"The Humboldt of Australia"!

Humboldtian Imagery and "the Humboldt of Australia"!

R. W. HOME2

ABSTRACT: When the great German geographer August Petermann called the botanist/explorer Ferdinand von Mueller "the Humboldt of Australia," what did he have in mind? Elaborating the circumstances of his doing so gives us a new view of Alexander von Humboldt's image among nineteenth-century scientists who declared themselves to be his followers and raises the question of how closely this might have corresponded with the notion of "Humboldtian science" that has been developed by present-day historians of science.

ON 8 JANUARY 1870, the German geographer (Voigt 1996: 103); but there is no reference in August Petermann wrote from Gotha to the surviving correspondence to his later Ferdinand von Mueller in Australia a letter doing anything like that again. (There is a of introduction for the son of the British cataract in Brazil named after Mueller that Consul-General at Hamburg. The father, might perhaps have been given its name by Petermann wrote to Mueller, was "one of the Petermann, but I have been unable to trace best friends of German Geographers and the circumstances of its naming.) Scientific men, ... who therefore will be sure Petermann's coupling of Mueller's name to receive the sympathy of so great a patriot with that ofthe German polymath Alexander as yourself." Hence he was confident that von Humboldt provides the central theme Mueller, "in his position as the Humboldt of of this paper. It has become commonplace Australia," would make the son welcome among historians to represent much of (petermann 1870). nineteenth-century science as "Humboldt Some years later, in a letter dated 16 De ian." And here we have one leading scientist cember 1874, Petermann again used this im applying the very label, not once but twice to agery. On that occasion, Petermann thanked one of his colleagues! My intention is to use Mueller for instructing his protege, the ex what we know of the work of Mueller and plorer Ernest Giles, to name in Petermann's Petermann, and of the connection between honor a prominent mountain range he had them, to elucidate Petermann's usage-to discovered in Central Australia: "At the first shed new light upon Humboldt's influence opportunity I have to put new names on the among his contemporaries and successors. map," he told Mueller, "you may be sure It is clear that Petermann intended to that I shall not forget that of my high patron compliment Mueller. But if his linking of in the Antipodes, my revered Australian the two names were to flatter, he had to be Humboldt, and shall also think of the oblig sure that Mueller would see the connection ing Mr Giles" (Voigt 1996: 127). It is not as appropriate as well as pleasing. This clear whether Petermann lived up to his prompts a question. Given the differences promise. Earlier, in 1871, he had named a between the patrician Humboldt, securely mountain on Spitzbergen after Mueller located throughout his career at the heart of the intellectual world of the nineteenth cen tury, and Mueller, the orphaned son of a 1 Research for this paper was supported by a grant Rostock customs official who had emigrated from the Australian Research Council. Manuscript to distant Australia in 1847 and stayed there accepted IS January 1998. ever since, what parallels could Petermann 2 Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052, possibly have had in mind, that he could Australia. expect Mueller also to recognize? What does 294 "The Humboldt of Australia"-HOME 295 his comparison say about his image of lines," he suggested, "was a philanthropic, Humboldt, and of Mueller? And what does even heroic act. ... To extend the reach of it tell us about "Humboldtian" science, as this mean values was to extend European civili term might have been understood at the time? zation in its best and most progressive as I add this qualification because Susan pect" (Dettelbach 1996:301). Faye Cannon has offered a characterization of "Humboldtian" science that has attracted THE AUSTRALIAN HUMBOLDT considerable attention among historians of nineteenth-century scientific thought (Can Humboldt's influence is apparent among non 1978: ch. 3). This style of science, she has many German scientists who traveled to argued, was "the great new thing in profes Australia in the nineteenth century (Home sional science in the first half of the 19th 1995a,b). Mueller was perhaps the most no century." Not for Humboldtians the easy table of these, and he acknowledged a strong generalizations of the casual observer, nor Humboldtian influence on his choice of ca the "sterile accumulation of insulated facts" reer-recalling in later life how, during his in the laboratory. On the contrary, Hum student days, he was inspired by Humboldt's boldtian science demanded careful and sys account of his travels in South America tematic recording of a range of variables (Mueller 1887). Mueller was the principal in the hope that these could eventually be speaker at a commemoration of Humboldt's shown to be linked together as different life and work held in Melbourne on 14 Sep aspects of large-scale (or even global) dy tember 1859, shortly after the great man's namical systems. The Humboldtian traveler death; there he recorded how his reading always looked for relationships between phe of Humboldt's inspiring vision of an exact, nomena; a trademark was the plotting of unified science embracing nature in all its lines ("iso-lines") representing equal values aspects had given direction to his life of some physical variable or other on maps. (Mueller 1859a). Under Humboldt's influ Precision, whether of observation or of mea ence, the highest task was no longer to perfect surement, was a sine qua non. individual disciplines, but rather "to explore Other authors have subsequently elabo the inner connection of the sciences, to dis rated Cannon's idea. In particular, Malcolm cover their reciprocal relations, and thereby Nicolson has highlighted the importance of to extend the whole empire of knowledge botany, Mueller's science, in Humboldt's simultaneously." The period in which he scheme of things (Nicolson 1987). What lived would thus be reckoned "the epoch Humboldt advocated was not, however, the in which the isolated scientific explana botany of Linnaeus, with its focus on taxon tion was merged into a harmonious whole" omy, but rather a botany that studied vege (Mueller 1859a: 20). Mueller included a quo tation as a whole-that is, the relationships tation from Humboldt's Cosmos on the title within and between plant communities. The page of his first major Australian publication Humboldtian botanist, on this account, is a (Mueller 1860-1862), and in a letter, he re plant geographer, concerned not so much to ferred to Humboldt as "the greatest genius of discover and identify new species-although this century" (Mueller 1859b). Late in life, this remained an important part of the Mueller was still espousing the Humboldtian task-but to explore the distribution of creed: "the greatest triumph of sciences," he species and the connections between plant maintained in his presidential address to the distribution and variables such as climate, Australasian Association for the Advance elevation, and geological structure. More ment of Science in 1890, "consists in bringing recently, Michael Dettelbach has suggested them into the fullest contact, somewhat in yet another feature of Humboldtianism, an Aristotelean and Plinian-or speaking of namely a determination to bring remote and our own epoch-in an Humboldtian spirit" uncivilized parts of the world under scientific (Mueller 1890: 5). law and order. "Contributing to Humboldt's These points are revealing in the way they 296 PACIFIC SCIENCE, Volume 52, October 1998 emphasize the dream of unifying the sciences however, that there had been earlier, indirect to embrace the Earth in all its aspects. The contact through Mueller's Hamburg friend, theme of the quotation Mueller extracted the botanist Otto Wilhelm Sonder, who on at from Cosmos-"everywhere presses upon us least two occasions had forwarded publica the sense ofthe existence ofNature according tions to Petermann on Mueller's behalf.) to inner, eternal laws" CUberall durchdringt Mueller was a much more regular corre uns das Gefiihl des Bestehens der Natur nach spondent than Petermann: indeed, for long innern ewigen Gesetzen)-was of a piece with periods he made a point of writing to Peter this idea, because it was these very "inner, mann every month. Petermann's surviving eternal laws" that would emerge. However, letters to Mueller, on the other hand, are having introduced the theme, what Mueller much less numerous and almost invariably stressed in his 1859 address-by far his most include an apology for not having written extensive discussion of Humboldt's work more often. It is, however, clear from Muel was the breadth of the great man's interests ler's acknowledgment that Petermann was as displayed in his achievements as a scientific also, and much more regularly, sending explorer. Mueller highlighted the romance of Mueller copies of his publications, including Humboldt's South American journey, noting issues of the journal that he edited, his the rich variety oftropical nature, the majesty Geographische Mittheilungen. Mueller in re of the Andes, the drama of an eruption of turn sent Petermann a range of Australian Cotopaxi, and Humboldt's ascent of Chim publications, including his own; and from borazo. He listed Humboldt's comments on the more geographically orientated of these, earthquakes and on the pyramids built by the Petermann often included excerpts in his Incas, his scientific survey of Mexico, and his journal and also extracted details that he in visit to the United States. He also recounted corporated in the maps he was constantly Humboldt's later travels in Siberia. But it producing. was the scientific character of Humboldt's What is the image of Mueller that Peter journeys that in Mueller's mind set them mann acquired from these contacts? I have apart from the travels of others. This, he to say that, judging from Mueller's botanical said, "inspired me too to undertake inves works, Petermann would have had few tigations in the kingdom of nature, drove me grounds to attribute to Mueller the "Hum too with endless longing into the far distance, boldtian" vision described by Cannon and in order to carry to the great master some Nicolson. By the late 1850s, after Mueller's perhaps valuable building stones for the palace remarkable success as botanist on Augustus of science" (Mueller 1859a). In this, Mueller Gregory's North Australia Exploring Expe perceived a moral benefit. Humboldt's greatest dition, he was treated more or less as an reward had been "to see, even during his life equal by the leading botanists of Europe. time, the strength ofhis influence in advancing However, most of his botanical work, and the well-being and in the raising up of man certainly that on which his scientific reputa kind, and to have called such a crowd ofgreat tion chiefly rested, was straightforwardly minds to further research in all parts of the taxonomic in character. His publications in Earth" (Mueller 1859a). cluded a plethora of separate papers describ Petermann and Mueller never met, but ing new species, the number and distribution they exchanged letters for many years. Their of which created bibliographical problems surviving correspondence has recently been about which Joseph Hooker complained even published (Voigt 1996). The earliest letter in the 1850s-when what was later to become located dates from 1861, when Mueller sent a flood, was still only a trickle. Petermann Petermann a donation of £20 to the fund may have come across some of these, but established to mount an expedition to search probably only a small and random sample. for the German explorer Eduard Vogel, Then there was Mueller's personal botanical missing in Africa; it seems that this was the journal, his Fragmenta Phytographiae Aus first letter in the series. (Voigt reported, traliae, the first number ofwhich appeared in "The Humboldt of Australia"-HoME 297

1858 and which eventually grew into an 11 ence Mueller's strongly held commitment to volume publication (Mueller 1858-1882). the view that field observations of living Mueller made sure that Petermann had a full plants should be a major consideration in set. He likewise sent a copy of his Plants In determining species. In this he was opposed digenous to the Colony of Victoria (1860 by his great English cOIitemporary George 1862) and also, beginning in 1863, volumes of Bentham and also by others in the Kew tax George Bentham's Flora Australiensis, in the onomic tradition including Joseph Hooker. writing ofwhich Mueller played a crucial role. Bentham, for example, although acknowl A smaller work of Mueller's, The Vegeta edging that field observation might be a useful tion of the Chatham-Islands (1864), the aid, cautioned that "it often acts as a snare" only other separately published work sent because it rarely happens that enough related to Petermann before the comparison with species grow close enough together to permit Humboldt, did indicate by its title a larger, the kinds of comparisons that are possible in biogeographical purpose in its concern to the herbarium, leaving the field worker forced describe the plant community of these iso to rely on "recollections of general impres lated islands southeast of New Zealand that sions." Hooker concurred, writing to Mueller Mueller himself never visited. However, from that "Every Botanist who has come to Kew to the actual contents of the book, this concern work, however experienced, has confessed emerges only fleetingly and by implication, that so large a Herbarium puts his materials & because in the main it is devoted to standard labors on a very different point of view from taxonomic descriptions of the species repre what he expected" (quoted by Stevens 1997: sented on the islands. Their interrelationships 353). In part, no doubt, Mueller's insistence are only hinted at, and there is no discussion was a strategic response to Kew's claim of of either geology or climate. ultimate authority Over the Australian flora. From these works, Petermann would have But it was also much more than that. The been left in no doubt that Mueller was a question has always been a matter of debate major figure in the taxonomic botany of his among taxonomists. It seems to me that the day and a leading authority on the Austra stance Mueller took on the matter was prob lian flora. In general terms, this would have ably a reflection of the fact that his botanical been known to Petermann from other sources interests extended beyond taxonomy to plants as well, for he had his own well-developed as they occur in nature-that is, to Hum links with the leaders of British science, after boldtian concerns with vegetation. spending 10 years in Britain between 1844 On the second point, I can speak more and 1854. But regardless of Mueller's stand definitely. During the early 1870s, Mueller ing as a taxonomist, it could not have justi became embroiled in a bitter dispute with fied Petermann's comparing him with Hum local horticulturalists over his administration boldt-indeed, had Petermann intended to of the Melbourne Botanic Garden-a dis flatter Mueller for his taxonomic work, com pute that ultimately led, in 1873, to his dis paring him with Humboldt was not a very missal from the directorship he had occupied appropriate choice. Even if, looking back, we since 1857. The dispute derived from the very can see features of Mueller's work that fit different views of botanical research held by with Nicolson's characterization of Hum Mueller an.d his critics, and what the role of a boldtianism as it applied to botany, for botanic garden should be. In a recent paper, Petermann to detect them from the mate Stephen Jeffries argued persuasively that rials available to him, he would have had to Mueller's position is best understood in terms be a remarkably perceptive reader indeed. of a commitment to a Humboldtian program Two aspects of Mueller's botany, in par of research that his critics simply failed to ticular, are consistent with Nicolson's re recognize (Jeffries 1997). The horticultur quirements, though with respect to the first of alists, steeped in the traditions of English them I speak only hesitantly. But I suspect gardening and the Kew style of botany, be that we may attribute to Humboldt's influ- lieved that Mueller's role as government bot- 298 PACIFIC SCIENCE, Volume 52, October 1998 anist should be confined to the classification given the term "Humboldtian," however of the local flora on the basis of the herbar useful in historical analysis, might not coin ium collections (his control over these being cide with nineteenth-century usage. in no way affected by his dismissal from the Petermann himself was, above all, inter Garden). The role of the Botanic Garden, in ested in geography, and this topic dominates their view, was to raise plants for display. his correspondence with Mueller. As Euro Mueller, on the other hand, although not pean knowledge of the world increased discounting the importance of taxonomic during the middle decades of the nineteenth work, sought in true Humboldtian fashion to century, Petermann charted its progress in go beyond this, to an understanding of the his journal and on maps he prepared for relationship between potentially useful plants the publishing company that employed him, and their habitats, with the ultimate objective Justus Perthes Verlag in Gotha. of assessing their suitability for acclimatiza In the first letter he wrote to Mueller, after tion. Mueller saw the Botanic Garden as a thanking him for his donation toward the primarily scientific institution playing a cen expedition to search for Vogel, Petermann tral role in this research on plant culture. asked Mueller to keep him informed on There is no doubt that Mueller was dev geographical developments in Australia. His astated by his dismissal from the Garden and letter gives a clear picture of how he built his believed that his ability to undertake the kind journal. He complained that, isolated in of research he had been engaged to do had Gotha, he found it difficult to keep up with been undermined. Jeffries showed how he what was happening and asked Mueller to was able to maintain this view, even though help him acquire the latest exploration re the years following his dismissal were, so far ports as well as maps, statistical reports, and as his taxonomic work was concerned, the the publications oflocal scientific societies, so most productive of his whole career. that he could disseminate them in his journal (Voigt 1996: 29-32). He received reports on this basis from almost all the governments of Europe and from those of Canada, the Unit ed States, Brazil, and several other countries, MUELLER AND liS MILIEU but very few from Australia. There are, then, good reasons for classify Mueller set to work at once, arranging for ing Mueller as a Humboldtian botanist ac the Survey Departments of the Australian cording to the criteria established by Nicol colonies to send Petermann copies of all the son, and for seeing Humboldtian ideals as maps they had, and forwarding to him recently integral to his conception of his science. published reports of exploring expeditions. Nevertheless, Petermann would have gained Once established, the pattern continued, and little if any inkling of Mueller's ideas on Mueller became a major conduit of the latest these matters from his publications, nor did Australian geographical news to Petermann. Mueller address such matters in his letters to Before his correspondence with Peter the geographer. Indeed, Mueller's letters to mann, Mueller had established his credentials Petermann were not concerned with tech as a scientific explorer in the Humboldtian nical botanical issues at all. mold, having on three separate occasions We thus find ourselves confronting a par traversed the rugged mountainous region adox: in terms of our current notions ofwhat of southeastern Australia and served as constituted a Humboldtian, Petermann was botanist on the highly successful expedition right to link Mueller's name so strikingly to Northern Australia, led by Augustus with the master-but he had no way of Gregory, that penetrated deep into the cen knowing this. In fact, in comparing Mueller tral desert before traveling 3000 miles over with Humboldt, Petermann was almost cer land to Brisbane. Mueller botanized busily tainly referring to something else. And so it all the way. Thereafter, he was justifiably re appears that the technical meaning we have garded as an authority on exploration, and "The Humboldt of Australia"-HoME 299 his advice was sought by those planning ex opening up new stock routes between eastern peditions. He became a great advocate and Australia and the west coast. But both within patron of further exploration in inland Aus Australia and in other parts of the world, tralia-whether in the vast western deserts; Mueller also saw the penetration and colo or in North Queensland, in search of the nizing of new territory as a special privilege naturalist-explorer Ludwig Leichhardt, who that had fallen to nineteenth-century Euro with all his party had vanished without trace peans, not one just of taming these lands by after setting out in 1847 to cross the conti bringing them within the bounds of scientific nent from east to west. Mueller kept Peter understanding, but one also of carrying civi mann fully informed and so impressed him lization to the barbarous peoples who in with his standing as an explorer that when, in habited them. The Germans, he thought, had 1863, Petermann published a map showing not yet adequately done their duty in this re what was known of the south polar region spect, and he urged Petermann to use his and an editorial advocating further explora journal to advocate German colonies in tion, he named Mueller as the man to take it Abyssinia, New Guinea, and the islands of on (Petermann 1863). the South Pacific. He even chided Peter From Mueller's letters, Petermann would mann at one point for promoting German also have learned that there was a romantic expeditions to the north pole rather than to dimension. For several years in the 1860s, such places where the civilizing mission was following the discovery in North Queensland more obviously necessary (Voigt 1996: 98 of a tree on which a large letter "L" was 99). blazed, Mueller promoted expeditions to Although views such as these are consis search for Leichhardt. The blazed tree was tent with those that Dettelbach has asso perhaps the first real clue to the route he ciated with Humboldtianism, it is unclear had taken. Mueller's enthusiasm was driven, whether either Mueller or Petermann would he said in public lectures as well as in his have associated them particularly with Hum letters to Petermann, not just by a desire to boldt. I suspect that they have a much know what had happened to Leichhardt, but broader cultural basis than that. And so I am by the hope-a faint one, he admitted-that again led to question whether there is much some of the missing men might still be alive connection between our fairly precisely de but marooned in a desert oasis from which fined historical category of "Humboldtian they were unable to escape (Voigt 1996: 57 science" and Petermann's calling Mueller the 59). "Humboldt ofAustralia"-even though, as I There was also a moral dimension to have argued, out technical definition fits Mueller's enthusiasm, and this brings me Mueller's science. back to Dettelbach's comments about the Petermann's phrase was, I suggest, in moral overtones of the Humboldtian enter tended in a more general sense. Socially, it prise. So far as further exploration within was no longer as inappropriate as it once Australia was concerned, Mueller repeatedly would have been, because Mueller had re made it clear that his enthusiasm was driven cently been given his "von" and then created by a desire to promote the economic expan a Freiherr by the King of Wurttemberg. sion of the country. His support for the ex Mueller was clearly a person with consider peditions of Ernest Giles in the early 1870s, able standing in his own field of science; he for example, in the frightful desert country had major achievements behind him as a sci west of the newly constructed north-south entific explorer;· and now he was inspiring a telegraph line through Central Australia new generation of scientifically oriented ex support that extended to Mueller's commit plorers to risk their lives elucidating the ge ting large sums of his own money to the ography and natural productions of vast, cause-was driven not just by scientific curi uncharted regions of inland Australia. When osity (Giles botanized for him whenever he one comes to think about it, it wasn't such a could, as he went along) but by a vision of bad comparison after all. 300 PACIFIC SCIENCE, Volume 52, October 1998

LITERATURE CITED ---. 1860-1862. The plants indigenous to the colony of Victoria. 2 vols. Melbourne. BENTHAM, G. 1863-1878. Flora australiensis. ---. 1864. The vegetation of the 7 vols. London. Chatham-Islands. Melbourne. CANNON, S. F. 1978. Science in culture: The --. 1887. Unpublished letter to R. J. D. early Victorian period. Science History von Fischer-Benzon, 16 December 1887. Publications, New York. Cb. 66, Handschriftenabteilung, Schles DETTELBACH, M. 1996. Humboldtian science. wig-Holsteinische Landesbibliothek, Kiel. Pages 287-304 in N. Jardine, J. A. Secord, ---. 1890. Presidential address. Pages 1 and E. C. Spary, eds. Cultures of natural 26 in Report of the second meeting of history. Cambridge University Press, the Australasian Association for the Ad Cambridge. vancement of Science, Melbourne, 1890. HOME, R. W. 1995a. Humboldtian sciet;lce Melbourne. revisited: An Australian case study. HISt. NICOLSON, M. 1987. Alexander von Hum Sci. 33: 1-22. boldt Humboldtian science and the ori ---. 1995b. Science as a German export gins ~f the study of vegetation. Hist. Sci. to nineteenth-century Australia. Sir Rob 25: 167-194. ert Menzies Centre for Australian Studies, PETERMANN, A. 1863. Petermanns Geog. London. Mittheilungen 9: 428. JEFFRIES, S. 1997. Alexander von Humboldt ---. 1870. Unpublished letter to F. von and Ferdinand von Mueller's argument Mueller, 8 January 1870. Royal Botanic for the scientific botanic garden. Hist. Gardens, Melbourne. Rec. Aust. Sci. 11: 301-310. STEVENS, P. F. 1991. J. D. Hooker, George MUELLER, F. J. H. 1858-1882. Fragmenta Bentham, Asa. Gray and Ferdinand phytographiae australiae. 11 vols. Mel Mueller on species limits in theory and bourne. practice: A mid-nineteenth-century debat~ ---. 1859a. Zur Humboldt-Feier in and its repercussions. Hist. Rec. Aust. SCI. Melbourne: Rede von Herro Dr. Ferd. 11 :345-370. Muller. Melbourner Deutsche Zeitung. 30 VOIGT, J. H. 1996. Die Erforschung Austra September, pages 20-21, and 21 October, liens: Der Briefwechsel zwischen August pages 42-43. Petermann and Ferdinand von Mueller, ---. 1859b. Letter to John Macadam, 14 1861-1878. Justus Perthes Verlag, Gotha. September 1859. Trans. Philos. Inst. Vic. 4:xx.