Charles Kingsley was, at various times, Regius Professor of
Modern History at the University of Cambridge, Tutor to the future King Edward
VII, Rector of Eversley, Canon of Westminster Abbey and the author of The Water Babies, Hereward the Wake and
Westward Ho!. Of his many books, one that is less familiar is Glaucus that pays homage to the
burgeoning interest in marine Natural History during the mid Nineteenth
Century. It was published in 1855, having first appeared in the North British Review of November 1854,
and the main difference in the two versions is the addition of examples of
creatures from fresh waters in the book, presaging The Water Babies.
Glaucus contains
descriptions of a wide range of algae, invertebrates and vertebrates found
around the coast of Southern Britain, the result of collecting trips on the
rocky, and sandy, shores of Torbay and from dredging expeditions. Fanny,
Charles' wife, spent a period of convalescence at Livermead House in Torquay
(see above) and Charles stayed with her for several months in the spring of
1854, spending much of his time on his hobby. His passion for Natural History,
and for marine biology, was inspired by reading Philip Henry Gosse's books The Aquarium and A Naturalist's Rambles on the Devonshire Coast and there are
frequent references to these in Glaucus,
often with quotations:
The brilliant plates in Mr Gosse's
"Aquarium"...
First and foremost [among works on
Natural History], certainly, come Mr Gosse's books
Mr Gosse, ..by his delightful and,
happily, well-known books has done more for the study of marine zoology than
any other living man.
..Mr Gosse, in his charming "Naturalist's
Rambles on the Devonshire Coast"..
It is clear that Kingsley, nine years younger than Gosse,
had great admiration for the knowledge, and communication skills, of the
older man. Gosse had previously visited Torquay in 1852 [1], and the time spent
there, and in Ilfracombe (Kingsley also moved from Torquay to North Devon),
resulted in A Naturalist's Rambles on the
Devonshire Coast. Kingsley not only eulogised Gosse in Glaucus, he also recommended to anyone that would listen that they
should take field courses offered by Henry Gosse at the time, such was his
significance. It was to Gosse, in London, that Kingsley sent collections that
he had made around Torbay and Henry confirmed his identifications.
The two men became good friends and it was not only marine
Natural History that they had in common, as they must have discovered early in
their conversations. Both came from families that had earlier hit hard times, both loved poetry and both were devout Christians, Gosse
being a member of the Brethren and Kingsley a priest in the Church of England.
They shared a strong dislike of Roman Catholicism, and High Anglicanism, and
this was expressed openly in their writing (although Kingsley did use the term
"Hanoverian rats" for brown rats, a term that he may have borrowed
from the staunchly Catholic Charles Waterton). Whereas Henry Gosse was to become the leader of his own small group
of Brethren, to whom he preached each Sunday, Kingsley was a country rector and
ended as a Canon of Westminster Abbey, with many coming to hear his sermons,
despite his tendency to stutter [2].
Another contrast between the two men was the lack
of any wish to become part of the Establishment shown by Gosse, and the pleasure in
recognition at Court shown by Kingsley, that included many invitations to meet
Queen Victoria and Prince Albert [2]. They also differed in their formal education, Kingsley
being a student at Cambridge University while Gosse was largely self educated,
having left school to work as a clerk at 16; then being sent to Newfoundland
for similar employment when he was just 17 years old [3]. However, one of his
aunts was an enthusiastic Naturalist and showed the young Henry many creatures on the
shore around Poole in Dorset, just has she had done her own son, Thomas Bell, who trained as a surgeon
and whose interest in marine organisms led to his appointment as Professor of
Zoology at King's College London. Bell was an important contact for Henry when
he was seeking to publish his first book, based on his experiences of the
Natural History of Newfoundland and, in time, Henry Gosse, like Bell, was recognised for his
scientific achievements in being made a Fellow of the Royal Society.
Gosse and Kingsley reacted differently to developing ideas
on geological time scales, and evolution, current in the first half of the Nineteenth Century,
culminating in Darwin's On the Origin of
Species of 1859. Gosse knew that the presence of fossils and
rock strata showed that the Earth had been in existence for many millions of
years but, as a literalist who believed in the description of Creation in
The Holy Bible, then produced a theory that attempted to resolve the two positions. His book, Omphalos, was published in 1857. Put simply, Gosse theorised that Creation took place as described in Genesis,
but that all the strata and fossils were prochronic, or before time, being
created with the impression of some previous existence. Clearly the idea is
preposterous and it was derided by both the scientific and religious
communities.
Taking time to respond after reading Omphalos, Kingsley wrote to
Gosse in 1858 [3], stating:
..Nothing can be fairer than the
way in which you state the evidence for the microchronology [this is a
reference to the first section of Omphalos
in which Gosse sets out the evidence for geological time scales – the
macrochronology, not microchronology, as Kingsley states [3]]. That at once
bound me to listen respectfully to all you had to say after. And, much as I
kicked and winced at first, nothing, I find, can be sounder than your parallels
and precedents [where Gosse refers to a wide range of organisms that had
just been created]. The one case of the coccus-mother (though every conceivable
instance goes to prove your argument) would be enough for me, assuming the act
of absolute creation. Assuming that – which I have always assumed, as fully as you –
shall I tell you the truth? It is best. Your book is the first that ever made
me doubt it, and I fear it will make hundreds do so. Your book tends to prove
this – that if we accept the fact of absolute creation, God becomes a Deus quidam deceptor. I do not mean
merely in the case of fossils which pretend
to be the bones of dead animals; but in the one single case of your newly
created scars on the pandanus trunk, and your newly created Adam's navel, you
make God tell a lie..
In the letter, Kingsley shows his support for Creation, but
clearly not for the theory put forward in Omphalos
for prochronic existence. His opposition hinged on his view that Gosse was
proposing an idea that appeared to show that God was deceiving us. Even after
Darwin published On the Origin of Species
in 1859, Gosse continued to maintain a literal Creationist stance, as did some
other noted figures, like the French entomologist Jean-Henri Fabre [4].
Kingsley didn't feel the theory of evolution to be a threat to his religious
beliefs and he was able to shift his views in the light of changing, and developing,
opinion. He was still a Creationist, as is clear in his letter to Gosse, but
with a looser view; that all organisms were designed by God and could then
become subject to change, also under the control of the Creator. In Glaucus, published in 1855, before both Omphalos (1857) and On the Origin of Species (1859), Kingsley had written:
Let us speak freely a few words on
this important matter. Geology has disproved the old popular belief that the
universe was brought into being, as it now exists, by a single fiat. We know
that the work has been gradual: that the earth "In tracts of fluent heat
began, The seeming prey of cyclic storms, The home of seeming random forms,
Till, at the last, arose the man." And we know, also, that these forms, seeming
random as they are, have appeared according to a law, which, as far as we can
judge, has been only the whole one of progress, - lower animals (though we
cannot say, the lowest) appearing first, and man, the highest mammal, "the
roof and crown of things," one of the latest in the series..
..Let us, therefore, say boldly,
that there has been a "progress of species," and there may be again,
in the true sense of that term: but say, as boldly, that the Transmutation
theory is not one of a progress of species
at all, which would be a change in the idea of the species, taking place in the
Divine Mind, - in plain words, the creation of a new species. What the
Transmutationists really mean, if they would express themselves clearly, or
carefully analyze their own notions, is, a physical and actual change, not of
species, but of individuals, of
already existing living beings, created according to one idea, into other
living beings, created according to another idea.
It was thus relatively easy for Kingsley to become a proponent
of the ideas set out in On the Origin of
Species four years later and his support was appreciated by
Darwin. In Fraser's magazine [5], Kingsley wrote:
..if any one shall hint to us that
we and the birds may have sprung originally from the same type; that the
difference between our intellect and theirs is one of degree, and not of kind,
we may believe or doubt: but in either case we shall not be greatly moved. So
much the better for the birds, we will say, and none the worse for us. You
raise the birds towards us, but you do not lower us towards them. What we are,
we are by the grace of God. Our own powers and the burden of them we know full
well. It does not lessen their dignity or their beauty in our eyes to hear that
the birds of the air partake, even a little, of the same gifts of God as we. Of
old said St Guthlac in Crowland, as the swallows sat upon his knee, "He
who leads his life according to the will of God, to him the wild deer and wild
birds draw more near;" and this new theory of yours may prove St Guthlac
right. St Francis, too, he called the birds his brothers. Whether he was
correct, either theologically or zoologically, he was plainly free from that
fear of being mistaken for an ape, which haunts so many in these modern times..
This view, supporting the similarities between living
organisms, and thus the possibility of evolution, also provides opposition to
the view, held by many literal Creationists, that everything was created for
the benefit of humans. As Lynn Barber points out [6]:
..Kingsley exposed the question of
usefulness to man for what it was: a red herring. The existence of so many
different species in Nature was, he asserted, inexplicable on any
anthropocentric basis.. ..There was no need
to prove that everything in Nature was created for man's benefit. There was no
scriptural authority for suggesting that it was. Kingsley's explanation was
sufficient. God had created everything for His own enjoyment.
Given their opposition, it is difficult to imagine that
Kingsley and Gosse could ever meet again on close terms although, as with Kingsley's
help given to Henry over his son's application for a position at the British
Museum Library, respect was not lost between the two men. Conflicts based on
differences of opinion on the writings in Holy Books often seem to occur and the Creation debate certainly caused conflicts for some Christian believers in the
Nineteenth Century and the debate continues today. It is difficult to sympathise
with Henry Gosse on this issue and the flexible approach of Kingsley fits the
evidence much better. Such conflicts are confusing when viewed from the outside
and I am grateful that I do not believe in the supernatural.
Omphalos intrigues
me and I have posted about the book before [7]. We know that Henry Gosse was
challenged, it was the time of the painful fatal illness of his first wife, and
he was very conscious that the Second Coming was imminent. Even those reasons
cannot explain why he came up with the idea of prochronic existence and then be
surprised that others didn't go along with it. Unfortunately, Gosse was unable to move his position because he was constrained by the straitjacket of
his own religious beliefs.
[1] Ann Thwaite (2002) Glimpses
of the Wonderful: The Life of Philip Henry Gosse 1810-1888. London, Faber
and Faber.
[2] Susan Chitty (1974) The
Beast and the Monk: A Life of Charles Kingsley. London, Hodder and
Stoughton.
[3] Edmund Gosse (1896) The
Naturalist of the Sea-Shore: the Life of Philip Henry Gosse. London,
William Heinemann.
[5] Charles Kingsley (1867) A Charm of Birds. Fraser's magazine for town and country 75:
802-810.
[6] Lynn Barber (1980) The
Heyday of Natural History 1820-1870. London, Jonathan Cape.
No comments:
Post a Comment