who was the beagle's naturalist

8/2/2019 Who Was the Beagle's Naturalist

1/18

The British Society for the History of Science

Who Was the Beagle's Naturalist?Author(s): Jacob W. GruberSource: The British Journal for the History of Science, Vol. 4, No. 3 (Jun., 1969), pp. 266-282Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of The British Society for the Historyof ScienceStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4025475Accessed: 19/05/2010 15:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

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].

Cambridge University Press and The British Society for the History of Science are collaborating with JSTOR to

digitize, preserve and extend access to The British Journal for the History of Science.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/4025475?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cuphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/4025475?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/18

WHO WAS THE BEAGLE'S NATURALIST?By JACOBW. GRUBER

S o great has been the impact of Darwinian evolution upon contemporarythought that even the tiniest aspect of Darwin's own history assumesimportance as a datum in the history of those ideas which provide theideological base of the contemporary world. In all of the accounts of theintellectual journey which led to the formulation of that theory, a greatdeal of stress is placed upon the Beagle voyage, that prolonged period ofinitiation from which the young Darwin returned, the sober-and toooften in later accounts, sombre-naturalist, scientifically seasoned by hisexperiences with a world observed but still unexplained and hardlyknown. The traditional outlines of the story have been repeated over andover again: the outfitting of the Beagle for its surveying responsibilities;Fitzroy's proposal that "some well-educated and scientific person shouldbe sought for who would willingly share such accommodations as I had tooffer, in order to profit by the opportunity of visiting distant countries yetlittle known";' Henslow's recommendation of his friend and studentDarwin; the parental refusal; and, finally, the permission granted.2 In theretelling, in the almost mystical affect attached to the Beagle voyage andto Darwin's participation, the association of the inexperienced youth withthe Beagle has become a fixed point in intellectual history.The purpose of this paper is twofold: it is to suggest some generalfactors which contributed to the particular activities of science and scientistsin one historical period and, more particularly, to view one small incidentassociated with Darwin's voyage within that frame of reference. Thedetails of that incident demonstrate, I believe, that Darwin was not, infact, the only naturalist to the Beagle; that he was a kind of functional"supercargo" whose ultimate contributions far exceeded any priorexpectations; and that the position of naturalist was initially filled, andprobably officially, by the expedition's surgeon, Robert McCormick who,in assuming the position, was acting within a developing tradition ofgovernmentally sponsored scientific research.McCormick's case is an interesting one, for he is hardly mentionedin any of the Beagle accounts and is never mentioned as naturalist.Lloyd and Coulter in their brief account of the naturalist traditionwithin the Royal Navy mention a McCormick as surgeon of the Beagle,but only in a passing reference to Darwin's own participation in that

I Robert Fitzroy, R.N., Narrativeof the SurveyingVoyages f His Majesty'sShipsAdventurendBeaglebetweenheyearI826 andI1836, Vol.II: Proceedingsf theSecondExpedition, 83I-36 (London,I839), p- i8.2 See particularly Nora Barlow (ed.), CharlesDarwin and the Voyageof the Beagle (London,I945); TheAutobiographyf CharlesDarwin,I809-I882 (London, I958); and, most recentlyDarwin and Henslow: The Growthof an Idea (Berkeley and Los Angeles, U. of California Press,I967) in which she publishes the whole of the extant Darwin-Henslow Correspondence.THE BRITISH JOURNAL FOR THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE VOL. 4 NO. I5 (i969)


3/18

Who was the Beagle's Naturalist? 267voyage: "It was fortunate for such a shy character as Darwin's", they write,"that the senior surgeon, McCormick, left the ship once she had crossed theAtlantic, for the latter was an ill-tempered person."3 The context of thispassage is such as to suggest that the McCormick of the Beagle wasregarded as a surgeon other than the Robert McCormick whose contribu-tions as a naval surgeon to polar research are more specifically describedin a later passage.4 Indeed, in Keevil's sympathetic biographical treat-ment of McCormick,s no mention is made of his association with theBeagle, although Keevil emphasized McCormick's zeal for natural history,his affinity for and empathy with the tradition of the great surgeonnaturalists of the eighteenth century, and the persistence of his efforts toassociate himself with scientific expeditions sponsored by the Admiralty.In fact, following McCormick's own recollections in documentation of hisgrowing dispute witn the Medical Department, Keevil writes that inI830 an

"application to join a scientific voyage of discovery was refused; butMcCormick attributed this reverse to lack of influence and interest. In thesummer of I83I a ten gun brig at Plymouth once more became his home ...Six months later the brig sailed for South America and for a brief spaceMcCormick faded from the view of the Medical Department ... By April, I832,McCormick was on his way back . . . behind his plea of ill-health lay hiscaptain's refusal to let him go ashore in pursuit of natural history."6The unnamed "ten gun brig" was, of course, the Beagle; and the absenceof such an identification by Keevil in the face of the importance of theBeagle voyage for the development of natural history, suggests that Keevilhimself did not make the identification.7 This curious lack of associationbetween McCormick and the Beagle follows McCormick's own recollec-tions; for in his own bitter account of his life of frustration in the RoyalNavy8 written almost at the end of his life, he never mentions the Beagleby name although he recounts experiences which can only be associatedwith its voyage which Darwin was to make so famous.

3 Christopher Lloyd and Jack L. S. Coulter, Medicine and the Navy, I200-I900, VOl. iv,I815-1900 (Edinburgh and London, E. & S. Livingstone, I963), p. 74. Per contra,see Darwin'sview noted below.4 Ibid., pp. 77-78.5 J. J. Keevil, "Robert McCormick, R.N., The Stormy Petrel of Naval Medicine," Journalof theRoyal Naval MAledicalervice,xxix (I943), 36-62.6 Ibid., p. 42.7 Six years later, in an article on Benjamin Bynoe ("Benjamin Bynoe (I804-I868), Surgeonof H.A.S. Beagle", Journalof theRoyal Naval MedicalService, xxv (I949), 25I-268), Keevil notesthat Bynoe on the Beagle "found himself serving under Surgeon Robert McCormick, a manalready known for his ill-humour and petulance" (p. 253). And he notes his association with

Darwin as described by the latter. Except for a bibliographic reference, however, to his earlierarticle on McCormick, there is no indication that the two men were in fact the same person. Inany case, by I949, as in the account by Lloyd and Coulter in I963, McCormick's difficultiesaboard the Beagleare ascribed to the imperfections of his own character and there is no suggestionthat he was either interested in or engaged in natural history pursuits.8 Robert McCormick, Voyages f Discovery n theArcticandAntarcticSeas andRound he World,2 vols. (London, I884).


4/18

268 JACOB W. GRUBERMcCormick's connection with the Beagle is documented by both theFitzroy and the Darwin accounts of the voyage. He is listed by Fitzroy9 assurgeon at the Beagle's departure from Plymouth; and Fitzroy notes laterthat "In April I832, Mr. Mac-Cormick and Mr. Derbishire returned toEngland. Mr. Bynoe (the assistant surgeon) was appointed to act assurgeon."Io Although Darwin rarely mentions his Beagle companions, hisaccount provides some additional light on the circumstances surroundingMcCormick's departure from the Beagle. In addition to two references toshort trips of exploration with McCormick during the Beagle's visit toCape Verde Islands,", he writes in his Diary on 24 April I832 at Rio de

Janeiro:"Returned to Beagle. During my absence several political changes havetaken place in our little world. Mr. Maccormick has been invalided, and goesto England by the Tyne."'2On the following day, he wrote to his sister:

"I had sealed up the firstletter, all ready to be sent off during my absence:but no good opportunity occurred, and so it and this will go together. I take theopportunity of MacCormick returning to England, being invalided, i.e. beingdisagreeable to the Captain and Wickham. He is no IOSS."I3Although it is possible that Darwin's evaluation was correct, it may wellhave been influenced by an incipient and probably unrecognized hostilitybetween the two men which flowed from a rivalry, one of whose sourceswas the anomalous nature of Darwin's position as the Captain's guest.Darwin's very presence called into question the competence of McCormickas a naturalist and led to an inevitable conflict of role.That McCormick could have conceived himself as the Beagle'snaturalist and may have had some official sanction to support him issuggested by three lines of evidence: (i) tradition of the naval surgeonas naturalist; (2) McCormick's own training which he felt qualified himfor a naturalist's position; and (3) a letter to McCormick from RobertJameson which implies that McCormick was to be responsible forobservations in natural history during the Beagle's voyage.

9 Fitzroy, op. cit. (i), p. I9.IO Ibid., p. 20.II Nora Barlow (ed.), CharlesDarwin's Diary of the Voyageof HI.M.S. Beagle (Cambridge,

1934), PP. 26, 28.12 Ibid., pp. 57-58; McCormick's name is variously spelled; in the few letters from himto Richard Owen in the Owen Collection of the British Museum of Natural History, he signshimself "R. M'Cormick".I3 Barlow, Op.Cit. (2), 1945, p. 64; see also, a similar comment in Darwin to Henslow,I8 May I832, in Barlow, Op.Cit. (2), I967, p. 56. A few days after reaching Rio dejaneiro, Darwinaccepted the invitation of an Englishman to visit his estate in the interior. The short trip lastedfor a little over two weeks and was Darwin's first extended "naturalising" trip on the Beaglevoyage (Charles Darwin, journal of Researches .. London, n.d., pp. 38-45). It was during thisabsence, that the difficulties between McCormick and Fitzroy and Wickham developed. It ispossible, although highly conjectural in the absence of any other information, that that excursionby Darwin precipitated the question of who was naturalist, a question which required no clearanswer so long as the Beaglewas en route r so long as both Darwin and McCormick could functiontogether as at St. Jago.


5/18

Who was theBeagle's Naturalist? 269At least from Georgian times, as the British navy extended itself over

an ever-increasing portion of the world and with the stimulus which thesuccess of Linneanism provided botanical collectors, the naval medicalofficer was often charged with the specific responsibility for such collectionsand for such other observations in natural history of which he was capable.Despite the limitations of his education in science, the surgeon or assistantsurgeon was in fact the only member of a naval company with the educa-tional background sufficient to make such an activity practicable. Andthose who received their training in Edinburgh were particularly wellequipped, since Edinburgh with its distinguished university and museumprovided the best training in natural history available in Europe despitethe dullness with which it was sometimes purveyed. Nevertheless, thetradition of the naval-surgeon naturalist was a real one and those whomade the tradition provided much of the exotic data available in naturalhistory through most of the first half of the nineteenth century. Lloyd andCoulter suggest that it was the influence which Sir Joseph Banks,'4 asPresident of the Royal Society, had with the Admiralty that led to theprecedent being established

"by Cook'svoyages for carrying of a naturalist, or for the allocation of thenaturalist's duties to one of the ship's surgeons. When, therefore, a series ofofficial voyages of exploration began in the nineteenth century, the navalsurgeon was usually instructed by the Admiralty to report on matters ofnatural history, and often to make meteorological observations as well. Thearchetype of such surgeon-naturalistswas William Anderson ... the surgeon onCook's second and third voyages."'5As McCormick's own account indicates (see below) he was not only awareof this tradition, but consciously prepared himself to function within it.On the other hand, Darwin's official position was poorly defined fromthe start; and the definition of the role he was to play is unclear, if one canjudge from the sometimes frenetic letters which passed between theprincipals during the last week of August and the first week of September,

I4 Banks, of course, accompanied Cook as a young man of 25, a decade before his electionas President of the Royal Society, a position he was to hold continuously until his death in I82o.He sailed with Cook in grander fashion than Darwin but in much the same unofficial capacity asthat which Darwin occupied on the Beaglevoyage. See H. C. Cameron, SirjosephBanks (London,I952), pp. I3-I6.

I5 Lloyd and Coulter, I963, Op.cit. (3), p. 70. For a general treatment of the surgeon-naturalist see their chapter v, pp. 69-80, in which, however, primary emphasis is placed upon thewell-known, if not spectacular, activities of SirJohn Richardson, J. D. Hooker, and T. H. Huxley.Keevil (I943, op.cit. (5), p. 40) lists some of the eighteenth-century surgeon-naturalists: Menzies,Anderson, Richard Hinds, Joseph Arnold, William Wright, George Bass, William Babington-"men who could combine the practice of medicine with natural history", men in whom "thegreat patrons of the eighteenth-century scientific world had delighted". What is still required is adetailed history in which the contributions of the many naval collectors and observers are relatedto the development of the body of natural history data necessaryfor the elaboration of biology bymid-nineteenth century. What is true for the more limited activity of the naval surgeon appliesalso to the expansion of scientific knowledge which was the consequence of the expansion ofEmpire. The Owen Collection in the British Museum of Natural History, for instance, providesan interesting and valuable record of the involvement of the advance agents of British colonialismin the collection of data in natural science which was processed and synthesized in London.

S


6/18

270 JACOB W. GRUBERI83I, when the decisions as to Darwin's participation in the voyage werebeing made. In the first letter of the series, George Peacock writes toHenslow, describing the position to be filled: "An offer has been made tome to recommend a proper person to go out as a naturalist with thisexpedition; he will be treated with every consideration."'i6 Henslow wrote toDarwin on 24 August, to say that Peacock had asked him to recommend

"a naturalist as companion to Captain Fitzroy, employed by the Govern-ment to survey the Southern extremity of America . .. Captain Fitzroy wants aman (I understand) more as a companion than a mere collector, and would nottake any one, however good a Naturalist who was not recommended to himlikewise as a gentleman."I7But by 5 September, Henslow has suggested to Darwin that Peacock hadmisrepresented the situation and it seemed as if Darwin would not go. Butthings changed rapidly: the inability of another of Fitzroy's friends toaccompany the Captain made possible the room needed by Darwin andthus a major obstacle was overcome.i8 In explaining the apparent con-fusion, Darwin wrote his sister on 9 September:

"Captain Fitzroy first wished to have a Naturalist, and then he seems tohave taken a sudden horror of the chances of having somebody he should notlike on board the vessel."'9Fitzroy's account also stresses the unofficial and personal nature of hisinvitation to Darwin: After having cleared his suggestion of a naturalistwith Captain Beaufort, the Hydrographer,"an offer was made to Mr. Darwin to be my guest on board, which heaccepted conditionally; permission was obtained for his embarkation, and anorder given by the Admiralty that he should be borne on the ship's books forprovisions. The conditions asked by Mr. Darwin were, that he should be atliberty to leave the Beagle and retire from the expedition when he thoughtproper and that he should pay a fair share of the expenses of my table."20Darwin's position on board the Beagle, then, was essentially that of aprivate passenger and companion to the Captain whose presence had

official sanction, but whose role was an anomalous one. Darwin was not,of course, the only individual on the Beagle occupying such a private ornon-naval position. In addition to the three Fuegians and their "chaperone"whose return was the primary mission of the Beagle, Fitzroy listed fiveother "supernumeraries", i.e. persons other than the "established com-i6 Francis Darwin (ed.), TheLife and Letters f CharlesDarwin(London, I887), vol. i, p. I91.17 Barlow, op. cit. (2), I967, p. 30; the transcription of this letter is slightly different inF. Darwin, op. cit. (I6), i, I92.I8 Darwin to Miss S. Darwin, 5 September I83I, ibid., p. 20o; see also Darwin to Henslow,

in Barlow, op. cit. (2), I967, p. 38.I9 F. Darwin, op.cit. (i6), i, p. 208; see, however, Peacock to Darwin in Barlow, op.cit. (2),I967, p. 32: "The Admiralty are not disposed to give a salary, though they will furnish you withan official appointment and every accommodation: if a salary should be required however I aminclined to think that it would be granted."20 Fitzroy, op. cit. (i), pp. I8-I9.


7/18

111howas the Beagle's Naturalist? 27Iplement" of 65 officers and men. Besides his own steward, Darwin, andDarwin's servant, there was Augustus Earle, a draughtsman, who hadbeen engaged by Fitzroy "in a private capacity" and George JamesStebbing, an instrument maker, who had been engaged by Fitzroy as a"private assistant" to Fitzroy himself as the voyage's "surveyor". Althoughthe expedition had an official assistant surveyor in John Stokes, Fitzroy feltit necessary to add someone whose sole responsibility would be themaintenance of the instruments, particularly the chronometers which wereso necessary to the survey.21 The private character of Darwin's position isfurther illustrated by the fact that he was accompanied by his own man-servant ;22he was accountable for his own expenses; he had control over hiscollections; and that Fitzroy urged him "to get it down in writing at theAdmiralty that I have the free choice to leave as soon and whenever Ilike".23 Furthermore, it is interesting to note that the attempts to recruita naturalist for the Beagle were hurriedly begun fully six weeks after theBeagle was commissioned for her voyage. The chronology has some impor-tance for an understanding of what can only be considered the off-hand wayin which a naturalist was sought and appointed to such an importantexpedition if it is assumed that no arrangements had been made prior toPeacock's inquiries. The Beagle was commissioned on 4 July I83I;McCormick came on board 20 July; and just about a month later,apparently,Peacock writes to Henslow to find a man. Fitzroy's desire to havesomeone aboard so that "no opportunity of collecting useful information... should be lost" certainly was not a sudden idea, particularly in view ofhis scientific concerns; nor do I think that the assignment of McCormick-with his background, experience, and goals-was mere coincidence. Itis not unreasonable to suggest that once on board, McCormick did notseem to be the man Fitzroy would want as naturalist and/or intellectualcompanion.McCormick on the other hand had prepared himself particularly fora career as a naval naturalist and, by his own testimony, sought those

21 Ibid., pp. 19-21.22 It is possible to confuse Darwin's servant with Sym Covington who after I833 wasDarwin's paid assistant and clerk. The evidence, however, is equivocal. Fitzroy (op. cit. (i), pp.I9-2 i) lists a servant for Darwin as a supernumerary both at the beginning and at the end of thevoyage. Covington, at the beginning of the voyage, was probably one of the six "boys" as partof the "established complement". Prior to I833, Fitzroy made one of the seamen available toDarwin as his assistant. In I833, however, Darwin engaged Covington at [30 per year as hispersonal assistant in order that the Beagle be not deprived of a seaman's work. Although Darwinwas prepared also to pay for Covington's food on board, Fitzroy kept him on the ship's books forvictuals. Although I believe that "Darwin's servant" and Covington may have been two differentindividuals, for the argument in this case it is immaterial since it is quite clear that even inCovington's case, he was to be considered in a private capacity, i.e. as Darwin's man rather thanthe Navy's man. (On Covington, see Gavin de Beer, "Some Unpublished Letters of CharlesDarwin", Notes and Records f theRoyal Society f London I959), xiv, I6-27). Darwin's letter to hissister in which the subject of a servant (i.e. Covington) is broached (Barlow, op. cit. (2), I945,pp. 85-86) does suggest that he had no servant prior to his engagement of Covington. If oneaccepts that version, Fitzroy's listing of the crew in I839 must be regarded as an anachronism.23 Barlow, op. cit. (2), I945, p. 45.


8/18

272 JACOB W. GRUBERassignmentswhich would permit him to act in such a role. He was bornon 22 July i8oo, the son of a surgeonin the Royal Navy. Not unlikemanyanother of his generation, his "taste for natural historydeveloped itself atan early age, beginning with the collection of the nests and eggs of thebirds of the surroundingdistrict".24He attended Guy's Hospital and St.Thomas's Hospital in London from I82I as a pupil of the noted surgeonSir Astley Cooperand, aftersuccessfullypassing his examinations,becamea member of the Royal College of Surgeonsof London in I822. Receivingan appointmentas assistantsurgeon to H.M.S. QueenCharlotte, e sailed tothe West Indies in i823 and returnedto Englandin I825. In September ofthe followingyear, he applied for servicewith the North Polar Expeditionunder the commandof Captain CharlesParryand, with the recommenda-tion of Cooper, he received the post of Surgeon on the Hecla, whichdepartedfor the Arctic on 25 March I827 and returned on i November ofthe same year. Following the arctic voyage, McCormick took a year'sleave during which he engaged in a series of studies in Medicine andNatural History, the latter at London University. From January toJune I830, he was posted to the West Indies again, a service which hedetested; and it was following this voyage that, on leave at half-pay, hespent his term in Edinburgh, returningto London in May of I831.

By this time he had firmly determined upon a scientific career:"Havingnowfairlytakenup the pursuitof naturalhistory, n additiontomy ordinaryprofessional uties,andprepared nd qualifiedmyselfby a courseofhardstudyandattendancen thelectures f themostdistinguished rofessors,my greatobjectwas to get employed n scientificvoyagesof discovery."'25He thus declined an appointment in Riga; and he maintains that he wasunsuccessful in his attempt to get attached to scientific voyages throughlack of influence. His complaint is a curious one since he did receive anappointment to the Beaglealthoughhe does not mention the ship by name.

"The subsequent hreeyears (i.e. afterMay I83I) fromwhich I have torecordwerespentin two smallmiserablecraft,and for the most part on myold station,the West Indies, whereI had alreadysuffered o much from theclimateand otherdepressingnfluences;which I can only look back to withunavailingregret,as so muchtime,health,and energiesutterlywasted."26The first of these "small and miserable" boats was, of course, theBeagle.He notes it as a small io-gun surveying ship "fitting out atPlymouth . . . which I joined on the 20thofJuly, and on November 22ndI attended a survey at Plymouth Hospital".27McCormick'sscientificambitionswere,however,at least partiallyful-

filled when he was appointed Surgeon and Zoologist (i.e. chief naturalist)24 R. McCormick, op. cit. (8), vol. i, p. I85.25 Ibid.,pp. 2I7-2I8.26 Ibid., p. 2I8.27 Ibid., p. 219.


9/18

Who was the Beagle's Naturalist? 273to James Clark Ross's expedition to the Antarctic from I839 to I843,the major purpose of which was to make those observations necessary tolocate and verify the position of the South Magnetic Pole.28 Coincidentallyand ironically, his subordinate on this expedition was the young JosephDalton Hooker who had specially trained as a surgeon in order to qualifyas a naturalist to the expedition. Again, as in the earlier case, the initialrelations between the two men were strained by the equivocal nature ofthe role of each and the contradictory promises of position. Except forRoss's tact, the formal definition of Hooker's role as subordinate, and,possibly, Hooker's own incipient professionalism and good nature, theDarwin-McCormick contretempsf the Beagle would have been repeated.29But although Hooker recognized McCormick's deficiencies as a naturalist,he came to respect him and his devotion to his vocation as he appreciatedhis personal aid. Thus, in the face of difficulties in obtaining sufficientfinancial support from the government, Hooker wrote to his father that:

"Anything that they won't supply my Surgeon [i.e. McCormick] will makeup from his own pocket; he is very zealous indeed in the cause and offers meevery encouragement.' 30The most important as well as the most direct evidence not only forthe association of this McCormick with the Beagle but also for his aspira-tions as naturalist, formally defined, to Fitzroy's expedition is a veryinteresting and, I suspect, previously overlooked letter to McCormick from

Robert Jameson, then Regius Professor of Natural History at the Univer-sity of Edinburgh.3I Written from the College Museum of Edinburgh, onI3 November I831, it contains the suggestions of the renowned Jamesonto the young naturalist as he is about to depart on his voyage of collection.The letter reads:"My dear Sir,The other day I had the pleasure of receiving your letter containing theagreeable information of your being appointed to the Beagle Surveying Shipcommanded by Capt. Fitzroy. The exploratory expedition will be a most

28 J. C. Ross, A Voyageof Discovery nd Research n theSouthern nldAntarcticRegionsduring heyears I839-42 (London, I847).29 It is interesting that despite the close relationship between Darwin and Hooker later,there seems to be no reference to the similarity of their experiences with the same man in the samerole on what was to be the most significant exploratory trip for each.30 Leonard Huxley, Life andLettersof SirJosephDalton Hooker London, I9I8), i, p. 45; forthe occasional references to McCormick by Hooker, see i, pp. 4I-70 passim.3' This letter is part of a miscellaneous collection of manuscript materials in the BritishMuseum (Add. 52580, ff. 2I5-2 I6) presented to the Museum by C. Davis Sherborne. Sherbornewas a collector of materials of this sort and to him is due the preservation of much of the originaldocuments dealing with nineteenth-century natural science. It was Sherborne who arranged andensured the preservation of the great mass of the Owen Collection after the death of Sir RichardOwen in I892; and it was he who served as scientific consultant in the writing of Owen's generallyunsatisfactory biography by his grandson, Richard Starton Owen. On the grounds ofhistoriography, this letter has an additional interest, if not importance, for were it not for thefact that the name of the addressee is still preserved on the original folio, the content of theletter could have led to the identification of Charles Darwin as its recipient.


10/18

274 JACOB W. GRUBERdelightful one & the more particulary [sic] to yourself from the numberlessopportunities it will afford for the advancement of natural history. As you willno doubt be provided with ample instructions, anything I would add in the wayof particular detail would be of little consequence. Every dept. in all theKingdoms of nature in the countries you are about to visit possess [sic] a highdegree of interest more especially to the naturalist of Europe. Your collectiontherefore ought to be ample-if animals the skin & also the skeleton ought tobe preserved & when possible the whole animals in spirits for the knife by thecomparative anatomist. A new system of ornithology has been started foundedto a very considerable extent on the form of the cranium. [words missing, butprobably: The crania therefore] of the feathered tribes ought [to be] carefullypreserved.In your zoological [record??] should be noted the country where thespecimen or an [imal was found? ?], its height above the level of the sea-seasonof [the??] year when killed-its food-its habit and manner name in itsnative country-its uses, etc. In your botanical collection-to note particularlythe height at which the species grow-nature of the soil-exposure, etc. I needsay nothing to you as to the collecting of rocks & minerals as you are fully awareof everything as to the mode of collecting them. Let no opportunities escape ofdrawing such natural sections of the strata as may occur and be careful thatsuch sections are illustratedby very full collections of specimens.The bone caveswhich you are likely to meet with in some parts of yourjourney will I doubt notengage your particular attention, as well as the collecting of fossil organicremains of every description. We, as you know, are all now very desirous ofknowing how far the fossil organic remains in the same formation the Wealdformation for example-agree or differ in distant parts of the world. I shall takeit kind[ly] that you write me from time [to time] informing me of the pro-gress of your voyage in which I feel particularly interested.32 have heard fromNaval Officers here that Capt. Fitzroy your Commander is a capital officer andexcellent man & that you are most fortunate in being appointed to serve alongwith him. With a thousand good wishes I remain ever faithfully and sincerelyyours, Robert Jameson."

It is difficult to read this letter as anything other than a series ofsuggestions to a "naturalist" about to embark on a long voyage of explora-tion. However McCormick may have defined himself and his position toJameson, there is no suggestion in this letter that McCormick was to bethe expedition's surgeon and only that. Not once does Jameson allude tothat role.As a natural historian, Jameson was still at this time virtually withoutpeer in Britain; and the eminence of Edinburgh as both an educationaland scientific centre had only just begun to dim as the resurgence of anew empiricism in the natural sciences attacked the layman's science ofLondon while, at the same time, the youthful excitement of Edinburgh atthe turn of the century was disappearing in a stodgy old-age. tJameson hadbeen Regius Professor and Keeper of the University Museum since i 804when he had just come, as a young man of thirty, from the lectures of

32 Mr. Charles P. Finlayson, Keeper of Manuscripts in the Edinburgh University Library,which possesses all that seems to be left of the Jameson papers, has kindly searched the indexesof the collections for me but has found nothing there relating to McCormick.


11/18

Who was the Beagle's Naturalist? 275Werner, bringing with him the whole new spirit of an observationalnatural science from the Continent. His dogmatic insistence on Wernerianprinciples of geognosy and the polemics in which he engaged on its behalfobscure now as they did then his real contributions to the development ofnatural history during the first half of the nineteenth century. His advocacyof the essential speculative position to which Wernerism had arriveddetracts from the rigour with which he insisted upon observation in naturalhistory and of which his instructions to McCormick are but a singleexample. He founded the Wernerian Society as an agency for scientificdiscussion and communication; he was co-founder of the EdinburghPhilosophicalJournal (and later, sole editor of its successor, the EdinburghNew PhilosophicalJournal) which served as an outlet for the newer and moreliberal science; and most importantly, he founded the first programme innatural history which served as the training ground for a whole generationof natural scientists. Long before he died in I 854, his influence had waned,as much through the changing position of Edinburgh in the learned worldof Britain as through his own limitations.Jameson's association with McCormick as adviser was a naturaloutgrowth of his relation to him as teacher; for, as McCormick notes, hehad spent a full term, from i9 November I830 until the end of the follow-ing April, as an auditor in Jameson's course of lectures in Natural Historyin "the modern Athens" of which Edinburgh University was the intellec-tual centre. In addition to Jameson's lectures and field excursions heattended those of Dr. Mackintosh on the Practice of Medicine and Mid-wifery and of Dr. Lizar on Anatomy. This winter spent in Edinburgh in theabsence of any suitable naval appointment was, in effect, the last of thesteps which McCormick had taken over a dozen years to qualify himselfas a naturalist on exploring expeditions sponsored by the Admiralty.On 27 December I83I he left on the Beagle for South America, butthe opportunities for collecting, which he had been led to expect would behis, did not in fact develop:

"Having found myself in a false position on board a small and very un-comfortable vessel, and very much disappointed in my expectations of carryingout my natural history pursuits, every obstacle having been placed in the way ofmy getting on shore and making collections, I got permissionfrom the admiralin command of the station here to be supersededand allowed a passagehome onH.M.S. Tyne."33Leaving the Beagle at Rio de Janeiro, he arrived back in England onI9 June I832.Although we have little data with reference to the relationships whichmust have existed aboard the Beagle and which must have played asignificant part in the frustration of McCormick's hopes, it is possible toconjecture concerning the conflicts which may have arisen from the con-

33 McCormick, op. cit. (8), p. 2I9.


12/18

276 JACOB W. GRUBERflict in roles occasioned by the presence of both Darwin and McCormickon the same small vessel, each regarding himself as charged with theresponsibility for natural history observations.Although there is no certain documentary evidence that McCormickwas to have been assigned the formal tasks of Naturalist on the Beagle,the inferential evidence for such a definition of his position is strong.There is the already developed tradition of the Surgeon as naturalist,particularly in those instances where the primary purpose of the voyagewas exploratory or scientific. There is the Jameson letter which, thoughnever referring to an official appointment, reads as though such an appoint-ment had in fact been made. There is the hurried appointment of a"private" naturalist whose circumstances led Darwin to ask, in the midstof his own preparations: "What was the reason, that a Naturalist was notlong ago fixed upon ?"34 And there is McCormick's own testimony of hisaspirations, which is underscored in a later letter to Richard Owen inwhich he stressed his claims for promotion:

"I am the seniorSurgeon on the list of activeservice, have held the rankabove 30 years-have been 35 years in the Navy; served in three Polar Expedi-tions, embracing altogether some seven years spent in frozen regions; with SirEdw. Parry in his attempt to reach the North Pole in I827, with SirJames Rossin the Antarctic Seas from I839 to I843, & in command of a Boat Expedition insearch of Sir John Franklin in I852. I have served three times in the WestIndies; & did additional duties of Naturalist & Geologist in all the scientificvoyages in which I have been engaged: without the slightest reward in return,in any shape whatever."35It is quite clear, however, and it soon became so to McCormick, thatDarwin's position as Naturalist, however unofficial it may have been, washis by invitation and support of the expedition's Captain.Darwin's unofficial status aboard the Beagle as Fitzroy's guest andcompanion, in contrast to the formal requirements of the surgeon naturalistexplains the independence with which he not only conducted his ownactivities but also the disposal of his collections and the publication ofhis journal. Throughout the Beaglevoyage, Darwin was separated from theexpedition for months at a time during which he maintained his ownquarters, and "naturalized" according to his own plan. One need onlycontrast this freedom of investigation with the constraints imposed uponHooker on the Erebusor Huxley on the Rattlesnake o recognize the unique-ness of Darwin's position within the tradition of naval naturalist. Further-more, although it was the usual procedure for collections made under theauspices of the Admiralty to be deposited first in the British Museum,

Darwin, as a personal prerogative, turned his collection of fossils over tothe Hunterian Museum of the Royal College of Surgeons so that Richard34 Darwin to Henslow, 30 August, I83I, in Barlow, op. cit. (2), I967, p. 33. The contextsuggests that this was a reflection of Darwin's father's concerns.35 24July I858; Owen Collection, British Museum of Natural History, vol. xviii, ff. 228-229.


13/18

Who was theBeagle's Naturalist? 277Owen could make the descriptions. In a letter from Darwin to Hunt(3 May i868) Darwin, in an autobiographical note, writes:

"In the autumn of I831, Captain Fitzroy R.N., having offered to give uppart of his own cabin to any naturalist who would accompany H.M.S. Beagleon her surveying voyage and circumnavigation, Mr. Darwin volunteered hisservices without salary, but on conditionhathe shouldhavethe entiredisposalof hiscollections." emphasis added.)His correspondence with Owen suggests, too, that while he felt someobligations to the public collections because he had been "carried onboard" a King's ship, nevertheless he had control over the disposal of hismaterial.36Although it was this special position which Darwin occupied whichled to McCormick finding himself in "a false position", that is, of beingnaturalist de jure but not de facto, it was not this alone, I think, whichcreated hostilities of such magnitude that they led to McCormick's virtualdischarge from the expedition. Much of the difficulty lay in a changingnature of natural science and in something of the social structure ofscientific activity.

Although McCormick was only nine years older than Darwin, thetwo men represented two quite different traditions in natural history.McCormick emerges from his own words and from the occasional refer-ences to him by both Darwin and Hooker as a typical collector whoseintellectual sources were the cabinet constructors of the eighteenth centurywho sought the specimens of the exotica of nature in order to providesubstance for the system of order prescribed by Linnaeus or as modifiedby his heirs. Valuable as this approach and as this activity were for thefurtherance of natural science, it had become traditionalized and ritualizedalready by the end of the first quarter of the nineteenth century. Collectingitself, the love of the specimen alone, the accumulation of separate objects-these activities were becoming already old-fashioned and the work ofamateurs and dilettantes. Such interests were already during Darwin'syouth being supplanted by an interest in the natural system as againstorder and a desire to know the whole organism as against its surfacefeatures. Thus in the year of the Beagle's return, Glanville, in the irony ofhis condemnation of the state of English science, noted that while therehad been no progress in natural science, still there had been no decline, for

"It consists now, as it always consisted, in a series of nomenclatures andexaminations of species, to the entire exclusion of the higher pursuits of thatscience. Systematic and technical natural history, in fact, is the only naturalhistory cultivated in this country."37A scant generation later, de Ouatrefages more vividly and zealously

36 de Beer, op. cit (22), pp. 36-37, 48-49.37 A. B. Glanville, The Royal Society n the XIXth Century;being a Statistical Summary f itslaboursduring he last Thirty-Fiverears (London, i836), p. 23.


14/18

278 JACOB W. GRUBERdescribed the allure of the "higher pursuits of that Science". Recollectinghis first oceanographic work on the islands of Chausey in the early I840's,he noted that he rejected the prevailing descriptive goals:

"I have never had the slightest taste for that modification of science," heconfessed, "which rests satisfied with examining the exterior of an animal, andthen pinning it on a cork or putting it into a bottle, with its name duly inscribedon a label. There can be no doubt that the preliminary labour of compilingsystematic lists was indispensably necessary, and I am far from wishing todetract from the debt of gratitude which we owe to the patient and laboriousobservers who have drawn up classifiedcatalogues of living species, or to thosewho are adding to them daily. We ought, however, strenuously to avoid thegrave error of reducing zoology to the standard of a mere appraiser's craft. Hewho knows nothing of an animal beyond the name and place apportioned to itin a more or less well devised system of nomenclature, no more deserves thetitle of naturalist than a librarian's assistantdeserves the name of savant,becausehe knows by heart the titles of all his books, and their local and numericalarrangementin the pressin which they are kept. No! in the case either of a bookor of an animal we must go deeper than the binding, we must penetrate belowthe skin. True zoology, or that form of it towards which all other branches ofnatural science ought to converge, consistsin studying the relations of organisedbeings and their connexion with the inorganic world, in investigating the playof the organs as animated instruments of these mysterious affinities; in pene-trating into their mechanism; in following them in their modifications, in orderto distinguish, if possible, between what is essential and what is incidental; inascending from all these effects to the cause, and thus penetrating at some futureday into the arcana of life; this is the end and aim of true zoology, the restmerely constitute the means." 8

It was this shift in emphasis from compilation to analysis which madethe traditional teaching of Edinburgh so dull; and it was this shift inemphasis which drove a younger generation to an intense, full-timedevotion to the study of nature in all of its parts which was the beginningof professionalism in natural science. From Hooker's references toMcCormick, he emerges as a pleasant man devoted to the pursuit of naturalhistory; but he was too much an amateur to develop the almost single-minded commitment, so characteristic of Darwin, which would make hima natural scientist. It was this difference which separated the turn-of-the-century naturalists from those of a subsequent generation which made anyclose relationship between the two Beagle naturalists so difficult if not soimpossible. And Darwin, with his peculiar incisiveness, recognized thedifference. Commenting on McCormick's, "the Doctor's", return toEngland he noted:

"He was a philosopher of rather antient date; at St. Jago by his ownaccount he made general remarksduringthe firstfortnight &collected particularfacts during the last."39

38 A. de Quatrefages, The Ramblesof a Naturalist on the Coasts of France,Spain, and Sicily(trans. E. C. Otte, London, I857), pp. 50-5I.39 Darwin to Henslow, i8 May I832, Barlow, op. cit. (2), I967, p. 56.


15/18

Whlowas the Beagle's Naturalist? 279There may well have been other more personal differences betweenthe two. In contrast to McCormick's obvious regard for Jameson both asa scientist and as a teacher, there is Darwin's:"During my second year in Edinburgh (I826-27) I attended Jameson'slectures on Geology and Zoology, but they were incredibly dull. The sole effectthey produced on me was the determination never as long as I lived to read abook on Geology or in any way to study the science."40

Furthermore, Keevil notes that McCormick's love of nature made himunwilling to shoot unnecessarily birds or any other wildlife; but Darwinconfessed to a "passion" for shooting which "survived in nearly full force"for the first two years of the Beagle voyage,

"I shot myself all the birds and animals for my collection; but gradually Igave up my gun more and more . . . I discovered, though unconsciously andinsensibly, that the pleasure of observing and reasoning was a much higher onethan that of skill and sport. The primeval instincts of the barbarian slowlyyielded to the acquired tastes of the civilized man."4'A more subtle factor, however, may have been the pervasive effect of

the English social class system upon scientific activity. In the first quarterof the nineteenth century, Science,as a revelation of the truths of nature,was the possession of the English upper classes. Scientific activity, hadhardly become, as it was to a generation later, an avenue of social mobilitywhereby the sons of tradesmen and merchants could achieve social successand prestige; science itself had not yet insinuated its "truths" into all levelsof society. A serious fight against class privilege in the Royal Society hadjust been lost in I830 and its eventual success was to come in anothergeneration. Science was still the province of the gentleman.Glanville's analysis of the membership of the Royal Society in I830demonstrates the point. Of the membership of 662, 376 were by professionor by birth (or both) upper middle class or aristocracy, i.e. Bishops (io),Noblemen (63), Naval or Army Officers (66), Clergy (74), Law (63),Physicians (79), Surgeons (2I). There were 286 of no stated profession,many of whom, by social attributes alone, would be included among theupper classes. The burden of Glanville's argument was that the 376 in theformer category (Bishops, Noblemen, etc.) contributed nothing to science.If one discounts the unusual I09 contributions by Everard Home, the 376members contributed only I74 papers to the Plilosophical Transactions.Put another way, only 55 of the 376 produced anything at all; and only 32produced more than a single paper. Similarly, although the 286 in theunspecified category produced I87 articles, these were the products ofonly 48, with only 29 contributing more than a single paper. Glanville'sconclusion was, therefore, that the largest part of the membership of the

40 Barlow, Op.Cit. (2), 1958, p. 52.4' Ibid., PP. 78-79.


16/18

280 JACOB W. GRUBERRoyal Society, the most highly esteemed scientific society in Europe, werenot contributors to science but held their membership by social positionand influence alone.42A more poignant and individual expression of the effect of socialclass position upon scientific aspirations and activity is contained in avery interesting letter from the young John Tyndall to Edward Sabine,already a powerful figure in the scientific establishment. Ridden by guiltthat Sabine might be supporting him without realizing his social back-ground, Tyndall wrote a long autobiographical letter in which he notedthat his father, though "a man of inflexible integrity and intrinsic truth-fulness of heart", was a poor man, a seller of leather and shoes.

"Of course," he wrote, "you have judged me on scientific grounds alone,and taken it for granted that my private character is unblameable; anything Ihave now to communicate will not interfere with the opinions which you holdat present upon these points; . . . But in this country, other circumstancesbeside character and ability come into play-there is social position for instance-and it is on this point that I wish to relieve my mind by giving you preciseinformation." He concludes: "It is of course impossible for me to predict whateffect the above sketch will have upon your future bearing towards me Ibelieve it is my duty to make you acquainted with the facts of my position, andI leave consequencesin the hands of the ruler of them.... The tendency of mylife during the last ten years has, as regards social standing, been an upward one,but in no case have I forsaken a straightforwardcourse nor purchased a singleadvantage by other than honourable means-I will not do so now, nor even bymy silence permit you to labour under any mistakeregardingme. If you supportme it shall be with a clear knowledge of what I am before you. I have endea-voured, with what success I know not, to render myself fit for intercourse withcultivated men, believing it to be a duty which I owe both to myself and tosociety . . . it now remains for me to make the experiment whether a man withnothing but naked character to recommend him may not, in these kingdoms,find the doors to an honourable activity open to him."43Sabine's reply provides not only some indication as to the changesthat were already taking place, but also some testimony to his own virtue.Acknowledging the letter, he noted that:"I imagine that you attach more importance to the bearing of the subjectmatter which it communicates on your reception by the world & prospects init than really belongs to it in the social state of this country. There are but tworealpoints, moral uprightnessand intellectual cultivation & attainment. . . Thecircumstancesyou relate shewing you to be the architect of your own fortunes,would with most persons, I should think entitle you to additional respect."44The relation between social class and science was intensified on theBeagle by the zeal of Fitzroy's own identification with both the scientificmission of his expedition and his upper class affiliations. To social sub-ordinates-his junior officers and the tradesmen with whom he dealt as

42 Glanville, op. cit. (37), 34-49.43 SabineCorrespondence,oyal Society of London, 4 July I852.44 TyndallCorrespondence,oyal Institution, 6 July I852.


17/18

Who was theBeagle's Naturalist? 28icaptain-he was imperious and, at best, condescending.45 His notion ofscience was essentially one which saw its promotion as the duty of theelect and the privilege of the socially superior. In this he fitted the norms ofhis place and time. It is, therefore, not surprising that in requesting anaturalist to accompany him, he should stress that he be above all agentleman; and a gentleman, of course, Darwin was. McCormick, on theother hand, both by the definition of his position and by his own back-ground was at best the equivalent of the tradesmen, those ubiquitousstrivers in English society who were the primary object of the contempt ofthe upper class. McCormick's father had been a naval surgeon before himat a time when surgery had just begun its move toward the professionalrespectability which it was to achieve by mid-century. The Royal Collegeof Surgeons of London grew out of the Company of Surgeons only in i 8oo,the year of McCormick's birth; and throughout the first half of the century,despite the increasing prestige of some notable practitioners, surgeons werestill subject to social disability and a reputation which limited surgery'sappeal as a satisfactory occupational goal for the British upper class.46Thenaval surgeon occupied an even more tenuous social position since he wasrecognized neither as part of the officer class of the Navy nor, by hisprofession, as a member of a prestigious social class. They were, in theNavy, regarded as technicians rather than officers.47 Thus, neither insociety at large nor in the tight virtually self-contained social structure ofthe naval system were they part of the elite. And to Fitzroy, as to Darwin,eacn with his sense of intellectual duty and commitment, McCormickmust have seemed superficial in his concerns. Apart from the naivete of hisscience, Darwin remarked that his "friend the Doctor is an ass, but we jogon very amicably: at present he is in great tribulation, whether his cabinshall be painted french grey or a dead white-I hear little except this

45 See Nora Barlow, "Robert Fitzroy and Charles Darwin", CornhillMagazine, lxxii (1932),493-510.46 See Zachary Cope, The Historyof the Royal Collegeof Surgeons f England (London, I959).Since this has the character of an authorized history, it glosses over the earlier period of socialdifficulties and stressesthat of later successes. However, Newman (Charles Newman, TheEvolu-tionof MedicalEducation n theNineteenthCenturyLondon, 1957), is more specific about the prestigedistinction between the physician (with his university background and affiliation) and thesurgeon whose origins were technical and practical. His brief treatment of the medical (moreproperly surgical) student (pp. 41-47) suggests the differences in social selectivity between thetwo branches of medicine which were occasioned both by the nature and by the costs of therespective training programmes. In more specific terms, the elder John Lubbock expressedperhaps something of the distaste of the upper classes for surgical training when, in a letter dated2I February I849 he requested Richard Owen's help in getting some private instruction inanatomy for his son, then aged I 5: "What occurs to me is that perhaps one of the demonstratorsor lecturers or ["at" intended] Kings College or any of the hospitals would give him three orfour lessons charging so much for each either at their own residence or at my house as I do notwish him to get amongst the students" (Owen Collection, B.M.N.H., f. i8: 76a).47 Actually, until I843, when naval surgeons were first commissioned rather than appointedby warrant, they were in effect second-class officers when compared with executive officers whowere "gentlemen" rather than specialists. Lloyd and Coulter quote one witness before theMilne Commission in i866 as saying: "I think that they [medical officers] are regarded as aninferior class of being altogether [by executive officers]", op. cit. (3), p. 19.


18/18

282 JACOB W. GRUBERsubject from him".48 This when all Darwin or Fitzroy could think of wasthe sufficiency of new instruments or the strength of new scientific powers.At the time of the Beagle's voyage, English natural science was in themidst of that generation of transition whose end was to see the emergenceof a body of professionals whose social position and honour were theproducts of their accomplishments rather than those of their birth. Thesources of the conflicts between Darwin and Fitzroy on the one hand andMcCormick on the other lay, in part at least, in the confusion of socialdefinition which these years were struggling to erase. It was a confusionwithin the social structure of English society within which science and itspractice evolved during the nineteenth century and within which it foundits form. Such factors can be so pervasive and so effective in shaping theprocess of science that they can hardly be felt by those whom they affect.It is for the historian of science to measure their extent, to extract this bitof meaning, as he examines the whole of the intricate pattern through time.AcknowledgementI should like to express my appreciation to the U.S. National ScienceFoundation (G I6I67) and the Faculty Research Committee of TempleUniversity for the support which made possible the collection of thematerials upon which this article is based.

48 Darwin to Henslow, 30 October i83I in Barlow, op. cit. (2), 1967, p. 46.

who was the beagle's naturalist

Documents