POSITION IN THE HISTORY OF SCIENCE; OPINIONS OF HIS CONTEMPORARIES AND
SOME LATER BIOLOGISTS
De Blainville, a worthy successor of Lamarck, in his posthumous book,
_Cuvier et Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire_, pays the highest tribute to his
predecessor, whose position as the leading naturalist of his time he
fully and gratefully acknowledges, saying: "Among the men whose lectures
I have had the advantage of hearing, I truly recognize only three
masters, M. de Lamarck, M. Claude Richard, and M. Pinel" (p. 43). He
also speaks of wishing to write the scientific biographies of Cuvier and
De Lamarck, the two zoölogists of this epoch whose lectures he most
frequently attended and whose writings he studied, and "who have
exercised the greatest influence on the zoölogy of our time" (p. 42).
Likewise in the opening words of the preface he refers to the rank taken
by Lamarck:
"The aim which I have proposed to myself in my course on the
principles of zoölogy demonstrated by the history of its progress
from Aristotle to our time, and consequently the plan which I have
followed to attain this aim, have very naturally led me, so to
speak, in spite of myself, to signalize in M. de Lamarck the
expression of one of those phases through which the science of
organization has to pass in order to arrive at its last term before
showing its true aim. From my point of view this phase does not seem
to me to have been represented by any other naturalist of our time,
whatever may have been the reputation which he made during his
life."
He then refers to the estimation in which Lamarck was held by Auguste
Comte, who, in his _Cours de Philosophie Positive_, has anticipated and
even surpassed himself in the high esteem he felt for "the celebrated
author of the _Philosophie Zoologique_."
The eulogy by Cuvier, which gives most fully the details of the early
life of Lamarck, and which has been the basis for all the subsequent
biographical sketches, was unworthy of him. Lamarck had, with his
customary self-abnegation and generosity, aided and favored the young
Cuvier in the beginning of his career,[50] who in his _Règne Animal_
adopted the classes founded by Lamarck. Thoroughly convinced of the
erroneous views of Cuvier in regard to cataclysms, he criticised and
opposed them in his writings in a courteous and proper way without
directly mentioning Cuvier by name or entering into any public debate
with him.
When the hour came for the great comparative anatomist and
palæontologist, from his exalted position, to prepare a tribute to the
memory of a naturalist of equal merit and of a far more thoughtful and
profound spirit, to be read before the French Academy of Sciences, what
a eulogy it was--as De Blainville exclaims, _et quel éloge_! It was not
printed until after Cuvier's death, and then, it is stated, portions
were omitted as not suitable for publication.[51] This is, we believe,
the only stain on Cuvier's life, and it was unworthy of the great man.
In this _éloge_, so different in tone from the many others which are
collected in the three volumes of Cuvier's eulogies, he indiscriminately
ridicules all of Lamarck's theories. Whatever may have been his
condemnation of Lamarck's essays on physical and chemical subjects, he
might have been more reserved and less dogmatic and sarcastic in his
estimate of what he supposed to be the value of Lamarck's views on
evolution. It was Cuvier's adverse criticisms and ridicule and his
anti-evolutional views which, more than any other single cause, retarded
the progress of biological science and the adoption of a working theory
of evolution for which the world had to wait half a century.
It even appears that Lamarck was in part instrumental in inducing Cuvier
in 1795 to go to Paris from Normandy, and become connected with the
Museum. De Blainville relates that the Abbé Tessier met the young
zoölogist at Valmont near Fécamp, and wrote to Geoffroy that "he had
just discovered in Normandy a pearl," and invited him to do what he
could to induce Cuvier to come to Paris. "I made," said Geoffroy, "the
proposition to my _confrères_, but I was supported, and only feebly, by
M. de Lamarck, who slightly knew M. Cuvier as the author of a memoir on
entomology."
The eulogy pronounced by Geoffroy St. Hilaire over the remains of his
old friend and colleague was generous, sympathetic, and heartfelt.
"Yes [he said, in his eloquent way], for us who knew M. de Lamarck,
whom his counsels have guided, whom we have found always
indefatigable, devoted, occupied so willingly with the most
difficult labors, we shall not fear to say that such a loss leaves
in our ranks an immense void. From the blessings of such a life, so
rich in instructive lessons, so remarkable for the most generous
self-abnegation, it is difficult to choose.
"A man of vigorous, profound ideas, and very often admirably
generalized, Lamarck conceived them with a view to the public good.
If he met, as often happened, with great opposition, he spoke of it
as a condition imposed on every one who begins a reform. Moreover,
the great age, the infirmities, but especially the grievous
blindness of M. de Lamarck had reserved for him another lot. This
great and strong mind could enjoy some consolation in knowing the
judgment of posterity, which for him began in his own lifetime. When
his last tedious days, useless to science, had arrived, when he had
ceased to be subjected to rivalry, envy and passion became
extinguished and justice alone remained. De Lamarck then heard
impartial voices, the anticipated echo of posterity, which would
judge him as history will judge him. Yes, the scientific world has
pronounced its judgment in giving him the name of 'the French
Linné,' thus linking together the two men who have both merited a
triple crown by their works on general natural history, zoölogy and
botany, and whose names, increasing in fame from age to age, will
both be handed down to the remotest posterity."[52]
Also in his _Études sur la Vie, les Ouvrages, et les Doctrines de
Buffon_ (1838), Geoffroy again, with much warmth of affection, says:
"Attacked on all sides, injured likewise by odious ridicule,
Lamarck, too indignant to answer these cutting epigrams, submitted
to the indignity with a sorrowful patience.... Lamarck lived a long
while poor, blind, and forsaken, but not by me; I shall ever love
and venerate him."[53]
The following evidently heartfelt and sincere tribute to his memory,
showing warm esteem and thorough respect for Lamarck, and also a
confident feeling that his lasting fame was secure, is to be found in an
obscure little book[54] containing satirical, humorous, but perhaps not
always fair or just, characterizations and squibs concerning the
professors and aid-naturalists of the Jardin des Plantes.
"What head will not be uncovered on hearing pronounced the name of
the man whose genius was ignored and who languished steeped in
bitterness. Blind, poor, forgotten, he remained alone with a glory
of whose extent he himself was conscious, but which only the coming
ages will sanction, when shall be revealed more clearly the laws of
organization.
"Lamarck, thy abandonment, sad as it was in thy old age, is better
than the ephemeral glory of men who only maintain their reputation
by sharing in the errors of their time.
"Honor to thee! Respect to thy memory! Thou hast died in the breach
while fighting for truth, and the truth assures thee immortality."
Lamarck's theoretical views were not known in Germany until many years
after his death. Had Goethe, his contemporary (1749-1832), known of
them, he would undoubtedly have welcomed his speculations, have
expressed his appreciation of them, and Lamarck's reputation would, in
his own lifetime, have raised him from the obscurity of his later years
at Paris.
Hearty appreciation, though late in the century, came from Ernst
Haeckel, whose bold and suggestive works have been so widely read. In
his _History of Creation_ (1868) he thus estimates Lamarck's work as a
philosopher:
"To him will always belong the immortal glory of having for the
first time worked out the theory of descent, as an independent
scientific theory of the first order, and as the philosophical
foundation of the whole science of biology."
Referring to the _Philosophie Zoologique_, he says:
"This admirable work is the first connected exposition of the theory
of descent carried out strictly into all its consequences. By its
purely mechanical method of viewing organic nature, and the strictly
philosophical proofs brought forward in it, Lamarck's work is raised
far above the prevailing dualistic views of his time; and with the
exception of Darwin's work, which appeared just half a century
later, we know of none which we could, in this respect, place by the
side of the _Philosophie Zoologique_. How far it was in advance of
its time is perhaps best seen from the circumstance that it was not
understood by most men, and for fifty years was not spoken of at
all. Cuvier, Lamarck's greatest opponent, in his _Report on the
Progress of Natural Science_, in which the most unimportant
anatomical investigations are enumerated, does not devote a single
word to this work, which forms an epoch in science. Goethe, also,
who took such a lively interest in the French nature-philosophy and
in the 'thoughts of kindred minds beyond the Rhine,' nowhere
mentions Lamarck, and does not seem to have known the _Philosophie
Zoologique_ at all."
Again in 1882 Haeckel writes:[55]
"We regard it as a truly tragic fact that the _Philosophie
Zoologique_ of Lamarck, one of the greatest productions of the great
literary period of the beginning of our century, received at first
only the slightest notice, and within a few years became wholly
forgotten.... Not until fully fifty years later, when Darwin
breathed new life into the transformation views founded therein, was
the buried treasure again recovered, and we cannot refrain from
regarding it as the most complete presentation of the development
theory before Darwin.
"While Lamarck clearly expressed all the essential fundamental ideas
of our present doctrine of descent; and excites our admiration at
the depth of his morphological knowledge, he none the less surprises
us by the prophetic (_vorausschauende_) clearness of his
physiological conceptions."
In his views on life, the nature of the will and reason, and other
subjects, Haeckel declares that Lamarck was far above most of his
contemporaries, and that he sketched out a programme of the biology of
the future which was not carried out until our day.
J. Victor Carus[56] also claims for Lamarck "the lasting merit of having
been the first to have placed the theory (of descent) on a scientific
foundation."
The best, most catholic, and just exposition of Lamarck's views, and
which is still worth reading, is that by Lyell Chapters XXXIV.-XXXVI. of
his _Principles of Geology_, 1830, and though at that time one would not
look for an acceptance of views which then seemed extraordinary and,
indeed, far-fetched, Lyell had no words of satire and ridicule, only a
calm, able statement and discussion of his principles. Indeed, it is
well known that when, in after years, his friend Charles Darwin
published his views, Lyell expressed some leaning towards the older
speculations of Lamarck.
Lyell's opinions as to the interest and value of Lamarck's ideas may be
found in his _Life and Letters_, and also in the _Life and Letters of
Charles Darwin_. In the chapter, _On the Reception of the Origin of
Species_, by Huxley, are the following extracts from Lyell's _Letters_
(ii., pp. 179-204). In a letter addressed to Mantell (dated March 2,
1827), Lyell speaks of having just read Lamarck; he expresses his
delight at Lamarck's theories, and his personal freedom from any
objections based on theological grounds. And though he is evidently
alarmed at the pithecoid origin of man involved in Lamarck's doctrine,
he observes: "But, after all, what changes species may really undergo!
How impossible will it be to distinguish and lay down a line beyond
which some of the so-called extinct species have never passed into
recent ones?"
He also quotes a remarkable passage in the postscript to a letter
written to Sir John Herschel in 1836: "In regard to the origination of
new species, I am very glad to find that you think it probable it may be
carried on through the intervention of intermediate causes."
How nearly Lyell was made a convert to evolution by reading Lamarck's
works may be seen by the following extracts from his letters, quoted by
Huxley:
"I think the old 'creation' is almost as much required as ever, but
of course it takes a new form if Lamarck's views, improved by yours,
are adopted." (To Darwin, March 11, 1863, p. 363.)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"As to Lamarck, I find that Grove, who has been reading him, is
wonderfully struck with his book. I remember that it was the
conclusion he (Lamarck) came to about man, that fortified me thirty
years ago against the great impression which his argument at first
made on my mind--all the greater because Constant Prevost, a pupil
of Cuvier forty years ago, told me his conviction 'that Cuvier
thought species not real, but that science could not advance without
assuming that they were so.'"
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"When I came to the conclusion that after all Lamarck was going to
be shown to be right, that we must 'go the whole orang,' I re-read
his book, and remembering when it was written, I felt I had done
him injustice.
"Even as to man's gradual acquisition of more and more ideas, and
then of speech slowly as the ideas multiplied, and then his
persecution of the beings most nearly allied and competing with
him--all this is very Darwinian.
"The substitution of the variety-making power for 'volition,'
'muscular action,' etc. (and in plants even volition was not called
in), is in some respects only a change of names. Call a new variety
a new creation, one may say of the former, as of the latter, what
you say when you observe that the creationist explains nothing, and
only affirms 'it is so because it is so.'
"Lamarck's belief in the slow changes in the organic and inorganic
world in the year 1800 was surely above the standard of his times,
and he was right about progression in the main, though you have
vastly advanced that doctrine. As to Owen in his 'Aye Aye' paper, he
seems to me a disciple of Pouchet, who converted him at Rouen to
'spontaneous generation.'
"Have I not, at p. 412, put the vast distinction between you and
Lamarck as to 'necessary progression' strongly enough?" (To Darwin,
March 15, 1863. _Lyell's Letters_, ii., p. 365.)
Darwin, in the freedom of private correspondence, paid scant respect to
the views of his renowned predecessor, as the following extracts from
his published letters will show:
"Heaven forfend me from Lamarck nonsense of a 'tendency to
progression,' 'adaptations from the slow willing of animals,' etc.
But the conclusions I am led to are not widely different from his;
though the means of change are wholly so." (Darwin's _Life and
Letters_, ii., p. 23, 1844.)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"With respect to books on this subject, I do not know of any
systematical ones, except Lamarck's, which is veritable rubbish....
Is it not strange that the author of such a book as the _Animaux
sans Vertèbres_ should have written that insects, which never see
their eggs, should _will_ (and plants, their seeds) to be of
particular forms, so as to become attached to particular
objects."[57] (ii., p. 29, 1844.)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"Lamarck is the only exception, that I can think of, of an accurate
describer of species, at least in the Invertebrate Kingdom, who has
disbelieved in permanent species, but he in his absurd though clever
work has done the subject harm." (ii., p. 39, no date.)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
"To talk of climate or Lamarckian habit producing such adaptions to
other organic beings is futile." (ii., p. 121, 1858.)
On the other hand, another great English thinker and naturalist of rare
breadth and catholicity, and despite the fact that he rejected Lamarck's
peculiar evolutional views, associated him with the most eminent
biologists.
In a letter to Romanes, dated in 1882, Huxley thus estimates Lamarck's
position in the scientific world:
"I am not likely to take a low view of Darwin's position in the
history of science, but I am disposed to think that Buffon and
Lamarck would run him hard in both genius and fertility. In breadth
of view and in extent of knowledge these two men were giants, though
we are apt to forget their services. Von Bär was another man of the
same stamp; Cuvier, in a somewhat lower rank, another; and J. Müller
another." (_Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley_, ii., p. 42,
1900.)
The memory of Lamarck is deeply and warmly cherished throughout France.
He gave his country a second Linné. One of the leading botanists in
Europe, and the greatest zoölogist of his time, he now shares equally
with Geoffroy St. Hilaire and with Cuvier the distinction of raising
biological science to that eminence in the first third of the nineteenth
century which placed France, as the mother of biologists, in the van of
all the nations. When we add to his triumphs in pure zoölogy the fact
that he was in his time the philosopher of biology, it is not going too
far to crown him as one of the intellectual glories, not only of France,
but of the civilized world.
How warmly his memory is now cherished may be appreciated by the perusal
of the following letter, with its delightful reminiscences, for which we
are indebted to the venerable and distinguished zoölogist and
comparative anatomist who formerly occupied the chair made illustrious
by Lamarck, and by his successor, De Blainville, and who founded the
Laboratoire Arago on the Mediterranean, also that of Experimental
Zoölogy at Roscoff, and who still conducts the _Journal de Zoologie
Expérimentale_.
PARIS LE 28 _Décembre_, 1899.
M. le PROFESSEUR PACKARD.
_Cher Monsieur_: Vous m'avez fait l'honneur de me demander des
renseignements sur la famille de De Lamarck, et sur ses relations,
afin de vous en servir dans la biographie que vous préparez de
notre grand naturaliste.
Je n'ai rien appris de plus que ce que vous voulez bien me rappeler
comme l'ayant trouvé dans mon adresse de 1889. Je ne connais plus ni
les noms ni les adresses des parents de De Lamarck, et c'est avec
regret qu'il ne m'est pas possible de répondre à vos désirs.
Lorsque je commençai mes études à Paris, on ne s'occupait guère des
idées générales de De Lamarck que pour s'en moquer. Excepté Geoffroy
St. Hilaire et De Blainville, dont j'ai pu suivre les belles leçons
et qui le citaient souvent, on parlait peu de la philosophie
zoologique.
Il m'a été possible de causer avec des anciens collègues du grand
naturaliste; au Jardin des Plantes de très grands savants, dont je
ne veux pas écrire le nom, le traitaient _de fou_!
Il avait loué un appartement sur le haut d'une maison, et là
cherchait d'après la direction des nuages à prévoir l'état du temps.
On riait de ces études. N'est-ce pas comme un observatoire de
météorologie que ce savant zoologiste avait pour ainsi dire fondé
avant que la science ne se fut emparée de l'idée?
Lorsque j'eus l'honneur d'être nommé professeur au Jardin des
Plantes en 1865, je fis l'historique de la chaire que j'occupais, et
qui avait été illustrée par De Lamarck et De Blainville. Je crois
que je suis le premier à avoir fait l'histoire de notre grand
naturaliste dans un cours public. Je dus travailler pas mal pour
arriver à bien saisir l'idée fondamentale de la philosophie. Les
définitions de la nature et des forces qui président aux changements
qui modifient les êtres d'après les conditions auxquelles ils sont
soumis ne sont pas toujours faciles à rendre claires pour un public
souvent difficile.
Ce qui frappe surtout dans ses raisonnements, c'est que De Lamarck
est parfaitement logique. Il comprend très bien ce que plus d'un
transformiste de nos jours ne cherche pas à éclairer, que le premier
pas, le pas difficile à faire pour arriver à expliquer la création
par des modifications successives, c'est le passage de la matière
inorganique à la matière organisée, et il imagine la chaleur et
l'électricité comme étant les deux facteurs qui par attraction ou
répulsion finissent par former ces petits amas organisés qui seront
le point de départ de toutes les transformations de tous les
organismes.
Voilà le point de départ--la génération spontanée se trouve ainsi
expliquée!
De Lamarck était un grand et profond observateur. On me disait au
Museum (des contemporains) qu'il avait l'Instinct de l'Espèce. Il y
aurait beaucoup à dire sur cette expression--l'instinct de
l'espèce--il m'est difficile dans une simple lettre de développer
des idées philosophiques que j'ai sur cette question,--laquelle
suppose la notion de l'individu parfaitement définie et acquis.
Je ne vous citerai qu'un exemple. Je ne l'ai vu signalé nulle part
dans les ouvrages anciens sur De Lamarck.
Qu'étaient nos connaissances à l'époque de De Lamarck sur les
Polypiers? Les Hydraires étaient loin d'avoir fourni les
remarquables observations qui parurent dans le milieu à peu près du
siècle qui vient de finir, et cependant De Lamarck déplace hardiment
la Lucernaire--l'éloigne des Coralliaires, et la rapproche des êtres
qui forment le grand groupe des Hydraires. Ce trait me paraît
remarquable et le rapporte à cette réputation qu'il avait au Museum
de jouir de l'instinct de l'espèce.
De toute part on acclame le grand naturaliste, et'il n'y a pas même
une rue portant son nom aux environs du Jardin des Plantes? J'ai eu
beau réclamer le conseil municipal de Paris à d'autres favoris que
De Lamarck.
Lorsque le Jardin des Plantes fut réorganisé par la Convention, De
Lamarck avait 50 ans. Il ne s'était jusqu'alors occupé que de
botanique. Il fut à cet age chargé de l'histoire de la partie du
règne animal renfermant les animaux invertèbres sauf les Insectes et
les Crustacés. La chaire est restée la même; elle comprend les vers,
les helminthes, les mollusques, et ce qu'on appelait autrefois les
Zoophytes ou Rayonnées, enfin les Infusoires. Quelle puissance de
travail! Ne fallait-il pas pour passer de la Botanique, à 50 ans, à
la Zoologie, et laisser un ouvrage semblable à celui qui illustre
encore le nom du Botaniste devenue Zoologiste par ordre de la
Convention!
Sans doute dans cet ouvrage il y a bien des choses qui ne sont plus
acceptables--mais pour le juger avec équité, il faut se porter a
l'époque où il fut fait, et alors on est pris d'admiration pour
l'auteur d'un aussi immense travail.
J'ai une grande admiration pour le génie de De Lamarck, et je ne
puis que vous louer de le faire encore mieux connaître de nos
contemporains.
Recevez, mon cher collègue, l'expression de mes sentiments d'estime
pour vos travaux remarquables et croyez-moi--tout à vous,
H. DE LACAZE DUTHIERS.
FOOTNOTES:
[50] For example, while Cuvier's chair was in the field of vertebrate
zoölogy, owing to the kindness of Lamarck ("_par gracieuseté de la part
de M. de Lamarck_") he had retained that of Mollusca, and yet it was in
the special classification of the molluscs that Lamarck did his best
work (Blainville, _l. c._, p. 116).
[51] De Blainville states that "the Academy did not even allow it to be
printed in the form in which it was pronounced" (p. 324); and again he
speaks of the lack of judgment in Cuvier's estimate of Lamarck, "the
naturalist who had the greatest force in the general conception of
beings and of phenomena, although he might often be far from the path"
(p. 323).
[52] _Fragments Biographiques_, pp. 209-219.
[53] _L. c._ p. 81.
[54] _Histoire Naturelle Drolatique et Philosophique des Professeurs du
Jardin des Plantes, _etc._ Par Isid. S. de Gosse. Avec des Annotations
de M. Frédéric Gerard._ Paris, 1847.
[55] _Die Naturanschauung von Darwin, Goethe und Lamarck_, Jena, 1882.
[56] _Geschichte der Zoologie bis auf Joh. Müller und Charles Darwin_,
1872.
[57] We have been unable to find these statements in any of Lamarck's
writings.