The Impact of Uniformitarianism: Two Letters from John Herschel to Charles Lyell, 1836-1837 Author(s): Walter F. Cannon Source: Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, Vol. 105, No. 3 (Jun. 27, 1961), pp. 301-314 Published by: American Philosophical Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/985457 Accessed: 28-06-2018 03:03 UTC REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/985457?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://about.jstor.org/terms American Philosophical Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society This content downloaded from 150.135.165.81 on Thu, 28 Jun 2018 03:03:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms THE IMPACT OF UNIFORMITARIANISM Two Letters from John Herschel to Charles Lyell, 1836-1837 WALTER F. CANNON Assistant Professor of History, University of California, Berkeley I. INTRODUCTION how new species are generated. Lyell himself CHARLES DARWIN began the Introduction to was too fearful of orthodox Christian opinion to On the Origin of Species by saying that his ob- assert a naturalistic origin of species in the Prin- servations in South America "seemed to throw ciples, especially as he could specify no mechanism whereby such generation could take place. In- some light on the origin of species-that mystery of mysteries, as it has been called by one of our deed, large parts of his second volume were de- greatest philosophers." The philosopher was the voted to a refutation of the evolutionary ideas of famous astronomer John Herschel, and the Lamarck, and this refutation became standard for the period. It is easy to see why Lyell wished phrase, "that mystery of mysteries," came from Herschel's monumental letter of February 20, to rebuff Lamarck. An evolutionary biology 1836, written from the Cape Colony (where would imply an evolutionary geology as well, Herschel was engaged in surveying the southern and Uniformitarianism pictured the world not as heavens) to his friend Charles Lyell. The letter having progressed from some initial chaos to its is here published in full for the first time, from present condition, but as having gone through an the manuscript in the Darwin-Lyell collection indefinite number of essentially repetitive stages. of the American Philosophical Society, together Lyell's opponents, who were named by one of with the surviving part of Herschel's follow-up their members the "Catastrophists," were quick letter of June 12, 1837.1 to point out Lyell's omission and rely upon it in constructing a logical case for the supernatural Herschel's 1836 letter is a major document nature of species creation.3 in the scientific controversies of the period. It was John Herschel, and not Lyell, who spoke Lyell's system of geology ("Uniformitarianism") out in favor of "a natural in contradistinction to as expounded in his Principles of Geology of a miraculous process" of species creation, and 1830-1833 had challenged contemporary British this part of his letter was made public in 1837 geological thought, which was still influenced in an appendix to Charles Babbage's Ninth (although not dominated) by the ideas of George Bridgewater Treatise. To appreciate the im- Cuvier and Cuvier's more impetuous English portance of this testimony it is necessary to recall disciple William Buckland.2 In addition, Lyell's John Herschel's enormous prestige in the 1830's system had also implicitly raised the question of and 1840's. As the son of the great William Herschel and as a brilliant astronomer in his I wish to thank the staffs of the Library of the Ameri- can Philosophical Society and of the Map Room of the own right, he was not merely the most famous Widener Library, Harvard University, for their inter- scientist in England: he was looked up to very ested as well as efficient assistance. much as though he were a god. The Duke of 2 The ideas of Buckland were challenged most heartily Sussex was only summing up the common opinion by John Fleming; see esp. The geological deluge, as inter- preted by Baron Cuvier and Professor Buckland, incon- when in his presidential address to the Royal sistent with the testimony of Moses and the phenomena Society in 1833 he said that Herschel was "such of nature, Edin. Philos. Jour. 14: 205-239, 1825-1826. a model of an accomplished philosopher as can Cuvier's English translator argued with his author in rarely be found beyond the regions of fiction." 4 notes: Cuvier, Georges, Essay o0t the theory of the earth, tr. Robert Jameson, 5th ed., 334, 429, 436, Edinburgh and Sheltered by Herschel's reputation, then, other London, 1827. The Quarterly Reviezwi began criticizing 3Whewell, William, Lyell's Geology, vol. 2, Quarterly Buckland as early as 1826, in Transactions of the Geo- Review 47: 126, 1832. For Catastrophist theory in gen- logical Society, Quarterly Review 34: 517-518, 1826 (the eral see my article, The problem of miracles in the 1830's, article was by young Charles Lyell). Equally important Victorian Studies 4: 5-32, 1960. is the fact that a number of geologists did not care very 4 Augustus Frederick, Duke of Sussex, Presidential much for theoretical matters of any kind. address of 1833, Phil. Trans. Abstracts 3: 224, 1830-1837. PROCEEDINGS OF THE AMERICAN PHILOSOPHICAL SOCIETY, VOL. 105, NO. 3, JUNE, 1961 301 This content downloaded from 150.135.165.81 on Thu, 28 Jun 2018 03:03:33 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 302 WALTER F. CANNON [PROC. AMER. PHIL. SOC. scientists could consider the problem of the origin of the origin of species would even be admissible. of species on its merits, without fear of religious That problem was settled, for competent intel- orthodoxy. Since Herschel was known to be a lectual circles, by John Herschel's expression of sincere Christian, only extremists could hence- belief in 1836. forth claim that scientists should submit their findings to an Evangelical interpretation of the Important as the first paragraph of Herschel's Bible. There were such extremists, of course, letter was at the time, the full text is of still but they had no influence on the course of sci- greater interest of the historian. First, it is the entific debate. Actually Lyell's ideas had been best document available to demonstrate the in- received much more graciously than he had ex- tellectual impact of Lyell's Principles. Herschel pected, for the Christians among the scientists does not merely say that he is impressed; he were just as eager as was Lyell to keep their demonstrates in page after page of suggestions, science from being subjected to undue influence queries, observations, and theorizing how thor- from scientifically illiterate Bibliolaters. It was oughly the most distinguished scientific mind of indeed such strategically placed Christians as the period has been stimulated by Lyell's argu- Adam Sedgwick at Cambridge, William Buck- ments. The busy astronomer has found time to land at Oxford, and William Vernon Harcourt read a twelve-hundred page book three times! at York who did combat most vigorously with "and every time with increased interest."8 Bibliolatry. Yet Lyell remained uneasy, and Second, Herschel's admiration of Lyell's ap- agreed only reluctantly to let Babbage print proach-extending even to a belief that it should Herschel's assertion. The still more explosive be applied in other sciences 9-was of consider- part of Herschel's letter, in which he suggests able importance in the strictly geological debates 50,000 years apiece as the age of the Patriarchs, of the period. Lyell's Uniformitarian system was thousands of millions of years for each of the by no means readily accepted by his fellow geolo- Days of Creation, and a view of Biblical miracles gists, even when the particular contents of his which makes them essentially subj ective experi- volumes were admired, as they almost universally ences,5 never did get into print. were. Indeed Uniformitarianism never became As young Charles Darwin developed scien- the dominant geological school in England all the tifically in the sheltered arena of the Geological way down to 1859, when both Uniformitarianism Society of London, the matter is of some im- and Catastrophism as distinct schools were portance in interpreting his development. Darwin swallowed up in the new evolutionary approach. was able to be almost completely insensitive to But while the testimony of young Charles Darwin theological considerations concerning the origin gave Lyell expert field support, the adherence of species, so much so that he did not even under- of John Herschel meant that the Catastrophist stand what the phrase "the creation of species" opposition could not solidify as a mathematically- meant to the people he criticized. In his 1842 oriented Cambridge group, as might otherwise sketch he presented the crude notion that a have happened. To understand the situation, it "creationist" must believe that the individual is necessary to know the personal relations of the species of rhinoceros have arbitrarily come to- principal characters. John Herschel, Charles Bab- gether from the dust.6 This notion bears no re- bage, William Whewell, and George Peacock had lation to the carefully rationalized explanation of been Cambridge contemporaries who had coop- such a Catastrophist as, say, William Whewell.