Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution

8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution

1/21

The Changing Meaning of "Evolution"Author(s): Peter J. BowlerReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 36, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1975), pp. 95-114Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2709013.

Accessed: 25/11/2012 21:26

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at.

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.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].

.

University of Pennsylvania Pressis collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192.168.52.66 on Sun, 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upennhttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2709013?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/2709013?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn


2/21

THE CHANGING MEANING OF

EVOLUTION

BY

PETER

J.

BOWLER

Introduction.-Historians

generally

study

the

development

f

ideas

rather than

of

words,

yet

in

some

cases

it is

of value

to

have

detailed

knowledge

of

the

changing

applications

of

a

particularly

rucialword.

The

history

of

the term evolution

s

a

very

complex

case,

providing

good

illustrationof the care

which

must

be taken

in

studying

he

origin

of even

the

most

commonly

used words.

Many

different

ields make

use

of

this

term,

and

at certain times

a

single

field

has used

it

not

only

to

describe wo different

processes,

but even two

fundamentally

ifferent

views

of

the nature of

the

same

process.1

This is

particularly

rue

of

biology,

which

is the chief concern of

the

following

paper.

It

is

well

known

hat evolution was not

generally

used to describe

he

theory

of

the

transmutation

of

species

until some

time after

the

publication

of

Darwin's

Origin

of

Species

in

1859.

Historians

of

biology

are

also

fa-

miliar

with the

fact

that at

an earlier

date

the word

was

used to

describe

the

embryologicaldevelopment

of a

singleindividual,

ather than

the

overall

development

f life on the

earth.2

Yet it

is not

generally

realized

that

in

both

of

these

senses,

the

word

meant

different

hings

to

different

people.

It has

been

used

to describe

embryological

development

by

workers

who held

fundamentally

ifferentviewsas to the

natureof

that

process,

and

similar

complications

may

be

recognized

n

the later

use

of

the term

to

describe

transmutation.

Indeed,

it is

unlikely

that

any

modern

biologist

would

completely

accept

the sense

in

which his

pre-

decessorsof thelaternineteenth enturyspokeof evolution.

The

starting

point

for

a

study

of

the

development

of

our

English

word

evolution

must

be

its Latin

origin.

The

Latin

evolutio

refersto

the act of

unrolling,

as

in

the

unrolling

of the ancient

type

of book.

As

'Examples

of the earliest uses of

the term

in its various

contexts,

military,

mathematical, scientific,

and

general,

are

given

in the

Oxford

English

Dictionary,

art.

Evolution. It

should be

noted

that

many

of the

additional

examples

cited below

are

drawn

from

a

purely personal familiarity

with

the

literature,

and it is

highly

probable

that

I have missed many instances in which the word is used, especially in the nineteenth

century.

I

believe, however,

that

my

discussion

is based

upon

a

wide

enough

survey

to be

accurate

in

its

generalizations.

2An

early

attempt

to

describe

the

changing

biological meaning

of

the term is T. H.

Huxley's

article

Evolution

in

Biology, originally

published

n

the

Encyclopaedia

Britan-

nica

and

reprinted

n

Huxley's

Collected

Essays,

II,

Darwiniana

(London,

1894),

187-226.

An

excellent

modern

study

of

the

relationship

between

embryology

and

transmutation is

G.

Canguilhem

et

al.,

Du

developpement

a l'evolution

au

XIXe

siecle,

Thales,

2

(1960),

3-63.

95

This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM


3/21

96 PETER

J.

BOWLER

defined

n

Dr. Johnson's

dictionary

and

in

most modern dictionaries

and

encyclopaedias,

he literal

meaning

of

the

English

counterpart

s

also

to unroll

or

unfold,3

both

of

these

senses

referring nly

to

the

act

of

the openingout of partswhichalreadyexist in a morecompactform.

The nature

of

the

changes

undergoneby

the

word now

become

ap-

parent-by

the mid-nineteenth

entury

few

embryologists

till

believed

that the

development

f

the

embryo

was

no more than the

expansion

of

preexisting

parts,

and no modern evolutionist

would

accept

the

idea

that

the

species

whichhave

appeared

n

the

course of the earth's

history

were

in

any

meaningful

ense

already present

at

the

beginning

of

the

evolutionary

process.

Evolution

no

longer

means the

unfolding

of

preexistingparts;the processis thoughtto involvethe creationof new

structures

or entities. Yet this

in

itself

leads

to

complications,

since

many nineteenth-century

iological

thinkers

drew an

analogy

between

embryology

and

the

appearance

of

new

species

and

supposed

hat

any

system

undergoing

n

evolutionary hange

must

be

subject

to

a

steady

increase

n

its state

of

complexity-an

evolution

must

in

some

sense

be

a

progressive hange.

But

both the

Darwinian

nd

the

modern

heory

would

deny

this,

or at

least

relegate

this factor to

a

less

important

role

in characterizinghe process.This againleaves the historianwith the

problem

of

dealing

with

a word

which

may

be

used

by

differentwriters

in

quite

different enses.

Evolution and

Embryology.-Some

historians

of

biology

have

given

the

impression

hat

eighteenth-centurymbryologists

applied

he

term

evolution

xclusively

o

the

theory

of

preexistent erms,

a

view

popu-

larized

by

Charles Bonnet.4

Certainly,

this

was

the

most

straightfor-

ward

application

of the

term,

since

according

to Bonnet

and

his

colleagues hegermof theembryopreexistedn the formof a complete

miniature

organism

(possibly

n

a

collapsed

and

unrecognizable tate)

within he female

ovum.

Development

occurred

purely

as

a

result

of

an

expansion

caused

by

the

absorption

of

nutrients.

Cole has

noticedthat

the first

person

to

apply

the term evolution o

this

unfolding

process

was Albrecht von

Haller,

in

his notes

to Boerhaave'sPraelectiones

Academicae

of 1744.5

Here it is claimedthat the

theory

of

evolution

(evolutionem theoria)

of

Malpighi

and Swammerdam

had

become

generallypopularamongHaller'scontemporaries.6t is clear fromthe

3I

have

checked

two

editions

of Johnson's

Dictionary of

the

English

Language

...; the

3rd

(Dublin, 1768)

and the

9th

(London, 1806).

4Bentley

Glass,

Heredity

and variation

in the

eighteenth century

concept

of the

species,

in

Bentley

Glass,

et

al.,

eds.,

Forerunners

of

Darwin,

1745-1859

(Baltimore,

1968),

144-72,

164;

also F. J.

Cole,

Early

Theories

of

Sexual

Generation,

(Oxford, 1930),

86.

5Cole,

Early

Theories

of

Sexual

Generation,

86.

6The relevant

passages

from Haller's notes

are

quoted

and

translated

in

Howard B.

Adelmann,Marcello

Malpighi

and the Evolutionof Embryology (Ithaca, N.Y., 1966), II,

893-900;893.



4/21

CHANGING MEANING

OF EVOLUTION 97

subsequent

description

that

Haller was

referring

to the

theory

of

preexisting

miniatures,

lthough

t is

by

no meanscertain hat

Malpighi

and

Swammerdam

actually

proposed

such

a

theory.7

When he

first

beganto writein supportof this theory,Charles Bonnetspokeonlyof

the

developpement

f the

germ,

but

he

later

began

to

speak

also

of its

evolution.8

That

the

Englishequivalent

f

this latter

term was used

in

a

similar

manner s revealed

by

a

passage

in

the

Philosophical

Transac-

tions

for

1760.

Here a book reviewer

xplains

hat Our

author

asserts,

that

every fungus

s

contained

n

an entire

and

perfect

state

in

the

egg,

or as it is

called,

the

seed,

and

wants

nothing

but

evolution,

n

orderto

imbibe the

necessary

juices. 9

This

was written

before Bonnet's

Considerations sur les Corps Organises popularized the French evo-

lution,

suggesting

hat this

fairly

obviousextensionof

the

original

Latin

meaning

was

recognized ndependently y

a number

of

writers

during

this

period.

A

glance

at

the

Oxford

English

Dictionary

soon

reveals,

however,

that

in

the

English

anguage

at

least,

the

embryologicalmeaning

was

not confined o the

theory

of

preexistinggerms.

The term

was,

in

fact,

used

n

a

general

sense

to describe he

development

f the

embryo,

even

by writerswhowereopposedto thepreexistenceheory.Thefollowing

statement

occurs as

early

as

1669,

in

a

Philosophical

Transactions

review

of Swammerdam's

Historia

Insectorum Generalis:

By

the

word

change

[in

insects]

is

nothing

else to

be

understood

but a

gradual

and natural evolution

and

growth

of the

parts. 10

t

is

by

no

means

clear that evolution here refers to

a mere

unfolding

of

preexisting

parts. Although

there are a numberof statements

n

Swammerdam's

work which

have

encouraged

the belief that

he

helped

to found the

theory of preexistinggerms (one of them is mentioned n the 1669

review1),

Swammerdam

tresses

throughout

hat the

insect

grows by

7Adelmann

argues against

Malpighi's

acceptance

of

the

preexistence theory:

Marcello

Malpighi,

II,

885-86.

On Swammerdam's

position,

see n.

11

below.

8Charles

Bonnet,

Considerations

sur

les

Corps

Organises,

in

Bonnet,

Oeuvres de

Philosophie

et d'Histoire

Naturelle

(Neuchatel,

1779),

vols.

5 and

6.

According

to

the

preface,

the first

eight

chapters

of this work

were

written some

time before

the later

parts;

in these

early

chapters,

the word evolution does

not

occur,

although

Bonnet makes

frequentuse of it in the later parts of the book.

9 An

account

of

a

work

entitled Jacobi Christiani Schaeffer

icones

et

descriptio

Fungorum

quorundam

singularium

et

memorabilium,

Philosophical

Transactions

of

the

Royal Society of

London,

52,

part

2

(1762),

455-506;

500. The author of the

review re-

gards

this idea as

quite

commonplace.

'?Phil.

Trans.,

5-6

(1670),

2078-79;

2078.

Ibid.,

2079,

where it is

reported

that

Swammerdam

held that there was

no

true

generation

in

nature,

a

common

point

made

later

by

the

supporters

of the

pre-existence

concept, according

to

which

there

is

no

generation

since

all

organisms

have

existed

in

their

entirety

(as

miniatures)

since the creation of

the

world.

Swammerdam's

original

Dutch is very ambiguous at this point, and the reviewer's nterpretation s probablyerro-

neous.



5/21

98

PETER J. BOWLER

epigenesis,

a

process

which

Harvey

had defined

as

the

sequential

formation

of the

parts

of

the

embryo.

I have

suggested

elsewhere hat

Swammerdambelieved n the

preexistence

of a

design

within the

egg,

rather than

an actual miniature.12

he reviewer

or

the

Philosophical

Transactions

must have

been

aware

of Swammerdam's

constant

em-

phasis

on

epigenesis,

and this

suggests

that

he

was

already

prepared

o

use the word evolution

o describe

a

process

in

which the

unfolding

was

purely

metaphorical, aking

place

by

means

of

a

progressive

and

sequential

development

f the

parts

of the

embryonic

tructure.

An

even more

general

use

of

the term

occurs

in

John Turberville

Needham's Account

of

Some

New

Microscopical

Discoveries,

where

nature s

described

as

ever

exerting

ts

fecundity

n

a

successive

evo-

lution

of

organised beings. 13

This

remark

suggests

no

particular

system

of

embryological

development,

but

Needham

was

to

become

one of

the

principalopponents

of

the

preexistence

heory.

He

developed

an

alternative

system

in

collaboration with the

French

naturalist

Buffon,

a

system

in

which the

embryo

was built

up

out

of a

numberof

freely

loating principles

ontained

within

he

semen.14

Clearly,

he

did

not

see the

overall

production

of

the

new

organism

as

a mere

expansion

or

unfolding

of a

preexisting

tructure.

An

equallygeneral

use of evo-

lution

was

made

by

Erasmus

Darwin

n

his

Botanic

Garden.

Darwin

spoke

of The

gradual

evolutionof

the

young

animalor

plant

from

the

seed. '5

Elsewhere,

he

not

only

rejected

preexistence,

but also

proposed

a

completely epigenetic

theory

in

which

the

embryo goes

through

a

number

of

significant hanges

before

approaching

ts

final

form.16The

Oxford

English Dictionary gives

other

examples

from

this

period

in

which evolution s used to describeembryologicaldevelopmentn a

sensewhichdoes

not restrict

t to a mere

expansion

of

preexisting

truc-

tures.

Indeed,

n

the

English anguage

at

least,

the

word seems

to

have

been

used more

frequently

n the

figurative

han in

the literal

sense.

It

shouldbe

noted,

however,

hat the

word was not

popularenough

n

the

12See

my

Preformation and

pre-existence

in

the seventeenth

century:

a

brief

analysis,

J. Hist.

Biology,

4(1971),

221-43;

238.

'3John

Needham,

An

Account

of

Some

New

Microscopical

Discoveries

(London,

1745),introd., 1.

14For

a

summary

of this

theory,

see,

e.g.,

A

summary

of

some late observations

upon

the

generation,

composition

and

decomposition

of animal and

vegetable

substances,

Phil.

Trans.,

45

(1748),

615-66.

Needham's

theory closely

followed

that of

Buffon,

in

which the

embryo

was

supposed

to

be

formed out

of

organic particles

floating

in

the

semen. The

complexity

of the

embryological

debates of

the

eighteenth century

can be

seen

from

the

fact

that

Buffon,

at

least,

thought

that a

complete

miniature

organism

was

formed

immediately

after

conception

and

subsequently

grew

only by

expansion:

Histoire

Naturelle,

generale

et

particuliere

(Paris, 1749),

II,

292.

15Erasmus

Darwin,

The

Botanic

Garden

(London,

1791),

II,

8.

16Idem,

Zoonomia,

or the Laws

of Organic

Life

(London, 1794),

I,

491.



6/21

CHANGING MEANING OF EVOLUTION 99

embryological

ontext to warrantdiscussion

by

dictionaries

and other

more

general

works.

In

addition o the

Latin

origin,

Dr. Johnson'sdic-

tionary gives only

the

military

and mathematical

meanings,

and

the

same

is true

of a numberof similarworks.17

Although

the literal

meaning

of

evolution

would seem to

present

a barrier to

its

use

by

naturalists

who believed that the

embryo

gradually

developed

new

structures

by epigenesis,

we

can

appreciate

how the

barriercould be brokendown

by

comparing

his

usage

with

a

wider

tendency

which

seems to

have

developed

within

the

English

an-

guage

at

this

time.

Since the

seventeenth

entury,

non-scientific uthors

hadbegunto use evolution n a figurative ense,18eferringo almost

any

kind

of connected

sequence

of events.

Usually,

such an historical

sequence

could

only

in

the

most

metaphorical

f

senses

be

regarded

as

the

unfolding

of a

preordained

design.

Compared

to this

trend,

the

wider

embryological

use seems

quite

reasonable,

and

suggests

that

in

general

the term was

being

developed

in

a

sense

which

was

not

in

harmony

with

ts

Latin

origins.

But

just

as

the

majority

of

historical

se-

quences

can

be

regarded

as

developing

n

accordance

with some

pattern

controlledby the interactionof the forces involved,the embryologist

also had to

recognize

hat the

epigenetic

development

of the

foetus

was

not

a random

process.

Some

force

(mechanical

or

vital,

according

o

taste)

must controlthe

development, nsuring

hat

the

correctly

shaped

organs

are

produced

n

the

proper

sequence.

Recognition

of

this

point

brought

about a

fundamental

hange

n

embryological hought,

and

this

in

turn

changed

he

meaning

of the term evolution.

The

growth

of

the

embryo

came to be seen as

a

process

directed

oward he

production

of

an increasinglycomplexstructure,with the emphasisbeingplacednot

on the

preexistence

of

a

design,

but on

the

organizing

activity

of the

process

tself.

Already

in

the

eighteenth

century,

the German

embryologist

Caspar

Friedrich Wolff

(1733-94)

had

opposed

the mechanical

philosophyunderlying

both the

preexistence heory

and the

alternative

systems

proposed

by

workers

such as Needham

and Buffon.Wolff

sug-

gested

that

a

vital force

(vis

essentialis

or

wesentliche

Kraft)

directed

the processof epigeneticdevelopmentwhich he himself haddescribed

with some

accuracy.19

he

leading

German

embryologists

of

the

early

17Editions

of

Johnson's

dictionary

cited

above,

n.

3;

also

the

Encyclopaedia

Britan-

nica,

or

dictionary

of

the

arts and

sciences,

1st

ed.

(Edinburgh,

1771),

3rd

ed.

(Edinburgh,

1797),

and 5th

ed.

(Edinburgh,

1817);

Abraham

Rees,

The

Cyclopaedia;

or universal dic-

tionary

(London,

1819).

18For

xamples,

see the

Oxford

English

Dictionary.

'9Passages

from the first

Abhandlung

of Wolff's Theoria

Generationis

(1764)

in

which these terms occur are

quoted

and translated

in

Adelmann,

Marcello

Malpighi,

V,

2178-97;

2183,

2188. Note that

Wolff also uses evolutio

in

connection

with Bonnet's

theory,

ibid.,

2195.



7/21

100

PETERJ.

BOWLER

nineteenth

century

took

up

Wolff's

ideas,

with

the most

important

of

them,

Karl

Ernst

von

Baer,

stressing

that the

development

of

the

embryo

was

essentially

a

processleading

to the

production

of

hetero-

geneity

or

complexity

of

structure.20

n

his

Uber

Entwickelungsge-

schichteder Thiere

of

1828,

von

Baer

used

the

German

Entwickelung

s

his

standard

erm

for

the

process

of

development,

but

in

some

places

gave

the

Latin evolutio

in

parentheses.

As the German

ideas

slowly

penetrated

into

Britain,

the

word

evolution

continued to be

associated with

them,

at

least

to a

limited extent.

When he

translated

parts

of

von

Baer in

1852,

T.

H.

Huxley

rendered

Entwickelung

s

de-

velopment but retained the Latin term in

parentheses.2'

The noted

physiologist

William

B.

Carpenter

used

evolution

directly

n the

dis-

cussion

of

embryology

n

his

Principlesof

Physiology,

where he em-

phasized

the

importance

of

von

Baer's

work.22

t is

hardly

surprising

that

evolution

hould

continue

o

be

used

to

at

least

some extent as a

word

describing

he

development

f

the

embryo.

But

its connectionwith

von

Baer's work

was

in

fact

leading

to

an

important

change

in

its

meaning.

Evolution could

now

be seen as a word suitable for

a

processwhich,far from beinga mereexpansionof preexistingparts,

was

directly

controlled

by

a

tendency

oward

ncreasing

omplexity.

Evolution and

Transmutation.-Although

the

theory

of

the

transmutation

of

species

was not

commonly

called

the

theory

of

evo-

lution

until late

in

the

nineteenth

entury,

the

first use of

the term

in

this

context dates back

to

the

first

half

of

that

century.

Charles

Lyell

spoke

of

the

evolution

of one form

of life into

anotheras

early

as

1832,

and Darwin

himself

used the

derivative evolved n

the

sketch

of

his

theorywhichhe preparedn 1842.It is difficult,however, o determine

to what

extent these new

applications

of

the word were a

conscious

ex-

tension

of

the

embryological

use

already

developed

n

biology.

It can

easily

be

shown

that

by

the

1850's

the term

evolution was

being ap-

plied

to the

progressivedevelopment

of life

which

most

paleontologists

saw

in

the

fossil

record,

and this

appears

to

have been a

deliberate

at-

tempt

to

emphasize

the

parallel

with the

development

of

the

embryo.

20E.g.,Owsei Temkin, German concepts of ontogeny and history around 1800,

Bulletin

of

the

History

of

Medicine,

24

(1950),

227-46.

21T.

H.

Huxley's

translation

of

von

Baer,

On

the

development

of

animals,

with ob-

servations and

reflections,

in

T. H.

Huxley

and

Arthur

Henfrey,

(eds.), Scientific

Memoirs,

selected

from

the

Transactions

of

the

Foreign

Academies

of

Science

andfrom

Foreign

Journals

(Natural

History),

(London,

1853),

186-238;

233. For the

original,

see

Karl

Ernst von

Baer,

Uber

Entwickelungsgeschichte

der

Thiere.

Beobachtung

und

Reflexion,

I Theil

(K6nigsburg,

1828),

259.

22William

B.

Carpenter,

Principles of

Physiology,

general

and

comparative,

3rd ed.

(London, 1851), 575-76;

870. It

was

through reading

this edition

of

Carpenter's

book that

Herbert

Spencer

first became aware of von

Baer's

work.



8/21

CHANGING MEANING OF

EVOLUTION

101

Thus the term is used

by

W.

B.

Carpenter

n

his

description

of the

analogy

between von Baer's

embryological

system

and the fossil

record.23 n 1858 the Americangeologist James Dwight Dana also

spoke

of

an

expansion

or

evolution

of

the

fishes

in

the

sequence

of

geological

ormations.24

n

English

ranslationof

part

of a work

by

the

German

paleontologist

H. G. Bronneven used the

word

evolution

n

its

title,

as a

translation

of the

German

Entwickelung.25

But

although

all three

of these workers

eventually

became more favorabletoward

transmutation,

n this

pre-Darwinian eriod

hey

wereall

explicitly

op-

posed

to transmutation

as

an

explanation

of

the

progression hey

ob-

served n the fossil record. That evolution was gainingsome popu-

larity

n

the context

of the

progressivedevelopment

f life

is

quite

clear,

but these

examples

cannot be used as evidencethat the word

already

meant

progressive

ransmutation.

As we

shall

see

below,

there was

a

school

of

thought

whichconnected

progression

and

transmutation,

but

the

majority

of

paleontologists

believed

that the

progressive

de-

velopment

revealed

by

the fossil record had

been

brought

about

by

a

seriesof miraculous

reations.

It has alreadybeen noted, however,that there are a number of

instances

in which

evolution

was

applied

to transmutationbefore

1860.

But

in

some

of

these cases-in

particular

hat

of Darwin-it

is

not

easy

to

connect

the use

of

the term with the idea of

progression

and

hence with

the

embryological

analogy.

The

transmutation

of

species

need not be a

progressiveprocess,

and

Darwin's

theory

was

certainly

not

developed

s

an

explanation

f

progression.

To

appreciate

he

possi-

bility

that evolution ould

be

adopted

from an earlier

context

quite

different o that of embryology, t must be recognized hat the use of

23Carpenter,

Principles

of

Physiology,

580.

Carpenter distinguished

between a

progression

following

von Baer's

principle

of

development

from the

homogeneous

to the

heterogeneous

and the normal idea of

a

progressive

ascent

through

the

vertebrate

classes

in the order

fish,

reptiles,

birds,

and

mammals.

The

crucial nature

of

this distinction

was

often

missed

by

the

nineteenth-century

evolutionists who favored

the belief that

ontogeny

recapitulates phylogeny;

see

Jane

Oppenheimer,

An

embryological enigma

in

the

Origin

of

Species,

and

Arthur 0.

Lovejoy,

Recent

criticism

of

the Darwinian

theory

of

reca-

pitulation:

ts

grounds

and

its

initiator,

both

in

Bentley

Glass,

et

al.,

(eds.),

Forerunners

of Darwin.

24James

Dwight

Dana,

Agassiz's

Contributions to the Natural

History

of

the United

States,

American

Journal

of

Science,

2nd

series,

25

(1858),

202-16;

215. Dana

knew of

Carpenter's

Principles

of

Physiology,

ibid.,

215.

25H.

G.

Bronn,

On the laws

of evolution

of the

organic

world

during

the formation of

the crust of

the

earth,

Annals

and

Magazine

of

Natural

History,

3rd

series,

4

(1859),

81-

90,

175-84. This

is a

translation of the

last

chapter

of

Untersuchungen

iiber

die

Ent-

wickelungs-Gesetze

der

organischen

Welt

wihrend

der

Bildungszeit

unserer

Erdoberfldche

(Stuttgart,

1858).

Bronn

explicitly

proposed

a law

of

progressive

de-

velopment,

but held

that

species

were

distinct entities.

Later,

he

supervised

the German

translation of the

Origin

ofSpecies.



9/21

102 PETER J. BOWLER

the word was

already spreading

in

other fields. It has

already

been

pointed

out that

during

the

eighteenth century,

the

term

had occa-

sionally

been

applied

to

a

sequence

of events

in

time,

without reference

to the

concept

of

the

unfolding

of a

preexisting

structure or

design.

In

the nineteenth

century,

this

practice

was

extended,

in

particular

to in-

clude

the evolution of

political

or social

organizations.

A

good

example

of this occurs

in

the work of the historian

Sir

Francis

Palgrave:

Our

constitutional

form

of

government

has

been

produced

by

evo-

lution.

As

the

organs

were

needed,

so

did

they

arise. 26

This is a

very

modern

sounding

use

of the

term;

it carries none

of

the

progressive

im-

plications

inherent

in

the

growing embryological

use of the

word and

concentrates

solely

on

change

produced by adaptation

to

new

condi-

tions. The

existence of this

trend,

apparently

quite

distinct

from

the

embryological

use,

must

be

recognized

in

any

attempt

to understand

how evolution

came to be

associated with the

transmutation

theory.

Sir

Charles

Lyell

first

spoke

of

an

evolution

in

something

like the

modern

sense of the word when

he

discussed

and

rejected

Lamarck's

transmutation

theory

in

the second

volume

of

his

Principles of Geology.

According to Lyell, Lamarck believed that the testacea of the ocean

existed

first,

until

some of

them,

by

gradual

evolution,

were

improved

into

those

inhabiting

the

land. 27

It

should be

noted that

Lyell

seems

to

regard

improvement

as

an

integral

part

of the

evolutionary

process,

a

fact which

makes

it

not

impossible

that he chose

the

word because of its

embryological

association with

the

process

of

development

toward

maturity.

Charles Darwin's first use of

the

term, however,

does not

in-

clude

this

implication.

In the

conclusion of

his brief

1842 sketch of the

theory of natural selection, he wrote:

There

is a

simple grandeur

n

the view of life with

its

powers

of

growth,

assimilation nd

reproduction,

eingoriginally

breathed nto

matter

under

one

of

a

few

forms,

and

that whilstthis our

planet

has

gone circling

on

according

o

fixed

aws,

and and and

water,

n

a

cycle

of

change,

have

gone

on

replacing

ne

another,

hat from so

simple

an

origin,

hrough

he

process

of

gradual

election

of

infinitesimal

hanges,

endless orms most beautiful ndmost

wonderful ave

been

evolved.28

26Sir

Francis

Palgrave,

Truths and

Fictions

of

the

Middle

Ages.

The

Merchant and

the

Friar

(London,

1837),

201.

27Charles

Lyell,

Principles

of

Geology;

being

an

Attempt

to

Explain

the

former

Changes of

the Earth's

Surface by

reference

to Causes now in

operation,

2nd

ed.

(London,

1833),

II,

11.

28 Charles

Darwin's

sketch

of

1842,

in

Charles Darwin and

Alfred Russel

Wallace,

Evolution

by

Natural

Selection

(Cambridge,

1958),

41-88;

87;

also

Essay

of

1844,

ibid.,

91-254;

254,

and

Charles

Darwin,

On the

Origin

of

Species by

means

of

Natural

Se-

lection,

or

the

preservation offavoured

races

in

the

struggle for life

(London, 1854),

490.

Ernst

Mayr

has stated

(Animal

Species

and Evolution

[Cambridge,

Mass., 1963],

4)

that



10/21

CHANGING

MEANING OF EVOLUTION 103

An

essentially

similar

sentence

occurs

at the conclusion

of

the

essay

of

1844 and the

Origin

of Species

itself. But the terms evolution

or

evolved do not

occur

very

often

in

Darwin's

writings

and

although

he

seems to havebeen

prepared

o

regard

heoverall

development

f lifeas

an

evolution,

he did

not use

the

word

n

the

sense

of the evolution

of

one

particular

form

from

another

(i.e.,

in the

sense used

by

Lyell

in

1832).

Nor does Darwin eem to haveassociated

any

idea

of

progressive

development

with the

term,

at least whenhe first

began

to use

it. In the

conclusionof

the

Originof

Species

he

expressed

he

opinion

hat

in

the

long

run

natural

selection

would

give

rise to

progress,

but

there

is

no

hint of

this

in

the 1842 sketch

(the

simple origin

referred o

in

the

above

quotation

seems to mean that the first

living

formswere few in

numberrather than

simple

n

structure).

Darwindid not use the term

evolution

in

his discussion of

embryology,

and

it

is thus

highly

probable

hat his first use

of

it

in

the

modern

context

reflects

the

in-

creasing

generalpopularity

of the word.

Like

Palgrave,

he

saw the

term

as

suitable

for

describing

a

general

historical

process

or

sequence

of

events,

rather than as a reflection of the

progressively

orientated

embryologicalmeaning.

A

similaruse

of

evolution o

describe

ransmutation

was made

by

Baden Powell

in

his

Essays

on

the

Spirit of

the

Inductive

Philosophy.29

In

the

third

of these

essays,

Baden

Powell

came

out

in

open

support

of

transmutation,

but

he was

very

suspicious

of

the

idea of

progression30

and was more concerned to

show that the

idea of

a

process

of

adaptation

would not interfere

with natural

theology.

We

thus

have

clear

evidence

hat

in

the

mid-nineteenth

entury

the term evolution

was

being

used

occasionally(1)

to

refer

to

transmutation,

but

not

necessarily

in

connection with

progression,

and

(2)

to describe

the

progression

of

life

by

authors

who did

not

accept

transmutation. t

is

thus somewhat

surprising

o

find

that the

term

did

not

come into

general

use

in

the debates

over

the

pre-Darwinian

ransmutation

theories.

The

most famous

proposal

of such

a

theory-Robert

Chambers

anonymously published

Vestiges

of

the Natural

History of

Creation

(1844)-explicitly regarded

a

progression

paralleling

hat of

Darwin

does not use the word Evolution

in

the

Origin,

and this is

strictly speaking

cor-

rect.

Mayr suggests

that Darwin's

reluctance

to use the

term was due

to

a

recognition

of

its connections

with

the

preexistence

theories of

embryology,

but

in

view of

the

above

examination of the

embryological

use this seems

unlikely.

If there

was

an

embryological

connection

for

Darwin,

it would

have

been

related to

progressive

epigenesis, something

he

would have

equally strongly

avoided. It

is

for

this

reason that

I

suggest

a

connection

with

the

non-embryological

use of the term.

29Baden

Powell,

Essays

on

the

Spirit

of

the

Inductive

Philosophy,

the

Unity of

Worlds,

and

the

Philosophy of

Creation

(London, 1855),

ix, xiii,

319,

328,

426.

30Ibid.,321-29.



11/21

104 PETER J. BOWLER

embryonicgrowth

as

the basis of the

transmutationof

species.31

Yet

Chambers'book does not use the word

evolution, 31a

or do the well-

known

attacks

on

his

system by

Adam

Sedgwick, Hugh

Miller,

and

T. H. Huxley.32The theorywas usuallyknownas the transmutation

theory

or

the

development ypothesis,

he latter

forming

part

of the

title

of

the relevant

chapter

n

Hugh

Miller's

Footprintsof

the

Creator

(1847).

The term

development

was almost

certainly

chosen

because

of the

parallel

betweenthis

type

of

theory

and

embryology,

and

as we

have

seen,

evolution

became

associated

both with

embryology

and

with the fossil evidence or

progression.

Yet

I know

of

only

two exam-

ples

in

which evolution

was

connected

with

the

development

hypothesis,

bothof whichoccurafter the initialdebateover the

Vestiges

had

died down. Herbert

Spencer

introduced

he title

theory

of evo-

lution

in

his

essay

The

development

hypothesis

of

1852,

but

as we

shall see

below,

this

is

by

no means

a

straightforward xample.

Edward

Forbes

also

spoke

of

the

hypothesis

of

the evolutionof

all

organized

beings

in

1854.33

Although

these references

indicate

that the

con-

nection between

evolution

and

progressive

transmutation

was

recognized

during

this

period,

I do

not believe that

they represent

a

general tendency

withinthe

pre-Darwinian

ebates.This

comparative

lack of

interest

in

the term

evolution

probably

results

from

the

fact

that the word

was

not as

closely

associated with

embryology

as was

development.

The

publication

of

the

Origin of

Species

in

1859 did

little

to

en-

31[Robert

Chambers],

Vestiges

of

the

Natural

History

of

Creation

(London,

1844;

re-

printed

Leicester,

1969),

esp.

212-13.

Accounts of the

Vestiges

debate

may

be found

in

Charles C. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology. The impact of scientific discoveries upon re-

ligious

beliefs

in the

decades

before

Darwin

(Cambridge,

Mass.,

1951),

and

Milton

Millhauser,

Just

before

Darwin,

Robert

Chambers and

Vestiges

(Middleton,

Conn.,

1959).

3aa

M.

J. S.

Hodge's study

of

Chamber's

work has

brought

to

my

attention the fact

that

in

a

preface

added

to

the

1853 edition

of the

Vestiges,

Chambers

spoke

of

the

gradual

evolution

of

higher

from lower . ..

,

when

describing

the

embryological system

which first

gave

him

the

idea of

progressive

transmutation. M.

J. S.

Hodge,

The

universal

gestation

of

nature,

Chambers'

Vestiges

and

Explanations,

J.

Hist.

Biol.,

5

(1972),

127-51;

138.

32[Adam

Sedgwick],

Vestiges

of the Natural

History

of Creation,

Edinburgh

Review,

82

(1845),

1-85

(note

that

Sedgwick

does

speak

of

evolution

in

an

embryo-

logical

sense;

75);

Hugh

Miller,

Footprints of

the Creator or the

Asterolepis of

Stromness,

3rd ed.

(London,

1851), esp.

the

chapter

The

development

hypothesis

and its

consequences ;

[T.

H.

Huxley],

Vestiges

of

the Natural

History

of

Creation,

British

and

Foreign

Medico-Chirurgical

Review,

13

(1854),

332-43.

33Edward

Forbes,

On

the

manifestation of

polarity

in

the

distribution of

organic

beings

in

time,

Proceedings

of

the

Royal

Institution,

1

(1851-54),

428-33;

429.

Forbes

specifically

distinguished

this

hypothesis

from that of

a

succession

of

distinctly

origi-

natingforms ... in order of the progressionwithin their respectiveseries. The law of po-

larity

was his own alternative to

progression.



12/21

CHANGING

MEANING OF EVOLUTION

105

courage

the use of

evolution

n

connectionwith transmutation.

The

new

theory

tended o divert nterest

away

from the

progressive

lement

which

was

so

prominent

in the

development

hypothesis.

Darwin

proposed

natural selection as an

explanation

of transmutation

by

adaptation,

and

although

he now believed

that this

would

produce

progression

n

the

long

run,

this was

by

no means an

important

part

of

his

theory.

Since

there

was little reference o evolution

n the

Origin

itself,

there was thus no

reason for the word to enter

prominently

nto

the debates over the

book.

I

have found no mentionof the

word in

the

important

critical reviews

by

Owen,

Wilberforce,

Agassiz,

and

Fleeming

Jenkin.34

he

term is

equally gnored

n

the

more

favourable

accounts

given by

T. H.

Huxley,

Asa

Gray,

and

Charles

Lyell,35

ndin

the

early papers

of Alfred

Russel

Wallace.36

Even

Carpenter who

had

used the term

previously

n

connection

with both

embryology

and

the

fossil

record)

did

not mention it

in

his

reviews of the

Origin,

one

of

which

was entitled The

theory

of

development

n

nature. 37 Evo-

lution was used once

(in

a

footnote)

in

J.

D. Hooker's first

discussion

of the

theory,38

nd t also occurs

n Dana's

Manual

of

Geology.39

These

34[Richard

Owen],

On the

Origin

of

Species, Edinburgh

Review, 111

(1860),

487-

532;

[Samuel

Wilberforce],

On

the

Origin

of

Species,

Quarterly

Review,

108

(1860),

225-64;

Prof.

Agassiz

on the

Origin

of

Species,

Am.

J.

Sci.,

2nd

series,

30

(1860),

142-

54;

[Fleeming

Jenkin],

The

Origin

of

Species,

North British

Review,

46

(1868),

277-

318. The most

thorough

account of the debate

is Alvar

Ellegard,

Darwin and

the

General

Reader,

The

reception

of

Darwin's

theory of

evolution

in the British

periodical

press,

1859-1872

(Goteburg,

1958).

35Huxley's

reviews

from the Times

and

the Westminster

Review

are

reprinted

n

Dar-

winiana, 1-21,

22-79;

also

[Asa

Gray],

Review of Darwin's

theory

of the

Origin

of

Species .. ., Am. J. Sci., 2nd series, 29 (1860), 152-84. Lyell gave a noncommittal ac-

count of Darwin's ideas

in

his

Geological

Evidences

of

the

Antiquity of

Man

(London,

1863),

ch.

21.

Lyell

pointed

out

the

difference

between

the old

development hypothesis

with its

emphasis

on

progression

and

the

new

theory

which

was

relatively

indifferent to

this issue.

36A. R.

Wallace,

On

the

law which has

regulated

the

introduction

of new

species,

and

On

the

tendency

of

varieties to

depart

indefinitely

from

the

original type,

reprinted

in

Wallace,

Contributions to

the

Theory of

Natural

Selection

(London, 1870),

1-25,

26-

44.

37[W. B.

Carpenter],

The

theory

of

development

in

nature,

Brit.

&

For. Med.-

Chiurg.

Rev., 25

(1860)

269-95.

Carpenter

also reviewed the

Origin

in the National

Review

10

(1860),

188-214.

38I

have used the

reprint

of Hooker's

Introductory Essay

to the

Flora of

Tasmania,

Am. J.

Sci.,

2nd

series,

29

(1860),

1-25,

305-26;

309.

Hooker

speaks

of

progressive

evo-

lution

and seems

almost to stress this

aspect

of

the

theory

more than

Darwin himself.

39J. D.

Dana,

Manual

of

Geology

(Philadelphia

and

London,

1862),

602. Dana uses

evolution

to mean

progressive

transmutation,

and claims that

the fossil record

sup-

ports

neither

this nor

transmutation

through

the

variation of

living

individuals.

Strictly

speaking,

this remark does not

count

as

a

contribution

to

the Darwinian

debate,

since

Dana had probablynot read the Originat this time becauseof illness; see William F. San-

ford

Jr.,

Dana and

Darwinism, JHI,

26

(1965),

531-46.



13/21

106

PETER J. BOWLER

were

exceptions,

however,

and

it

was

nearly

anotherdecade before the

title

theory

of

evolution

began

to

gain popularity.

It would

appear

probable

hat this

popularity

was

largely

the result

of

the

theory

being

incorporated

into

the

general

evolutionary

philosophy

of Herbert

Spencer.

Herbert

Spencer

and

Evolution-According

to

his

Autobiography,

Herbert

Spencer's

early

intellectual

background

had

from

the first

predisposed

him to

accept

the

transmutation

of

species.40

He

openly

supported

transmutation

as

early

as

1852,

after which

this

belief

gradually

became

incorporated

nto his

universal

philosophy

of

de-

velopment

known

as

the

SyntheticPhilosophy.

It was

also in

the

early

1850's

that

Spencer

became aware of von Baer's

principle

of

de-

velopment

from the

homogeneous

to the

heterogeneous,

a

principle

that

he

took

as the

model

for his

whole

system

of universal

progress.

At

the

same

time,

he

began

to use

the term

evolution

o

describe the

growth

of

the

embryo

and

(on

one

occasion,

at

least)

the

wider

de-

velopment

of

organic

life

through

transmutation.But

it was

not

until

the

1860's

that

he

adopted

evolution

as

the

general

name

for

the

processof developmentwhichhe tried to trace out in everyfieldfrom

cosmology

to

the

development

of the human

mind,

thereby

aying

the

foundations

f

the modern

usage

of

the term.

Spencer

first

began

to

use the term evolution

n

1852,

applying

t

to

both

embryologicaldevelopment

and the transmutationof

species.

In his

essay

The

developmenthypothesis,

he

supported

transmu-

tation

by

ridiculing

Those

who

cavalierly reject

the

Theory

of

Evo-

lution as

not

being

supported

by

the

facts. .. . 41

He

noted that

the

only

alternative-miraculous creationof species-is supportedby no facts

at

all,

and

pointed

o

embryological

evolution

s an

illustrationof the

ability

of

organic

structures

to

modify

themselves.42 t

is

highly

probable

hat

Spencer

derivedboth

uses

of the term from his

reading

of

W. B.

Carpenter's

Principles

of Physiology.

He

tells

us that

it

was

by

reading

he 1851edition

of this

work

that

he first

became aware

of

von

Baer's

principle

of

development

from the

homogeneous

to the

heterogeneous.43

arpenter

had used evolution

not

only

in

his dis-

cussionof von Baer'sembryology,but alsowhenhenotedthat thesame

principle

an be

traced out

in

the fossil

record.

Although

Carpenterop-

posed

actual

transmutation,

his

use

of evolution

probably

brought

40Herbert

Spencer,

An

A

utobiography

(New

York,

1940),

I,

201.

41 The

development

hypothesis,

in

Herbert

Spencer,

Essays Scientific,

Political and

Speculative

(New

York,

1896),

I, 1-7;

1.

Spencer

also

spoke

of

the

evolution

of

life on

the earth in a

letter to

Edmund

Lott,

23

April

1852,

in David Duncan

(ed.),

The

Life

and

Letters

of

Herbert

Spencer

(reissue;

London,

1911),

62.

42Ibid.,

5-6.

43Autobiography,

I,

9.



14/21

CHANGING

MEANING OF

EVOLUTION 107

the

word

to

Spencer's

notice

in

both its

embryological

nd

wider

sense.

Indeed,

t

would at first

sight

appear

that

in

this

essay

Spencer

was al-

ready beginning

his

generalization

of

von Baer's

principle

into

a

philosophy

of universal

progress

under

the name

of evolution.

The

very

title

of

the

essay

seems to connect it

with the

development

hypothesis

of the

1840's,

whichwas

thoroughlygrounded

n

the idea of

the

progressive

evelopment

f life toward

ncreasing

omplexity.

But it

would

be unwise o

accept

without

question

he belief

that

Spencer

was

already generalizing

von Baer's

principle

into a

theory

of the

progressive

ransmutation f

species

n

1852.

Despite

ts

title,

Thede-

velopmenthypothesis supportstransmutation,

not

progression,

with

embryology being

introduced

to illustrate the

possibility,

not the

di-

rection,

of

organicchange.

At a later

date,

Spencerclearly

stated

that

his

early

support

for transmutation

was not associated

with a belief

n

progression-he

had

opposed

the

Vestigesof

Creation

because he felt

that

organic

modification

could

only

be

brought

about

by

adaptation

rather than

progression.44

is first discussion

of the

Theory

of Evo-

lution

thus

may

not have

been motivated

by

his desire to

generalize

von Baer's

principle

of

development. Although Spencer may

have

derived the name evolution

from

Carpenter's

discussion of

embryology

and the fossil

record,

t seems

probable

hat it took a

little

time for him to

appreciate

he

significance

of

von Baer's deas and

to

connectthem with

his belief

n

transmutation.

If the

progressive

principle

was little

in

evidence

in The de-

velopment

hypothesis,

withina few

years

it had

become a

prominent

part

of

Spencer's

system,

the foundation

of his whole

philosophy

of

de-

velopment.In 1857,the essay Progress: ts law and cause gave the

first

complete

statement of

this

philosophy,

ndicating

how it could

be

applied

to

almost

every

conceivable

ield of

study.

Spencer

did

not,

however,

continue he

generalization

f the name

evolution which

he

had

begun

in

1852.

In

Progress:

ts

law and cause

and the other

essays

which

he wrote n

the

course of the

1850's,

evolution was

used

only

in

its

embryological

context,45

with

progress being

used to

describe the more

general

applications

of von

Baer's

principle.

This

providesfurtherevidencethat when Spencer first coined the name

Theory

of Evolution

n

1852

he

had not

yet begun

to

appreciate

he

possibility

of

constructing

a

progressivephilosophy

whichwould

apply

to

the

theory

of transmutation.Not

until he issued his

First

Principles

(1860-62)

did

Spenceragain

ntroduce he

general

use of the term

evo-

lution.

He had decided hat

progress

carried oo

strong

an associa-

44See he

autobiographical

The filiation

of

ideas,

Life

and

Letters, 533-76,

541.

45E.g., Progress:

its law

and

cause,

Essays,

I, 8-62;

16,

and Transcendental

physiology,

ibid., 63-107;

106.



15/21

108

PETER

J. BOWLER

tion

with the

development

of

human

societies,

and

proposed

evo-

lution

as an alternative

name

for the

process

of

development

which

would

free it from

anthropomorphic

vertones.46

He

did

not

explain

he

origin

of the

word,

but it seems certainthat it was chosen becauseof

its

original

connection

withthe

process

of

embryological

development

as

described

by

Carpenter.

Although

von Baer's

principle

of

development

had

played

an

im-

portant

role

in

the creationof

Spencer's

system

during

he

1850's,

t

is

noticeablethat

in

the

following

decade

he

began

to

deemphasize

he

connection

between

embryology

and the

general

process

of

evo-

lution. In the Principlesof Biology (issued 1863-64),

he

specifically

entitled he

chapter

on

embryology

Development

nd

gave

a

footnote

explaining

hat

development

nd evolution

efer

to

different

ypes

of

processes.47

volution,

he

argued,

consistedof an increase n both

the

size

and the

complexity

of a

system,

whereas

development

nvolved

only

the

increase

of

complexity.

It is difficult o see

why

Spencer

should

re-

fuse

to admit that

the

embryoundergoes

an evolution

according

o this

definition,

but

in

a

biological

context

he now reserved

he title Evo-

lution exclusively or transmutation.Whatever he originof hisideas,

transmutation had now

become the

chief

biological

aspect

of

the

system

of

universal evolution.

Embryology

was no

longer

admitted

within

the definition

of

an

evolutionary hange,

and

it is

probable

hat

Spencer'sposition

on this

point

marks the

beginning

f a decline

n

the

(neververy

popular)

use of the term

in

an

embryological

ontext.

Although

t is difficult o

see on what

logical grounds

Spencer

could

deny

that

embryology

represented

n evolutionof

the

individual,

here

werereasonsof anotherkind whichmayhavepromptedhim to neglect

the connection

betweenthis

field

and his

wider

philosophy

of

progress.

Only

in

the most

general

sense

did the

development

of

the

individual

organism

parallel

he

evolutionary

hanges

which

Spencer

was nowdis-

tinguishing

n

cosmology, biology,

and

the

history

of human societies.

Every

process,

ncluding

hat of

embryological

evelopment,

ultimately

resulted

in

a

progression

toward

increasing

complexity.

But the

problem

with

embryology-a

problem

aggravatedby

the earlier at-

temptsto use it as a model for the overalldevelopment f life-was that

it

represented process

whose

every

detail was

completelypredesigned

in

accordancewith a

single

objective.Spencer's

deas

on

transmutation,

and the

parallel

systems

he

envisaged

n

other

fields,

were

a

good

deal

more

sophisticated

han the

earlier laws of

progressive

development

such as that

presented

n

the

Vestigesof

Creation.

Spencer

still believed

that

adaptation

was the central means

by

which transmutationhad

46Spencer,

First

Principles

of

a

New

Philosophy

(New

York,

1864),

148.

47Spencer,

Principles

of Biology

(London, 1864),

I,

133.



16/21

CHANGING

MEANING

OF EVOLUTION

109

taken

place,

and criticizedboth

Lamarck

and

the Chambers

or

postu-

lating

a

specifically

progressive

trend

in

nature.48

He

even

accepted

natural

selection,

although

he believed

hat the inheritance

of

acquired

characteristicswas

by

far the more

potent

means

of

bringing

about

adaptation.

As

early

as

1857,

he had

realized hat

withinhis overall

view

of the earth's

physical

development,

ontinued

adaptation

must,

in

the

long

run,

give

rise to

progress.49Every

time

a

group

of

species

became

adapted

o a

new

set of

conditions,

he

chances

werethat there

would

be

an increase

n

the numberof

species

and that some

of

the

new

species

wouldbe

more

complex

than

any

of

their

predecessors.

As

in

Darwin's

theory, progress

does

not occur

all the

time,

but

is

statistically

inevitable.

With such a

viewpoint,

here

was

every

reasonfor

Spencer

o

be criticalof earlierwriterswho had taken

a

simpleminded

pproach

o

progression,

and this

may

have

led to an

increasing

suspicion

of

the

value

of

the

analogy

with the

predetermined rogressive

evelopment

f

the

embryo.

In

First

Principles

and the

Principles

of

Biology,

evolution

was

used

frequently

and

prominently

o

designate

both

the

theory

of

the

transmutationof

species

and the

generaltendency

of

which

Spencer

thought

transmutation o

be but one

example.

At

first,

these works

were

argely gnored,

except

among

a

close circle of

Spencer's

scientific

friends which

included

T. H.

Huxley.50

By

1870,

however,

they

had

begun

to

gain

a much

wider

popularity,51

nd it is

significant

hat

at

about the same

time the

term evolution

began

to

figure

more

promi-

nently

n

scientific

discussions.

Because

of his

emphasis

on

adaptation,

Spencer's

biological

evolutionism

could

easily

be associated

with the

growingpopularityof the Darwinian heory,at least at a general

evel

that would allow both to be connected

under the

same

name.

But

de-

spite

the

sophistication

of

Spencer's

views on

the

relationship

between

adaptation

and

progression,

his basic

definition

of

evolution

continued o be

in

terms of a

progressive

ncrease

n

the

level

of com-

plexity. Although

most

Darwinians urned

away

from

progression

o

concentrate on the

study

of

adaptation,

their

gradual

acceptance

of

Spencer's

name for

the

theory suggests

that

they

were

by

no

means

completely opposedto the progressive mplicationsof the Synthetic

Philosophy.

Evolution became

associated

with

the

theory

of

transmutation

hrough

adaptation,

but

its connection

with

Spencer's

basic

philosophy

was

not

altogether orgotten.

48Ibid.,

02-10.

49 Progress:

ts

law and

cause,

51-52.

This

passage

is

reprinted

in

First

Principles,

404.

5Autobiography,

85,

121,

153.

5'Letter of

15 March

1869, ibid.,

241,

where

Spencer

notes

that

the

sales

of his

books in

England

had

improved

and had

passed

the sales of the American editions.



17/21

110

PETER J. BOWLER

The

Modern

Theory of Evolution.-Beginning

in the late

1860's,

evolution

began

to

figure

more

prominently

n

the debate

over

the

transmutation

heory. Lyell

used

the term at least twice

in the

tenth

edition

of

his

Principlesof

Geology (1867-68),

the

edition

n

which

he

finallyaccepted

Darwin's

heory.52

A. R. Wallace

used it severaltimes

in

his review

of this

work,53

lthough

t should

be

noted

that

the

word

occurs

very

infrequently

n

Wallace's collected

papers

on natural

se-

lection which

appeared

n

1870.54T.

H.

Huxley spoke

of evolution

frequently

n

at least one

paper published

as

early

as 1868.55

The

in-

troduction

to Darwin's

Descent

of

Man

(1871)

noted

that

many

im-

portant

scientists are

still

opposed

to evolution

n

any

form. 56

Like

Wallace,

however,

Darwin

still made ittle use of the term

in

the

bulk

of

his

writings,

but this did

not

prevent

even the

non-scientific

ress

from

recognizing

hat his

theory

was

being

increasingly

referredto as

the

theory

of evolution. The accounts of

the

Descent

of

Man

in both

the

Times and

the

Edinburgh

Review mention he

word,57

nd

reference

o

Alvar

Ellegard's nalysis

of the debateshowsthat

evolution

was used

frequently

n

the

early

1870's,

especially

at the

meetings

and

n

the

press

reportsof the BritishAssociation.58 y 1870the term had alsobegun o

appear

n

the actual

titles

of works

on the

subject

of

transmutation-

the

first

example

of

which

I

am

aware is

E. D.

Cope's

On

the

hypothesis

of

evolution,

physical

and

metaphysical. 58a

n

1874,

a

paper

by

Louis

Agassiz

was

published

posthumously

under the title Evo-

lution

and

permanence

f

type. 59

Here

Agassiz clearly recognized

hat

evolution

had become

synonymous

with

transmutation,

although

he

argued

that the

only

evolution

actually

to occur

in

nature

was

that of

the embryo. By 1878,the term hadbecomeimportantenoughfor the

52Charles

Lyell,

Principles of

Geology,

or

the modern

changes

of

the earth and

its in-

habitants

considered

as

illustrative

of

geology

(London, 1867-68),

II, 254,

493.

The

first

of

these

references,

however,

is

contained

in

a

passage reprinted

from the

appropriate

section

of

the

first edition.

53[A.

R.

Wallace],

Sir

Charles

Lyell

on

geological

climates

and

the

origin

of

species,

Quarterly

Review

(American

edition),

126

(1869),

187-205;

204-05.

54A.

R.

Wallace,

Contributions to the

Theory

of

Natural Selection.

I

have found

the

word evolution used only once in The limits of natural selection as appliedto man,

333.

55T.

H.

Huxley,

On

the

animals which

are

most

nearly

intermediate between

birds

and

reptiles,

An.

&

Mag.

Nat.

Hist.,

4th

series,

2

(1868),

66-75;

esp.

66-68,

75.

56The

Descent

of

Man

and

selection in

relationship

to sex

(London,

1871),

I,

2.

57The

Times,

8

April

1871,

5: Darwin

on

the Descent of Man.

Edinburgh

Review,

134(1871),

99-120; 100,

120.

58Ellegard,

Darwin

and

the

General

Reader,

op.

cit., 60, 87-88,

91.

58aLippincott's

Magazine

(Philadelphia, 1870),

29-41,

173-180,

310-19;

reprinted

in

E.

D.

Cope,

The

Origin

of

the

Fittest,

essays

on

evolution

(New

York,

1887),

128-72.

59Atlantic

Monthly,

33

(1874),

92-101.



18/21

CHANGING

MEANING OF EVOLUTION

111

Encyclopaedia

Britannicato

require

an

article

defining

ts

past

and

present meanings

within science-this was

Huxley's

Evolution

in

biology.

In

1882,

evolution was used

prominently

n

both the titles

and

the text

of

two books

by

G.

J.

Romanes:

Scientific

Evidences

of

Or-

ganic

Evolution,

and

Mental Evolution

in

A

nimals.

A

continuation

of

this

trend

is also

evident

in

the translation

of

foreign

works into

English.

The

German

Entwickelung

n

particular

may

be

translated

as

either

development

r

evolution,

and

the lat-

ter version s

increasingly

used

towardthe

end

of the

century.

It is

Documents

Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution