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=upenn8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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.
This content downloaded by the authorized user from 192 168 52 66 on Sun 25 Nov 2012 21:26:07 PM
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp8/10/2019 Peter J. Bowler -- The Changing Meaning of Evolution
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