a letter to 16 Hart St it will be forwarded to me & do give me a full account [*] & what you & the Brightonians & the Museum & your lectures & he of the Inquisition & Mrs Mantell & your children are doing. My mother is much aged by all she went thro’ last winter but enquires with great interest after you & your prospects. She & my sisters desire to be remembered to you. My wife is taking a sketch of this place by way of keeping her hand in for drawing. [*]5 I have been riding today over an old haunt & seeing some points of alluvial & diluvial geol y with new eyes after my swedish tour.[*] Believe me my dear friend ever sincerely yours ChaLyell

July 6 th. I have today an opportunity of sending this to town in a frank. My youngest brother Henry is going in a week to London on his way to India. His deafness continues neither better nor worse. In other respects his health is excellent. Many thanks to you for having so much assisted in getting his leave prolonged. Your sincere friend. ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton, Sussex ]

144

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Kinnordy, Kirriemuir Sept. 19

4 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 471. 5 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 428. 1836 My dear Mantell Since I received your last letter I have been making a geological tour in the island of Arran which interested me greatly, & I have been very remiss in keeping up my correspondence generally, but I should have answered your last immediately if I had not felt that I could do you no good whatever in the application you desired me to make to Mr Sergison1 of whom I never heard. I once knew a little a Mr Fearon of Cuckfield, which perhaps you were thinking of, but my acquaintance was very slight. He is an F.G.S. I believe. I never heard anything more barbarous than the manner in which you were interfered with & Mr S. deserves to be shown up, but it would do no good. I had a letter about a month ago from Dr Silliman in which he expressed a warm interest for you & your affairs. I hope your youngest daughter2 is well again & that you have not suffered any fresh anxiety in consequence of your brother's health. Have you heard of any practice in town? I leave this for London on the 28th inst. & shall be fairly settled again in my old quarters 16 Hart St. on Oct. 2 d. Be sure you give us notice when in town that we may see as much of you as we can but if not intending to run up pray write & say what changes the last 2 months have produced. [*]3 I have written to invite Dr Fleming to pay us a visit here & he has accepted for tomorrow so when we meet or when I next write I will tell you how he looks. I am sorry to say he has had much ill health. I suppose you know that he got his living of Flisk, the smallest in emolument in the East of Scotland & where he had been for most of his life “like a pony tethered on a highland moor” – exchanged for a much better living in Fife where he was quite adored by his parishioners, but so great was the duty that it left not a moment for a conscientious man to devote to science or literature & was almost too fatiguing for his health. It was

1 In Mantell’s Private Journal the following entry appears for 18 July 1836: “Went to Cuckfield on Saturday with Mr Richardson: breakfasted with Mr Trotter – went to the quarry where the men had preserved for me a fine portion of an enormous bone: I was paying them a sovereign for it when a Mr Sergison the owner of the land on which the quarry was situated rode in, and forbade my having it, and ordered the men to wheel it down to his house. I called on this man and requested to see his lady hoping to find her less of a Goth than her Squire, but she refused to admit me, and I returned home without the bone”. 2 Hannah Matilda Mantell, born 24 November 1822. GAM-PJ. 3 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 1, p. 471. therefore most natural that he should have sighed for a Professorship in a Scotch University which gives a 6 months vacation every year – after several applications in vain for chairs more consistent with his zoological & botanical acquirements he accepted one in Aberdeen of Nat.l Philos.y I think it was called which no doubt has given him much fag to get up arrears of mathematical knowledge. But unfortunately something worse than the lectures fell to his hard fate. Several University bills & a Royal Visitation caused tremendous secretarian or clerk’s labours to fall on the Junior Professor who is obliged to serve as Sec. to the Univ y![*] The emoluments were small & the chair under these circumstances has been anything but desirable, leaving no time for science & causing much drudgery! [*]4 You will see by this that you, my good friend, are not singular in finding it difficult to gratify your liberal thirst for science without interfering with professional profits. Really, as Milman5 says, it would be well for the country if instead of abolishing prebendal stalls they were given to clerical & lay cultivators of literature & science who had shown they would devote energy & superior talents to those departments. When Babbage was taunted some day by a conservative with “what do you mean to be when the revolution comes” he said “Lay Archbishop of Winchester”. A few comfortable scientific sinecures would be good things but I fear they might become useless like Univ y. fellowships.[*] I have never heard of Dr Beck & he replies not to my letters. He is a procrastinator of a peculiar kind not that he does not put through work but because he undertakes many times more than as it is possible to perform. I shall write to him again.[*]6 Did you read those lines in the Morn.g Chron. about the “Aristocratodon” & the “Episcopus Vorax”? I wonder who wrote them. There is an attack in the St.James Chronicle on Buckland for having said at Bristol that the world was millions of years old. Mr Horner tells me that Lonsdale is looking better but thinks himself still ill[.] he has worked like yourself too hard. half of what either of you have done would have finished me.[*] Have you heard of Dinkel or of Agassiz? Have you got the Cuckfield

4 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., pp. 471-472. 5 Henry Hart Milman (1791 - 1868). Professor of Poetry, Oxford University 1821-31; Rector of St. Margaret’s, Westminster 1835; Dean of St. Paul’s 1849. DNB. 6 Text between asterisks is quoted K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, p. 472. “big bone”? [*]7 I hear that Fitton’s Green Sand is printed but still he is polishing it. I trust that for his & our sakes I shall find it done when I get to Town.[*] I could not make out Bristol this year but hope to be at Liverpool next.8 With rememb s. of my mother & wife & and all the rest of the family here & kindest wishes for your health and success, believe me, ever most truly yours ChaLyell Is Mrs Mantell still at Lewes & well?

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. 20 Steyne, Brighton, Sussex ] 145

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 22 October 1836 ]

My dear Mantell

7 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., p. 472. 8 The annual meetings of BAAS were held at Bristol in August 1836 and at Liverpool in Sept. 1837. Mr W. Parish1 has offered to take a letter from me to Brighton which gives me an opportunity of thanking you for your kind remembrance of me & my wife. Mrs Lyell had already your small “Thoughts on a Pebble”2 which had given her much pleasure & she has now given it to her sisters & kept the one copy with your inscription. I am very glad to hear that your prospects are brighter & believe that with perseverence & prudence you will succeed. I take the advantage of Mr P.’s offer to send you a copy of a letter which I received from Sir J. Herschell with which I know you will be pleased. Consider it as a private communication not to be given to any one so that it could be cited or in any ways published & return it when you have a good opportunity. You will remember a reference to one of two remarks that I had distinctly in the 1st. Ed. of my Principles anticipated the point Ch. XI vol. 2 p.177 or 4th. Ed. Ch. XI vol.3 p. 165 “some being local etc”.3 I have been most pleased with Buckland on Cephalopoda4 which is the part I have first read. Murchison is not in town, hopes to be out with Siluria5 by Easter. Hoping soon to hear a good account of yourself & family, believe me ever faithfully yrs ChaLyell

16 Hart St. 22 Oct. 1836.

1 Woodbine Parish (1796 - 1882). English diplomat and vertebrate palaeontologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, 1980, p. 1849. 2 G.A. Mantell, Thoughts on a Pebble or a First Lesson in Geology, Relfe and Fletcher, London, 1836. 3 This reference concerns the theory of the successive extinction of some species consistent with their limited geographical distribution. 4 Rev. W. Buckland, The Bridgewater Treatises on the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God as Manifested in the Creation. Treatise VI: Geology and Mineralogy considered with Reference to Natural Theology, 2 vols, Pickering, London, 1836, sections iii-vii. 5 R. I. Murchison, The Silurian System, founded on Geological Researches in the Counties of Salop, Hereford, Radnor, Montgomery, Caermarthen, Brecon, Pembroke, Monmouth, Gloucester, Worcester and Stafford; with Descriptions of the Coal-fields and Overlying Formations, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1839. P.S. As I pay for such parcels as your last (& most willingly) don’t lose time by sending them thro’ the G.S. which occasionally causes delay.

146

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 31 December 1836 ]

My dear Mantell You would oblige me much by taking the first opportunity which offers of sending to me by some one the copy of Sir J. Herschell’s letter, if any friend would bring it within range of the 2y. Post. The fact is that Herschell has alluded to his letter to me to some of his correspondents as supposing them to have seen it, but I had not shown it to them, nor generally so much as I should have liked to have done (except for a few intimate friends) because it was so very complimentary to me & my works. I shall now however be very glad of the copy I lent you. I was sorry we were dining out when you last called. Many thanks for your newspaper giving an account of your anniversary which appears to have been well attended. [*]1 The College of Surgeons are to have Mr Darwin’s South American fossil bones, a new gigantic rodent quadruped & anteater & other wonders which Owen & Clift are to describe.[*] Models to be given to the Geolog.l & other institutions. On Wed y. next Darwin reads a paper corroborative of the Chilean Elevn. of land in 1822 & other signs of upheaval of Andes & Pampas of S.

1 Text between asterisks is foot-noted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, p. 434. America.2 Have you seen the memoir on the Sivatherium by Cautley3 and Falconer.4 I am told there is some animal which Pallas5 in his zoographia Russea6 or some such work called “Taro-elephes” which I should look to before parading the Sivatherium a real novelty. How famously those men are working to have produced such a paper, & what a world of mammalia is opening there as well as in S. America. Dr Fitton is keeping Xmas at Tunbridge Wells & still trying to get a house near London. My wife desires her rememb.s and with mine also to yourself & Mrs Mantell believe me ever faithfully yrs ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. 20 Steyne, Brighton ]

2 C. Darwin, ‘Observations of Proofs of recent elevation on the Coast of Chili, made during the Survey of His Majesty’s ship Beagle, commanded by Captain Fitzroy R.N.’, PGSL, 1834-1837, 2, pp. 446-447. 3 Colonel Sir Proby Cautley (1802 - 1871). English soldier and vertebrate palaeontologist. Wrote on the fossil mammals of the Siwalik Hills, India. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 704. 4 Hugh Falconer (1808 -1865). English physician, botanist and vertebrate palaeontologist. Collected fossils from Sivalik Hills, India. DNB. 5 Peter Simon Pallas (1741 - 1811). German naturalist and traveller, particularly in Russia and Siberia 1768-74. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p.1842. 6 P.S. Pallas, Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica sistens omnium animalium in extenso Imperio Rossico et adjacentibus maribus observatorum recensionem, domocilia, mores et descriptiones, anatomen, atque iconem plurimorum, 3 vols, Petropoli, Academiae Scientiarum, 1814. 147

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 5 February 1837 ]

My dear Mantell As soon as I received your letter I wrote to Sir John Herschell mentioning of course that I was not personally acquainted with Lieut Thomas but saying what you had said in favour of him & about him. His being an officer of Artillery is of itself a guarantee, at the same time then considering how many interruptions of the kind I know that Sir J. has, at the Cape, I told him fairly that there were very few for whom I would have done the service except for yourself, for I scarcely ever before ventured to introduce any one to any one, not being myself personally acquainted.1 I sent the letter to the address you mentioned & begged for an acknowledgement but have received none so I hope there is no mistake. I put 54 Harley St. & the M.P.’s name as directed, & had it miscarried I presume it would have been returned. Mr [Host?]2 brother-in-law of Murchison has I find been under your treatment & I was glad to hear that you had had much business at Brighton. He was afraid you were beginning to have the influenza yourself but I trust you escaped & have reaped the harvest which medical men are gathering in here. We have scarcely suffered but my clerk has been & is very ill. I am finishing my Anniversary Address for the 17th. inst. & shall tell you what Darwin has done in S. America. We have given 2 medals one to Capt. Cautley & the other to Dr Falconer for their joint discoveries & papers on the geology & extinct fossil quad s. of the Sub-Himalayan mountains. If not aware of their merits you will

1 In a letter to Lyell dated 12 June 1837, Herschel advised that Lieutenant H. J. Thomas R.A., had forwarded Lyell’s letter of introduction to him and that he (Herschel) would be happy to make his acquaintance and ‘shew’ him any attention. Darwin-Lyell mss., APS. 2 In a letter to Mantell dated 27 October 1836, Murchison introduced his brother-in-law as Mr Hall. Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, Folder 74. see by what I shall mention how well they have earned them. Have you any new saurians or other treasures or do they not crop the downs. I hope Mrs Mantell & your family are well & believe me ever faithfully yrs ChaLyell 5. Feb y. 1837 Lond n.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. 20 Steyne, Brighton ]

148

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 11 April 1837 ] My dear Mantell I am happy to have a copy of my last years address for you which I will send to the Geol. Socy. & hope it will go with Proceedings in due time to Brighton. One was dedicated to you & sent last year of which I have found the memorandum, but whether sent to G.S. or Mr Relfe I cannot ascertain. Your birds bone paper1 was ordered to be printed, but you cannot conceive the difficulty of doing anything about accelerating the Transs. which are always in progress (Weaver’s2 paper3 being now in the press) but the council will have each paper looked to as if they were responsible not the author, & no doubt we should publish a mixture of trash like the Geographical if we did otherwise. But I am half inclined to prefer that to

1 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Bones of Birds discovered in the Strata of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex’, [June 1835], TGSL, 1840, 5, series 2, pp. 175-177. 2 Thomas Weaver (1773 - 1855). English geologist and mineralogist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, on p. 2389. 3 T. Weaver, ‘On the Geological Relations of the South of Ireland’, [August 1830 and November 1835], TGSL, 1840, 5(1), series 2, pp. 1-68. such delay. But then the worst evil against which during my Presidentship I found it vain to contend, is the want of a paid Editor to go thro’ the drudgery imposed on us by the present system. Lonsdale says it is one man’s time & talent to superintend the Proceedings & Editing of Trans. As to amateur, gratuitous secretaries most of them cannot, none of them will do the work. I have long doubted whether the balance of ill done by learned Socs. did not far outweigh the good. Imagine how much time must be annihilated [sic] of such men as Lonsdale & others so long as such corporations exist! Suppose Herschell P.R.S. would all they do now make up for what we should lose by blotting his time & talents out of the scientific records of our time by official toils & reading “the minutes of the last meeting?” Poor Lonsdale it is killing him, but when one tries to relieve him the answer is the secretaries used to do it & should now – they admit this but have other avocations or perhaps prior duties. They do it not. Lonsdale does it & when he is gone they will find some other victim whose term if not interfered with would outdo all their joint stock performances. Pray do not ask me to cross town whenever you write as tho’ it is very kind of you, it pains me to be always declining. My numerous friends & relations in the country have left off doing so, finding me fixed steadily during my stay in town where my engagements are far too many to leave me at liberty to set off, as of old en garcon to spend a few hours in the country. We hope to hear before you give your lecture at the R.I. as we should like to hear it much. With my kind remembrances to Mrs Mantell believe me ever most faithfully yrs ChaLyell 16 Hart St 1837 Apl. 11th.

P.S. Your notice on the coffin bone of horse in the Elephant bed at Brighton was given to me long ago to send to you as not ordered to be printed – excuse my keeping it so long. I have sent it to G.S. with my Address for you.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. 20 Steyne, Brighton ] 149

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Sat.y [ 6 May 1837 ] My dear Mantell I hope you will be able to dine here on Friday next in which case I will ask Darwin to meet you who is going to your lecture1 with us. Write & say if you can dine here at 6ock. you may go away as soon as you like to prepare. If engaged, you may perhaps breakfast with us on the Saty. morning at ½ past 9ock. instead. There is a party at the D.of S.’s2 on the Saty. as you mention. I have a card but don’t think of going tho’ I suppose one ought. I wish they had sent you a card instead of me. If I see Children3 I will ask whether a card could be sent to you & what are their rules but it would not be right for me to apply for it. I find that the post is just going at 11 excuse haste & believe me yours truly ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

150

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

1 Mantell was invited to give a single, volunteer lecture at the Royal Institution, London, on 12 May on the Geology of the Weald. About 700 persons were present. GAM -PJ, entry 12 May 1837. 2 Duke of Sussex. President of the Royal Society, 1830-39. 3 John George Children (1777 - 1852). Mineralogist. Secretary of the Royal Society 1826-27 and 1830-37. DNB. [ 8 May 1837 ]

My dear Mantell You are invited to the Duke of Susex on Saturday. Mr Children referred to the list for me but believes the card if sent went to Mr Murchison’s. very truly yrs ChaLyell

P.S. I suppose I shall hear from you whether you dine with us on Friday.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

151

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 21 December 1837 ]

My dear Mantell I was much obliged to you for your note & the information was useful as I met Konig a few days afterwards at a sale & he asked me if there was any chance of the Mantellian collection being on the market so that the British Museum might have a chance of purchasing it. I simply told him that as I had every reason to expect that the people of Brighton would never give what it was worth, I certainly thought the Brit. Mus. ought to look out for it. He was as eager as became a curator but said he was sure the Trustees w.d never do it but that if the principal geologists represented the matter in its true light to the Chancellor of the Exchequor he would probably give the sum which you demand. I must say that though I cannot think without feelings of regret & sorrow of the collection belonging to any one but yourself yet I would rather see it in the British Mus m. with you residing in or near London than any where else in the world. It is so seldom that we have engagements like that which prevented our meeting when you were last in town tho’ I was vexed as I wished much to hear whether all was arranged at Clapham.1 We, Dr Fitton & others are going to try & get a small pension for T. Webster who we learn from Scharf is starving. A small preliminary subscription will perhaps be required but he perhaps w d. not accept it. We must proceed with much caution or he will take nothing. What a fortune this animal magnetizer is making! A crowded audience every day 2s. 6d. each besides fees for courses. Col. Ashburnam,2 Lord Inghestre3 & other fashionables publicly going thro’ the operation day after day and thousands believing. Is it not enough to make you wish to turn quack for a year or two, then shut up shop & geologise en prince for the rest of your days? I too am going with a party each to pay our 2s. 6 just as we go to a conjuror. I hope your daughter4 is better. Remember me kindly to Mrs Mantell & believe me my dear Mantell ever most truly yrs ChaLyell Dec. 21 1837 Lond n.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ]

152

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

1 In September 1837 Mantell announced that he was leaving Brighton and had purchased a medical practice at Clapham from Sir William Pearson. Spokes, G.A. Mantell, on p. 88, and GAM-PJ, entries 20 July and 1 April 1838. 2 Probably General Thomas Ashburnham who died in 1871. DUB. 3 Viscount Ingestre (1803 - 1868). Eldest surviving son of the Earl of Talbot. Conservative M.P. for Hertford 1830-32. M. Stenton (ed.), Who’s Who of British Members of Parliament, vol. 1, 1976. 4 Hannah Matilda Mantell, who was suffering at the time from a serious disease of her hip-joint. [ 16 January 1838 ] My dear Mantell I received a letter from Lord Northampton saying that when the Chancellor of the Exchequor was with him he mentioned the desirability of adding your collection to the Brit. Mus. & received in answer some civil declaration that he was not disinclined if the Trustees recommended. I have since learnt that the Treasury have very lately refused positively two requests of the Trustees most strongly recommended by the most competent scientific men in their department both in & out of the Museum, both under £1,000 & Mr Brown who is very anxious that your collection sh d. be bought urged me not to advise you to have any motion made for 2 or 3 months till the Canada & other questions which make the Treasury very unwilling to disburse on any scientific grounds shall have been settled. I am always asked what is your lowest price & can only say £5,000 at present. I will talk with Sir P. Egerton when he returns. I have not heard a word from Mr Dixon5 about the S. Mortoni. I hope you will see my Elements6 one vol 12 mo. out before summer. I am curious to see your Geological Album of scraps. believe me in haste ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

153

G. A. Mantell to Charles Lyell7

Spokes, G.A. Mantell, on p. 87. 5 Frederick Dixon (1799 - 1849). English stratigrapher and fossil collector. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 905. 6 C. Lyell, Elements of Geology, John Murray, London, published in July, 1838. 7 Transcribed from a xeroxed copy of the original letter at APS. [ 22 January 1838 ]

My dear friend, I am very much vexed that Mr Dixon did not immediately attend to your wishes – but I always find these pseudo-savans make mighty favours, of what they ought to be delighted they have the power of contributing. I send you a sketch of my daughter’s of a specimen I gave away some years ago – to a foreigner; when I did not attach any interest to it. I thought it a coral. It is as good as Hudsons – better than any I have – sufficiently characteristic – but not so good as Dixon’s. I thank you very much for your kindness respecting my answer. I am so unwell I can scarce do anything & the weather is dreadfully severe here. Ever most sincerely yours G. Mantell

Brighton - Friday Jan y. 1838 [ Addressed to: Charles Lyell Esq. 16 Hart St. Bloomsbury ]

154

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 7 February 1838 ] My dear Mantell Many thanks for the drawing of the Hippurite Mortoni to you & Miss Mantell. Mr Dixon brought his beautiful specimen which I have had drawn so shall not want any other. I am truly concerned to hear of the inopportune publication1 on what you are engaged, especially as you are unwell. When young Kean2 whom I met the other day expatiated very warmly on his admiration of your Brighton lectures, I could not help for the evening wishing that your energies were devoted to lecturing in the country – head quarters in town, retaining the Museum & selling duplicates from time to time named scientifically to Brit. Mus. or sending them to auctions, or to individuals who would pay higher because coming from you, collecting as you travelled materials for sale for lectures & for publications. Your talents spent undividedly on own work & then your hobby & your family inheriting like the Sowerby museum, copyrights &c &c. No friend could or ought to take upon himself the responsibility of advising such a cause, but nothing can be worse for health, fame or profit than balancing between two departments which the public whether scientific or unscientific are determined to regard as incompatible. Applications have been made several times to the council to recommend the British Museum & other bodies to buy collections & the

1 The first edition of Mantell’s, Wonders of Geology or a Familiar Exposition of Geological Phenomena, Relfe and Fletcher, London, was published in February 1838. 2 Probably Charles John Kean (1811? - 1868). Actor and second son of the actor Edmund Kean (1787 - 1833). DNB. answer returned was that they could not interfere as Council of G.S. however much they might do individually. Is it £200 or £100 which you say Mr Richardson3 would catch at? Our Curator is offered £125. I have mentioned Mr R. to one of the committee for choosing & he should apply if he wants it immediately. I have a copy for you of my new paper on the Danish Chalk4 published in new vol. of Geol. Trans. – pray if you remember it ask me for it when you come to town. Is not the gaillanella distans of Ehrenberg which you say occurs in chalk one of E.’s tertiary species? believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell 16 Hart St. Lond n. Feb 7. 1838.

P.S. I asked Sir W. Parish to write to you last week to say that Konig did not agree with R. Brown that the application to Brit. Mus. sh d. be deferred.

P.S. I have been asked what is Mr Richardson’s age? What languages does he understand? I believe that Sir W. Parish who is on the “Curator committee” will answer all this. Hawkins that strange jackall [sic] has got together another splendid collection of Saurian fossils finer than the first, now in town which I have not seen. I have just heard that he has got Buckland to see it & to go about recommending it as a fit thing for the Brit. Mus m. to give £1,500 for. But this will appear to the Trustees I think too much of one branch of Palaeontology.

[ Addressed to: Gideon Mantell Esq. Steyne, Brighton ] 155

3 George Fleming Richardson (1796 - 1848). Curator of Mantell's Brighton Museum from 1835 until its sale in 1838 to the British Museum, where he subsequently worked until 1848. H. Torrens and J. Cooper, Geological Curator, 1986, 4(5), pp. 249-272. 4 C. Lyell, ‘On the Cretaceous and Tertiary Strata of the Danish Islands of Seeland and Moen’, TGSL, 1840, 5, series 2, pp. 243-257. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 17 February 1838 ]

My dear Mantell I am going to geologise in the Suffolk crag for a week or 10 days & return the inclosed. Mr Horace & Mr Hallam both asked the Chancellor of the Exchequor the other day in his own house about the grant of money for your collection. He expressed himself most decidedly in favour but stated that with a defecit of two millions & ½ as compared with last year the order of the day was to cut off every expense this year not absolutely necessary. He said this not as having decided anything but rather anticipating what his master, the House of Commons would say to him if he proposed the required grant just now. believe me in great haste ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

P.S. I return the inclosed which you lent me.

Tuesday 17 1838

156

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 21 February 1838 ]

My dear Mantell Sir P. Egerton gave me last night the enclosed sketch by Ld. Northampton of a proposed memorial for certain of us at the G.S. to sign, saying that altho’ it would not do, that it might suggest to me such a statement as Ld. N. Sir P.E. myself & many others would sign. When I came to consider how I should reword it I found I wanted data. How many specimens? or into what principal divisions should it be classified in order to give an idea of its extent without being too diffuse or minute? Shall we lay most stress on the chalk fish or on the Wealden reptiles. Of course we must insist on its being unique & on the impossibility of any but a good anatomist having cut out the fish & put together the reptiles of the Wealden. Would you be so kind as to give me a statement with some particulars for my grand work at least. I shall tell Sir P. tomorrow that I will draw up the memorial as soon as I get the statistics from you. As I shall not show what you send me to any one do not form any reluctance to praise your labours & their grand results [or] omit to mention anything that can be urged in their favour or to enhance them in the eyes of the Trustees. I will put in first what I can conscientiously say as what I feel about them, so write what you have to say just as if it were for me instead of yourself. We must speak strongly about it & you will be glad to hear that the Chancellor of the Exchequor meeting Sir P. volunteered saying that he had been applied to in favour of your Museum. Sir P. did not let the occasion slip you may be sure of urging him, & he is full of hope of getting a good round soon. believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

P.S. I wish I could find a copy of what I once said about your collection when speechifying about you & your medal at the dinner of the G.S. tho’ perhaps it would not help me much.

157

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell [ 23 February 1838 ]

My dear Mantell Many thanks for a sight of your proofs which read very tempting & popular & the wood cuts excellent. The upright stem which I have taken from Lindley looks quite different from the Lepidodendron you have L.Stembergii. I send this to Ld. Cole to ask him to frank it. I hope you got a frank from me yesterday. believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell Friday 23 d. Feb.

Your wood cuts are well done.

158

G. A. Mantell to Charles Lyell1

[ March 1838 ]2 114 Western road Brighton My dear friend I have been so unwell since my return that I could not go to the Steyne today. My spherulites exhibited had very obscure indication of the vertical

1 Transcribed from a transcribed copy ex ATL. Original letter at APS. 2 Mantell left Brighton on 12 March 1838. Spokes, G.A. Mantell, on p. 98. On 1 April 1838 Mantell recorded in his Private Journal, “I took up my abode at Clapham and succeeded to the practice of Sir W. Pearson”. ridge, so little traces indeed are there that I should be inclined to think Dixon's accidental or perhaps the ridge may become obliterated by age. My specimens appear to be older shells. I send you Brongniart and d’Archiac3 and enclose a page relating to spirolinites – I had only this rough proof, or would have sent you a better & more intelligible one. Please to return it early as I have no other to refer to. I hope to have done by the end of next week – but I have a good deal to do. Well might Job exclaim Oh! that mine adversary would write a book! When I was at the Geol. Soct. I found you had Lindley & Hutton’s flora fossil.4 I have had copies of two upright stems from that work – the lepidodendron & sigillaria which I mention that you may be aware of the circumstance if you select any for illustration. Viscount d’Archiac informed me that the plagiostoma was a true spondylus; the hinge being ligamentous or cartilaginous was generally absent in y r. fossils – but that he had specimens in which the triangular cavity was filled up by the true hinge. Excuse my dear friend this almost unintelligible scrawl. I am still suffering so much from headache. I have told my bookseller Mr Relfe to send you the first copy of the work,5 so soon as the last sheet is printed before it is published. There is a great demand for it he tells me. My best regards to Mrs L. & Miss L. Ever yours G. Mantell

March 1838

159

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

3 Etienne Jules Adolphe Dexmier de Simon, Vicomte d’ Archiac (1802-1868). French stratigrapher and historian of geology. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, on p. 437. 4 J. Lindley and W. Hutton, Fossil Flora of Great Britain, 3 vols, Ridgway, London, 1831-1837. 5 G.A. Mantell, The Wonders of Geology or A Familiar Exposition of Geological Phenomena, 2 [ 31 March 1838 ]

My dear Mantell I have only had time to dip into your two elegant little volumes6 which appear to me beautifully got up without appearance of haste which you spoke of, & calculated to popularize the science & be a most agreeable memorial to yourself & your career as a teacher of Science during your residence at Brighton. I am so slow a writer myself that this producing the two vols. in 3 months & writing so much of them is to me a prodigy & I could not have accomplished it had I been willing to bargain for many a headache. But as I have just had to write a long letter to Sedgwick on business excuse my writing you a short one, but when I have read your book I will say more. It cannot fail to succeed at least at the booksellers & hope eventually repay you something. I have not been in the way of hearing of what the Treasury mean to say to the Trustees of the B.M. I am sorry that you had not the first of the four most poetical lines of T. Moore which you have cited7 for the Temple of Serapis in speaking of which & on so many other places you have provided me so many compliments. Wishing you success & hoping soon to hear better news of your daughter whose continued illness is really most distressing. believe me with Mrs Lyell’s kind remembrances ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

vols., Relfe and Fletcher, London, 1838. 6 Ibid. 7 Moore’s lines, which Mantell cited in his Wonders of Geology, were:

Where lonely columns stand sublime, Flinging their shadows from on high, Like dials, which the Wizard Time Had raised to count his ages by ! Sat y. 31 March 1838

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. Clapham Common ]

160

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 5 June 1838 ]

My dear Mantell I have not answered your letter till I was sure that other of your friends agree with me in thinking that to “bombard”, as Murchison calls it either the Trustees of the B.M. or the minister any more would merely bore them & prejudice them especially as the promise already given is thought by most persons a great thing & almost more than they expected. 1 As to the Chancellor of Ex. not agreeing himself to propose it when Buckland signed the last memorial it was under a full persuasion that he would persist in his resolution & Warburton's promise was given as I understand Buckland under the express expectation that nothing but an amendment would bring the matter before the Committee of the H. of Commons. Now I should be afraid even to ask Warburton again as I know no-one less patient of being bored & the whole affair has been thoroughly explained to him. I am sorry it could not have been done at once but some of the Trustees will be out of humour as it is, that it sh d. be preferred to £30,000 worth of other things which they wanted in addition.

1 In July 1838 the Trustees of the British Museum agreed to purchase Mantell’s geological collection, consisting of upwards of twenty thousand specimens, for £4,000, payment being made the following summer. It was also agreed that the collection would be packed and removed at the expense of the Trustees of the British Museum. GAM-PJ, entry August 1839 and A Catalogue of the Mantellian Collection in the British Museum, 1839, Mantell mss, ATL-NZ, reference no. 1293. believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

June 5. 1838.

I hope your daughter is going on well & pray remember me to Mrs Mantell.

16 Hart S t. June 5. Bloomsbury.

161

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

[ 1838 ]

My dear Mantell Can you breakfast with me at 10ck.or ¼ before 10ck tomorrow? We shall be very glad to see you & we shall have much to do tomorrow it will be well to talk & eat together & economize on time. I want to speak about the Museum. It is clear from what took place at the Council that the

1This letter was undated and addressed to Mantell at Bretts Hotel, Furnivals Inn, Holborn. Mantell did not move into Crescent Lodge, Clapham Common, until 29 September 1838. GAM-PJ. The context of the letter indicates that Lyell wished to discuss the possible appointment of George Fleming Richardson, previously curator of Mantell’s Brighton Museum, to the British Museum.Refer letter 154, dated 7 February 1838. committee who are to select a curator out of 20 candidates who have offered will not choose

[ remainder of note-paper (2 pages) blank. ]

162

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 1838 - 1839 ]2

My dear Mantell In case I should not meet you tonight or only for a moment in the hurry & bustle of a Geol.S. meeting, I write to say how glad I was to hear that you were so well satisfied with your professional success, which so early in the day is really a triumph not only for you but for all who think the public too jealous of the scientific hobbies of medical men. No doubt the bookseller has reaped some harvest tho’ you have not from “The Wonders” but at the same time the price3 was so reasonable considering the number & excellence of the wood cuts which I know from experience are most costly, that I suppose the chief profit must be looked for in the 2 d. Ed n. I have been very busy in the press & shall be for several months to come. I did not write about the American affair seeing by Dr Silliman’s letters that nothing can be done towards preventing transatlantic piracies & thinking I should perhaps meet you. I hope you will soon have better news to tell me about your daughter. Mrs Lyell is well & writes in kind rememb s.

2 Letter undated. Lyell’s reference to the success of the 1st edition of The Wonders of Geology, which was published in February 1838 and followed by a 2nd edition in that year, (3rd edition 1839), indicates that the letter was probably written during the period March - December 1838. 3 The price of the 1st edition of Mantell’s, The Wonders of Geology, was 21 shillings. [ closing salutation not decipherable ] ChaLyell

163

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell4

[ 2 November 1839 ]

My dear Mantell Many thanks for your present5 which as you have dedicated it to me I will retain but in its place returning you a duplicate vol. which I received from the translator together with the 2 d. vol. I beg your acceptance of a paper I have lately published & hope in a day or two to send you another on Mammalia lately found in London clay and Red Crag6 which will show you part of my late occupations & I hope soon to read a paper at the G.S. on the East coast of Norfolk at which I worked last summer. After attending the Birmingham meeting7 I went with my wife to pay visits and among other places we passed three days at Castle Ashby. Since my arrival in town I have been [*]8 increasing & arranging my collection of tertiary shells, naming them with G. Sowerby’s assistance and Mr Wood’s,9 buying a new cabinet &c.[*] The day before yesterday I presided at the Geol l. Committee of the R.S. to which I presume you were summoned as you are a Member when Prof r. Sedgwick & Dr Fitton agreed with me in recommending Murchison’s Silurian

4 Entire letter written by Lyell’s wife acting as an amanuensis. 5 Mantell’s present appears to have been the German translation of his The Wonders of Geology, which was published in 1839. Spokes, G.A. Mantell, p. 101. 6 C. Lyell, ‘On remains of Mammalia in the Crag and London Clay of Suffolk’, BAAS Report, 1840, 9, pp. 69-70. 7 The 1839 annual meeting of BAAS was held at Birmingham during August. 8 Text between asterisks is quoted in Wilson, Charles Lyell, on p. 512. 9 Valentine Searles Wood (1798 - 1880). Suffolk palaeontologist who published a number of papers System as worthy of the Copley Medal, many other committee’s having also sent me their respective recommendations for the same medal. Your son’s10 New Zealand emigration must have been a cruel disappointment to your hopes & plans which appeared to me so reasonable if eventually transferring to him a good practice at Clapham but I trust that he will either become a great landed proprietor at the Antipodes or return in time to allow the transfer to take place. I am very sanguine myself about New Zealand & think it will outdo even Van Dieman’s Land which in thirty years after its first colonization not only built Steam Vessels but sent off a colony to Port Phillip on the main land. I am very glad you are able to send rather a more favourable an account of your daughter than when you last spoke of her to me. [*]11 Mrs Lyell writes with me in kind regards to yourself & Mrs Mantell & believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

Nov.2 1839.

164

on the Norfolk Crag. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, on p. 2454. 10 Walter Baldock Durrant Mantell, Mantell’s eldest son, emigrated to New Zealand in September 1839. 11 Remainder of letter was written in Lyell’s hand. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

[ 1 May 1841 ] Dear Mantell I am much obliged to you for the Lewes paper. Hopkins2 remarked to me that he believed you had not traced continuously any one of the longitudinal lines of fracture in the Wealden before Martin even for a mile east & west, or at least you had not published it. If you had be so good as to give me the page in the Geol. of Sussex as soon as you can as I am reprinting that part of my Elements in which I shall refer to it at some length.3 Could you tell me when Hopkins first came out with anything on the Wealden, for I rather suspect that part of his mathematical theory is anticipated by Thurmann in his work on the Jura. I have still a third query. Can I refer to the Abstract of your paper read at the R.S.4 Is it out? Can you send it to me. I want to cite you for the number of individual iguanodons found by you, and other points in a sheet also just going to press5 believe me dearest Mantell ever most truly yrs ChaLyell 16 Hart St. May 1. 1841.

P.S. I had cited Baculites as occurring in Upper Green Sand in my Elements. Lonsdale asks me where it is found in that formation. Can you answer or is it a mistake? See Elements p.317.6

1 Letter written by an amanuensis apart from the closing salutation. 2 William Hopkins (1793 - 1866). Cambridge geologist who carried out mathematical studies of earth movements. DNB. 3 In the 6th edition of his Elements of Geology, on p.363, Lyell refers to Martins and Hopkins work on the lines of fracture of the Weald, but there is no reference to Mantell. 4 G.A. Mantell, ‘Memoir on a Portion of the Lower Jaw of the Iguanodon and on the Remains of the Hylaeosaurus and other Saurians’, Phil Trans, 1841, 131, pp. 153-158. 5 Mantell is cited by Lyell in Elements of Geology, 6th ed., on p. 345 as having first discovered the Iguanodon and also for examining the teeth and bones of 75 distinct individuals. 6 Baculites anceps is stated as occurring in Green Sand: Elements of Geology, 6th ed., on p. 323. 165

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

[ 11 May 1841 ] My dear Mantell The deputation from Lewes is indeed much flattering & satisfactory & I could fancy myself happier as proprietor of a new & splendid collection at Lewes than at Clapham but it is one of those points on which no man can judge for another especially the professional part. I am working very hard having a paper on Touraine faluns2 to write & a 2 d. vol. of 2 d. Ed. Elements to print before a tour in Canada & U. States in July so excuse a short note to thank you for the read of Dr. F’s letter which I have read with pleasure. The continuous anticlinals since discovered by others for the first time are well mentioned. ever truly yrs ChaLyell May 11 16 Hart St. / 41

166

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 28 June 1841 ]3 My dear Mantell

1 Entire letter written by an amanuensis. 2 C.Lyell, ‘On the Faluns of the Loire, and a comparison of their Fossils with those of the Newer Tertiary strata in the Cotentin, and on the relative age of the Faluns and Crag of Norfolk’, PGSL, 1838-42, 3, pp. 437-444. 3 Year of letter not stated but 1841 deduced from day and month of year and Lyell’s visit to Wales in I have just returned from Siluria & shall read a short paper on things I have seen there, on Wednesday next – when I hope to thank you for your very kind note & offer. If disengaged on Monday even.g next July 5 at 9 ock. we shall be happy to see you at a small party here & believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell Monday June 28

167

June 1841 to examine some Silurian fossils. Wilson, Charles Lyell, on p. 515. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

[ 29 October 1841 ] My dear Mantell [*]2 I was glad to hear of you from Dr Silliman who has probably told you of a visit which we paid to him & his very agreeable family at Newhaven.[*] His son in particular is most promising as a scientific man following the same line as his father. [*]3 After staying two days with them we went by New York & the Hudson to Albany where I began my explorings on the Silurian strata & from thence I examined the valley of the Mohawk in company with Mr James Hall4 who has been employed by the Government with four others to survey the State of New York, which is about the size of our island. The falls of Niagara were as beautiful as I expected, perhaps scarcely so grand but in geological interest far beyond my most sanguine hopes. As I shall read a paper on the proofs of their recession to the G.S. I will not dwell on them now. After spending some time there I examined seriatim all the Silurian groups in the Old Red & Coal on the borders of Pennsylvania [*] over which I have already sent a notice through the G.S. to Dr Fitton. [*]5 Returning to Albany I went South to Philadelphia [*] & saw your friends Dr & Mrs Morton who spoke to us of you. He showed me some of the fossils of the cretaceous rocks brought by Nicolet6 from the Missouri but I was still more struck with those in Conrad’s7 collection from Alabama. [*]8 I spent four days in collecting in the different divisions of the Green Sand in New Jersey having Conrad as my guide[*] and we found five species not known to Dr Morton.[*]9 The analogy of the genera & even of the

1 Entire letter written by an amanuensis except the closing sentence. 2 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 2, on p. 58. 3 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid., on p. 58. 4 James Hall (1811 - 1898). Geologist, New York Geological Survey and first President of the Geological Society of America. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, pp. 1182-1184. 5 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 2, pp. 58-59. 6 Joseph Nicolas Nicollet (1786 - 1843). French astronomer and geologist who emigrated to U.S. in 1832 and mapped the upper Missouri region. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, on p. 1790. 7 Timothy Abbott Conrad (1803 - 1877). Invertebrate palaeontologist, Geological Survey of New York 1837-42. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, on p. 754. 8 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, (vol. 2), on p. 59. 9 Text between asterisks is quoted in ibid.,on p. 59. species to the European Chalk is most striking. I went with Dr Harlan10 to see the great skeleton brought by a German, Koch,11 from the Missouri, a very large Mastodon which he calls the Missourium. He has turned the wonderfully huge tusks the wrong way, horizontally, has made the first pair of ribs into clavicles & has intercalated several spurious dorsal & caudal vertebrae & has placed the toe bones wrong to prove what he really believes that it was web-footed. I think he is a mixture of an enthusiast & an imposter, but more of the former & amusingly ignorant. His mode of advertising is a thousand dollars reward for anyone who will prove that the bones of his Missourium are made of wood. He is soon to take them to London where you will have a great treat & see a larger femur than that of the Iguanodon. Harlan is lost in admiration at the bones of this & other individuals all belonging to the old Ohio Mastodons of Cuvier from very young to very old individs. He has also other fossils. Of my tour into the anthracite regions of Pennsylvania you will hear the results when the paper I sent Fitton on the Stigmaria clays12 is read. I like the people here very much & have a most attentive class of about 2,000 both at my morning & evening lectures.13 [*] I shall be very glad to hear any news you can send me of the movements of geologists during the last summer & any news. [*]14 My lectures here will take me four weeks more & my plan is then to run away from the winter so far south as to enable me to keep the field examining especially the cretaceous & tertiary formations & not to return northwards till the spring has fairly opened this part of the country.15 [*] believe me my dear Mantell ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

10 Richard Harlan (1796 - 1843). American osteologist and vertebrate palaeontologist. DAB. 11 Albert C. Koch, (d. 1867). This Mastodon skeleton was displayed in London in 1841-42 and the specimen was purchased by the British Museum in 1844. J.C. Thackray, Archives of Natural History, 1985, 12(2), on p. 190. 12 C. Lyell, ‘On some Carboniferous and Older Rocks of Pennsylvania and New York’, PGSL, 1838- 1842, 3, pp. 554-558. 13 Lyell delivered the Lowell lectures in Boston during October and November 1841. DSB. 14 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, on p. 59. 15 In the above quoted extract in LLJ-CL, the word ‘fine’ has been substituted for the words ‘part of the’. Boston. 29 th. Oct r. 1841. Per Steamship Columbia

[ Addressed to: Dr. Mantell Clapham near London. England ]

168

Mary Elizabeth Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 3 Sept 1842? ]16

My dear Sir We landed the beginning of this week after a most pressing voyage across the Atlantic. I send a small parcel for your daughter which Mrs Benjamin Silliman asked me to take charge of. If there is a letter enclosed it is probably of an old date as we spent a month in Nova Scotia after leaving Boston. My husband is exceedingly busy & desires his kind regards. We are going to Scotland the week after next. Should you be coming into town & could call in same day it would give us much pleasure to see you. I hope you have quite recovered from the effects of your fall. Believe me Yours most sincerely Mary E. Lyell 16 Hart St. Bloomsbury Saturday 3 d Sept.r

16 Year not stated on letter but deduced from stated day of the week and month and that the Lyells 169

sailed from Nova Scotia for England in August 1842. Mary Elizabeth Lyell to Miss Ellen Maria Mantell1

[ 12 September 1842 ]2

My dear Miss Mantell We were exceedingly sorry to find that your father was prevented by indisposition from coming to see us last Thursday. I hope he is now better and that we may find him recovered when we return from Scotland the latter end of next month as Mr Lyell will have much to tell him & hear from him. We go off on Wednesday morning early, & my time has been so much filled up with unpacking & repacking that I have been prevented from writing to you sooner. Pray thank Dr Mantell from me for the present of his little book. The copy for my sister goes to Scotland with us. With our united regards. Believe me dear Miss Mantell Yours very sincerely Mary E. Lyell

16 Hart St. Bloomsbury Monday 12 th. Sept.

170

1 Mantell’s other daughter, Hannah, died on 12 March 1840.GAM-PJ.

2 Year not stated on letter but deduced from stated day of week and month. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Thursday 8. / 42 My dear Mantell I wish much to speak on the Conn t. bird tracks having carefully examined all the localities & sent a short paper1 read with 6 others on last day of last session & therefore still-born on the subject. I have a notice of Redfields2 on the same to enter for reading3 forthwith. But on Wed y. I have a paper which is so long that it was deferred till I could have an entire Evening, & it is only by reading myself & abridging very much that I can get it into one meeting. So pray let us have another set to at the tracks. I regret exceedingly you were not at the genl. meeting[.] Chl. 4 was heard in great length & W. remonstrd. when at end of an hour the impatience of the meeting c d.stand no more. I never heard such a break-down. You would cordially have joined in the unanimous vote proposed by one of his own requisitionists many of whom were present “that the explanation of the Council ought to be satisfactory to Mr C. & his friends.” A written request from C. that his claims shld. be entertained separately was read. A council was held after the meeting in wh. 14 elected Forbes5 unanimously. On a division as to altering the bylaw about giving the Council power to choose candidates the numbers were for the council 108, for Bowerbk.6 3, viz. himself, Grant & C.

1 C. Lyell, ‘On the Fossil Footprints of Birds and Impressions of Rain-drops in the Valley of Connecticut’, PGSL, 1838-1842, 3, pp. 793-796. 2 William C. Redfield (1789 - 1857). U.S. meteorologist and vertebrate palaeontologist. Member GSL. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, on p. 1958. 3 W.C. Redfield, ‘On newly discovered Ichthylolites and Rain-prints in the New Red Sandstone of New Jersey’, PGSL, 1843-1845, 4, on p. 23. 4 The name Charlesworth has been subsequently written in pencil beneath this abbreviation. Edward Charlesworth (1813 - 1893) was an English naturalist and palaeontologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, on p. 716. 5 Charlesworth applied for the position of GSL Curator-Librarian following the retirement of Lonsdale and was advised by the Council that he was disqualified from holding office there. His friends requisitioned a special meeting to consider the matter but Edward Forbes was subsequently invited to apply for the position. Woodward, History of the GSL, on p. 148. 6 James Scott Bowerbank (1797 - 1877). Distiller and amateur geologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, on p. 597. ever truly yrs ChaLyell

171

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 27 December 1842 ]

My dear Mantell I am sorry that I did not see you to explain, that I should regret that the footsteps & Redfields paper (which was entered next to it, as relating to the same subject) should come on for discussion with my Niagara paper,1 all the general views of which are yet to be stated & relate to 3 distinct branches, the denudation periods, the ice-question & the beaches or osars. For my own part I should be unable to enter on another & so dissimilar a subject on the same evening. All the subjects now entered for reading might be cleared off in about 3 meetings, & probably the Pres t. will order some small ones of those not likely to call for discussion (of which there are one or two if I mistake not standing before your friends & Redfields letter to me me) to be read after mine otherwise I should have been glad of the whole Evening as I know I shall have objections enough. Owen entertains & has printed opinions about the foot-step which I am prepared to controvert. If we could arrange to have your friends paper read the term after next it would be better tho’ I am vexed to have to defer this if you have any reason for wishing it on at once. Returning you our hearty wishes for a merry Xmas believe me ever most truly yrs

1 C. Lyell, ‘A Memoir on the Recession of the Falls of Niagara’, PGSL, 1838-1842, [19 January 1842], 3, pp. 595-602. ChaLyell

27 Dec. 42

172

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

[ 25 March 1843 ]

My dear Mantell I am glad to hear you have made such progress in your work & when I think how slowly I have been getting on with my own I may well wish with your doctor that for the sake of progress I could exchange my health for your spirits & energy. I believe Owenia would be the best of the names you suggest. Valdornis like Valdorns or the Valley of the orno would mean the bird of the valley but perhaps you would say it is a valley as well as a Wold. It is a barbarous compound of latin & greek. The French say “Veldienne” I think. You must be sure that no one has not already in some department made Owen’s name into a genus. Veldenia would I suppose be Wealden turned into a Roman word the w being converted. I hope Miss Mantell2 is well believe me very truly yrs ChaLyell

Mrs Lyell desires her remembrances.

16 Hart St 25th.March

1 Letter written on mourning note-paper. 2 Mantell’s surviving daughter, Ellen Maria Mantell, b. 30 May 1818. 173

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 6 April 1843 ] My dear Mantell We missed you much when discussing the Weald yesterday & very kind mention was made of you & the cause of your absence both by Dr Fitton, Warburton, Murchison & others during the Evening’s debate. I was surprised & concerned to hear so bad an account I hope & trust too unfavourable a one of your health1 what from the good spirits you were in when we sat together at Warburton’s dinner2 & from your having been able to attend one of my lectures3 so lately I really thought was improving & will still hope so. You said some short time ago that you were never at home when I was asking when to call which I will now do as soon as I know that there is a good prospect of my finding you at your house & at leisure to receive a visitor. Tomorrow, Professor Phillips4 in town for 2 days has appointed to call & see my American fossils. Pray write if it does not fatigue you & tell me more cheering news than the version I heard, if you can & believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

6 April 1843 16 Hart S.t

1 During the last quarter of 1842, in particular, Mantell made frequent references in his Private Journal to his suffering from neuralgia. GAM-PJ. 2 Held at the Clarenden on 11 March with Warburton (GSL President), and members of the GSL Council. GAM-PJ. 3 Lyell lectured to a “popular audience” on Volcanoes and Coal at the Mary-le-bone Institution on 17 and 21 March. Mantell attended both lectures. GAM-PJ. 4 John Phillips (1800 - 1874). Nephew of William Smith. Professor of Geology, King’s College 174

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 23 April 1843 ]

My dear Mantell

London 1834-40, Geological Survey 1840-44. Later held chairs at Dublin and Oxford. DNB. Would it suit you to allow Mrs Lyell & myself to call on you on Thursdy. next at 2ock. & stay an hour – if I do not hear I shall call1 & tell you how my paper on Nova Scotia’s erect trees2 has gone off the Ev g. before. I should have written before had I not been so much engaged with my paper for the G.S. My sister has left us. Hoping to find you better believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

Ap. 23 ’43

175

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Kinnordy Kirriemuir N.B. Oct. 21 / 43 My dear Mantell It was only the day before I examined your letter that I had had a long talk about you with Dr Fleming, at Aberdeen, who was enquiring about you & your present scientific occupations & was not aware that you had been a sufferer from ill health. I was reproaching myself when I recollected how long it was since I had received any direct news of you but my tours in Iceland & Scotland must plead my apology. Your letter shows that your spirits & activity of mind have not failed in your severe trial & I can well imagine that the uncertainty as to what you should do professionally make no small part of the trial at present. I have

1 Mantell’s Private Journal records that the Lyells called on Mantell on 27 April and stayed for several hours. 2 C. Lyell, ‘On the Upright Fossil Trees Found at Different Levels in the Coal Strata of Cumberland, Nova Scotia’, PGSL, 1842-45, 4, pp. 176-178. little doubt that should it be prudent for you to retire at once & devote what you have still of energy & strength to a less laborious course, you will be happy in your favourite pursuit on a small income & that having once taken the decisive step you will feel a great weight off your mind & soon recover part of the strength which your anxiety about what step you should take must greatly impair. I need not say how much I shall feel gratified by the dedication. I always look back to my early tours in the Wealden with delightful recollections. You know that I regretted not only moving from Lewes but even (my prejudices went so far) as to prefer the first inferior house there to the last because it was not the old & first admired Museum. I expect to hear of your retreating into some nook in the Wealden, one not I trust so inaccessible a one as Lonsdale’s. I fear from his last letter to me that he is recovering very slowly, if at all. He is kindly working at 70 species of Touraine corals of mine. I am now working at my N. American papers. With many thanks for your good intentions in inscribing your new work3 to me & with kind remembrances from my wife & me to your daughter & yourself believe me my dear Mantell ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

We are here for nearly 3 weeks more.

[ Addressed to: Dr Mantell, Clapham Common, London ]

3 Mantell dedicated The Medals of Creation or First Lessons in Geology, 2 vols, Bohn, London, 176

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 20 November 1843 ]

My dear Mantell

1844, to Lyell. I had fully expected to see Mr Babbage yesterdy.& to have learnt from him some information that might have been useful to your son1 as B. is so intimate with Brunel2 & has two of his sons in the same line, but I found he was gone to Brighton. When he returns I will not forget. We were sorry not to have you when the recent skeleton of the African giraffe was placed side by side the 2 Asiatic fossils, contemporaneous with an anoplotherium! I have scarcely been out any where having been much taken up with the severe illness of my poor clerk Hall, whom you knew, & who died on Fridy., after 4 days gasping for breath with scarcely any lungs left. Dr Chambers told me 7 years ago that he did not expect him to live 2 years. He had been 18 years with me & was a most amiable & excellent servant & quite a naturalist. I hope to call on you soon & to bring you some information about Civil Engineers, an excellent profession I should think. I was glad to hear from your son that Miss Mantell was well. believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

Nov. 20 1843

177

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

1 Reginald Neville Mantell, Mantell's second son, then 16 years of age. 2 Isambard Kingdom Brunel (1806 - 1859). Civil engineer and son of Sir Marc Isambard Brunel (1769 - 1849). DNB. [ 28 November 1843 ]

My dear Mantell As I do not visit the Rennies tho’ well enough acquainted to ask them anything when we meet, I have been waiting till Babbage returned from Brighton to ask him about his friend Brunel. But he could not give me any information. Two of Babbage’s own sons were with young Brunel & they are both in Sardinia, the eldest having charge of the railway between Genoa & Turin which profitable post he got from having been under Brunel. Brunel requires premium I believe, but Babbage says the Rennies take none he thinks. Young Babbage talks of taking pupils as he has room for them in Sardinia. The railway line is best because it includes bridges & tunnelling. I hope you are going on well ever truly yrs ChaLyell Nov. 28. ’43

178

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 5 December 1843 ]

My dear Mantell Should you be at home on Thursday the day after tomorrow at 3ock., as I should like to call & should be sorry to find you out. I shall be alone. If I do not hear I shall take for granted that I shall find you.1 believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

Tuesday 5 Dec. 43

179

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 26 December 1843 ]

My dear Mantell I should have written but Stokes gave me no note about the graptolites having lost the corals, or rather a friend having mislaid the recent corals which proved the said graptolites to be of the family Sertularia & I believe are attached instead of a free polypifer. But you must write directly to him if you wish to say any thing on the subject. Babbage told me he would communicate with you about Brunel. My mother is much better but we are overwhelmed this morning by a most unexpected calamity – the death of my fourth sister Maria,2 Mrs Heathcote in the first week after having being safely delivered of her first child. I am called into the county Cornwall by the funeral. I have now hope my mother will hardly comprehend it but fear she is much recovered. I must conclude believe me my dear friend ever truly yrs ChaLyell

1 In a letter to his sister Marianne, dated 7 December 1843, Lyell stated “I am going today to visit poor Mantell who is very ill” K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 2, on p. 79. 2 Maria Lyell, born 22 November 1808. Dec. 26 1843

180

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

Jan y. 9 44 My dear Mantell You will have heard probably when you were good enough to call during my absence that we had gone to Cornwall in consequence of the unexpected death of my sister Mrs Heathcote. We were away ten days two of which I was able to pass with Mr Lonsdale who is at Falmonth & whom I found much in the same state as when he left us. It seemed a complicated case of consumptive disease in the heart & I suspect something in the nerves from over work. I found him entirely employed with corals & I asked him what you could say of the graptolites. He confirmed Mr Stokes’ opinion but declined pronouncing positively. Nevertheless you may say that from the researches of Mr Stokes and Mr Lonsdale it appears that the graptolites are a family of corals including several genera having a nearer connection to the Sertularia and Plumularia than any others which we know in a living state. As the Sertularia has cells on both sides the plumularia on one only, so there are Graptolites of both kinds. At all events that is considered a much greater approximation than the old pennatula theory which I suspect was Linnaeus’s not Buck s.? I trust you are going on better & believe me ever truly yrs . ChaLyell

181

1 Letter written on mourning note-paper by Lyell’s wife acting as amanuensis except for the last two sentences. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 22 February 1844 ] My dear Mantell I had hoped we should have seen you at the Anniversary at least in the morning when you would have met Conybeare redivivus who perhaps was able to call on you, altho’ the death of a friend prevented me from being able to see him in my house. We have been anxious about my youngest sister2 who after attending a sick nurse the one we lost had a fever from which she is now slowly recovering which is all I can say of my mother. I hope you are still able to contend with your complaint & that your spirits keep up & that you hope to get the better of it. I am busy with my American work. The anniversary dinner was very well attended, & the affairs of the Soc y. are looking up tho’ some complain that the attendance at the meetings is thinned by the dryness of the debates. I hope Miss Mantell is well believe me with our joint rememb s. ever truly yrs ChaLyell Feb. 22 1844

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq ]

182

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell3

2 Sophie Georgina Lyell, born 10 September 1812. [ 14 May 1844 ]4 My dear Mantell The Trustees of the Brit. Mus. seeing that I have signed the recommendation for them to purchase Koch’s collection of Mastodontal remains & because I have lately as I said in the Memorial seen other Collections in the U.S. wish to lay much stress on my opinion & to whether Koch’s demand of £1,800 for the skeleton & £1,200 for the other remains be reasonable. Now if I state the simple truth, viz. that having never purchased for myself or public bodies I know nothing of the money value of such remains, I fear I may stand in the way of what we all desire, at the same time that we are bound to protect the Museum from extravagant expenditure. I shall write to Owen & if you can give me an opinion (to be alluded to by name or not as you may desire) I shall be very much obliged. I am entirely ignorant on the subject & if the 25 th. was not so near when the sale takes place, I could declare off. Probably you have already been applied to. Write a card or two as soon as you can & believe me my dear Mantell ever most truly ChaLyell

16 Hart St. Bloomsbury Tuesday 14 th. May

183

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

3 Written on mourning note-paper by Lyell’s wife acting as amanuensis. 4 Year not stated on original letter but deduced from stated day and month. [ May / June 1844? ]1 My dear Mantell I have been so busy with the marriage of my sister-in- law & other affairs that I have been unable to write and say when I could see you. We are in town until June 11th. & I am usually at home till 2ock & if you will write to me will be at home at any hour except on Sat y. (Faradays lecture) & be happy to see you. Dr Falconer gave a good lecture on Saty. last at the Asiatic Socy. on the Himalayan fossils. Ladies admitted for the first time – a great crowd. I am surprised at the rate you get on with your work while I in full health am creeping on so slowly. I hope to hear a better account of you when we meet – believe me ever most sincerely yrs ChaLyell

184

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

1 May 184 – , has been transcribed on this letter. However the reference to the marriage of his sister- in-law in the first sentence ties in with the context of Lyell’s letter, dated 6 July 1844, which refers to him botanising with his new brother-in-law, Charles Fox Bunbury (1809 - 1886). On 31 May 1844, Bunbury married Frances Joanna Horner, the second daughter of Leonard Horner and a younger sister of Lyell’s wife, Mary Elizabeth. PGSL, 1889, 46, p. xiv. and Alumni Cantabrigiensis, Part II. [ 5 June 1844 ]1 Wed.y

My dear Mantell I hope you will give me the pleasure of your company at dinner on Friday at ½ past 6 o’clock precisely & then you can go afterwards to hear Faraday.2 We shall be quite alone and am engaged out in the Evening and cannot accompany you to Faraday. ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

185

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 6 July 1844 ]

My dear Mantell I have been intending every day to write to you to say how much pleased & instructed we have been (for my wife has had more leizure to study it than myself) with your “medals of creation”,3 which is just the book to accompany us on future fossilizing tours. I have only as yet read part of it & admired the beauty of the wood cuts. I am astonished at the rapidity with which you got it out considering the wide range of subjects which it embraces. Have you seen Darwin’s new book on volcanic islands?4 What I have read of it is very good but it is too little known. I was glad to see by the

1 Year not stated on letter but deduced from day and month of year and the reference to dinner with Lyell and Faraday’s lecture in GAM-PJ, entry 7 June 1844. 2 Faraday’s lecture at the Royal Institution was on the recently discovered method of silvering glass. GAM-PJ, entry 7 June 1844. 3 G.A.Mantell, The Medals of Creation or First Lessons in Geology, 2 vols, Bohn, London, 1844. 4 Charles Darwin, Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, Smith, Elder, London, 1844. papers that you were at Sir R. Peel’s5 party to meet the King of Saxony, at least I hope you were there for the papers are only authority to show that you were invited,6 as my name appeared also in the list tho’ I was here. I was to start 2 days after getting the invitation & it would have put me out, otherwise I should have liked much to have seen the German naturalists & the whole party of which you will give me an account when I return, I hope. I have been botanizing with my new brother-in-law, Mr Bunbury,7 & learning more of plants than I ever knew before, also getting on with my American book. I hope your son & the new suspension bridge are prospering. With many thanks again for your book & dedication & with my wishes kind remembrances believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

Kinnordy, Kirriemuir N.B. July 6 - 44

186

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

20 th. Aug t. [ 1844?]8 London My dear Mantell Your letter announcing the discovery of the Unio in the bed of the old river where we used only to find paludinae & smaller freshwater fry was really most welcome. It went to Scotland & then followed me to town where we are to be for a short time, previously to going to

5 Sir Robert Peel (1788 - 1850). English Statesman. Premier 1834-35;1841-45; 1845-46. DNB. 6 Mantell described Sir Robert Peel’s evening party, held on Saturday 15 June, in considerable detail in GAM-PJ, entry 15 June 1844. 7 See letter 183, note 1. 8 Year not stated in the letter but was deduced from its context. Suffolk, Keswick, York (for the meeting)9 & elsewhere. I do not understand what caused so much delay in the coming out of your book. Dr Silliman from whom I have just heard asks about it. I dare say he has told you that his daughter has married Dana10 of the Antarctic U.S. expedition & I believe a man of talent. I hope some geological excursions may yet restore your health. I always think that a good days entomologizing (my first love) in which I have indulged several times lately in Scotland does me more good when I am tired of work than any other pastime. I have been rearranging my shells or rather my wife has been placing together in separate sets the fossils from the Crag, Faluns, Paris basin, London, Mayence, Bordeaux, Vienna, Loess of the Rhine, Sicily, Asti, Superga &c to compare with my American Eocene & Miocene collections & I mean in future to keep them in this geological classification & retain my recent shells only & a few fossils in the zoological arrangement. believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

187

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 29 March 1845 ] My dear Mantell The best way to send a parcel to Dr Fleming at moderate expense & speedily is by the Aberdeen Steam packet. I know not where the wharf is but you will find offices in London (Regent Circus?). I have nothing to send Dr Silliman but my regards. We were engaged too deep the evening you were good enough to ask us to join your exhibition of your microscope. With many thanks believe me ever truly yrs

9 The annual BAAS Meeting was held at York in 1844. 10 James Dwight Dana (1813 - 1895). U.S. mineralogist and geologist. Accompanied the U.S. ChaLyell

March 29 1845. 188

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

exploring expeditions to the Pacific 1838-42. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 809. [ 29 May 1845? ]1

My dear Mantell Professor Kingsley2 of Yale Coll. New Haven. Connt. has brought a letter to me & you from our friend Dr Silliman, and he asked me for your address. I invited him to dine with me on Wed y next June 4 th. & told him I would try & engage you to meet him & go together afterwards to the Geological Society a meeting of which he is desirous of attending. Can you join our party at ¼ before 6ock. punctually. The Prof r. is I believe going to Oxford first. believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

May 29 th. 16 Hart St.

189

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

19 Chester Squ. Sund.y 3 20 Sept r. [ 1846 ]4 My dear Mantell I thought I should find you at home today, & tell you viva voce that I have just got into my new house No.11 Harley St. the looking out for which, with all the arrangements for changing, have occupied me every spare hour since my return from America, except the 7 weeks I spent at my father’s

1 The year of this letter is not stated but the reference to the day and date of the dinner invitation for Prof. Kingsley indicates 1845. GAM-PJ, entry 4 June 1845. 2 Charles Luce Kingsley (1778 - 1852). Latin scholar. Professor at Yale 1805-51. DAB. 3 Lyell evidently wrote this letter at Mantell’s residence at 19 Chester Square, Pimlico to which Mantell had moved to on 23 September 1844. GAM-PJ, entry 23 Sept. 1844. 4 Year not stated on letter but determined by the day and month and the context of the letter. in Scotland. I mention this because I was really sorry to meet you at Southampton without having returned your two calls, which as an invalid you were much less able to make than I, but except foreign savans you are the first I have been to see since my return. That you are well enough to be from home all this afternoon augers well, tho’ I know how you fight against the enemy. When I say we are in our new house I ought to add that for a day or two it will be in no small confusion, but I shall be always happy to see you. I do not think a scientific book ought to be hurried even a week for such a meeting as that of Southton5 (good tho’ it was) but when I saw the poor affair put forth for the members on the I. of Wight I could not help regretting yours had not seen the day. I went yesterdy. week with E.Forbes, Agassiz, Owen, Middendorf6 & Sir P. Egerton in a yacht dredging while my wife went for the first time with her sister round the island in which she thinks she learnt more geology than ever in one day before. It is certainly the gem of the sea for men of our craft & Englefield sells secondhand in Southton for £ [illegible figure – possibly £200] when ever one by chance comes into the market.7 You would have enjoyed the dredging. I never saw so many marine animals alive, fish (the Conceolate &c), medusa, opheured, dentalium, all kinds of mollusca, crustacea, goophy (alcyonedium among others), star-fish, nereis &c. Agassiz was brought to admit that some of the shells were quite identical with those of the oldest crag in which the great preponderance of species are extinct & some corallines also. ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

5 The BAAS annual meeting was held at Southampton during September 1846. 6 Alexander Theodore von Middendorf (1815 - 1894). Traveller and naturalist. DUB. 7 This comment presumably relates to H.C. Englefield’s, A Description of the Picturesque Beauties, 190

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 29 September 1846 ]

My dear Mantell

Antiquities, and Geological Phenomena of the Isle of Wight, Payne and Foss, London, 1816. I have been looking over with great pleasure & the recollection of very agreeable days spent of old at Lewes, the little volume1 you sent me for which many thanks. As to gentlemen calling on one in London, they never do [any more?]. Their wives may once in a way leave their cards, but in no other way for whole twelve months do they even make their existence known to us even with some whom I consider myself intimate. So I do not think Dr F.’s negligence on this lead should be thought of. He would give all of us reason to complain if he went so far as to your house to call & left us out. We are still in the midst of upholsterers, carpenters, &c2 ever most truly yours ChaLyell

11 Harley St. 29 Sept. 1846.

191

1 G.A.Mantell, A Days Ramble in and about the Ancient Town of Lewes. This book is a small octavo volume of 150 pages published by M. Bohn in 1846, following a 2 day visit by Mantell to his native town. 2 At this stage the Lyell’s were in the process of moving from 16 Hart Street to 11 Harley Street, London. G. A. Mantell to Charles Lyell1

Chester Square November 10 th. 1846

My dear Friend I have no doubt the allusion which I made in my letter to the Azoics of the Autocrat of all the Silurians had a reference to the suppression of the last paragraph in my paper on the fossil remains of the soft parts of the foraminifera2 for at that time (I mean when I wrote to you) I intended to remonstrate. The passage struck out was the following and referred to the previous paragraph which contained a remark on the importance of the discovery as bearing on certain geological speculations as to the presence or absence of organic life &c. “And if in the limestone which compose the hills of the S.E. of England and in the flints of which our roads are constructed we can now demonstrate the presence of delicate & infinitesimal structures that have previously escaped detection and which can only be made manifest by a peculiar mode or manipulation & by the aid of the most powerful microscope, it is not unphilosophical to assume the probability of being able hereafter to obtain evidence of the presence of animal organisms in deposits, to which from the supposition of their having been formed antecedently to the existence of animals & vegetables on our planet. The term Azoic has (as I conceive without due consideration) been applied. I therefore submit that in the present state of our knowledge of the earth's physical history, as derived from palaeontological evidence, the period when organic creation commenced, must still be regarded one of those hidden mysteries of nature from which science has not yet withdrawn the veil”. There may have been some verbal difference in the M.S. sent to the Royal Society, but it was essentially if not literally the same. I do think that every unprejudiced person will see nothing in the above remarks that would warrant their suppression. Yet the Geological Committee

1 Transcribed from a transcribed copy ex ATL. Original letter at APS. 2 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Fossil Remains of the Soft Parts of Foraminifera’, Phil. Trans., 1846, 136 pp. 465-472. recommended their omission & the Council of the Royal Society in their wisdom resolved that the paper should not be published unless the Author consented to withdraw this objectionable preoration! For myself I care not one straw about it: but I do regret having been compelled to sanction a precedent which may hereafter be productive of serious impediment to the freedom of expression on disputed points not only in geology, but also in other sciences. I trouble you with this note merely because the subject is fresh in my mind, & I wish it to pass away on its eccentric revolution to torment some other being, & return to me no more. I had so many things to show & tell you – but it is in vain to expect leisure in this “wicked world” as the evangelicals call our marvellous planet. I would torment you for half a dozen seconds with a splendid quotation of American poetry.

When death shall give the encumber’d spirit wings Its range shall be extended – &c -

but in charity I forbear - I am paying the penalty of the gratification I enjoyed last evening but not seriously. With best respects to the ladies. Yours my dear Sir Charles3 most faithfully G.A. Mantell

1846.

3 Lyell was not knighted until 1848. 192

G. A. Mantell to Charles Lyell

[ November 1846 ]1 Monday Evening My dear Friend It occurs to me that the Guadalope human skeleton2 would be very appropriate; and if treated artistically the bent specimen with the jaw & part of the skull would form a very spirited vignette and not too large for your page. I do not mean the human skeleton in the Brit.Mus but that in the Jardin des plantes of which there is a bad engraving in Cuvier’s Theorie de la Terre – & a worse wood cut in my Wonders, last edition Vol. 1 p . M. Dinkel might make a spirited thing of it, but care should be taken the lower jaw & part of the skull are drawn really human & not as they are

1 Transcribed from a xeroxed copy of original held by APS. Letter undated but November 1846 has been written on envelope. The ATL copy of this letter has been dated 24 November 1846. 2 The Guadalope human skeleton,imbedded in limestone, was discovered ca. 1811 and is described in Mantell’s, Petrifactions and their Teachings, Bohn, London, 1851, pp. 483-484. (if I recollect right) in Cuvier. If you should adopt this I would beg to suggest that the surface of the stone should be kept of a dark tint, so as to make the white bones more distinctly in relief. I had thought of a group of the Dodo’s skull & foot & the Moa’s, or some characteristic bones, which might be made a picturesque group of & the subject as illustrative of the recent extinction of genera would be appropriate but I vote for “Man in a fossil state” and a motto from old Scheuchzer3 – homo diluvii testis!!! Excuse haste & headache & believe me ever my dear friend yours most faithfully G.A.Mantell

If my kind Irish friend4 should be displeased with my Isle of Wight5 when it comes out, I will publish the sections & descriptions of the strata beneath the chalk from your letters to me in 1821 1822 & 1823 from the Island!

Novber. 1846.

P.S.6 If I could use my pencil as an artist I would attempt a sketch of some of the submerged ruins in the Bay of Naples for a vignette. Stonesfield would make a beautiful & understandable sketch of such a subject; or of the subject sung by Moore –

On Lough Neagh’s bank, as the fisherman strays,

3 Johann Jakob Scheuchzer (1672 - 1733). Swiss mathematician and geologist who misinterpreted an amphibian skeleton as a fossil man drowned in the Noachian flood and described it as “homo diluvii testis”. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 2058. 4 An ironic reference to Dr Fitton, who called on Mantell on 15 October and reproached him for his “illiberal conduct in science”, GAM-PJ, entry 16 October 1846. 5 G.A. Mantell, Geological Excursions round the Isle of Wight and along the Adjacent Coast of Dorsetshire illustrative of the most interesting Geological Phenomena and Organic Remains, Henry G. Bohn, London, 1846. 6 This P.S. was not transcribed on the ATL copy of this letter. When the clear cold eve's declining, He sees the round towers of other days In the wave beneath him shining; 7

[ Addressed to: Charles Lyell Esq. 11 Harley Street, Cavendish Square ]

193

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley Street 9 th. March 1847 My dear Mantell

7 Thomas Moore, ‘Let Erin Remember the days of Old’, in: The Poetical Works of Thomas Moore, Longmans, Green, Reader, and Dyer, London, 1867, p. 148. I have been reading with great pleasure your beautiful work on the I. of Wight1 & should have written sooner had I not been very much occupied in getting Sir P. Egerton to name my fish & Dr Percy2 to analyse my specimens of coal which are to be mentioned in a paper3 which I promised to the Society a fortnight hence (24th.March) on an American (liassic or Massic?) coal field. Your numerous citations of my labours make me perhaps hardly an impartial judge of the volume which I cannot help anticipating will have great success & do much good in popularizing the science while there is so much popular work in it both in the fossils & section as to set them thinking as well as observing & collecting if they have any turn that way. The way in which you have for the first time recorded my earliest work to all others hitherto unknown at p.135 gives me a kind of mixed pleasure which I cannot easily describe or define. At that time I would have willingly devoted myself vigorously & exclusively to the science & tho’ 8 years of law reading which followed against my natural bias would not have been lost to geology had I been able to see as a young man now can the rank which in spite of all untoward circumstances our studies have forced their return into in this country. Your allusion to our joint work in the Wealden recalls some very happy early days in the field. believe with my thanks ever truly yours ChaLyell

De la Beche is to be out of town & I have promised him to take the Chair tomorrow – C.L.

1 G.A. Mantell, Geological Excursions round the Isle of Wight and along the Adjacent Coast of Dorsetshire illustrative of the most Interesting Geological Phenomena and Organic Remains, H.G. Bohn, London, 1846. 2 John Percy (1817 - 1889). English chemist and metallurgist who carried out analyses of coals and anthracites. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1873. 3 C. Lyell, ‘On the Structure and Probable Age of the Coal-field of the James River near Richmond, Virginia’, [April 1847], QJGSL, 1847, 3, pp. 261-280. 194

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 5 April 1847 ]

My dear Mantell A friend of mine is desirous of bringing up his son as a civil Engineer (a boy between 13 & 14). Could you tell me what sum you paid per annum as for a term of apprenticeship to Mr Brunel for your son & how would you recommend a boy of 13 to proceed. Should he go very soon to some civil Engineer? He is a clever lad. Anything you can tell me will be useful. I think Brunel does not wish to take any more? & I believe your son was not attended to in his office! If you had to do it over again should you pursue the same plan. Excuse so many queries. I read my paper on the Virginia coal of oolitic age1 on Wedy.14th. inst. & on the 30th. Fridy. at R. Instit. on age of Auvergne volcs.2 as determined by fossil mammalia. ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

11 Harley St. April 5, 1847.

1 C. Lyell, ‘On the Structure and probable Age of the Coal-field of the James River near Richmond, Virginia’, QJGSL, 1847, 3, pp. 261-280. 2 Mantell attended this lecture which “disappointed” him. GAM-PJ, entry 30 April 1847. 195

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley St. June 16 th. Sunday – 1847 My dear Mantell I was very sorry not to see you here the other evening & if I had not had my house full of friends today who are staying with us, I should have called to enquire whether you were well. I had also hoped to have seen your son, whom I should not have failed to have asked with yourself had I had any idea that he was in town, although when you proposed to me to bring him I alluded when accepting the offer to our party being already very full. So much was this the case, that I had come to the Royal Socy. with the resolution not to be tempted to add to our party fearing that our rooms would be too hot & crowded, & my first, though momentary, impulse was to decline the offer which you very naturally made to bring your son1 with you, himself a geologist & one who would have found here a large number of scientific men. Perhaps however I am wholly out in imagining why we had not the pleasure of seeing one as both of you. I will now therefore tell you a curious affair. If you were at the last meeting of the G.S. you heard Sir R.M. say that Agassiz in a letter to him had said that his (A.’s) friend Desor2 had discerned that Lyell was wary in supposing “the Nummilite limest. of the Southern States to be Eocene”. Now I proved it to be high up in the Eocene series by many clear sections & Conrad who once led Morton to suppose it to be cretaceous gave in to my views. All my evidence is not published in our journal but quite

1 Reginald Neville Mantell. Mantell’s other son, Walter Baldock Durrant Mantell, was in New Zealand. 2 Pierre Jean Desor (1811 - 1882). Swiss stratigrapher and invertebrate palaeontologist, University of Neuchatel. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 894. enough – vol. 2, p. 409.3 Well, Desor has got the french notion that nummulites from the deposit to be intermediate between Cretaceous & Tertiary. Seeing a peculiar structure in my specimens of Nummulites Mantelli I submitted them to E. Forbes who said it was not a nummulite at all! I have sent some off to Lonsdale as they seem to be corals. The nummulite lovigata of London Basin (Bracklesham beds) is a true nummulite. I have still specimens here of the American nummulite (so called) to show you. E. Forbes on Frid.y Ev g. reported that Searles Wood agreed with him that Nummulite Mantelli accord.g to my specimen could not belong to the foraminifera. I shall send a note to Silliman reiterating my proof of the true position of the “rotten limest. of Alabama” with its money shaped disks, be they what they may. ever yrs most truly ChaLyell

196

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley St.

3 C. Lyell, ‘On the Newer Deposits of the Southern States of North America’, QJGSL, 1846, 2, pp. 405-410. Sunday Oct. 17 [1847]1

My dear Mantell Most unfortunately I am engaged to dinner at the other end of the town tomorrow & next morning Tuesday I go off by railway for 8 days to Bunbury’s in Suffolk. It was very kind of you to send me those beautiful fossils which I have not yet looked through having just returned from a walk. My wife desires me to thank you for the fruit. I hope to see you on our return & believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

197

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 23 December 1847 ] My dear Mantell We are keeping Xmas in the country or I should have immediately have availed myself of your kind invitation, for I doubt not the sight is wonderful & must have gratified Owen much. Murchison has written to me from Rome, he has been doing good work in Italy & was to visit Sicily if the political revolution now coming off there will allow. We return the beginning of next month to town. believe me most truly

1 Year not stated on letter but deduced from day and month. ChaLyell Dec. 23 rd. 1847 Rivermede Hampton Wick1

198

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 4 January 1848 ]

My dear Mantell I have promised the R.I. to give them a Friday Evening lecture on Feb ry. 4th on the footprints of my carboniferous Cheirotherium of Pennsylvania & was thinking of taking the heavy specimen & the casts of others of the same locality to Owen who only took a cursory glance at them. But before I convey them to Lincoln’s Inn I much wish you to do me the favour to call & take a look at them before I have a drawing made. I am always at home till near 2ock. & a note would ensure my being here at any other hour in daylight. Owen’s agreement with you as to the dermal impressions (ostrich like) of the Connecticut valley tracks was interesting. Could you call tomorrow Wed y. or Thursd y. or Frid y. I should like to see you have the next 3 years of the Fullerian Chair of the R.I. at present vacant, in physiology. most truly yours ChaLyell

Jan. 4. 1848 11 Harley St.

1 In 1847 Lyell’s father-in-law, Leonard Horner, rented a house at this address which is about a mile east of Hampton Court Palace. 199

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell2

Ryde Isle of Wight Saturday [ 23 Sept. 1848 ]3

My dear Sir Charles I must be one of the first to offer my warmest congratulations on the honour which I see by the paper that has just arrived in the “Beautiful Island,” Her Majesty has conferred upon you; may you and your Lady long live to enjoy a distinction so justly won by your own genius, talents, & indefatiguable exertions. I have been here five days – a long holiday for me – & have given three lectures, in the hope of keeping alive the spirit of geological research which I sensed last year, and I have every reason to be gratified with the enthusiastic feeling which has been excited. Col V. Harcourt4 presided, and his charming wife, Lady Catherine, was deeply interested in the subject on which I presented “The Geological Phenomena of the Isle of Wight”. The packet bell is ringing & I am now off for the murky metropolis. I sent you a copy of my paper on the New Zealand Birds,5 by post, and [indecipherable four words]. I hope you received it. It occurred to me you might like to give it to some friend in Scotland. The Belemnites, Belemnoteuthis & Iguanodon Jaw are capitally lithographed from the Philos. Trans.

2 Transcribed from a xeroxed copy of the original letter at Kinnordy, Kirriemuir. 3 The date of this letter was deduced from an entry in GAM-PJ, Monday 18 September 1848, when Mantell gave the first of his three lectures on the Isle of Wight. 4 Colonel Francis Vernon Harcourt (1801 - 1880). Ninth son of the Archbishop of York. Married Lady Catherine Julia, eldest daughter of the Earl of Liverpool. Appointed Deputy-Lieut. of the Isle of Wight 1852. M. Stenton (ed.), Who’s Who of British Members of Parliament, vol. 1, 1976. 5 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Fossil Remains of Birds Collected in Various Parts of New Zealand by Mr Present my warmest congratulations to Lady Lyell and believe me my dear friend, Yours most faithfully GAMantell

P.S. While strolling along the shore this morning, some workmen had just found the lower jaw of Paleotherium magnum but it was in too brittle a state to bring away. About four feet of the shaft of the thigh bone of an Iguanodon measuring 26 inches in circumference – a portion of the corresponding femur – & of two tibia equally gigantic – probably all belonging to the same reptile, are among my gatherings from Brook Point this week. These are larger bones than any previously found. – only think of the shaft of a reptilian femur above 2 feet in circumference.

[ Addressed to:Sir Charles Lyell. Kinnordy, Kirriemuir, Forfarshire ]

200

Walter Mantell’, QJGSL, 1848, 4, pp. 225-238. Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Kinnordy Kirriemuir N.B. September 25 / 48

My dear Mantell [*]1 Although at the southern extremity of the Island, you are the first person excepting a member of my own family who has addressed a letter to me under my new denomination & I thank you sincerely for your congratulations. The manner in which the honour was conferred both on the part of the Minister & the Queen2 has been such as every scientific friend would approve of & I had a most agreeable geological exploring on the banks of the Dee into which Prince Albert3 entered with much spirit. I am sure your lectures on the Isle of Wight will have sown some good seed, for the Milmans to whom I lent your book have been profiting by it in their examinations of Purbeck & speak of it most approvingly. I am glad to hear of the new discoveries, & that the two papers4 for the R.S. are getting ready. By staying in town I & a few others flatter ourselves we have put at the end of the Session the printing & referring of papers on a better footing for the future tho’ we still have much to do. The R.S. council work is no sinecure to those who have a reforming spirit. I have hitherto missed no meeting since I was elected.5 believe me with my wife’s kind remembrances I am ever my dear Mantell [*] yours ever truly ChaLyell

1 Text between asterisks is quoted in K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, vol. 2, pp. 148-149. 2 Queen Victoria (1819 - 1901). Succeeded to the throne 20 June 1837. DNB. 3 Prince Albert (1819 - 1861). Prince Consort of England. Married Queen Victoria in 1840. DNB. 4 G.A. Mantell, ‘Observations on some Belemnites and other Fossil Remains of Cephalopoda, discovered by Mr Reginald Neville Mantell, C.E. in the Oxford Clay near Troubridge, in Wiltshire’, Phil. Trans., 1848, 138(2), pp. 171-182 and ‘On the Structure of the Jaws and Teeth of the Iguanodon’, Phil. Trans., 1848, 138(2), pp. 183-202. 5 Lyell was elected to the Council of the Royal Society on 30 November 1847. 201

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 17 November 1848 ] My dear Mantell Had I not hoped to be able to call on you I should have written before but I am imprisoned to day by fear of a return of tooth ache if I expose my cheek to the air. I am sorry to hear you have been unwell. I suppose you have heard of the cross list at the Royal Soc y. On the pretext of standing up for Natural History it is in fact a reaction against the recent movement for reform which requires a council such as we have with difficulty carried to work it out. I cannot say more in a note but do not believe the stories they are circulating about Grove.1 When we meet you will be convinced that the opposition would in reality be adverse to the good cause. Come on the 30 th. if you can. They begin at 4 ock. believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell 11 Harley St. Nov. 11 1848.

202

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

24 Nov. 1848

1 William Robert Grove (1811 - 1890). English lawyer, judge and scientist. Grove evidently circulated a letter addressed by him to Lyell on the subject of Groves’ opinions on the desirableness of the physiologists of the R.S. forming a Society for themselves. L.G. Wilson (ed.), Sir Charles Lyell’s Scientific Journals on the Species Question, 1970, p. 306. My dear Mantell I am truly sorry to hear of your new attack & yet you have not been idle. I return the Lancet & you will I hope get a letter tomorrow which I have been persuaded to print finding that the story of Grove having spoken disrespectfully of physiology & which is most unfounded has been industriously circulated. Mr Lowe2 whose name is printed in their committee says as does Dr Travers,3 that he has been deceived. I have seen Lowe’s letter to that effect. We have many recruits – they are working hard. By a regulation of the R.S. in 1846? the abstracts of papers are all made by the authors themselves. Letters canvassing for Bell4 on the avowed anti-reform tactics5 have brought us some adherents. I told R. Brown today that his resignation only 2 hours before the final nomination of the new council was the real cause of our not having a botanist. Had he given one days notice assuredly this w d. not have happened & I told him I must explain this to the R.S. on the 30 th. You will see some good answers to Bell’s committee in the Athenaeum. ever sincerely yrs. ChaLyell

203

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 1848 ]6

2 Probably George Lowe. F.R.S. 1834. 3 Benjamin Travers (1783 - 1858). Surgeon to Queen Victoria. President of the Royal Society of London 1847 and 1856. DNB. 4 Thomas Bell (1792 - 1880). Dental surgeon and Professor of Zoology, King’s College, London 1836. Secretary, Royal Society of London 1848-53. DNB. 5 Mantell made the following entry in his Private Journal on 1 December 1848: “Learnt that Mr Grove lost the appointment of Secretary ! – to the eternal disgrace of those who opposed him by such a man as Prof. Bell”. 6 No date given other than the year. My dear Mantell We have just returned from a visit to Wiltshire where among other persons I saw Lonsdale & went with him over some of his [illegible word]. I hope to see Stutchbury’s7 slab tomorrow. Many thanks for your book & I should have had mine ready had I not been away & am unwilling to send it without the correction of the map. most truly yours ChaLyell

11 Harley St. 1848.

204

7 Samuel Stutchbury (1798 - 1859). Curator, Bristol Philosophical Museum 1831-50. He was then appointed Geological Surveyor, New South Wales. D.F. Branagan, Archives of Natural History, 1993, 20 (1), pp. 69-91. Sir Charles Lyell to Reginald Neville Mantell 1

11 Harley S t. May 4 th. 1849 My dear Sir If you are not too busy could you call at my house between 1 & 2 ock. on Sunday next to luncheon that I may talk a little with you on your intended time in the U.S. & may perhaps give you some hints. ever truly ChaLyell

205

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 26 May 1849 ]

My dear Mantell You may have seen perhaps that my lecture on the Mississippi is put off till Frid y. June 8 th at R.I. I suppose I need not offer you a ticket tho' I shall be glad to be useful should you be disengaged in so busy a season & not have admission already. ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

26 May / 49 11 Harley St.

1 The youngest son of G.A. Mantell. 206

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Royal Society Somerset House June 21 1849

My dear Mantell I have just arrived from the country (Winchester) from an engagement made long before I knew of the Geol. Committee which was to meet today & I find that you are just gone away having been the only committee man present. This was very unfortunate & as Prest. of G.S.1 I for one feel bound to plead guilty of non attendance tho’ I calculated my time according to railway book so that I expected to cut in before you broke up. But where were all the others. It is clear that now we have established a rotation in the committee many of this years delinquents must be struck off. Warburton2 who never comes ought to be one. in haste & going to the council soon or to talk over before council our new Treasurership of R.S. believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

1 Lyell was elected President of the GSL in February 1849, whilst Mantell was one of four Vice- Presidents from 1848-50. QJGSL, 1848-50, 4-6. 2 Henry Warburton was not a member of the GSL Council in 1849, having left the council in February 1847. QJGSL, 1846-49, 2-5. 207

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell1

19 Chester Square Pimlico July 10. 1849

My dear Sir Charles, I beg Lady Lyell's inscription of a copy of the new edition of “The Pebble”2 which I transmit this day by post. In regard to “The Medals” I would beg of you to refer to the 6th Edition of the Wonders in which many additions & errata of the former work are supplied & corrected. Page 925 (Vol.II of Wonders) gives corrected references for the present edition of the Wonders. In your account of the Wealden (Elements, Chap. XVIII) let me beg you to confirm the account of the discovery of its freshwater character with the extracts I have given from Fitton & Phillips in the 6 th Edit. of Wonders page 366. With kindest regards to all your family who have any recollection of me, & with best wishes for your health and happiness, I am my dear friend, Ever most faithfully yours GAMantell.

[ Addressed to: Sir Charles Lyell. 11 Harley St. London ]

1 Transcribed from a xeroxed copy of the original letter at APS. 2 G.A.Mantell, Thoughts on a Pebble or A First Lesson in Geology, 8th. ed., Reeve, London, 1849. The first edition of this small, popular book was published in 1836. 208

Mary Elizabeth Lyell to G. A. Mantell

13 July 1849

Dear Dr Mantell I received your “Pebble” yesterday quite safely, & am very much obliged to you for it, and it will afford pleasure here to others as well as myself. My husband will look to the additions you have made. He is busy now reading up geology, as while he was writing he had so little leisure to read. We are enjoying the most delightful weather here for the last few days, for they have had no summer before. There is never any danger of too much heat. I hope you continue to have good reports from your son in America. Ever believe me sincerely yours Mary E. Lyell

Kinnordy, Kirriemuir, N.B. July 13 th.

[P.S.]

Sir Charles desires me to say that he has brought with him your 6th edition of Wonders and will attend to the references you have kindly mentioned. He would be glad to know whether you agree with M. Ehrenberg as to the living species of Infusoria having been found even in the chalk. Alcide d’Orbigny1 in his work on the foraminifera of the Basin of Vienna has shown how

1 Alcide Dessalines d’Orbigny (1802 - 1857). Professor of Palaeontology, Museum of Natural different are the tertiary foraminifera from the cretaceous species on the one hand & the living ones on the other. As the foraminifera are according to Dujardin2 less developed than the mollusca they do not seem to sanction a wider range in time for less perfect beings. Did not Lonsdale dispute Ehrenberg’s cretaceous identifications of infusoria?

209

History, Paris 1836-53. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1821-23. 2 Felix Dujardin (1801 - 1860). French micro-palaeontologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 929. G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell1

19 Chester Square Pimlico July 27 1849 My dear Sir Charles I trouble you with this note in consequence of an enquiry in Lady Lyell’s letter respecting the foraminifera of the chalk. Ever since the last edition of the “Wonders”2 many new facts have come to light respecting the fossil microscopic bodies in the chalk & flint and it would require a letter to explain them of such a length, as in these days of penny postage & note paper, would I fear be unacceptable; and as great a wonder as the reappearance of some extinct species of saurian. I will therefore confine my remarks to very few important facts. In the first place the so called Xanthidia of Ehrenberg (see Medals, Pebbles, Wonders &c) found so abundantly in flint & chalk, have no relation whatever to the recent bodies known under the name of Xanthidia; Ehrenb. thought the fossils identical with the recent: but the latter as you know are vegetables – fresh water desmidiae – the shields or sporules being silicious as is the case with numerous other vegetable bodies of this class. But the fossils are not silicious – but flexible (membranous?) bodies of decidedly animal origin and are most probably the gemmules of zoophytes – either of the Spongiadae or (more probably) of the bodies I have called ‘Ventriculites’, so abundant in the chalk. At all events the gemmules of recent sponges, & above all of flustra and other polypifera are very analogous to the so called Xanthidia of our chalk. I shall give them some generic name, that the blunder of their identity with the recent vegetable Xanthidia may not be perpetuated. The true foraminifer of the chalk – especially the two most common genera, the rotalia & Textularia, are certainly generically the same as the equally common recent forms: & some of the species appear to be the same; at least none of those observers on whom I can rely, have detected any difference: but as you well know, the shell of the mollusks may be alike, & yet the animals be

1 Transcribed from a transcribed copy ex ATL; original letter at APS. 2 G.A. Mantell, The Wonders of Geology or A Familiar Exposition of Geological Phenomena, 2 vols., H.G. Bohn, London, 6th. ed., 1849. entirely distinct. To my mind, however, it appears most probable that many of these minute organisms of such simple structures, are of very high antiquity: & there is no more reason that terebratulae should be found through all the secondary formations, & swarming in our present seas, than that not only genera but species of polythalinium should have endured through the same geological periods. The animal itself, deprived of its shell, is so identical in the flint & chalk rotalia, with the recent, that I can detect no differences in form though I think the number of sacs (or cells in the shell) is greater in the fossil forms. At all events you may safely sweep away all Ehrenberg’s assumed identity of recent & fossil forms so far as the latter are from the secondary strata. I would beg to remind you, that our best observers now consider that all the Bacillaria of Ehrenb. – including Gallionella navicula, Synhedra &c &c – are vegetable not animal organisms! (see notes to my Thoughts on Animalcules.) Another splendid belemnite from the Oxford Clay has been lately found, & I have secured it for the British Museum. In it the two long processes from the top of the phragmocone are beautifully shown so that even Mr Grey3 (who has just published a catalogue of the Cephalopoda in the Brit. Mus. in which he denies the correctness of my interpretation of these processes) now admits my view to be the right one. As to the distinct generic characters of Belemnite & Belemnoteuthis, no one now (except the great O)4 disputes it. Prof Chas Shepard5 & his wife have been staying in London & are now in Edinburgh: Lady L knew Mrs S in America. The extreme heat of the weather & the prevalence of Cholera in common have sadly retarded my son’s6 progress but his last letters were written in high spirits from Harper’s Ferry where he had been staying to inspect some engineering works. He had met with a reptilian vertebra of the concave-convex type – i.e. the recent crocodilian type, occur in the Wealden, though O. asserts now such are formed below the chalk.

3 John Edward Grey (1800 - 1875). Naturalist and physician. Keeper of the Zoological Dept., British Museum, since 1840. DNB. 4 Richard Owen. 5 Charles Upham Shepard (1804 - 1886). U.S. Mineralogist. DAB.. 6 Reginald Neville Mantell. [ copy of letter terminates ]

210

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Tuesdy. September 25 1849 11 Harley S t. My dear Mantell If you are disengaged will you give us the pleasure of your company at dinner tomorrow at 6ock Wedn y. Sept r. 26 th to meet Prof. W. B. Rogers1 of the U.S. Please to let me hear by post. ever truly yrs ChaLyell

211

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley S t. 12 Oct. Frid y. 1849 My dear Mantell

1 William Barton Rogers (1804 - 1882). Professor of Natural Philosophy and Chemistry, University of Virginia. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1994. I was sorry not to be at home when you called & left your memoir which I have been reading with great pleasure. What progress has not the science made since the old Lewes days. I much want to talk over the candidates for Assist. Sect. Mr Tomlinson2 (Sir W.S.Harris’s3 friend) called here yesterday. What did you think of him? A son of Bakewell4 & Mr Rupert Jones5 are the two others who have most pretensions. Could you receive my wife & me on Sunday Eveng. at 8ock? If you can let me hear.6 We leave town next day for a visit to C. Darwin. As I may forget to ask you the question tell me when you write whether you think the didelphine quadrupeds (Stonesfield) assuming them to belong to the same class as Australian marsupials, are as high in organisation as Cetacea. I believe some cetacea the herbiverous are complicated in anatomical structure, but according to Hugh Miller7 the non development of extremities or imperfect development is a great mark of degredation. By the way he surely in his footprints8 carries this view of degredation too far & the venom of the snake is dwelt upon as lowering it in the reptilian scale too much as if he took the curse of the serpent in the garden of Eden as his groundwork. He might as well say the stench of the skunk degraded him in the mammiferous scale. ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

212

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

2 Charles Tomlinson (1806 - 1897). English physicist and naturalist. DNB. 3 Sir William Snow Harris (1791 - 1867). Electrician. Copley Medallist 1835. Knighted for developing an improved lightning conductor. DNB. 4 Frederick Collier Bakewell ( d.1869). Geological and scientific writer. Son of Robert Bakewell (1768 - 1843). Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 467. 5 Thomas Rupert Jones (1819 - 1911). Palaeontologist. Assistant - Secretary, Librarian and Curator, GSL, 1850-62. Woodward, History of the GSL, p. 309. 6 Mantell’s Private Journal records that the Lyells called on him on Sunday 14 October. GAM-PJ. 7 Hugh Miller (1802 - 1856). Popular Scotish writer and self-educated geologist. DNB. Sundy. 28 Oct. 1849 11 Harley S t. My dear Mantell I am not aware that Gassiot9 made any objection when Wheatstone10 proposed on the part of the (Physical) committee to send around the circular as they feared as we do a very thin attendance of members on an important question. As we both agreed to adopt the same I mentioned this and then it was found on consulting the statutes that we had exceeded our powers in as much as no names can be included in the list of persons summoned except those already on some one of the numerous standing committees. This however only caused the striking off of about three of the long list we drew up. Imperfect as the new method may be, it seems to me a shade or two better than such miserable committees as we get, & if it be left to the council it is also a great chance whether a given subject is fairly considered. I do not see how one committee could select work for the Copley. What right have they to prescribe to the subsequent meeting of the same committee. To mention what papers bear on Geoly is another thing but the subsequent committee may exclude papers such as Forbes’ on the ground you mention. I do not see why you sh d. not remain Sec y. Geol. Com. When persons are interested they are requested to retire at the moment. But you have your duties for the Copley to perform. My father has been so ill of influenza that at his age 81 we have been seriously alarmed & I was nearly setting off last Monday for Scotland. He has rallied but is so weak that we are left in some anxiety & I may be compelled any day to leave town. Believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

8 H. Miller, Footprints of the Creator, Johnstone, Edinburgh, 1849. 9 John Peter Gassiot (1797 - 1877).Scientific writer and electrical experimenter. DNB. 10 Charles Wheatstone (1802 - 1875). Professor of Experimental Physics, King’s College, London. P.S. It was stated that say we might write a letter to a F.R.S. asking his opinion & then show the answer to the committee, by way of getting advice from the best person. At all events, as John Phillips is one of the council I quite agree with you that he ought to be applied to & surely we may send him one. It is really a great puzzle. C.L.

213

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 31 October 1849 ] My dear Mantell I am summoned most unexpectedly to Scotland by a very unfavourable turn in my father’s illness. The report yesterday having been extremely good & setting me at ease.

DNB. This morning Greenough called & I told him I shd. propose yr palaeontological papers1 for the Royal and Murchison’s Russi2 for Copley which I have just sent him in writing & as he is Prest. of Committee I engaged him to be there. He will be punctual at the hour (2ock) for in half an hour he must leave. I told him you w d. attend. In great haste yrs ever truly ChaLyell 11 Harley S t. Oct. 31. 1849.

214

Mary Elizabeth Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Kinnordy, Kirriemuir 7th Nov.r 1849 Dear Dr Mantell Many thanks for your kind enquiries. Your servant probably learnt at our house that I accompanied my husband to Scotland. We started on Wednesday evening last & were in this house in 23 hours. We had the comfort of finding Mr Lyell still alive & his mind perfectly clear & his sight & hearing quite acute. He was much pleased to see us and has expressed it frequently. He grows weaker every hour but it is dreadful sometimes to witness his sufferings & we trust they may not be prolonged. All his eight children are here besides my sister & myself. We are very sorry to hear that you have had a fresh attack of neuralgia. The weather here is bitterly cold, & snow covers the ground. Sir

1 G.A. Mantell, ‘On the Structure of the Jaws and Teeth of the Iguanodon’, Phil. Trans., 1848, 138, pp. 183-202. 2 R.I. Murchison, The Geology of Russia in Europe and the Ural Mountains, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1846. Charles desires me to give you his kindest regards & believe me very sincerely yours Mary E. Lyell

215

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

[ 29 November 1849 ] My dear Mantell A brief note from you sent to Royl. Soc. Somerset H. would reach me in time before I address the Council tomorrow at 2 ock. on the subject of the medal.2 Send me any sentence of Cuvier or Conybeare or Buckland in print complimentary of you or still better if you can find any one from Owen’s former Reports of Brit. Assoc n. Or as I wish you to be very brief tell me in what works the above authorities have praised or cited you. I am not anxious as I feel sure the Prest. will go with our committee. ever truly yrs ChaLyell Rivermede Hampton Wick3 Nov.29. 1849.

1 Letter written on mourning paper. Charles Lyell Senior died at Kinnordy on 8 November 1849. DNB. 2 On 29 November 1849, Mantell recorded the following in his Private Journal: “Received a letter from Sir C. Lyell respecting the meeting of the Royal Society tomorrow, he being on the Council and desirous of being prepared with notes &c should Prof. Owen renew his malevolent opposition”. GAM-PJ. 216

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

30 November 1849 My dear Mantell

3 The rented residence of Lyell’s father-in-law, Leonard Horner. The medal has been just decided in your favour1 after a full discussion. yrs ever truly ChaLyell

Somerset H. 30 Nov 1849.

217

Mary Elizabeth Lyell to G. A. Mantell2

[ 11 December 1849 ]

Dear Dr Mantell My husband is quite shocked to find that he forgot his engagement with you, which he never told me of as perhaps I should have reminded him. But he has been overwhelmed with a multitude of family affairs in addition to which we have been under great anxiety about his mother & of his sisters. We are a little relieved today but not entirely free from apprehension. He will write to you himself today or tomorrow to say when he can call but I feel pretty sure it cannot be before Thursday. He hopes you will excuse him. Believe me ever most truly yours Mary E.Lyell 11 Harley St. Tuesday 11 th. Dec.

1 Mantell was awarded the Royal Medal in the department of Geology, Royal Society of London, “for his paper on ‘On the Iguanodon’, published in the Phil. Trans. for 1848, being a continuation of a series of papers by him on the same fossil animal, by which he has rendered eminent services to geology”. Phil. Trans, 1849, 139(2). In his Private Journal Mantell recorded: “At four went to Somerset House; met Sir C. Lyell at the Geological, who informed me that after a long discussion, the Medal had at that moment been awarded me; Owen and one other only voting against me”. GAM-PJ , entry 30 November 1849. 218

2 Letter written on mourning note-paper. Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

14 December 1849 My dear Mantell My wife has apologised to you so I shall merely say I will call at 3 ock on Sat y. next at your house. believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

Rather better news of my mother who I fear is sinking gradually.

219

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell2

[ 19 December 1849 ] My dear Mantell In my 7th. Edn. of the Principles I have cited Ehrenberg for his discovery of the siliceous cases of microscopic infusoria of freshwater origin in the pumice enveloping Pompeii, also in the tuff or trap of the Rhine volcanoes, 94 distinct species. (Principles 7 th. ed. p.371.) You warned me that many of his Infusoria have turned out to be of vegetable origin. By what expression can I guard myself so as still to be able to talk of these same organic bodies. I suppose Gallionella and Bacillaria are among them? and perhaps some real Infusoria. sincerely yrs ChaLyell 11 Harley St. 19 Dec. 1849.

1 Letter written on mourning note-paper. 220

2 Written by Mary E. Lyell, acting as amanuensis, on mourning paper. Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

11 Harley St. Feb y. 7 1850 My dear Mantell I see no objection to your exhibiting the gigantic bone at Somerset House on the Anniversary day & much instruction to the meeting. I am very glad of your son’s return2 & professional zeal. I was equally struck with the squalid look of the natives at Liverpool after 9 months in a country where the masses are in so much more advanced a stage of civilisation. ever yrs truly ChaLyell

221

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell3

[ 3 March 1850 ] My dear Mantell I have no doubt that your sentence with the word ‘organic’ expresses your opinion & theory faithfully. I have endeavoured as you know in many chapters of the Principles & in my works generally to explain why I take a different view. I believe that the last pair of Dodos was as capable if let alone by Man or the last Auroch so long as the Czar chose to protect them to repeople the globe as were the first pair & I believe it was the same with every other last pair from the beginning whether an uncongenial climate, or submergence of land by an earthquake, or conversion of sea into land, or the coming of a new species or

1 Letter written on mourning note-paper. 2 Reginald Neville Mantell had returned from a visit to the United States. 3 Letter written on mourning note-paper. any other cause organic or inorganic, mechanical or chemical, put a finishing stroke to the existence of a species. Your theory is Brochi’s4 theory, Principles 7th. Edn. p. 641. which I have treated of – the physiological dying out of every species. The red man has an allotted time for his race dying out & it may be that the Small pox or some other epidemic may put the last finish to what the white man’s persecution has begun but the last pair of Indians will be naturally as fecund if unmolested as were Adam and Eve. I hope you will come if you can to the election of our Assist. Secy. on the 15 th. March. ever sincerely yrs ChaLyell

11 Harley Street March 3 rd. 1850.

222

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell5

11 Harley St. 15 July 1850

My dear Mantell I enclose a letter to the American Minister which you wished to have. It may I think be useful though you may well suppose he is overwhelmed with applications. I received back from your son the papers containing the calculations respecting the sediment of the Mississippi but no letter from him on the

4 Giovanni Battista Brochi (1772 - 1826). Italian mining engineer and invertebrate palaeontologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 621. 5 Written by an amanuensis, Mary E.Lyell, on mourning note-paper. subject. I hope you are better as you complained when I saw you last.believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

223

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

11 Harley S t. 20 th. July / 50

My dear Mantell I am sorry you were not able to come to the G.S. as E. Forbes & I were alone there & not a quorum. You must pass a note of indemnity for all I mean to do without the aid of the Council before Novr.2 The enclosed note contains an important practical hint & if you can get the letter from Brunel it would do much no doubt, for no-one knows better than Abbot Laurence3 what would best tell in the U.S. believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

I go out of town to the other side of Windsor Mond y. Tuesd y. & Wed y. & on Sat y. morning leave for Germany.

1 Letter written on mourning note-paper. 2 Lyell served his second term as GSL President from 1849-51. 3 Abbott Laurence (1792 - 1855). Boston merchant, diplomat, statesman and philanthropist. DAB. 224

Mary Elizabeth Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

[ Sept. 1850 ]2 Dear Dr Mantell We returned to town on Saturday evening & I enclose the list of your works which Dr Dunker3 of Cassel wrote out at my request, & which he possesses. He was very much pleased to have your memoir & also one of the plates of the birds. The other plate Sir Charles gave to Mr Herman von Meyer at Frankfurt. We have had a very interesting tour in N. Germany. I hope you have heard of your son’s safe arrival in the United States. Ever believe me truly yours Mary Lyell 11 Harley St Tuesday Evng.

225

Mary Elizabeth Lyell to G. A. Mantell4

[ 23 September 1850 ]5

Dear Dr Mantell

1 Letter written on mourning note-paper. 2 Date of September 1850 deduced from context of the next two letters from Mary Lyell to Mantell. 3 Wilhelm Bernard Rudolph Hadrian Dunker (1809 - 1885). German palaeontologist from Hesse Cassel. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 931. 4 Letter written on mourning note-paper. I shall be most happy to translate the passage in Dunker for you but you will be surprised to hear we have not the book. While at Cassel Sir Charles tried in vain to get it, & found there as in many other German towns, that it was by no means [where?] the author lived, that it was easy to procure their works. I believe however most books may be had at Leipsic. If however you could send me the book with a mark in it, I shall have great pleasure in making a literal translation. Thank you for Dr Wheelers address. My husband says he would like very much to look over your notes. Ever very truly yours Mary E. Lyell

11 Harley St. Monday 23 d. Septembr.

226

5 Year not stated in letter but deduced from day of week and month. Mary Elizabeth Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

[ 25 September 1850 ]2 Dear Dr Mantell I have made the translation as literally as I could & hope it may be useful. Sir Charles says he thinks the leaves he saw in the coal seemed a good deal like that [three illegible words] figured which you alluded to. He thanks you for lending him the Pictorial Atlas3 which he looked over yesterd.y evening. He will send the books down to you this evening, & at the same time I believe he will send the cast of a fossil which he has received this morning from Manchester & which he wants your opinion of. Ever very truly yours Mary E. Lyell

11 Harley St. 25 Sept r. Wednesday

227

1 Letter written on mourning note-paper. 2 Year not stated in letter but deduced from day of week and month. 3 G.A. Mantell, A Pictorial Atlas of Fossil Remains consisting of coloured Illustrations selected from Parkinson’s ‘Organic Remains of a Former World’ and Artis’s ‘Antediluvian Phytology’ with descriptions, H.G. Bohn, London, 1850. Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

11 Harley S t. 3 October 1850 My dear Mantell A. d’Orbigny has divided the Lower Cretaceous (or our Lower Green Sand) into Aptian & Neocomian giving as Aptian fossils many species only found according to Forbes & Ibbetson2 at the very bottom of the Neocomian or Atherfield Section. It seems therefore that d’Orbigny’s attempt is a mere guess & a failure. But is it not true that the Farringdon beds contain some peculiar specimens so that there may be an upper division of the Lower Cretaceous. I ask you because I think you claim to have been the discoverer of the Farringdon beds. If so please to tell me where & when. I have your books. When did you first print your opinion that the Wealden was a freshwater formation. I am just sending my chapters on these subjects to the press. believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

228

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell3

[ 5 October 1850 ] My dear Mantell I cited you Elements 2d. Ed. v.1. p. 420 as having computed the size of largest Iguanodon as one having a femur 24 inches in

1 Letter written on mourning note-paper. 2 Levett Landen Boscowen Ibbetson ( died 1869 ). English soldier and amateur geologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 1367. 3 Letter written on mourning note-paper. circumference. What may we now affirm? Has Owen made out more than one species of Iguanodon in the Wealden? After every deduction conceded to Owen how long may the creature have been? In which of the 3 divisions of the Wealden — W.clay, Hastings, or Purbeck did you find the great Unio? What genera of freshw r. shells occur in the Weald clay proper? Forbes tells me there is a marine bed in the Hastings but none in the Weald clay. Are not the Saurians in the Hastings Sands? From whence came the Pterodactyle? I shall only put in your claim to priority as to freshwater character of Wealden. Excuse so many queries & believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell Oct 5. 1850 11 Harley St.

229

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell1

Monday October 7 1850 My dear Sir Charles I will send you my summary of the Wealden fossils up to the end of 1848. Femur of Iguanodon – largest – Total length 4 feet 8 inches. Circumference of the lower shaft 25 inches

1 Transcribed from a transcribed copy at ATL. and round the condyles 42 inches. Owen has not made out any other species that I am aware of, but as you know, for some years he has carefully concealed from me every discovery in the Wealden that has come to his knowledge & has forbid his correspondent, Holmes2 at Horsham, to allow me the use of any he may find. In the report on British reptiles the only new fact in the osteology of the Iguanodon, stated by Owen is the construction of the sacrum which is peculiar O. supposes to Iguanodon, Megalosaurus, & Hylaeosaurus. O. showed the Ig. sacrum consisted of 5 anchylosed vertebrae from a specimen in Saull’s3 collection: I since examined the same fossil & found the sacrum to consist of six vertebrae: I have figured it in Phil. Trans. Part II. 1849 pl.XXVI. I am now certain there were other contemporaneous genera with the sacrum composed of several anchylosed vertebrae: you are aware, that after all there is nothing wonderful in this: the common crocodile &c has a sacrum formed of two anchylosed vertebrae. Length of Iguanodon. See last edit. of Wonders p. 435. Owen states the total length at 28 feet: & the Megalosaurus a few feet longer; but I think he calculated upon uncertain data. If the tail were very much abbreviated – as is possible – then between 30 40 feet would be within bounds, but if the tail were long as in most saurians, 50 or 60 feet. The size of the lower jaw found by Capt. Brickenden far exceeds O.’s prediction in rep: Brit. reptiles, as I have emphatically remarked in my paper on the Lower Jaw. The saurian remains occur throughout the Wealden deposits: their apparent abundance in one bed is I believe solely dependent on local circumstances being more or less favourable for their discovery. My grand specimens of this year are from the clay & sand below the mould clay: if it be possible to assign a clear line of demarcation in the cliffs of the Isle of Wight. One thing is worthy of remark between Brixton & Atherfield a layer of ferruginous sandstone, full of casts of small paludine cyclades &c like that of Groombridge & Langton Green (years ago described by me), has lately been exposed. I send you a slab of it. This bed may perhaps hereafter

2 George Bax Holmes (1803 - 1887). A Horsham based, Quaker, vertebrate fossil collector. J.A. Cooper, ‘The Life and Work of George Bax Holmes’, Archives of Natural History, 1992, 19(3), pp. 379-400. help to determine the relative position of these I. of W. deposits. This is a late discovery. I sent a large slab to Prof. Forbes but have had no notice of it. But I believe this is a repetition in the Wealden series, of clay, sands and sandstones, of similar lithological and palaeontological character. Thus at resting Oak Hill at Cookbridge near Lewes, there are beds of ironstone in the sand and clays of the Weald Clay, full of similar shells. The Isle of Wight bed therefore may belong to a higher place in the system than that of Groombridge or Langton Green. My large Unio Valdensis is from the sands & clays at Brook Bay, above Dr F.’s mottled clays, which are the lowest Wealden beds exposed in the Isle of Wight. These shells are imbedded in vegetable matter (foliage of conifer &c) and with the Ig. bones. In the mottled clay I discovered many vertebra & other bones of a large aquatic reptile. Owen’s Cetiosaurus - no other bones had been observed in these beds. In the Weald Clay, strictly so called no additions have been made to the list of Paludina, Cyclas, Cyrenes, Unio: of the good old times. I am not aware of the marine bed in the Hastings beds. Pterodactyle remains have been found chiefly in the Hastings sands. Do pray mention that the analogy between many of the fossils of the Wealden & of Stonesfield was pointed out by you & me in my Fossils of the South Downs, in 1822, p. 59. Owen got up at Edinburgh and claimed the wonderful discovery of the Oolitic character of the reptilians of the Wealden! This is to me very absurd. The Iguanodon, Pterodactyles & Plesiosauri & Clathraria & Lonchopteris &c of the Wealden, have all been found in the chalk formation. I believe the terrestrial fauna & flora, from the Lias to the chalk inclusive, were of the same character: the molluscs &c of the seas changed, but not the animals of the land; even the Physa, &c of the Purbeck seems identical? with living forms. I have written you a long note in great hurry: but this very day (Oct.7) in 1821, we rode together to the tip of Ditchling Beacon and parted on plumpton plain, you departing for the [ 4 ] of Essex! Alas! how unprofitably

3 William Devonshire Saull (1784 - 1855). English geologist. DNB. 4 This space left blank in transcribed copy. has the long period of 29 years sped with me! Ever yours my dear Sir Charles most faithfully G.A.Mantell

P.S. I see that [ 5 ] in his Palaeontographica – in a paper on Molassi bei Gunzberg unter Ulm – tab xxiii figures leaves like those of Bournemouth; and the Planorbis enomphalus – the largest species of the Isle of Wight as P Mantelli: he says it is distinct from Sowerby’s Enomphalus. 230

5 This space left blank in transcribed copy. Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

[ 7 October 1850 ] My dear Mantell I am very much obliged to you for your useful letter. How the Physa &c can be the same as a living one I do not see especially if the corresponding genera are represented by new & distinct freshw r. species in each of the 3 Purbecks in the mollusca cyprides, fish &c & all different from the Brora & Skye so-called Wealdens. I cannot imagine the liassic & upper cretaceous floras will agree except generically. believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell 7 Oct. 1850 11 Harley Street

E. Forbes is one who unites many species of other conchologists into one & does not in general split hares [sic].

231

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell2

[ October 1850? ]3

“As the marine lizards called Plesiosaurus & Polyptychodon are supposed to have frequented estuaries or to have swum near the shore, and as the

1 Letter written on mourning note-paper. 2 Transcribed from a xeroxed copy of the original letter at APS. 3 Letter not dated. ATL copy states ‘Postmark Oc.185 (obliterated).’ The reference to Owen’s ‘Albatross’ bones and Lyell’s comments in his letter dated 5 February 1851, indicate a greater Pterodactyles cannot be supposed to have flown far out to sea, the discovery of their remains in the chalk indicates the proximity of that formation to the land: and it may be remembered that the Iguanodon has been discovered in one division of the cretaceous group.”

Owen in Dixon4 book5.

Wednesday

My dear Sir Charles I wish to draw your attention to the above: the italics are mine to arrest your notice more especially to the conclusion of the author. A few detached bones of Plesiosaurus only are known in chalk. A friend has lent me Dixon’s book: poor fellow! it is sad he did not live to see it: he promised to send me the first copy he had as an acknowledgment of my having given him a taste for collecting. Bell describes my old Astacus Sussexiensis under new names – without the slightest reference to my figures & descriptions: I dare say he knew nothing of them. But Owen’s entire silence of my previous discovery of Icthyos & Megalosaurus in the Sussex chalk &c is intentional. Charlesworth’s beautiful figures & good description of the chalk species – Mos. stenodon in his Palaeont. Journal is also passed by in silence; & new names – not only generic but specific are given to the fragmentary specimens of these reptiles. You will remember that in O.’s belemnite paper,6 he did not mention Channing Pearce’s7 previous account of the soft parts of Belemnoteuthis: anyone reading the paper in the Philos. Trans. would suppose the fact was previously unknown. This conduct is very reprehensible, & must be most injurious to the progress of science. If I were likelihood of this letter being written in 1850 than 1851. 4 Frederick Dixon (1799 - 1849). English stratigrapher and fossil collector based at Worthing. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 905. 5 F. Dixon, The Geology and Fossils of the Tertiary and Cretaceous Formations of Sussex, Longman, London, 1850. 6 R. Owen, ‘A Description of certain Belemnites preserved with a great proportion of their soft parts in the Oxford Clay at Christian Malford, Wilts’, Phil. Trans., 1844, 134(1), pp. 65-85. 7 Joseph Channing Pearce (1811 - 1847). English physician and vertebrate palaeontologist. Sarjeant, to follow this example, & in my new edit. of the Isle of Wight, give new names to the mammalian relics from Ryde to Hordwell, already described by Owen, and also omit all reference to his memoirs on them, as he has done to Searle Wood’s acct, what would be said of me? He finds that his so called “albatross bones” from the chalk are birds & gives poor Bowerbank’s grand Pterodactyle, another specific name, on the plea that B. did not accurately define it, & that the species is not the largest: as well might he expunge Megalosaurus, because larger saurians have since been discovered. Ever yours my dear Sir Charles G.A. Mantell

[ Postmark: Oc. 185(obliterated) ]

232

G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1864. Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell1

11 Harley St. Nov 22 [ 1850?]2

My dear Mantell I think the letter very much improved & I do not see how it could be shortened if it is to be printed & as to that point I did not consider it an open question on which to advise, but one on which you had made up your mind. Murchison may be right, as one of you must have the last word & we shall hear I suppose a rejoinder, but I understand your wish to deny a statement of fact which is incorrect. ever truly yrs ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq ]

233

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley St. January12 1851

1 Letter written on mourning note-paper. 2 Original date of letter has been altered from 1850 or 1852 to 1851. However, 1850 appears to be the correct year because of the letter’s context. Moreover, mourning note-paper was not used by Lyell during 1851. My dear Mantell We were in the country for a fortnight or more at C. Bunbury’s at Christmas & now I have to exert myself for my Anniversary Address which I am just beginning. I hope to call on you soon. We had a good meeting on Wed y. Could you tell me what was the order of discovery in the British Eocene of the different classes of fossils. Did not Brande describe shells & fishes teeth – then Sheppey chelonians were known, then the I. of Wight paliotherium tooth (found by Allan), then the Kyson macacus, & lastly the Sheppey birds. It seems to me that in general a collector w.d find (e.g. in oolite) first shells & corals, then fish then reptiles, then, if ever mammalia & lastly if ever, birds? I wish to apply this to the absence of reptiles in Silurians & of birds &c. What think you of the absence of fir cones in the Coal when there were so many conifera? Is it not as surprising as the non-discovery of an iguanodon’s jaw for 30 years? Ought we not to find a cart load of fir cones in the Coal before one mammifer or bird? The Arancarian pines had large cones. Did you ever with your own eyes & hands find a Wealden fossil fir- cone? When my book1 is out in about a week I shall send you a copy. believe me ever truly yr ChaLyell

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. ]

234

1 C. Lyell, A Manual of Elementary Geology, Murray, London, 1851. Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley St. 5 Feb y. 1851

My dear Mantell As Owen has now fairly given up the Albatross of the Chalk to which I shall have to allude in my Anniversary Address I wish to know whether the only case of a probable fossil bird (that of Glarus being now tertiary or nummulitic). Is not your tibia? of a wader from the Wealden? Are you now the discoverer of the only evidence of the ornithic creation older than the Eocene period on this side of the Atlantic? & in spite of the temptation thus held out to distinction have you [any?] serious misgivings as to this bone having belonged to a feathered biped. If you will send me a sentence about it I should like to insert it1 as my theme is the question of successive development in time of more & more perfect animals & the doubtful nature of the negative evidence at present relied upon in support of this theory. believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

1 In his GSL Anniversary Address Lyell commented that Dr Mantell was still of the opinion that he had in his collection from the Wealden a portion of the ulna of a bird on which there was a distinct row of slight eminences for the attachment of large wing-feathers. QJGSL, 1851, 7, pp. lxiii. 235

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

1851 [ 27 March - 3 April ]1 My dear Mantell I was glad you were able to bring the Sillimans to the G.S. & hope you have not been doing too much in your desire to serve them. We hope to see them on their return & if you see them first say that my wife wishes to renew acquaintance with Mrs B. Silliman. I hope you will not forget my lectures of April 4th. Frid. Evg. at the R.I. and perhaps the Sillimans will attend to hear about American rain of triassic and carboniferous date.2 believe me ever most truly yrs, C.L.

236

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley St. Ap. 9 1851 My dear Mantell I am very glad that one whose opinions on such a question is valuable & of authority should think so favourably of my Address. I cannot help hoping that it will lead to a sanguine search after things which so many

1 Month and day not given in letter. However, the Sillimans attended the GSL Meeting on 26 March 1851, indicating that this letter was written between 27 March and 3 April. GAM-PJ, entry 26 March 1851. 2 The title of Lyell’s lecture at the Royal Institution was: ‘On Impressions of Rain-drops in Ancient and Modern Strata’. K. Lyell, LLJ-CL, Appendix E, p. 481. had despaired of finding, a temper of mind in which our nerve finds anything. I shall be very glad if you will send to your son Reginald the eight copies of my address which I have inscribed to him & to Dr Yandell3 & others in the Ohio. I have also sent three spare copies, besides one to your son Walter to whom I have also addressed one of my last years (1850) speeches. believe me ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

There surely must be hail & rain prints in the Wealden tho’ I never saw any.

237

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell4

May 18 1851 My dear Sir In a letter received from my son Reginald this morning were enclosed for you the two sketches of recent quadrupedal footprints (made by the musk rat) which Reginald fancies closely resemble those he has seen in America from the Old red. According to his wish I send them to you, though I do not exactly see their value: except as being drawn with the mathematical correctness of an Engineer. He was going to Cincinnati to attend the Meeting of the American Association of Science. I wish you would bring Lady Lyell by daylight to see my birds; and Mr Bunbury to examine my new Wealden fruits &c: but I despair of ever seeing you here again. The Exhibition &c – engrosses all philosophers5. How can you & Owen & Murchison work, & yet enter into all the festivities &

3 Lansford Pitts Yandell (1805 - 1878). Physician and palaeontologist. A pioneer in medical education in the Ohio valley. DAB. 4 Transcribed from a transcribed copy at ATL. Location of the original letter unknown. 5 Lyell was one of the Royal Commissioners for the Great Exhibition of 1851. DNB. gaities of the Court! It is a mystery to me. Ever yours G.A.Mantell

P.S. Sir R. is going to renew the attack on the Wealden Denudation so you must be prepared.

May 18. 1851. 238

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley St. May 22 1851

My dear Mantell I am very much obliged to you for the drawings. All sent are of value. I have specimens of the musk rat in the [indecipherable word] of the Bay of [indecipherable word]. In haste believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

239

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley St July 9 1851 My dear Mantell I was sorry to receive your letter at Ipswich where Owen in his lecture on the differences between Animals & Plants & in the section distinguished himself more than on any former occasion. The passage you allude to when read by a person who knows nothing of the parties concerned is calculated to make an unfavourable impression against the writer. If you reply to it in some popular work such as your “Guide to Brit. Musm.” which circulates more widely than Owen’s you should do so in a straightforward way & not as if he had been able to annoy you. You might say that Prof. Owen had implied by what he says &c that he doubts my priority of discovery in regard to the Maidstone Iguanodon but had he made himself master of the facts he would have known better &c. Such swipes as you might naturally be tempted to indulge in do no good & the public lay blame on both parties & most on the one they think least of, in a moral point of view. Your best revenge is to go on in the great line of discovery you are pursuing & if any jealousy is betrayed by such strictures as those you complain of it shows you are somebody in the eyes of the great osteologist of the Coll. of Surg s. We leave for Belgium tomorrow. ever truly yrs ChaLyell

240

Mary Elizabeth Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 24 September 1851 ]

Dear Dr Mantell We have returned from Belgium a short time since & hope you have been feeling well. Can you come on Friday evening next here. We expect Captain LeHon1

1 Captain Henri Sebastian Le Hon (1809 - 1872). Belgian palaeontologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. of Brussels who has a good collection himself and is anxious to make your acquaintance. We drink tea really at 8 o’clock & shall be happy to see you at that time or as soon after as you can come to us. Believe me sincerely yours Mary E. Lyell

11 Harley St. Wednesday 24 th.

241

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 25 September 1851 ]

My dear Mantell I believe my wife mentioned to you that Captain & Mrs Le Hon of Brussels both of whom are good palaeontologists & have a splendid collection are to be here tomorrow Evg. to meet several naturalists. Le Hon has been travelling on the I. of Wight with your book which I have given him & he wished to make your acquaintance & to see some of your huge saurian remains. If you could bring any of the more portable wonders with you tomorrow evg. they might furnish our visitors with instruction & amusement but then just as you feel inclined. How I wish your

3, p. 1545. guide book had been out for Brit. Mus. in 1851. Le Hon bought a 30?th Ed. of a Mus m. catalogue which he says is useless. ever truly yrs ChaLyell

Thursday 25 Sepr. 1851 11 Harley St.

P.S. I have just got your note & regret to find you are driven by the printers for I know what that is. We shall only expect if you come & you can be here should you change your mind for as short a time as you like. I shall try & call same day after 2ock with Le Hon & will write to let you know. I shall be very glad if all your osteological speculations turn out true in regard to Iguanodon &c. C.L.

242

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 29 September 1851 ]

My dear Mantell I shall call with Capt. Le Hon tomorrow between 2 and 3ock p.m. in the hope of finding you at home for ½ an hour. You will find him worthy of seeing your treasures. Madame Le Hon who is a good collector of specimens begs to come too. ever truly yrs ChaLyell Monday 29 Sept. 1851.

243

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley St. London October 28 1851 My dear Mantell Will you be so kind as to read the enclosed1 which I sent to the reviewer about 3 days after the Article came out & received no answer but the letter was not returned. I am writing a postcript to the new Edn. of the Manual2 (4th. Ed. 2,500 copies) in which I shall announce among other novelties the Lower Silurian tortoise, the triassic mammifer of which there can be no doubt as the figure of the teeth proves [ indecipherable ] but shall leave all controversial matter to the magazines & reviewers & take no notice of the Q.R. I was very glad of your remarks on the Eocene Sheppey birds of Owen's book as compared to the Stonesfield proofs of a mammif s. fauna. I hope you will give some more hints after reading my inclosed letter. I have to thank you for your beautiful vol. on the fossils of Brit. Mus.3 & shall see if I can cite it a propos to New Zealand’s birds. Look at p. 46-47 of my Annivy. Address & you will see why John Quekett was impaled in the Q.R. having been selected by the P.G.S. to make an enquiry for him, instead of his chief.

1 Richard Owen criticized Lyell’s GSL Anniversary Address in the Quarterly Review and the reference to the ‘enclosed’ relates to Lyell’s proposed letter of reply. GAM-PJ, entry 28 October 1851. 2 C. Lyell, Elements of Geology, 4th ed., Murray, London, January 1852. 3 G.A. Mantell, Petrifactions and their Teachings, or a Handbook to the Gallery of Organic Remains of the British Museum, H.G. Bohn, London, 1851. Pomel4 saw the bones & pronounced them to be birds I am told. Please to return the letter when you have read it, & as soon as you can sending me any comments at your leisure. I wish your birds bone of the Wealden (p. 47 Address) was forthcoming. believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

244

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell5

[ No date ]6

My dear Sir Charles I return your letter with many thanks. I think you should publish it – either for private circulation among your friends – or publically as “The Reviewer reviewed”. The attack is so dishonest & so jesuitical, that it will do much mischief if not rebutted. I have been several times today twitted by my patients at Clapham on the complete set down of my friend Sir C.L. in the Quarterly, & the high eulogium passed on Prof. O. What a world this is! I am quite of honest Falstaff’s opinion that honour & fame are mere baubles! In Mr Broderip’s Zoological recreations,7 you will find in the Chapter on reptiles a most sublime review on the murky atmosphere of the half- finished planet! What a strange medley is this rhapsody of the Infallible. “The most perfect animals depart the most from their vertebrate archtype”. What utter

4 Nicolas Auguste Pomel (1821 - 1898). French stratigrapher and palaeontologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1906. 5 Transcribed from a xeroxed copy of the original letter at APS. 6 The context of this letter indicates Mantell wrote it between 29 October and early November 1851. humbug this archetypal transcendatalism is when carried to the extreme which Oken8 & Owen (for the latter is but the sinumbra of ye former) carry it. [Cuviers?] was intelligible. There was a capital epigram in the Lancet the week after O.’s lecture on limbs. Beginning –

Twixt Oken & Owen what difference I pray ? Oh ! one spells with w, tother with k . But which is most mystical? No-one can say, for their myths & conundrums all tend the same way, Transcendentally leading the judgment astray.

&c. Ever Yours my dear Sir Charles with great regard G.A.Mantell

245

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley Street Oct. 31 1851

My dear Mantell Mr Quekett is very desirous to help me to illustrate in the best possible manner the birds bones of the Stonesfield slate. He asks me to procure for him an undoubted pterodactyl bone from the lias or other hard stratum that he might have some transverse sections taken from it, for he says that specimens from the chalk are far too brittle. Mr Q. will bring the whole subject before the Geological Socy. but in the meantime I must get out

7 W.J. Broderip, Zoological Recreations, Colburn, 1847. 8 Lorenz Oken (1779 - 1851). German naturalist and philosopher. Professor of Natural History at the Universities of Jena and Munich. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1816. an illustrated statement in my new Ed n. on the authority of a competent observer in the “Royal Coll. of Surgeons”. Could you help me to a pterodactyle bone in a hard enough matrix. Do you think Mr Bowerbank has any good Stonesfield bones. Mr Quekett says that Mr Owen has got lately some bones from Stonesfield far more ornithic in outward form than any in the G.S. Museum. If you could lend me a pterodactyl bone I would send for it but it would be still better sent by parcel delivery to John Quekett, 32 Blandford Square. Ever truly yrs ChaLyell

246

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

2 Nov 1851 11 Harley St My dear Mantell Last night I saw Mr Quekett’s beautiful collection of drawings of microscopic structure of Mammals bones, & those of Birds reptiles & fish. He was very glad of your promptness in sending your specimens. All seemed very clear as he put it & some of the Stonesfield bones appear to be reptilian others ornithic. He has offered me drawings of each for my new Ed n. which I shall probably accept. But I am rather made cautious by his extreme confidence on characters & tests on which Owen expresses such doubts. I also am struck with what you say at p. 91 of your new book1 for you seem quite to give up fig. 6 Plate 13 Geol. Trans. Vol. 5. in which Wealden bone Bowerbank found ornithic structure. I am also rather alarmed at Mr Quekett telling me that some fragments

1 G.A.Mantell, Petrifactions and their Teachings or A Hand-book to the Gallery of Organic Remains of the British Museum, H.G. Bohn, London, 1851. of bone which Owen gave him as decidedly pterodactyl prove on microscopic examination to be birds. Now Owen may have taken them from an entire skeleton? he seems never to communicate with Quekett more than he can help when he gets him to examine for him. Before I figure any bones could you not call with me at Mr Quekett’s on Tuesday Ev g. at 8ock. You would be more competent to fathom his proof than I am, & by that time he will have looked at one of your bones from Stonesfield sent lately & will show you another which he recommends me to figure as ornithic from Stonesfield to show external form. I shall of course be very cautious. What think you of the Stonesfield vertebra believed by Quekett & Bowerbank to be mammalian & fig.d in Geol. Quarty.Journal vol. 4 Pl. II fig.6. Is it dorsal? I will get Morris2 to lend me the original & figure it again. I shall at all events go to Mr Quekett at 8ock.on Tuesday Ev g. punctually for I can only be there an hour as I have friends just arriving on a visit. Let me hear from you. The German triassic teeth are certainly mammiform & Quekett suspects vespertilio but is going to compare the figures with bats teeth. A Linnean might come down upon them with Order Primates for bats – but I am satisfied with the Class. I have written to Jaeger3 & von Meyer. A reply to Owen by a friend of Queketts came out yesterday in the (Medical Journal?) I am not sure of the name of the weekly paper. Q. says the Article was very severe but the Editor was afraid & emasculated it somewhat. believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

247

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

2 John Morris (1810 - 1886). Professor of Geology, University College, London from 1854 -77. DNB. 3 Georg Friedrich von Jaeger (1785 - 1866). German palaeontologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 2, p. 1378. 11 Harley St. Nov 2 1851 My dear Mantell I have put one letter to you into the post & must now send this to say that Mr Quekett who had told me he should be at home any evening, says now that I have fixed on the only one (Tuesdy) when he shall not be home in time. So as time presses for my postscript & as Wedy. is G.S. night & Thursday I am engaged I have written to name tomorrow Monday instead saying I will try & get you to come. If possible pray do for when I reflect that the Hunterian Prof r. had the benefit of Quekett’s microscope & his own & did not communicate to Q. what he himself learnt I feel that great caution is required. Try & be here at ½ past 7ock. or 20 mins. before 8ock. that we may go together & test Q.’s case which he is determin d. to bring before the G.S. with a degree of confidence calculated to inspire faith, if experienced osteologists like yourself can see no more flaws in the proof than I do. Let me hear by post if you cannot come. believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

248

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell1

[ 4 Nov. 1851 ]2 11 o'clock Monday My dear Sir Charles I have but this moment received both your notes. Unfortunately

1 Transcribed from a xeroxed copy of the original at APS. I am engaged this evening to deliver the introductory lecture at the Clapham Athenaeum. I am not prepared to admit that microscopical structure alone (in the present state of our knowledge) is evidence sufficient to decide upon the ornithic or reptilian character of a fragment of bone: [peruse?] the paragraph in my p. 192. to which you refer. Even in dentinal structures this test is not always to be relied on. The teeth of the Labyrinthodon present a structure analogous to that of many fishes; for Owens figures & interpretations are altogether wrong: there are no [inflections?] of cement at all! – See Tomes on Teeth, Philos. Trans. 1850 p. 532 – note. I believe Mr Tomes to be the highest authority in these matters, and I am certain he would (if disengaged) cheerfully accompany you to Mr Quekett's, or at all events he would give you the results of his investigations; I know he coincides with me in the opinions expressed in p. 192. Has it never struck you that the greatest departure from the Quarterly Reviewer’s axiom – to reason only upon the fossils actually obtained – is to be found in presumed figures and footmarks of the so called Labyrinthodon; an animal of which jaws & teeth, and part of the pelvis &c – but no bones of the feet have been discovered? and yet the Hunterian Professor regarded the presumptive evidence sufficient to justify the inference that the Cheirotherium footmarks were made by these reptilians. Pray look at the note to my page 152: the Prof. actually made a Testudo from mere imprints: & gave a generic & specific name. Mr Tomes (as you probably are aware) is a dentist, and lives near you in Cavendish Square, the corner house near Prince’s Street, Oxford St., the S.E. corner of the Square. If Mr Quekett & Tomes would come to me on Saturday evening, I should be delighted to see them & look over their sections & my own, & you could then see the evidence which microscopic structure really affords. I would strongly advise you not to rely upon the microscopic test alone: but adopt with the reservation I have done. One point more is worthy [of] your consideration. It appears not at all impossible to me, that the bones & the jaws found in the Stonesfield slate may be connected. I mean the presumed pterodactylian bones, & mammalian jaws. This idea has haunted me (but I have not published it) ever since I

2 No date on letter. APS index gives date of 4 November 1851, as does the transcribed copy at ATL. found the close approach to the Mammalian character in the jaws &c of the Iguanodon: and the mammalian structure of the two large teeth in the Cape Dicynodon – the fossil reptile with turtle-jaws, & two enormous tusks of dentine as dense as in the Hyena. I would have called had my engagements permitted. Excuse great haste & believe me my dear Sir Charles Ever Yours G.A.Mantell

I send a Stonesfield vertebra for Mr Q.’s inspection.

249

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Nov. 4 1851 11 Harley St.

My dear Mantell Mr Tomes went with me to Mr Quekett’s & after looking at his specimens & microscope & asking innumerable questions came away well satisfied that he has reason for his faith & that much which has been said by Bowerbank & others about the characters of Pterodactyle bones &c were never put forward by Q. as definitions. Mr Tomes is to go into the subject separately before I figure any bones from Stonesfield. He & Mr Quekett & I hope next Thursday week to be with you in the Ev g. if we all live so long. It was the first possible day after Mr Tomes returns from the country. I cannot doubt the strictly mammif s. character of the 9 Stonesfield jaws. As to the birds bones of Quekett they are 3 times or more as large as would fit the little jaws if these were those of Vampyres. But I saw in Coll. of Surg s. this morn g. a radius & ulna with medullary cavity not at all larger than are ordinary mammiform bones which Quekett believes to be mammalian & will test microscopically. It is of a size that might I think suit the jaws. Quekett has compared the large bones which he considers birds bones from Stonesfield with those of bats &c & they are as unlike as they are to Pterodactyls. All his comparisons are made from sections of corresponding parts of the bones contrasted. I have a letter from Hermann V. Meyer with a drawing by himself of the German triassic mammalian molar. I hope your lecture went off well. believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell 250

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 13 November 1851 ]

My dear Mantell I shall be with you at 8ock. & leave at half past 9ock having to go with my wife to a friends. Had not Mr Tomes written to you yesterday I sh d. have written. I asked Morris to take his Stonesfield vertebra of mammalian pretensions to your house to see if we can make out all the world to have been pterodactyl as Bowerbank once threatened to make “all the world a sponge”. I asked Mr Barlow1 if they had invited you to lecture at R.I. & was

1 Probably Peter Barlow (1776 - 1862). Mathematician, physicist and optician. DNB. glad to hear they had done so unprompted. very truly yrs ChaLyell

Nov. 13. 1851 11 Harley St.

251

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell2

15 Nov. 1851

My dear Sir Charles I have been to the British Museum and seen the bone whose structure appeared to be ornithic. The external form, unfortunately, affords no conclusive characters in my opinion; but approaches nearer to that of reptiles than of birds. I also saw the specimen from the Geological Society, which when cleaned will be the most instructive of any of the long bones in Mr Waterhouse’s3 possession: but that I think will prove to be Pterodactylian. Unfortunately there are no materials for instituting a rigid comparison: for there is not one undoubted Pterodactylian bone in the Museum, except the bones in the Lyme Regis specimens, and they are too much compressed & mutilated to serve as authority. At present therefore, any long thin-walled bone from the Wealden or Oolite, that does not correspond with a known bone of a bird, is termed Pterodactylian. My own opinion, after all we saw last night, & I have seen today, remains as stated in p. 192 of Petrifactions: I would not commit myself beyond that: the data are insufficient.

2 Transcribed from a transcribed copy ex ATL. 3 George Robert Waterhouse (1810 - 1888). Naturalist. Keeper of the Mineralogical and Geological branch, British Museum, 1851-57. DNB. Excuse a very hasty note. With great regard. Ever most faithfully G.A.Mantell

P.S. A letter from my eldest son received today (New Zealand July 21) announces the establishment of a Scientific Society at Wellington, headed by the Governor & of which Walter is honorary Secretary, for investigating the Natural History of the Islands. Walter sailed in August for the South of the Middle Island, & after exploring it was to return, & visit Iongarus – the vulcanic fount of silicous thermal steam – & then he proposes coming to England to see me.

Nov. 15. 1851.

252

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley St. Novr. 27 1851

My dear Mantell I should like to put in a note “Dr Mantell has communicated to me while this sheet is passing through the press the news of the discovery by Capt? Brickenden of the trail of a tortoise & the entire skeleton of a small lizard 7 inches long in the Old Red Sandstone of in Scotland.”1 Or something of that kind but we must be very guarded as to the age of the rock, do beg for information by return of post. If the Dipterus was found in the same rock as the lizard that is enough but then the Dipterus of which fragments only are known must have been identified by competent authority. believe me ever truly yours ChaLyell

H.D. Rogers2 has 5 foot-prints of reptiles believed to be saurians in shale between Coal and Old Red, below level of my cheirotherium of Pennsylvania (alias Dr Konig’s) figd. by me. This makes 4 skeletons of reptiles in European coal & in U.S. one trail of batrachian?, 3 of Saurians? & 1 Chelonia base of Low.r Silurn. plus those you showed me last night? which would make 10 Palaezoic or infra-permian reptiles in 4 years!

253

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley St. Londn.

1 Mantell recorded the following in his Private Journal on 25 November 1851: “In the evening to Sir C. Lyell’s: took with me drawings of a reptile and foot-prints of a quadruped from the Devonian of Elgin, Morayshire, sent me by Capt. Lambart Brickenden. L. was greatly pleased with this discovery”. 2 H.D. Rogers (1808 - 1866). U.S. Geologist. Successively Director of the Geological Survey of New Nov. 28 1851

My dear Mantell Capt. Brickenden’s paper is most satisfactory & I know the yellow sandstone of the Upper Devonian in Fife. Besides it is clear that Hugh Miller who has been at Elgin had decided the point. It was very good of you to send on the paper. As B.’s friend you do him the best service by giving a much great publicity to his discovery than our Journal could do & nothing I can say will shut out his notice with the illustrations & I hope some account by you of the lizard, from our Journal What a splendid fact. His tortoise had twice the stride of the Canada Lower Silurian one. Its hind foot exactly the same size. The Old Red or Elgin beast was narrower. You should refer to H. von Meyer’s account of Apaten pedestris or salamander of the Coal Period – qy. published where? – see Manual p. 336. Pray send me word whether the drawing of said lizard or salamander ? is not clearly terrestrial? Could it be aquatic like a Newt – or is it an Eft or land lizard. Its feet may tell this? I have just got a convincing letter from Plieninger3 as to the double fanged triassic teeth & he has sent me as I asked him casts in gutta percher – which you shall see. ever truly yrs ChaLyell

254

Jersey and Pennsylvania. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, pp. 1993-1994. 3 William Heinrich Theodor von Plieninger (1795 - 1879). German theologian and vertebrate palaeontologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1901. Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley St. Nov 29 1851

My dear Mantell I should like to cite you for the name of the Elgin reptile which I take for granted you will describe. Devoniosaurus would look too much perhaps as if it had been found in Devon. Elginosaurus would I think be a good name, for tho' there may possibly be some latin name for Elgin no one can complain of latinizing so euphonious a name, especially now that such barbarous Dutch surnames are getting into Natural History. I ought to go to press but must wait for a sentence giving your opinion on the saurian. I feel sure it is a genuine product of the Old Red. Ask Capt Brickenden if the Lock of Spynie rock is decidedly lower than the yellow sandstone of Cummingstone with the chelonian? trail. Also, whether any fish & what have been found in the sandstone in which the fossil lizard was found. This should be in the paper. A letter from Plieninger sending the casts of a tooth of Microtestes is very satisfactory as to double-fangs, cusps &c. He says the cusps are quite smooth & polished except in their lower half where there are some striae but quite different from those “folded-striae” of the teeth of reptiles & fish. Now ought there to be any striae in a mammiform tooth. I have but few at hand. I see none in the pig but some in ruminants teeth. In the crown of mammals have some of the cusps “striae wide apart” as he describes. ever most truly yrs ChaLyell

255 Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

5ock Mond y. [1 December 1851?]1 My dear Mantell I met Owen today who told me had got a promise from Dr Duff2 that he Dr D. should bring the Elgin reptile to their Coll. of Surgs. tomorrow about noon. So I came here to Dr Duff who tells me that if you will call before 11ock. tomorrow morning (from ½ past 9ock. to 11) he wishes you to see it first – pray come so that I may cite you. ever yrs ChaLyell

256

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

3 d Dec. 1851 Lond.n My dear Mantell For fear any thing should prevent you coming to the Geol.S. I write to say that at my request Dr Duff brought back the specimen which I hope Dinkel will draw tomorrow in my house. I shall have the specimen today.

1 Letter not dated. Query date of 1 December 1851 has been ascribed to this letter since this date best accords with the described events and with Mantell’s entries in his Private Journal. 2 Dr George Duff. London Doctor and cousin of Patrick Duff, Town Clerk – Elgin, Scotland, who obtained the Elgin fossil from the nearby Spynie quarry. M.J. Benton, ‘Progressionism in the 1850’s: Lyell, Owen, Mantell and the Elgin fossil reptile Leptopleuron (Telerpetom)’, Archives of Natural History, 1972, 11, pp. 123-136. Owen pronounced it batrachian says Dr Duff. Many thanks for putting my wood-cuts in hand, I have received the

block from Lee. most truly yrs ChaLyell

257

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ 4 December 1851 ] My dear Mantell I forgot to tell you that I was an hour this morning in labour with the euphonious name you require, a non-committal denomination for the newt which laid the eggs among the freshwater? or marine? plants of the old red slates of Forfarshire which I shall leave with this. At last with Charles Bunbury’s help we have hatched not the batrachian eggs but a germane appellation for the beast – Telerpeton Elginense from tele procul & hrpetou reptilis. The far-off reptile. Tell me if I may publish the name saying it is yours & about to be described by you. Telerpeton! Mantell! Very euphonious indeed far better than Archegosaurus. Should you identify the eggs with a frogs you may suggest a sentence introducing them. Does the common newt of our ponds lay such eggs. ever truly yrs ChaLyell

I am writing about a bone Logan1 is said to have found in the lowest Silurian

1 William Edmond Logan (1798 - 1875). First head of the Geological Survey of Canada, 1842-69. with the Canada tortoise.

4 Dec. 1851. 258

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1595. [ 4 Dec 1851?]1

My dear Mantell Mr C. Bunbury says that there is no reason why such grass like leaves should not be Potomageton – at all counts of the class “Fluviales”. In the slab I now send you will see in one part some honey combed markings, the impressions of eggs. In another part are four large round disks – qy. eggs of a huge Telerpeton as big as a cheirotherium. C.B. reminds me it is erpeton not erpiton. ever yours ChaLyell

On Monday I must really go to press.

259

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley St. Dec 5 1851 Saturday morng. My dear Mantell I got off Dinkel’s drawing to Lee’s yesterday before 4 ock P.M. & hope he is at work at it, for my publisher wishes to be out as all is printed off except this post-script. I am in hopes Dr Duff will not object to our keeping the stone. I have given him my last Address & shall send the wood- cut impression to him to forward to his cousin. You may of course have lithographic drawings made of the eggs but remember that they came from a decidedly lower member of the Old Red & therefore could not have been made by the same Telerpeton – for the fish of

1 Letter dated query 4 December 1851 on the basis of its context. the lower & upper old red differ specifically. The eggs run thro’ a certain zone in Kinkardinshire, Forfarshire & Fifeshire & are positively so numerous as to have served me as a useful fossil in working out the geology. They occur some 150 to 200 miles from the Elgin locality. Let me have your latest on Monday morn g. as to how much I may say. “A reptile of the batrachian order probably aquatic perhaps allied to Triton (or the newt ?) &c”. I must learn positively from Dr Duff that you are to describe the beast before I publish “Telerpeton elginense, Mantell” – & say a description will shortly be laid before the G.S. by Dr M. Let me have your latest on Monday morng. or eveng. as to skeleton & eggs. Have the newts no osseous sternum – ought we to see no indications of any breast bone? ever truly yrs ChaLyell

E. Forbes thinks the entire absence of all shells in the beds containing the eggs decisive against marine origin of those beds, but said that the egg bearing shales are as far in age from the newt-bearing rock of Elgin as Purbeck is from Weald clay in position. C.L.

260

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

5 Dec. 1851 Londn. My dear Mantell When you see Newport1 & others about the Batrachian eggs ask if any of that class are other than freshwater. The labyrinthodon tribe are air breathers. Do any go down to sea like alligators. Dinkel is at work – I should like you to see his drawing before engraved if you can look in. Fancy these Scotch counties having a somewhat inferior member of the Old Red universally characterised by batrachian remains! Are there not extensive ranges of the Wealden with plants, cypris, fish, & reptiles & without shells or with very very few shells – if so it is like the egg bearing shales of the Forfar Old Red where not a shell was ever seen – but crustacea, fish & plants. ever yrs ChaLyell

261

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley St. 8 th. Dec. 1851 My dear Mantell Your news is very gratifying. I must beg one favour more, a small wood cut of the larger eggs on a leaf for as I only refer to the other cuts this will be the only one which will be seen with the letter press. In return for this I will when I have once got off my M.S. to the printer search for other specimens of eggs which I still hope to find for I must have others. I will leave a small blank space for one pair at the face just to

1 George Newport (1803 - 1854). Naturalist and surgeon. DNB. show the size of the big eggs. Could you have the drawing made & send it to Lee for me. ever truly yrs ChaLyell

262

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

9 th. Dec. 1851 11 Harley St. My dear Mantell Many thanks for your letter just in time for the insertion of the matter which we have sent in the M.S. & orders for space for the new wood cuts – please to put the bag of recent frogs eggs on a separate small block as I allude first to your having shown them to me some years ago. Then try to arrange the other fossil illustrations in one row so as to go across my page – the width of which I have drawn on the other page. I found they will not fit in & you must make two rows in which case I will put title opposite one at its side. I do not quite understand whether you mean to have 2 diagrams of recent frogs eggs. I would rather if not indispensable not have two. As half my new Edn.2 1,250 copies is sold in advance 800 to our booksellers & the rest dog-cheap to the U.S. your name affixed to Telerpeton will soon be widely circulated.

2 C. Lyell, Elements of Geology, 4th ed., Murray, London, January 1852. ever truly yrs ChaLyell

The only batrachian known exclusive of Labyrinthodon & Cheirotherium are tertiary. If therefore this Telerpeton be an undoubted batrachian we have the first of that order in a primary fossilif s. rock & no secondary one is yet known. C.L.

I am very glad you found the conical teeth. How well Captain Brickenden observed. Look at my figs. 397 & 398 p. 344 Manual & don’t let me [go?] over again the same thing. If any locality is affixed to any specimen you get Dinkel to draw please send me a note of it.

263

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell1

[ 16 December 1851?]2 My dear Sir Charles The large white figure is the appearance of the common rotalia

1 Transcribed from a xeroxed copy of the original letter at Edinburgh University Library. 2 No date on letter. 16 December 1851 has been written on the envelope which is the presumed date of receipt of Mantell’s letter. of the chalk seen as an opaque object: the brown figure is the body of the animal from a chalk specimen, the chalk & shell having been dissolved by acid, & the fossil mummy exposed. If you have five minutes to spare, do look through 6 th Edit. Wonders Vol. 1 p. 298 & 302. 322.3 Ever yours G.A. Mantell

Chester Sq re. Sunday a cubic inch of chalk contains a million of rotalia.

Our white chalk is the deposit of a very deep sea – far from shores – no sand, pebbles &c. The rocks forming on the shores of Bermuda &c are detrital: our white chalk is almost wholly organic: in the depths of the ocean around the Bermudas white calcareous deposit like our chalk may be forming: but I cannot admit that the shore detritus is similar, except in colour & chemical characters. Its microscopic X rs. are altogether different.

[ Addressed to: Sir Charles Lyell, 11 Harley Street, Cavendish Square ]

264

3 Page 298 concerns the Chalk Downs; p. 302, animalcules, and p. 322 chalk rotaliae. G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell1

[ 25 December 1851 ]2

My dear Sir Charles You have evidently forgotten that I told you Sir Roderick had no doubt of the Spynie rock belonging to the Old Red; he saw the specimens, both Stagonolepis & Telerpeton; was convinced of the identity of the two beds; said he knew the country well; in fact had not the slightest scepticism as to the age of the fossils. Besides – where have you such a rock in the Lias or Oolite? The Stagonolepis was not seen by Agassiz; he named, and described it from a drawing sent him by Robertson.3 Mr Duff’s specimen (now at the Geological) is the only one known. For the reasons I stated when you first showed the fossil to me – namely the apposition of the plates, their not overlapping so much as in all the ganoid fishes, I think them dermal bones. There is another character which I fancy may be distinctive, and which I will work out before the next meeting. Unfortunately not a fragment of the osseous substance remains to help us; my friend Williamson4 would ascertain whether these bodies were scales or dermal bones. My friend Capt. B. is in the same dilemna as to his discoveries, I was with my first, mammalian-looking bones from Tilgate forest. All I can say at present as to the Stagonolepis is, that the character of the specimens are unquestionably more allied to reptilian than to ichthyic structure. Ever yours my dear Sir Charles G.A.Mantell

Sir R. saw Capt. B.’s section & description & said they were quite right – Xmas Day.

1 Transcribed from a transcribed copy at A.T.L. 2 Letter post-marked 25 December 1851. 3 Possibly David Robertson (1806 - 1896). Scottish merchant and amateur palaeontologist. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1988. 4 William Crawford Williamson (1816 - 1895). English stratigrapher and invertebrate palaeontologist. [ Addressed to: Sir Charles Lyell, 11 Harley Street, Cavendish Square ]

265

Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 2431. G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell1

[ 27 Dec. 1851 ]2 Saturday My dear Sir Charles Williamson tells me that in the absence of the osseous substance no form or apparent union of the scales or scutes, is of value as a distinctive character. We had better therefore leave the Stagonolepis without remark. Capt. B. is much vexed with O.’s conduct: Mr P. Duff expressly declared the fossil was to be delivered to me to figure, describe & name: his object was not to oblige me, but his friend Capt. B. to whose paper mine was to be an appendant. My course is clear: to take no notice whatever of the published letter;3 and if after my paper is read, O. disputes my priority, then to refer him to Capt. B. & Mr P. Duff, who sent me the specimen for the express purpose of laying it before the Geological Society; & by whose desire it is still in my possession. The German naturalists term all new generic & specific descriptions, without figures, still-born: the offspring of the illicit intercourse of the Professor with the Devonian reptile, is therefore nil, – and cannot disturb the claims of my legitimate offspring! I shall treat the matter with perfect indifference. Thank Heaven the British Museum is free! With the good old English wishes for you & yours, believe me my dear friend, most faithfully yours G.A.Mantell

P.S. I have not seen your revise.

[ Addressed to: Sir Charles Lyell, 11 Harley Street, Cavendish Square ]

1 Transcribed from a transcribed copy at ATL. 2 Postal date was 27 December 1851, which was a Saturday. 3 Owen obtained a view of the specimen and on 20 December published his own description of the fossil in the Literary Gazette, naming it Leptopleuron lacertinum. Spokes, G.A. Mantell, p. 236. 266

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell1

[ Dec.ber 29 1851 ]2 My dear Sir Charles I return all your documents; to me the evidence of the Devonian age of the reptile appears most conclusive, surely it is very difficult to conceive that either the rock or the fossils are liassic; and then the utter absence of all the ordinary liassic shells &c. When I showed Sir R. M. Capt [Brickendens] sections & memoir he was quite satisfied that the rock was true Old Red. Well may Sir Roderick, who has not yet had personal experience of O.’s jesuitry, be surprised at the letter in the Gazette; however, I am determined Mr Duff shall not be unjustly blamed: nothing could be fairer than his conduct. His letter to Dr Duff expressly stated that if Dr D. had not promised the first use of the reptile to anyone, then he Mr D. wished me to have it, that my account might appear with Capt. B.’s paper. Dr Duff in his note (that accompanied the fossil) says, “as I had not promised it to any one, I have great pleasure in compliance with my cousin’s direction, in sending it to you”. Today Dr Andrew Smith3 (Inspector General of Army Med.l Dpt.) late of the Cape & celebrated as an Erpetologist, saw the fossil: & he has no doubt it was an aquatic salamander, from its general proportions. The account in the Literary Gazette is meagre & erroneous and could not stand, even if mine had not the priority. I think the Infallible has committed himself most completely. Capt. B. is very wroth: but I tell him, doubtless Prof. O. means, as he insinuates, a different reptile, to that which forms the subject of our memoir!

1 Transcribed from a transcribed copy at ATL. 2 Letter post-marked 29 December 1851. 3 Andrew Smith (1797 - 1872). Director General of Army Medical Dept. Ornithologist and African traveller. DNB. Ever yours my dear Sir Charles, G.A.Mantell

267

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell1

[ 2 January 1852?]2 Friday night My dear Sir Charles I intend to call tomorrow and will leave your book and another cast of the Stegonolepis. I have taken a cast fom the cast, so as to show the original form of the scales with the markings in intaglio; and their appearance is more fish-like, several of the scales being imbricated; so that I am now inclined to adopt Agassiz’s opinion. I put more confidence in Williamson’s judgment on this point than in Hugh Miller’s. Ever yours my dear Sir Charles G.A.Mantell

P.S. There is a model of Mystriosaurus in the British Museum – see my “Petrifications & their Teachings” p. 183, & footnote to p.178: we could compare the casts with the model.

1 Transcribed from a xeroxed copy of the original letter at APS. 2 Letter undated. Indicated date of 2 January 1852 is suggested by the context and that of the following letters. Moreover, Mantell did call on Lyell on the following day as proposed in this letter. GAM-PJ, entry 3 January 1852. 268

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

Highgate January 5 th. 18511 My dear Mantell I corrected the press for the Lecture abstract which Mr Lovell Reeve2 begged me to draw up for the Literary Gazette & neither in the original M.S. nor in the abstract as corrected by me were there the papers you allude to of Prof r. Owen having asserted the Elgin fossil to be lacustrine. I could not of course have said it in Ipswich. I have written to Mr Lovell Reeve this Ev g. yrs [tly?] ChaLyell

269

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell3

[ 5 January 1852 ]4 Monday 5 o’clock

My dear Sir Charles I called in Harley Street just now, & finding you are at

1 Lyell dated this letter January 5 th 1851 but the context indicates that he made a mistake and that the correct year was 1852. 2 Lovell Reeve (1814 - 1865). English conchologist who worked on fossil Quaternary molluscs. Sarjeant, G & H of G, vol. 3, p. 1961. 3 Transcribed from a copy of original letter at APS. 4 Letter not dated but 5 January confirmed through Mantell's reference to his visit to the British Museum, as well as the date of the post-mark. GAM-PJ, entry 5 January 1852. Highgate, trouble you with this note, as it may interest you to know that I have been to the British Museum, and compared the Stegonolepis with the specimens of dermal bones in the Mystriosaurus and many other saurians, and with scales of ganoid fishes, and I have convinced myself that Agassiz was right in inscribing the Elgin fossil to a fish, but mistaken in supposing a pseudomorphism to be an imprint. The scales are I believe, represented by a replacement of the rock in the cavities left by the decomposition of the original: in like manner as is the case in part of the spinal column of the Telerpeton. This interpretation removes all doubts; & we have in these scales simply a more elegant and well defined ornament on the surface than in Holoptychius, Asterolepis &c. I cannot now enter into particulars, nor explain how I have arrived at this conclusion: when we meet I am convinced you will concur with me in this being the true solution of the problem. I have carefully examined a few grains of the rock in which the Telerpeton is imbedded, under the microscope, but can find no traces of oolitic structure, nor of shells, corals, or other organisms. Have you seen the scurrilous attack upon the Archbishop for appointing the “entomologist”. Really O. must be mad to suppose his conduct will not sooner or later be brought to light. Gray tells me the story about the Valet & Dr Brown is altogether false! My best respects to Mr Horner Ever most faithfully G.A.Mantell

[ Addressed to:Sir Charles Lyell, Leonard Horner Esq., Highgate ]

270

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell1

1 Transcribed from a copy of the original letter at APS. [ Wednesday 7 January 1852 ]2 My dear Sir Charles Whilst the subject is still fresh on your mind, I would beg your consideration of the following facts & arguments respecting the supposed ova of Forfarshire, which I think Professor Forbes has not duly weighed; and I am anxious you should place before him. 1st. The strict resemblance in form, substance, and arrangement, between the fossil bodies & the carbonized spawn of the frog. This surely will not be disputed after Mr Newport’s careful examination & comparison of the objects. Even should carbonized ova of mollusks be found that also resemble the fossils, that alone would not prove that the latter are not reptilian: it would only lessen the probability. 2 dly. The absence of remains of frogs in the strata – or rather their non discovery is not surprising, because the bodies of these reptiles when found fossil are for the most part mere carbonaceous stains in the clays & shales in which they occur: the skeleton is not commonly preserved: & the preservation of the spawn may have resulted from its association with the floating foliage (whether the latter be of freshwater, brackish, or marine plants) and subsequent imbedding under circumstances favourable to its carbonization. 3dly. The entire absence not only of shells, but of their casts & impressions. 4thly. The abundance of the spawn: a fact more in accordance with the batrachian hypothesis than with the gastropodon. 5thly. The fact, which in the hurry of this evening's discussion I omitted to dwell upon in reply to Prof. F.’s objections, but which I think is very important: namely, the entire absence of fossil ova of mollusca in the thousands of deposits consisting of shells imbedded under circumstances most favourable for their preservation as for example in strata in which the ligament of bivalves & the epidermis of univalves – nay even the soft parts of the animals in the state of molluskite are preserved & yet not a cluster of ova (that I am aware of) has been discovered. When I first made out the nature of the then called pseudo-coprolites, & termed them molluskite, I hunted carefully for ova without success.

2 Letter not dated. Wednesday night has been written at its end. 9 January 1852 has been written on the envelope, probably indicating the letter's date of receipt. The context of the letter also generally ties in with Mantel’s entry in GAM-PJ, dated 7 January 1852. Is it then more probable that ova abounding through a great extent of country, in strata that not only do not abound in shells, but in which neither shells, nor evidence of their existence, have been discovered, should belong to mollusca, than that they should be the eggs of animals which they so entirely resemble, as not to be distinguishable in appearance & structure? The only misgiving I had – (& have) was the possibility that these bodies might after all be of vegetable & not of animal origin: & that doubt I have expressed in my paper: but if their animal nature be certain, then to my mind the batrachian hypothesis is the true one.

Ever yours my dear Sir Charles G.A.Mantell

Wednesday night

[ Addressed to: Sir Charles Lyell, 11 Harley Street, Cavendish Square.]

271

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell1

[ 9 January 1852? ]2

My dear Sir Charles Williamson of Manchester to whom I sent casts of the Stegonolepis that he might form a more accurate opinion than he could do from drawings, has just written to tell me that he has no doubt whatever that

1 Transcribed from a xeroxed copy of the original letter at APS. 2 Letter not dated. The copy ex ATL has an indicated date of 9 January 1852 at the end of the transcription. the impressions are those of fish-scales & not of dermal scutes: I had not mentioned to him my idea that the originals were probably tuberculated not pitted: so that he has arrived at this conviction unbiassed by my conundrums. Pray ponder well on the fact that ova have not been found in the myriads of strata formed of shells: & that shells have not been found in the forfarshire shales that swarm with ova!

[ Copy of letter ceases at this point ]

272

G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell1

[ 28 January 1852? ]2

My dear Sir Charles As I have been unable to attend any meetings, & therefore had no chance of seeing you, I trouble you with this note (though I have had no reply to my last) to mention that there is in the British Museum a true Old red fish, with sculptured scales, & so clearly allied to Stegonolepis as to leave not a doubt of the latter being a genuine Old red fish. Mr. S. Davies3 & Woodward4 pointed out this fact to me. The scales are not more than 1/6 the size of those Stegonolepis; the fish is named Glyptopomus: it is in wall-case B near the Holoptych Macroform &c – see

1 Transcribed from a xeroxed copy of the original letter at APS. 2 Letter not dated, but 28 January 1852 was written on the envelope. 3 William Davies (1814 - 1891). Vertebrate palaeontologist at the British Museum 1843-87. DNB. 4 Samuel Pickworth Woodward (1821 - 1865). Assistant in Dept. of Geology and Mineralogy, British Museum, 1848-65. DNB. my Brit. Mus. page 432 – for its place in the case. Agassiz is therefore right: the fossil is a cast, not as I supposed a pseudomorphism: the Glyptopomus is however the only other Old red fish with sculpturings of this nature. Yours my dear Sir Charles most faithfully G.A.Mantell

P.S. Sections of stems of Charae appear in some slices of the Purbeck marble, very like yours of yr. forfarshire recent lacustrine deposits. Have you seen the paragraph in the Atheneum. "By the way we are informed by Prof. Owen that he was not a candidate for the office in the British Museum to which, as we last week announced Mr Waterhouse5 had been elected. “I transmitted to the elective body” says the Professor, “a testimonial” not “a withdrawal” in “Mr Waterhouse’s favour” – Can Jesuitism go farther? 273

5 George Robert Waterhouse was appointed to the position of Keeper of the Mineralogical and Geological branches of the Department of Natural History in the British Museum in 1851. DNB. G. A. Mantell to Sir Charles Lyell1

[ April 1852 ] My dear Sir Charles I enclose a report of my lectures: if you have a copy already, perhaps you will be so kind as to present it to Sir John Herschel; from a conversation I had with him at the Duke of Northumberland’s2 I think he may like to see it. I was much disappointed that you did (not) make some comment on the obvious difficulty of O.’s interpretations of the enigmatical markings. If, for example, the series which he says indicate the footmarks of seven pairs of feet – the anterior pair of which converge towards the medium groove – how is it possible that the animal could have removed from its first position, to the second (& consecutive) position, and yet left no traces of its progress over the intervening space? It must have been lifted up (or floated) and then put down just in advance of the first set of imprints!! If these supposed trails have been made by crustaceans, they must have been formed by a floating body, & it is possible the locomotive organs of the Trilobites – which may have essentially differed from those of the fresh water brachypods, or terrestrial Limulus, to which existing types the carapace bears most analogy. Forbes was wrong – I had previously seen Salter3 & talked over the matter, neither do I admit that the Trilobites with eyes were inhabitants of very deep seas: their lenses are as highly developed as in our littoral crustaceans. After all, they may be referable to fishes. With great regard my dear Sir Charles, G.A.Mantell

P.S. Desor who called on me the next day, had made a sketch of the imprints to show how impossible it was that O.’s explanation could be correct, before D. knew of my objection.

Friday. Ap. 1852.

1 Transcribed from a transcribed copy at ATL. 2 Percy Algernon, 4th. Duke of Northumberland (1792 - 1865). DNB. 3 John William Salter (1820 - 1869). Palaeontologist who did notable work on trilobites and 274

Sir Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

11 Harley St. Londn. 22 May 1852 My dear Mantell

crustaceans. Geological Survey of Great Britain. 1846-63. Sarjeant, G &H of G, vol. 3, p. 2034. I am almost sure that Morris has my Mystriosaurus paper & I am sorry to say I never possessed the Archegosaurus memoir but borrowed it from the Hunterian Professor. I am very much obliged for the copies already sent of the Telerpeton paper1 which I shall be in no hurry to dispose of keeping one for myself. If you have one or two left I shall be quite sure to use them as some very good claimant German &c or American will appear. What you said of the localities of some of Sowerby’s fossils especially in early numbers enlightened me & some others who have sought in vain to understand or verify them & what you said of A. d’Orbigny was not too severe judging by what I find he has done in regard to certain – Tertiaries – ever truly yrs ChaLyell

275

Sir Charles Lyell to Reginald Neville Mantell

Oct. 18 1852 Boston Mass.

My dear Sir, I have been travelling in Nova Scotia & New Brunswick & since that in Vermont, N.Y., New England, New Jersey & Pa. on various geological errands & have seen in the Newspapers that I intended & according to some had actually proceeded, to the Southern States & to the Far West. I am now to stay here for 6 weeks & then sail for England hoping to reach it before the middle of Dec r. I am glad to hear you have entered into a railway engagement & wish you success.

1 G.A. Mantell, ‘Description of the Telerpeton Elginense, a Fossil Reptile recently discovered in the Old Red Sandstone of Moray; with observations on supposed Fossil Ova of Batrachians in the Lower Devonian Strata of Forfarshire’, QJGSL, 1852, 8, pp. 100-108. I saw your father shortly before I left looking I thought rather well. Believe me ever truly yrs ChaLyell

R. Mantell Esq.

UNDATED CORRESPONDENCE

276

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ no date: probably 1830-1840 ]

My dear Mantell Murchison has just offered to enclose a small note in a frank for you. So I will just say that I have been afraid lest you should be ill having not heard from you. Not that I wonder that you find no time to write now but that as you have been so often ailing of late. to Mrs Mantell remembrances yours ever truly C.L.

[ Addressed to: G. Mantell Esq. ]

277 Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ no date: probably 1840’s ] My dear Mantell I have just read your letter & do not wonder that you felt the omission of your services in [*]1 the Wealden. I had a headache & so bolted when Dr [ Sharp?] began and was really astonished to hear the day after that Buckland did not allude to your work which I took for granted that he would as he rarely errs in that way & it was merely an accident, & when I enquired at dinner the next day on this point, when Sedgwick, Murchison, Bunbury & other geologists were present, they all expressed themselves so strongly on the injustice that you gained by the reaction & I was glad to mention what Owen had told me of your anatomical tact & skill as displayed in fossils of the same region. I told Hopkins before the meeting that at Guildford where the carpet ought to be nailed down I knew the beds to be extremely fractured. The dullness of the lecture was unprecedented & showed the danger of such disorderly proceedings. Twenty minutes reading of his own paper w d. have conveyed more knowledge. After all what do H.’s omissions show but ignorance of what had been done. believe me ever faithfully yrs ChaLyell

278

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ Probably 1840 - 1850 ]

My dear Mantell I shall be happy to dine with you on Wed y. next & to

1 Remainder of letter written by Mary E. Lyell acting as amanuensis. discuss the “[ word indecipherable ] paper”, but must resolve not to look either at Mr Read’s2 microscope nor any objects of natural history by candlelight as a months work at shells has much weakened my eyes which you know were always feeble. ever truly yrs. ChaLyell

Nov. 8

279

Charles Lyell to G. A. Mantell

[ no date ]

My dear Mantell This is the most unlucky day for the purpose, for Henslow is just coming to breakfast & I have some friends from Hampstead whom you do not know to an early dinner & shall not have a moment before bed time. I never dined at the Royal Soc y. club in my life – its at Freemason's tavern ! If you could come here at ½ past 4ock today precisely I will be at home at any rate & see you & talk for a short time. yours ever hastily ChaLyell

[ Addressed to : G. Mantell Esq. ]

2 Mantell’s Private Journal records that a Mr Reade stayed the night on 16 October 1846 “with the microscope”. The Revd. Joseph Bancroft Reade (1801 - 1870) was an amateur microscopist and friend of Mantell. GAM-PJ I and DNB.

GLOSSARY OF GEOLOGICAL AND PALAEONTOLOGICAL TERMS

A glossary of the lesser known geological and palaeontological terms that are mentioned in the letters is set down below, based on the following contemporary or near contemporary references.

(1) Charles Lyell, Principles of Geology, vol. III, (facsimile edition), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1991, Appendix, pp. 61-83.

(2) David Page, Handbook of Geological Terms and Geology, William Blackwood and Sons, London, 1859.

The numbers in parentheses indicate the respective source used in each instance.

A

Album Graecum – The whitish hardened excrement of wolves, hyaenas, and other carnivora that feed on bones and which consists of earth-of-bones in combination with phosphoric acid. (2)

Alcyonia – Spongiferous fossils commonly found in the Chalk formation and which frequently form the organic nucleus round which flints have collected. (2)

Ammonite – An extinct and numerous genus of the order of Cephalopoda, allied to the modern genus Nautilus. (1)

Anoplotherium – A fossil extinct quadruped belonging to the order Pachydermata, resembling a pig. (1) Anthracotherium – A name given to an extinct quadruped, supposed to belong to the Pachydermata, the bones of which were found in lignite and coal of the Tertiary strata. (1)

Azoic – Without life; a term applied to the lowest strata in the crust of the globe which have yet yielded no fossils or traces of life. (2)

B

Bacillaria – A group of Diatoms, consisting of simple, siliceous frustules of a prismatic shape and forming a brilliant chain. (2)

Baculite – A straight, chambered, conical shell of the chalk epoch. (2)

Balistes – The ‘file-fish’, so-called from its jagged and dart-like fin-spines. (2)

Batrachian – A subdivision of the Reptilia, comprising the frog, toad and salamander. (2)

Belemnite – An extinct genus of the order of the molluscous animals called Cephalopoda. (1)

C

Calcaire Grossier – (French). Coarse limestone. A series of strata belonging to the Eocene tertiary period, originally found in the Paris Basin. (1)

Cetacea – An order of vertebrated mammiferous animals inhabiting the sea, such as the whale and dolphin. (1)

Cetiosaurius – A genus of marine saurians whose bones occur in the Wealden. (2)

Chara – A genus of fresh-water plants whose fossil seed-vessels are termed gyrogonites. (1)

Cheirotherium – A term applied to an unknown quadruped, the hand-like impressions of whose feet are common on the slabs of the Trias. Professor Owen supposed it to be the same as the frog-like Labyrinthodon. (2)

Clathraria – A genus of fossil stems first discovered by Dr. Mantell in the Wealden of Sussex. (2)

Cornbrash – A rubbly stone extensively cultivated in Wiltshire for growth of corn. (1) A coarse shelly limestone of the Upper Oolite. (2).

Craie – (French). Chalk.

Cyclas – A genus of fresh-water bivalves, having oval, transverse, equivalved shells. (2) Cypris – A genus and family of minute crustaceans, having two enveloping crusts and united by a dorsal fold without hinge. (2)

D

Dicotyledonous – A grand division of the vegetable kingdom, founded on the plant having two seed-lobes. (1)

Dicynodon – A provisional genus of reptile between the lizards and turtles. (2)

Didelphys – The opossum family. (2)

Diluvium – Accumulations of gravel and loose materials which, by some geologists, are said to have been produced by the action of a diluvian wave or deluge sweeping over the surrounding surface of the earth. (1)

Diptera – An order of insects, comprising those that have only two wings. (1)

E

Elytra – The wing-sheaths, or upper crustaceous membranes, which form the superior wings in the tribe of beetles. (1)

Equisetum – An extensive order of marsh or boggy flowerless plants, represented by the common ‘horse-tail’. (2)

F

Faluns – A provincial name for some tertiary strata abounding in shells of Touraine, which resemble in lithological characters the ‘crag’ of Norfolk. (1)

Firestone – Any stone which stands heat without injury; generally applied to certain oolitic sandstones used in the construction of glass furnaces. (2)

G

Gault – A provincial term in the East of England for a series of beds of clay and marl between the upper and lower green-sand. (1)

Greensand – Beds of sand, sandstone, and limestone belonging to the Cretaceous period and which often contain an abundance of green earth or chlorite through them. (1)

Gres – (French). Sandstone.

Gyrogonites – Bodies found in fresh-water deposits, originally supposed to be microscopic shells, but subsequently discovered to be the seed-vessel of fresh-water plants of the genus ‘chara’. (1)

Gryphite – A sub-genus of the oyster family, abounding in the Lias, Oolite and Chalk Formations. (2) H

Hippurites – A genus of coal-measure plants. (2)

Hylaeosaurus – A gigantic terrestrial reptile whose remains were first discovered by Dr Mantell (1832) in the Wealden strata of Tilgate Forest. (1)

I

Ichthyolite – A term for any portion of a fossil fish. (2)

Ichthyosaurus – A gigantic fossil marine reptile, intermediate between a crocodile and a fish. (1)

Iguanodon – A colossal lizard-like reptile found in the Wealden strata. (2)

Indusial limestone – A fresh-water limestone comprised from the cases or ‘indusiae’ of caddis worms. (2)

Juli – Tortuously shaped coprolites, previously supposed to have been fossil fir-cones, but conjectured by Mantell to be derived from fish of the shark family.

K

Kentish Rag – A provincial term for a member of the Lower Greensand consisting of a fossiliferous grey, cherty or arenaceous limestone, used for building in Kent and Sussex. (2)

L

Labyrinthodon – A name given by Professor Owen to a batrachian reptile of the New Red Sandstone. (2)

Limnaea – A genus of fresh-water molluscs characterised by their pointed spire and delicate thin shell. (2)

London Clay – One of the members of the Eocene beds of the London Basin. (2)

Lonchopteris – A fossil fern-like frond occurring in the coal measures. (2)

M

Madrepore – An extensive genus of coral bearing polypes. (2)

Malm rock – A local term for a calcareous sandstone which forms portions of the Upper Greensand in Surrey and Sussex. (2)

Marl – A soft admixture of clay and lime. (2) Megatherium – A huge edentate mammal whose remains occur in the upper Tertiary of South America. (2)

Molluskite – A dark-brown carbonaceous substance occurring in shelly marbles and originating from the mineral transmutation of the soft bodies of the mollusca. (2)

Monocotyledonous – A grand division of the vegetable kingdom founded on the plant having only one seed lobe. (1)

Mosaesaurus – A gigantic marine reptile of the Upper Chalk, apparently between the monitors and iguanas. (2)

Mountain Limestone – A series of limestone strata, whose geological position is immediately below the coal measures. (1)

N

Nummulites – An extinct genus of the Cephalopoda, of a thin lenticular shape, internally divided into small chambers. (1)

O

Oolite – A limestone, forming a characteristic feature of a group of the secondary strata. It is so named, because it is composed of rounded particles, like the eggs of a fish. (1)

Orthocerata – An extinct genus of the Cephalopoda that inhabited a long chambered, conical shell, like a straight horn. (1)

P

Paleotherium – A fossil extinct quadruped, belonging to the order pachydermata, resembling a pig or tapir, but of great size. (1)

Paludina – The ‘marsh or river snail’; the Sussex or Petworth marble being almost entirely composed of its shells. (2)

Pecopteris – An extensive genus of fossil ferns occurring in the Coal- measures. (2)

Pentacrites – A genus of encrinites abounding in the Lias and Chalk of England and termed from the five-sided shape of its supporting column. (2)

Pholadidae – The family of boring bivalves which perforate all substances softer than their own valves. (2)

Plagiostoma – A generic term applied to certain compressed, obliquely oval bivalves of the oyster family. (2) Planorbis – A genus of fresh water shells distinguished by their discoidal form. (2)

Plastic Clay – One of the beds of the Eocene Tertiary period, so called because of its use in pottery. (1)

Plesiosaurus – A fossil extinct amphibious animal resembling the saurian tribe. (1)

Portland Limestone – A series of limestone strata belonging to the upper part of the Oolite group. (1)

Pterodactyle – A genus of flying reptiles, several species of which have been discovered in the Lias, Oolite, Wealden and Chalk formations of Europe. (2)

Purbeck Limestone – Limestone strata belonging to the Wealden group.(1)

S

Septaria – Flattened balls of stone, generally iron-stone which, on being split, are seen to be separated in their interior into irregular masses. (1)

Sertularia – A genus of hydroid polypes, so called from their cells being arranged on the opposite sides of a fleshy axis, this giving to their stems a wreath-like appearance. (2)

Silex – The name of one of the pure earths, being the Latin name for ‘flint’, which is wholly composed of that earth. (1)

Sivatherium The generic term applied by Dr Falconer to the skull and bones of a gigantic mammal found in the Sivalic territories. (2)

Sphaerulites – A genus of thick sub-conical chalk shells, externally striated and belonging to the Hippurite family. (2)

Spironilite – A genus of minute, many chambered foraminiferous organism occurring in the chalk. (2)

Stonesfield Slate – A member of the lower Oolites and celebrated for its being the rock in which English geologists first detected mammalian remains. (2)

T

Terebratula – A genus of brachiopod bivalves. (2)

Teredina – An extinct genus of boring mollusc. (2)

Testacea – Molluscous animals, having a shelly covering. (1)

Trionyx – A fossil tortoise occurring in tertiary strata. (2)

Turrilite – An extinct genus of chambered shell belonging to the Ammonite family. (2)

U

Unio – The family of river mussels. (2)

W

Wealden Group – That series of strata which occurs between the uppermost beds of the Oolite and the lower ones of the chalk formation. (2)

Whin – A term applied by miners and quarrymen to any hard resisting rock. (2)

X

Xanthidium – A genus of diatoms whose microscopic case or frustule consists of a hollow siliceous globe. (2)

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MANUSCRIPT SOURCES

1. C. Lyell to G.A. Mantell Correspondence:

Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. Series One, Gideon Mantell Papers, Folders 60 - 67.

2. G.A.M. Mantell to C. Lyell Correspondence: Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. Series One, Gideon Mantell Papers, Folder 101.

American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, PA. Darwin - Lyell Correspondence, B D25.L

Edinburgh University Library, Edinburgh, Scotland. Lyell 1. E60/3

Kinnordy Papers, Kinnordy House, Kirriemuir, Angus, Scotland.

3. G.A. Mantell: Manuscripts, Private Journal, Inward and Outward Correspondence, and Personal Papers.

Series One: Papers of Gideon Mantell. Subseries One: Inward Correspondence – Folders 1 - 99 Subseries Two: Outward Correspondence – Folders 100 -108 Subseries Three: Personal Papers – Folder 109 Subseries Four: Notes and Other Manuscripts – Folders 110 - 123E

Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand.

PUBLISHED REFERENCES

Agassiz, L.J.R., ‘On a New Classification of Fishes, and on the Distribution of Fossil Fishes’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1834-1837, 2, pp. 99-102.

Bakewell, R., An Introduction to Geology illustrative of the General Structure of the Earth; comprising the Elements of the Science and an Outline of the Geology and Mineral Geography of England, J.Harding, London, 1813.

Bell, T., ‘On two new Genera of Land Tortoises’, Transactions of the Linnean Society, 1827, XV, pp. 392-401. Benton, M.J., ‘Progressionism in the 1850’s: Lyell, Owen, Mantell and the Elgin fossil reptile Leptopleuron (Telerpeton)’, Archives of Natural History, 1972, 11, pp. 123-136.

Boase, H.S., Treatise on Primary Geology, Longman, London, 1834.

Branagan, D.F., ‘Samuel Stutchbury: a natural history voyage to the Pacific, 1825-27 and its consequences’, Archives of Natural History, 1993, 20, (1), pp. 69-91.

Broderip, W.J., Zoological Recreations, Colburn, 1847.

Brongniart, Ad., Prodrome d’une Histoire des Vegetaux Fossiles, Paris, 1828.

Buckland, W., ‘Notice on the Megalosaurus or great Fossil Lizard of Stonesfield’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1824, 1, series 2, pp. 390-396.

___. ‘On the Formation of the Valley of Kingsclere and other Valleys by the Elevation of the Strata that inclose them; and on the Evidences of the original Continuity of the Basins of London and Hampshire’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1829, 2, series 2, pp. 119-130.

___. ‘Geological Account of a Series of Animal and Vegetable Remains and of Rocks collected by J. Crawfurd Esq. on a Voyage up the Irawadi to Ava, in 1826 and 1827’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1829, 2, series 2, pp. 377-392.

Reliquiae Diluvianae or, Observations on the Organic Remains contained in Caves, Fissures, Diluvial Gravel and on other Geological Phenomena, Attesting the Action of an Universal Deluge, Murray, London, 1823.

___. ‘On the Discovery of Fossil Bones of the Iguanodon in the Iron Sand of the Wealden Formation in the Isle of Wight and in the Isle of Purbeck’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1835, 3, series 2, pp.425-432.

___. The Bridgewater Treatises on the Power, Wisdom and Goodness of God as Manifested in the Creation. Treatise VI: Geology and Mineralogy considered with Reference to Natural Theology, 2 vols, Pickering, London, 1836.

Buckland, W. and Conybeare, W.D., ‘Observations on the South-western Coal District of England’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1824, 1, series 2, pp. 210-316.

Buckland, W. and De la Beche, H.T., ‘On the Geology of the Neighbourhood of Weymouth and the Adjacent Parts of the Coast of Dorset’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1836, 4, series 2, pp. 1-46. Chalmers-Hunt, J.M. (comp.), Natural History History Auctions 1700-1972, Sotheby Parke Bennet, 1976.

Cleevely, R.J., World Palaeontological Collections, Mansell Publishing Ltd., British Museum (Natural History) London, 1983.

Clift, W., ‘On the Fossil Remains of two New Species of Mastodon and of other Vertebrated Animals found on the left Bank of the Irawadi’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1829, 2, series 2, pp. 369-376.

___. ‘Some Account of the Remains of the Megatherium sent to England from Buenos Ayres by Woodbine Parish Jnr.’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1835, 3, series 2, pp. 437-450.

Colp, R., ‘Charles Darwin and Mrs Whitby’, Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine’, 1972, 48, pp. 87-876.

Conybeare, W.D., ‘On the Hydrographical Basin of the Thames, with a View more especially to Investigate the Causes which have operated in the Formation of the Valleys of that River and the Tributary Streams’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1826-1833, 1, pp. 145-149.

___. ‘On Mr Lyell’s “Principles of Geology”: An Examination of those Phaenomena of Geology which seem to bear most directly on Theoretical Speculations’, Philosophical Magazine, 1830, 8, pp. 215-219.

Conybeare, W.D. and Phillips, W., Outlines of the Geology and Wales, with an Introductory Compendium of the General Principles of that science and Comparative views of the Structure of Foreign Countries illustrated by a Coloured Map and Sections, William Phillips, London, 1822.

Cooper, J.A., ‘The Life and Work of George Bax Holmes’, Archives of Natural History, 1992, 19(3), pp. 379-400.

Crawfurd, J., ‘Geological Observations made on a Voyage from Bengal to Siam and Cochin China’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1824, 1, series 2, pp. 406-408.

Croizet, Abbe J.B. and Joubet, A., Recherches sur les Ossemes Fossiles du Departement du Puy-de-Dome, Paris, 1826-28.

Culley, M., ‘A few Facts and Observations as to the Power which running water exerts in removing bodies’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1826-1833, 1, p. 149.

Cuvier, G.L.C.F.D. de, Essay on the Theory of the Earth with Mineralogical Notes and an Account of Cuvier’s Geological Discoveries, by Professor Jameson, translated by R. Kerr, Blackwood, London, 1813. Cuvier, G. and Brongniart, Al., ‘Essai sur la Geographie Mineralogique des Environs de Paris’, Journal des Mines, 1808, 23, pp. 421-458.

Cuvier, G. and Valenciennes, A., Histoire Naturelle des Poissons, 22 vols, Paris-Strasbourg, 1828-49.

Darwin, C., ‘Observations of Proofs of a recent elevation on the Coast of Chili, made during the Survey of His Majesty’s ship, Beagle, commanded by Captain Fitzroy R.N.’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1834-37, 2, pp. 446-447.

___. Geological Observations on the Volcanic Islands visited during the Voyage of H.M.S. Beagle, Smith Elder, London, 1844.

Davy, Sir H., Consolations in Travel, or the Last Days of a Philosopher, Murray, London, 1830.

De la Beche, H.T., A Geological Manual, Treuttel and Wurtz, London, 1831.

___. ‘On the Geology of the Shores of the Gulf of La Spezia’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1826-33, 1, pp. 164-167.

Dixon, F., The Geology and Fossils of the Tertiary and Cretaceous Formations of Sussex, Longman, London, 1850.

Englefield, H.C., A Description of the Picturesque Beauties, Antiquities, and Geological Phenomena of the Isle of Wight, Payne and Foss, London, 1816.

Fairholme, G., General View of the Geology of Scripture in which the Unerring Truth of the Inspired Narrative of the Early Events in the World is Exhibited, and Distinctly Proved, by the Corroborative testimony of Physical Facts, on Every Part of the Earth's Surface, Ridgeway, London, 1833.

Fitton, W.H., ‘Inquiries respecting the Geological Relations of the Beds between the Chalk and Purbeck Limestone in the Southeast of England’, Annals of Philosophy, 1824, 8, new series, pp. 365-383 and 458-462.

___. ‘An Account of Some Geological Specimens’, in: P.P. King, Narrative of a Survey of the Intertropical and Western Coasts of Australia, 1818-22, Murray, London, 1827.

___. ‘Observations on some of the Strata between the Chalk and the Oxford Oolite in the South-east of England’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1836, 4(2), pp. 103-378.

Fleming, J., A History of British Animals, exhibiting the descriptive characters and systemical arrangement of the Genera and Species of Quadrupeds, Birds, Reptiles, Fishes, Mollusca and Radiata of the United Kingdom, Duncan, Edinburgh, 1828.

Foster, J., Alumni Oxoniensis 1715-1886, (2 vols), Kraus Reprint Limited, Nendeln / Lichtenstein, 1968.

Graham, Maria, ‘An Account of some Effects of the late Earthquake in Chili extracted from a letter to Henry Warburton Esq., V.P.G.S.’ Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1824, 1, series 2, pp. 413-415.

Herder, von J.G., Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menscheit, F.A. Brockhaus, Leipzig, 1869.

Horner, L., ‘On the New Volcanic Island in the Mediterranean, and its Connexion with the extinct volcanic Island of Pantellaria and the Hot- springs of Sciacca on the Coast of Sicily’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1826-1833, 1, pp. 338-39.

Horsfield, T.W., The History and Antiquities of Lewes and its Vicinity, 2 vols, J. Baxter, Lewes, 1824-27.

Hutton, J., Theory of the Earth, with proofs and illustrations, 2 vols, Cadell and Davies, Edinburgh, 1795.

Hutton, W., ‘Observations on Coal’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1826-1833, 1, pp. 415-17.

Hyamson, A.M., A Dictionary of Universal Biography of All Ages and of All Peoples, George Routledge & Sons Ltd., London, 1916.

Jack, W., ‘On the Geology and Topography of the Island of Sumatra, and some of the adjacent Islands’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1826, 1, series 2, pp. 397-405.

Kirby, W., On the History, Habits, and Instincts of Animals, 2 vols, Pickering, London, 1835.

Lamarck, J.B.A.P., Philosophie Zoologique ou Exposition des Considerations relatives a l'Histoire Naturelle des Animaux, 2 vols, Dentu, Paris, 1809.

Lindley, J. and Hutton, W., Fossil Flora of Great Britain, 3 vols, Ridgway, London, 1831-37.

Lyell, C., ‘On a recent Formation of Freshwater Limestone in Forfarshire, and on some recent Deposits of Fresh-water Marl; with a comparison of recent with ancient Freshwater formations; and an appendix on the Gyrogonite or Seed vessel of the Chara’, [1824], Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1826, 2, series 2, pp. 73-96.

___. ‘On the Strata of the Plastic Clay Formation exhibited in the Cliffs between Christchurch Head, Hampshire, & Studland Bay, Dorsetshire’, [1826], Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1829, 2, series 2, pp. 279-286.

___. ‘Article VIII – 1. Transactions of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, vol. i. 2. Memoirs of the Literary and Philosophical Society of Manchester, 1824, iv, 2d. series, London. 3. Transactions of the Royal Geological Society of Cornwall, instituted February 11, vols i and ii, Penzance. 4. Report of the Liverpool Royal Institution, 1822. 5. Bristol Institution. Proceedings of the Second Meeting, held February 10, 1825 &c. 6. Annual Report of the Council of the Yorkshire Philosophical Society for 1824’, in: The Quarterly Review, 1826, 34, pp. 153-179.

___. ‘Article IX – Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1824, 1, series 2’, in: The Quarterly Review, 1826, 34, pp. 507-540.

___. ‘Article VIII – State of the Universities’, in: The Quarterly Review, 1827, 36, pp. 216-268.

___. ‘Article IV – Memoir on the Geology of Central France; including the Volcanic Formations of Auvergne, the Velay, and the Vivarais, with a volume of Maps and Plates. by G.P. Scrope, F.R.S., F.G.S.’, in: The Quarterly Review, 1827, 36, pp. 437-483.

___. Principles of Geology, being An Attempt to explain the Former Changes of the Earth’s Surface, by reference to causes now in operation, vol. 1, Murray, London, 1830.

___. ‘Reply to a Note in the Rev. Mr Conybeare’s Paper entitled “An Examination of those Phaenomena of Geology which seem to bear most directly on Theoretical Speculations” ’, Philosophical Magazine, 1831, 9, pp. 1-3.

___. Principles of Geology, being An Attempt to explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by reference to causes now in operation, vol. 2, Murray, London, 1832.

___. Principles of Geology, being An Attempt to explain the Former Changes of the Earth's Surface, by reference to causes now in operation, vol. 3, Murray, London, 1833.

___. ‘On the Change of Level of the Land and Sea in Scandinavia’, British Association for the Advancement of Science Report, 1835, 4, pp. 652 -654.

___. ‘On the Proofs of a gradual rising of the Land in certain parts of Sweden’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1835, 125, pp. 1-38.

___. Elements of Geology, Murray, London, 1838.

___. ‘On the Cretaceous and Tertiary Strata of the Danish Islands of Seeland and Moen’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1840, 5, pp. 243-257.

___. ‘On remains of Mammalia in the Crag and London Clay of Suffolk’, British Association for the Advancement of Science Report, 1840, 9, pp. 69-70. ___. ‘On the Faluns of the Loire, and a Comparison of their Fossils with those of the Newer Tertiary Strata in the Cotentin, and on the relative age of the Faluns and Crag of Norfolk’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1838-1842, 3, pp. 437-434.

___. ‘On some Carboniferous and Older Rocks of Pennsylvania and New York’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1838-1842, 3, pp. 554-558.

___. ‘On the Fossil Footprints of Birds and Impressions of Raindrops in the Valley of Connecticut’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1838-1842, 3, pp. 793-796.

___. ‘A Memoir on the Recession of the Falls of Niagara, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1838-1842, 3, pp. 595-602.

___. ‘On the Upright Fossil Trees Found at Different Levels in the Coal Strata of Cumberland, Nova Scotia’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1842-1845, 4, pp. 176-178.

___. ‘On the Newer Deposits of the Southern States of North America’, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 1846, 2, pp. 405-410.

___. ‘On the Structure and Probable Age of the Coal-Field of the James River near Richmond, Virginia’, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 1847, 3, pp. 261-280.

___. A Manual of Elementary Geology, Murray, London, 1851.

___. Principles of Geology being an Attempt to explain the former changes of the Earth's Surface, by reference to Causes now in operation , vols.I-III, facsimile first edition, University of Chicago, Chicago, 1991.

Lyell, C. and Murchison, R.I., ‘On the Excavation of Valleys, as illustrated by the Volcanic Rocks of Central France’, The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1829, 7, pp. 15-48.

Lyell C.(Senior), The Canzoniere of Dante Alighieri, including the poems of the Vita Nuova and Convito, Italian and English, translated by Charles Lyell, Murray, London, 1835.

Lyell, K. (ed.), Life Letters and Journals of Sir Charles Lyell Bart., author of Principles of Geology &c, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1881.

Macculloch, J., Description of the Western Islands of Scotland, including the Isle of Man: comprising an account of their geological structure, 2 vols, Hurst Robinson and Co., London, 1819.

___. A System of Geology, with a Theory of the Earth, and an Explanation of its Connexion with the Sacred Records, 2 vols, Longman, London, 1831. Mantell, G.A., The Fossils of the South Downs: or Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex, Lupton Relfe, London, 1822.

___. Outlines of the Natural History of the Environs of Lewes, John Baxter, Sussex Press, Lewes, 1824.

___. ‘On the Iron Sand Formation of Sussex. In a Letter to Dr Fitton, Secretary of the Geological Society’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1826, 2(1), series 2, pp. 131-135.

___. ‘Remarks on the Geological Position of the Strata of Tilgate forest in Sussex’, in a letter to Professor Jameson, The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1826, 1, pp. 262-265.

___. Illustrations of the Geology of Sussex: Containing a General View of the Geological Relations of the South-eastern part of England; with figures and descriptions of the Fossils of Tilgate Forest, Lupton Relfe, London, 1827.

___. A Sketch of the Geology of the Rape of Bramber in the County of Sussex, W. Lee, Lewes, 1827.

___. ‘A Tabular Arrangement of the Organic Remains of the County of Sussex’, [1828], Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1829, 3(1), series 2, pp. 201-217.

___. ‘The Geological Age of Reptiles’, The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1831, 11, pp. 181-185.

___. ‘On the Ripple Marks made by the Waves, observable in the Sandstone Strata of Sussex’, The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1831, 11, pp. 240-241.

___. ‘Anatomical Description of the Fox’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1832, 3(2), series 2, pp. 291-292.

___. The Geology of the South-east of England, Longman, Rees, Orme, Brown, Green and Longman, London, 1833.

___. ‘Remarks on the Coffin-bone (distal phalangel) of a Horse from the Shingle Bed of the Newer Pliocene Strata of the Cliffs of Brighton’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1834-37, 2, p. 203.

___. Thoughts on a Pebble or a First Lesson in Geology, Relfe and Fletcher, London, 1836.

___. ‘On the Bones of Birds discovered in the Strata of Tilgate Forest, in Sussex’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1837, 5(1), pp. 175-177.

___. The Wonders of Geology or a Familiar Exposition of Geological Phenomena, 2 vols, Relfe and Fletcher, London, 1838.

___. ‘Memoir on a Portion of the Lower Jaw of the Iguanodon and on the Remains of the Hylaeosaurus and other Saurians’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1841, 131, pp. 153-158.

___. Medals of Creation, or First Lessons in Geology, 2 vols, Bohn, London, 1844.

___. A Days Ramble in and about the Ancient Town of Lewes, Bohn, 1846.

___. ‘On the Fossil Remains of the Soft Parts of Foraminifera’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1846, 136, pp. 465-472.

___. Geological Excursions round the Isle of Wight and along the Adjacent Coast of Dorsetshire illustrative of the most Interesting Geological Phenomena and Organic Remains, Bohn, London, 1846.

___. ‘On the Fossil Remains of Birds Collected in Various Parts of New Zealand by Mr Walter Mantell’, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 1848, 4, pp. 225-238.

___. ‘On the Stucture of the Jaws and Teeth of the Iguanodon’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1848, 138, pp. 183-202.

___. ‘Observations on some Belemnites and other Fossil Remains of Cephalopoda, discovered by Mr Reginald Neville Mantell, C.E. in the Oxford Clay near Trowbridge, in Wiltshire’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1848, 138, pp. 171-182.

___. A Pictorial Atlas of Fossil Remains consisting of coloured Illustrations selected from Parkinson’s ‘Organic Remains of a Former World’ and Artis’s ‘Antediluvian Phytology’ with descriptions, Bohn, London, 1850.

___. Petrifactions and their Teachings, or a handbook to the gallery of organic remains of the British Museum, Bohn, London, 1851.

___. ‘Description of the Telerpeton Elginense, a Fossil Reptile recently discovered in the Old Red Sandstone of Moray; with observations on supposed Fossil Ova of Batrachians in the Lower Devonian Strata of Forfarshire’, Quarterly Journal of the Geological Society of London, 1852, 8, pp. 100-108.

Marcet, J., Conversations on Chemistry, Longman, London, 1805.

Miller, H., Footprints of the Creator or The Asterolepis of Stromness, Johnstone, London, 1849.

Miller (Muller), J.S., A Natural History of the Crinoidea, or Lily Shaped Animals, Bristol, 1821.

Morton, G.M., Synopsis of the Organic Remains of the Cretaceous Group of the United States, Philadelphia, 1834. Murchison, R.I., ‘Supplementary Remarks on the Strata of the Oolitic Series and the Rocks associated with them in the Counties of Sutherland and Ross in the Hebrides’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1829, 1, series 2, pp. 353-368.

___. ‘On a Fossil Fox found at Oeningen near Constance, with an account of the deposit in which it was embedded’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1835, 3, series 2, pp. 277-290.

___. The Silurian System, founded on Geological Researches in the Counties of Salop, Hereford, Radnor, Montgomery, Caermarthen, Brecon, Pembroke, Monmouth, Gloucester, Worcester, and Stafford; with descriptions of the coal-fields and overlying formations, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1839.

___. The Geology of Russia in Europe and the Ural Mountains, 2 vols, Murray, London, 1845.

Murchison, R.I. and Lyell, C., ‘On the Tertiary Fresh-water Formations of Aix, in Provence, including the Coal-field of Fuveau, with a Description of Fossil Insects, Shells and Plants, contained therein; by John Curtis, F.L.S.; J. de C. Sowerby, Esq. F.L.S., and J. Lindley Esq., Professor of Botany in the London University. (Communicated by the Authors),’ The Edinburgh New Philosophical Journal, 1829, 7, pp. 287-298.

Owen, R., ‘A Description of certain Belemnites preserved with a great proportion of their soft parts in the Oxford Clay at Christian Malford, Wilts.’, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, 1844, 134, pp. 65-85.

Page, D., Handbook of Geological Terms and Geology, Blackwood and Sons, London, 1859.

Pallas, P.S., Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica sistens omnium animalium in extenso Imperio Rossico et adjacentibus maribus observatorum recensionem, domocilia, mores et descriptiones, anatomen. atque iconem plurimorum, 3 vols, Petropoli, Academiae Scientiarum, 1814.

Peddie, R.A. and Waddington, Q. (eds), The English Catalogue of Books: giving in one Alphabet, under Author, Title and Subject, the Size, Price, Month and Year of publication, and Publisher of Books Issued in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, 1801-1836, The Publishers Circular Limited, London, 1914.

Pratt, S.P., ‘Remarks on the Existence of the Anoplotherium and Palaeotherium in the Lower Freshwater Formation at Binstead, near Ryde, in the Isle of Wight’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1835, 3, series 2, pp. 451-454.

Redfield, W.C., ‘On newly discovered Ichthyolites and Rain-prints in the New Red Sandstone of New Jersey’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1843-1845, 4, p. 23. Rupke, N.A., The Great Chain of History. William Buckland and the English School of Geology (1814-49), Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1983.

Sarjeant, W.A.S., Geologists and the History of Geology: an international bibliography from the origins to 1978, 4 vols, Arvo Press, New York, 1980.

Scott, Archdeacon T.H., ‘Geological Remarks on the Vicinity of Swan River and Isle Buache or Gordon Island on the Coast of Western Australia’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1826-1833, 1, p. 320.

Scrope, G.P., ‘On the Gradual Excavation of the Valleys in which the Meuse, the Moselle, and some other Rivers flow’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1827-1833, 1, pp. 170-171.

___. ‘On the Rippled Markings of many of the Forest Marble Strata north of Bath and the Foot-tracks of certain animals occurring in great abundance on their Surfaces’, Proceedings of the Geological Society of London, 1826-1833, 1, pp. 317-318.

Sedgwick, A., ‘Remarks on the Structure of large Mineral Masses, and especially on the Chemical Changes produced in the aggregation of Stratified Rocks during different periods after their Deposition’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1835, 3, series 2, pp. 461-486.

Sedgwick, A. and Murchison, R.I., ‘A Sketch of the Structure of the Eastern Alps; with Sections through the Newer Formations on the Northern Flanks of the Chain, and through the Tertiary Deposits of Styria, &c’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1835, 3, series 2, pp. 301-422.

Sheppard, Lady M., Essay on the Perception of an Eternal Universe, Hatchard, London, 1827.

Silvertop, Colonel G., Geology of Granada and Murcia, Longman, London, 1836.

Smith, W., A Delineation of the Strata of England and Wales, with part of Scotland, J. Cary, London, 1815.

Sowerby, G.B., ‘On the Geological Formations of Headon Hill in the Isle of Wight’, Annals of Philosophy, 1821, 2, pp. 216-220.

___. ‘On the Means of distinguishing Fresh-water from Marine Shells’, Annals of Philosophy, 1821, 2, pp. 309-312.

Sowerby, J. and Sowerby, J. de C., The Mineral Conchology of Great Britain, 7 vols, London, 1812-26.

Spokes, S., Gideon Algernon Mantell L.L.D.,F.R.C.S.,F.R.S., Surgeon and Geologist, John Bale Sons & Danielsson Ltd, London, 1927.

Stenton, M. (ed.), Who’s Who of British Members of Parliament, vol. 1, The Harvester Press, Sussex, 1976.

Strangways, W.T.H.F., ‘An Outline of the Geology of Russia, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1826, 1, series 2, pp. 1-39.

Swinton, W.E., ‘Gideon Mantell and the Maidstone Iguanodon;, Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, 1951, 8, pp. 261-271.

Torrens, H. and Cooper, J.A., ‘George Fleming Richardson (1796-1848) – Man of Letters, Lecturer and Geological Curator, Geological Curator, 1986, 4(5), pp. 249-272.

Ure, A., A New System of Geology, in which the Great Revolutions of the Earth and Animated Nature, are Reconciled at once to Modern Science and Sacred History, Longman, London, 1829.

Venn, J.A., Alumni Cantabrigiensis, Part II, 1754-1900, (6 vols), Cambridge University Press, 1951.

Warburton, H., ‘On some Beds of Shell Marle in Scotland’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1817, 4, series 1, pp. 305-309.

Weaver, T., ‘On the Geological Relations of the South of Ireland’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1840, 5, p. 1-68.

Webster, T., ‘Observations on the Strata of the Isle of Wight and their continuation in the adjacent parts of Dorsetshire’, in: H.C. Englefield’s, A Description of the Principal Picturesque Beauties, Antiquities, and Geological Phenomena of the Isle of Wight, Payne and Foss, London, 1816.

___. ‘Section of the Strata between Merstham and Nutfield to accompany Mr Webster’s paper on the Reigate Fire-stone’, Transactions of the Geological Society of London, 1821, 5, series 1, Pl. 38.

Weintraub, S., Victoria, Trunam Talley Books, New York, 1987.

Wilson, Captain J., A Missionary Voyage to the Southern Pacific Ocean, performed in the years 1796, 1797, 1798, in the Ship Duff commanded by Captain James Wilson compiled from Journals of the Officers and the Missionaries, London, 1799.

Wilson, L.G., Sir Charles Lyell’s Scientific Journals on the Species Question, Yale University Press, London, 1970.

___. Charles Lyell. The Years to 1841: The Revolution in Geology, Yale University Press, London, 1972.

Woodward, H.B., The History of the Geological Society of London, Longmans Green and Co., London, 1908. Woodward, S., A Synoptical Table of British Organic Remains, Longman, London, 1830.