Charles Darwin, HMS Beagle and the New Era in the History of Biology

This is a rather special occasion in the sense that we have had several

sessions on Darwin, one that goes back by about 30 years

when Bruce Hunt gave his first talk to British study. So we’re very glad that

Bruce is back with us. And during the afternoon, we will be able to benefit from

the scientific knowledge of Philip Levine. Our speaker

is. John Allen is. And the title of the talk is

Her Majesty’s Beagle. His Majesty’s Beagle in the new era of history of biology.

John is in the Institute of Historical Studies and the History Department.

He’s taught at the University of California and he has recently

completed a monograph, Darwin in the Deep Marine

Invertebrates, Evolutionary Methodologies and the Emergence of

Natural Selection. John.

First of all, thank you, everybody, for joining me on this rainy and then very humid and sticky

day. I appreciate it. I’m very glad that my socks are not wet.

And I’m very happy to be here with such esteemed colleagues. As

as was said, I recently completed my monograph, which is thank you.

Which I’m happy to reemerge from the dark room of which the library of which I was working and

come back and share a couple of questions with you

that my research is sort of exposed for me specifically on the conjunction between

social context, specifically British imperialism and the formation of scientific

knowledge. As I’ve already

said, my my forthcoming book, Darwin in the Deep, examines the formulation of Darwin’s

theory of evolution. How is the theory itself developed?

Instead of focusing on Darwin specifically, if we want to look at mechanisms or the way

that the way that scientific method always change over time, I don’t focus on the people.

Instead, I have shifted this onto a study of objects. The specimens that are handed

down generation to generation to generation and seeing how

each person. Each of these these cohorts

makes sense of these objects specifically I found out that these crazy marine invertebrates

known as cry. noise, which always creeped me out. But they

crawl around and they fly. It’s it’s very disturbing, but they show up with amazing regularity

from the very beginning of paleontology or what I call zoĂ geology

in the term of the people of the time to right before the ablution debates, the speciation,

debates, extinction debates leading up into Darwin after. And even Darwin’s disciples

continue to use these. One thing that I’m fond of, fond of saying vestiges of natural

history, creation. The anonymous book that happened right before evolutionary book

happened right before on the Origin of Species mentioned Chri. Noit’s

twice as much as the creator in this particular

text. So I was surprised. I didn’t know what they were. And it’s so strange. So I had to find out and it ended

up becoming a book. So as part of this,

of course, one of the major episodes in the formation

of natural selection as a theory and as a practice as well, as I argue,

was Darwin’s voyage. But aboard His Majesty’s ship, Beagle, commanded by, of course,

Captain Robert Fitzroy, sailed from 1831 to 1836, being

one of the major first British versions of this old geological

research that goes out on an expedition. And Charles Darwin famously acted as companion

and gentleman naturalist aboard this expedition.

It was aboard this voyage that Darwin himself collected the raw material

that he later used to secretly formulate his theory of natural selection.

And I say secretly and that he was involved with a lot of geological debates. He’s very nervous about

letting his zoĂ geological his evolutionary work out into the public or out in front

of his colleagues. Too early before you, before he had enough evidence, before he could defend

such a contentious idea. And so here’s where he gets his specimen.

This is where he develops the beginnings, the seeds of his ideas.

In fact, most other elite members of the evolutionary debates later on or the species debates before Darwin

also had a company. Naval expeditions, much like this one in some capacity.

And I’ll talk about them a little bit more in the future. And most of them actually admired Darwin’s voyage.

A lot of them speak about walking in Darwin’s footsteps or saying they sell the same tree or the same

objects that Darwin had seen aboard this voyage itself.

This also means they shared a commonality as experts in marine invertebrate

zoology. Again, this is one of those moments when the objects,

the practice of going aboard the voyage, the objects they actually pick up along the voyage,

give them this common experience and an object that they can use to negotiate and argue over

their AGIS. I have, however, run into something of a problem

regarding what context is important to my story. Every historian,

when we write a narrative, we have to choose what is good context, what really mattered. What

is interesting for the reader to know at the time, but what falls into the background

and this gets to the core of something in history that I find really, really

important for me to to have to do in terms of writing my book, but also towards

something that happened here many years ago, C.P. Snow and so forth, asking what is the boundary between scientific

knowledge and this historical context? The practice of history. What role do they really

play on each other? How do they collide, if at all? Specifically,

I want to know what social factors were most pertinent

to the Valot ment of Darwin’s theory. What do I actually put as

important in my argument? There is, of course, a deeper question

running beneath this project. What role do overarching social factors such as

those we study in British studies. Right. And my other colleagues in other departments.

What other factors play a part in historical events? The study of causation

is important not only to historians, but also to those who wish to build something from our historical narratives.

We can use these building blocks for policy social programs and to better understand

how we can act in a more moral, more informed way.

So Isaac Newton once famously said that if he sees any further, he does so

because he stands on the shoulders of giants. This particular instance I stand in between them,

which is a very nerve racking thing, especially for a young scholar in Darwin.

Studies consider on one hand the work of Adrian Desmond, who situates the development

of evolutionary theories in radical 1830s London politics.

To him, corn laws, slavery and potential revolution were

one of the primary shaping forces, as he argues, of biological

theories. During this period. So here we have on one side that the corn

laws, the politics and the people who are situated scientists are people as well

situated within these politics, too, that they are guided primarily by some of these factors.

He doesn’t argue that it’s the only factor. But he says it is a large one.

I believe that there is an assumption about the effects of politics on the readership and assimilation

of scientific knowledge embedded within his argument. It implies a sort

of. As it is where flattening of historical

causality. I want to ask what role do two common people lay people

play and what influence do they have on the durability of scientific

ideas? I believe they have one, but I think it’s time to ask what is it?

Or juxtapose this to the other person on my other side who is Sandra

Herbert’s Charles Darwin geologist.

Here, center. Herbert actually follows Charles Darwin’s career. It’s more of

a disciplinary study. How did he get trained in geology? What specimens did he

use, which of course is important to my own argument? And then how did people make sense of them?

Senator Herbert primarily focus on individual actors as discrete units of historical

causation. So what what role did British imperialism play for Darwin specifically?

Darwin desires adventure. He’d already planned to take a scientific trip to the tropics

before he’d been offered the position aboard the Beagle. There is also

so in some sense she says that if there is a role that imperialism played, but it was not necessarily

a large when it was an honest one, but not very much in reality, the cause Darwin’s desire

for scientific adventure to make a name for himself was enough. To explain

what he did. I also believe there may be a potential prospective

bias in this account. She states that the Beagle crew took

only maps with them. From their expedition,

but I believe this to be incorrect. Specifically,

I want to talk about the people on this picture. That may seem in the background.

Specifically, the indigenous peoples who are taken on the first

the first voyage of the Beagle by Captain Fitzroy taken back to England

as captives or purchased people. Taught English.

Good Christian morals. And then sent back to spread

British ideas and civility to the rest of South America.

It didn’t work, by the way. 2/7,

these people have names. Your coach, Lou L.E. Peru

or in Delco. And one person who is forgotten renamed bote Memory,

ironically. And we’ve lost. He died of smallpox and we do not remember

his name now. So.

I’ll talk about this as a potential cause to remember more fully who is aboard the Beagle

at this time and why the Beagle expedition was put out for a second, a

second voyage. But first, I want to stop. And ask

how does one actually establish historical causation? How do we know what is important?

And a historical story. From this, I’m going to pull from my experience

in philosophy of history, as well as a pistol policy, which I am not an epistemology ist, I study people

who study epistemology. So if there are any philosophers here, I’m so sorry,

but bear with me as I as I talk about this.

There is a there is an example that people use when talking about historical causation, let

us say that somewhere in this building a match is struck, dropped accidentally.

And part of the ransom center or wherever you are, burns down. Let’s say that a lawyer

or historian asks what caused this fire. We could

say, of course, that is the striking of the match. The dropping of it, the negligence, the presence

of that action. That is the cause, in which case I believe that would be true.

However, a clever lawyer or perhaps an UN clever lawyer might instead argue

that it was the presence of oxygen in the room. Instead, that is a cause of the

fire. In fact, it is necessary. For there to be oxygen

in a room, for a fire to happen. However, in terms of history, I would say this is sort of normal. It just sort of falls

in the background. We assume that oxygen is there. There are moments when that doesn’t matter. Actually, that’s not the case,

in which case, for example, a chemical factory in which the introduction of oxygen into a

process actually does become a call. Is it a factor? If there is an error auctioneer’s presence,

fire begins. So how do we distinguish between these two?

What is important and what is not?

First, I’m going to say that there are two things that I’m going to use. The first is the

condition of counter factuality. What does that mean? The condition of counter factuality says

that every time we make a historical claim, the match caused the fire.

There isn’t a company accompanying opposite claim. If it were not for the match,

the fire would not have happened. So we create a counterfactual history

and we say that it was an important part of it. Without this thing, the event would not have happened.

However, the second one is a mechanistic connection. For example, if you flip a light

switch, you can say the light switch caused an electronic device to come on because it

allows the electrical current to be able to flow where it wasn’t before. And that mechanism

can be shown to cause that effect of the light. So.

But I’m going to go through specifically or someone from the primary documents and it looks

straight back into the primary documents and ask, can I find or do I find

imperial connections, direct imperial connections that meet these two conditions?

Right. Specifically, I’m going to talk about cultural assimilation first.

We understand that historical causation is complex. There are multiple factors that go into it.

So we’ll look directly again at this. At this matter in the primary material

for it. In Fitzroy’s narrative.

We have him explain that the Beagle expedition originally was not

going to be sent out a second time. This is important because

Robert Fitzroy had given his word as a gentleman that he would return these children

back to their hometown, to their mothers and fathers. And when the British

Empire, the MLT, decided that they were not going to send the expedition, he protested,

Fitzroy was a rather passionate man, one who held his word here. I’m saying

an understatement, obviously. And he, um. He wanted to keep his word. In fact, one of the people,

boat. memory had already died from smallpox, and that weighed heavily upon his conscience.

He protested to the Admiralty, and already it was in the process

of chartering his own boat to take himself and

these captives back to South America, to drop them off specifically

in their tribe, because he knew that if they were dropped off in any other tribe or any other community, they’d probably be killed.

And you didn’t trust their captain to be able to drop them off exactly where they were before.

I quote from his specific narrative and other primary documents, I agree with this, that

an entire change, he said, had taken place in the views of the Lords of the Admiralty not to send

the second expedition and there was no intention to prosecute the second survey. I naturally

became anxious about the FEAGINS after he protested

the amulti changes its mind specifically, and a number of people actually inquire

about this changing of of the mind of the Admiralty. Specifically, I want to point out Rev.

William Wilson. Who asked Captain Fitzroy if it was OK to

send a missionary along with him on the voyage in order to and I quote, extend the benefits

of civilization, meaning their culture and their religion to the

Cajuns. So I would argue that, in fact,

one of the direct causes of the second voyage, the one that Charles Darwin had been a part of,

was in fact directly tied to this cultural assimilation that

was on the part of both Fitzroy and through Fitzroy, the Admiralty as well.

Let’s go into mechanism then, can we actually say that? All right. The voids win out. But what about

Darwin? What about Darwin’s collecting of the specimens? Maybe that was just context in the background.

And instead, it wasn’t directly connected to his collection.

But I want to argue that in addition to the previous my previous point, each of the survey

points was chosen for the strategic imperial value. That’s just one example.

When the letter from Francis Buford, the hydrographer of the Navy,

was giving his orders for the Beagle and to Fitzroy, he had actually mentioned

each of the stops and what they were supposed to survey for.

What scientific thing they were going to investigate and the reasons behind it. So you so Fitzherbert would

know when to stop because Fitzroy’s sometimes didn’t know that. And so

he said at one point, for example, between these two bodies of water fits where you don’t need to survey

them completely specifically. Why is because it is not likely

that for the purposes of either war or commerce, a much more detailed survey

account will be necessary. When it even comes down to the study of

coral reefs, it is because they don’t want their naval ships,

their armies if necessary, or their commercial vessels, vessels hopefully

to sink when they are coming to trade or otherwise influence South

America. So I can say

that, in fact, every stop that Darwin made along the way.

Was specifically guided, literally guided by an imperial agenda.

This was surprising to me. Originally, I was a little more skeptical of this account,

but I want to argue now that imperial context matches both

factors, both mechanistic and direct

counterfactual for establishing historical causality. We know that at least one major

factor. Was British imperialism.

This is contrasted to, for example, the corn laws, which I think are important in the conversation

about the reception of evolutionary ideas, but perhaps not, they don’t

actually meet the causation necessary to make this hard claim. And this is me sort of switching

sides, as it were, to say from one into the other.

Cautious causation, I might say.

There are consequences and implications to my point, I can make this about the Beagle

voyage. But again, what I’m invested in is not focusing too too hard

on Darwin himself. I think that Darwin was a part of a larger network, a group of people

who were all arguing over natural selection. One individual, one argument means

nothing in science unless other people pick it up or other people are willing to engage with it.

So what I did in this chapter was to step back

and say, OK. We can say this for the Beagle voyage. What does it mean on a larger network level?

If we say that imperial context actually did have a direct causative effect, what was that effect?

I can look at the voyage of HMS Beacon, which Edward Faubus was deployed on.

Edward Forbes was a Manx naturalist. Specifically, he looked at marine invertebrates.

These crazy cry noise I was talking about before, and he wants to know what they say about the boundary

between species. How do we know the relationship between species in his mind?

He’s talking about the creation of God and what is in the mind of God when he created one starfish

versus another. What does that tell us about his plan for nature?

Originally, he was not going to be a professor. He was

having a difficult time getting a position or post, and he was going from place to place,

giving lectures and so forth, doing his research projects, but he wasn’t getting any sort of break

until the captain of the HMS Beacon contacted him and said, would you please

come with me, be my Darwin? In a sense, come with me and survey

the GNC. He did. He researched these starfish.

He established the limits of undersea life, how far deep it

goes. He ended the voyage a little bit early because

he was actually given the fame that he got from this voyage, gave him enough prestige,

then be appointed to argue for and then be appointed to a position the University of College of London,

which as soon as you heard he had a chance, he ran back. He got the position. I would, too.

He actually coined the term zoĂ geology. For the purposes of this lecture or this talk of sociology

is paleontology, but it’s actually a zoological question. So what is the history

of life? Right. Both living things as well as their their

fossils. Oh, no. It doesn’t work out in this one. This

is T.H. Huxley. I apologize for this. T.H. Huxley is known as Darwin’s Bulldog,

right? Teach Huxley was actually originally down on his luck as well.

Right. He was born to a poor family. He wanted to study medicine to be able to

conduct science, to become a naturalist. And so he enrolls in medical school,

gets a position aboard the rattlesnake and is sent out on his own voyage.

He is trained specifically. By Forbes. Because

of this imperial connection, the captain introduces. Huxley

to Forbes saying here is a man who has already been apart, has done something very similar to what you’re going

to do. And I want you to learn from him. And he trains him in so geology.

Huxley then goes on to do his research on biological individuality.

Right. So what is the difference between these, again, marine invertebrates that seem

to be able to break apart and live separately, but also come back together, which is again, this question of species?

Or we can look at Joseph Hooker. Later on. Who wanted to

make a name for himself. So like the man that he admired, Charles Darwin,

he got a position, a medical position, trained for his medical position, specifically for

this voyage, went out aboard the HMS Arabists.

And we sent down to Antarctica and to Australia to do a survey.

Now he is actually interested in botany, but in many of these areas

that he’s going to go, there are very few plants, right? Instead,

Ross, the captain, is deeply interested in Marine sedimentation. What are these

Marine invertebrate things in living in the water that are going to die and fall and turn

into rocks later on? He hooker then becomes

interested and an active participant in this again. zoĂ geology following in the footsteps

of Darwin and the other people who came before him.

Actually, what happens to the the specimen that it collects, Ross comes back.

Sadly, one of his children die. His family life is very difficult and he falls into depression.

And the the actual specimens end up becoming destroyed and ruined. And

every time Hooker sees or so you see somebody speaking about Marine sedimentation or marine invertebrate biology,

he says that he’s, you know, racked with pain of a lost opportunity to do more research or contribute to

this. We again ask.

What is the role of British imperialism to the development of

this evolutionary program? There’s old geological programme. These core people run

as a who’s who list of Darwinian importance. Right.

Forbes was the person right after Charles Lyle. Should he

die? It was a little concerned about dying at all points of his life. Should he die?

He wanted his manuscript to go to somebody that would be able to work on it and publish it. First person was

Charles Lyle. The second person was Edward Forbes, Darwin’s bulldog. Huxley,

his right hand man, hooker used the Darwinian elite, even the people who are

not the DA, who are anti Darwinian, such as Louis Ghazi, who’s over

in America. Have similar experiences in their own imperial context.

So their prestige, their specimens, their ability to to

actually be able to participate in this debate are directly tied again

to these imperial agendas.

I don’t mean to overstate my point. Right. I don’t believe

that all of this was a product, all the practices, all the specimens were procured

from imperial sources. That’s not true. I give the counterexample to

myself in the British Association for the Advancement of Science Dredging Committee, which was, of course,

mainly orchestrated by Forbes himself. So perhaps there is a deeper imperial connection there.

But I don’t believe it actually meets the conditions I was talking about before. I believe somebody else

might have stepped up to be able to run this particular committee

in this particular instance. What happens is you have these gentlemanly naturalists who know as part

of good middle class summertime activities that go sailing, they take these baskets

or nets, they throw them overboard. They’re going to dredge along. They’re going to to sort of collect along the bottom

of the ocean floor to collect these specimens. And then they’re going to meet together to actually talk

about what that means, what they found. It’s actually breeding those those particular archives

as fun. They’re very nerdy. I like them a lot. However,

in this particular instance, the. The individuals themselves,

the committee itself makes calls for zoĂ geological specimens, for specific research

on evolutionary research or the species question,

which are of course very influential to the debate in general over evolutionary theory. And so

I want to say that not all of these practices are the result of imperial agendas.

This is the most salient instance when that was not the case. But it is one

of the few instances that I think I can find that meet the same condition of, say, Forbes

and Huxley and Hooker and Darwin. I’ll make this

case, of course, as a historian, as a scholar in general, you have to put these ideas into words

because you have to print something in your book. As my publisher is very keen on me saying.

This is how we were, did it? I am very nervous about this wording because I am still not sure and I would

like to ask your help or expertise and feedback about

this, because I think it’s a question that we all share in some sense together. What do we make

of our studies in the British Empire and so forth? What? What is its its

influence? Of course, the evolutionary program was intimately connected to British

imperialism, but imperialism by itself did not cause the emergence of

the discipline. I still think I can’t help but feel like I’m making an understatement

in some sense. I’m convinced that there’s more to it there. I think that

like I said, as I’ve researched this, more and more of the British connections just become more pronounced.

But how to frame that causation has plagued me and I think

actually my discipline for many generations. So I bring it up again.

We’re left where I’m left, and I hope to share with you a couple of questions that I think come out

of this. Specifically, I want to ask, where do we go from here?

We know we had this case study and we all study our own case studies, we all study our own little

corners of this problem. I offer this one as a joint project,

at least for now, of what do we do with this? How does this affect your research

in some sense? Because I want to know, I’m very invested in the consequences of my claim

for all of us. Is this an adequate measure of causation, causation

is an incredibly difficult thing. I think a lot of people have spoken about it in philosophy and history. I’ve never

been quite convinced that anybody has really done. A job

that solves it. And so I dont think I have. But I think

this is potentially a step in the right direction. I’d like your feedback on that.

And then at a wider level, I’d like to ask. I believe the British

imperialism is important, obviously. In what ways was it important?

I think it’s time to start asking this question and what were the contexts and limitations

of what we say it did? In history, especially something as complicated

as science itself, which purports at times to be so separated from this other culture of history

and society in general. That I want to give a lot of time

for discussion. And so I’m going to go ahead and wrap up there. Thank

you very much.