,,QWURGXFWLRQ

In her study on early Victorian science, Susan Faye Cannon remarks that the publication of Charles Darwin’s µ2ULJLQQ RI 6SHFLHV¶ in 1859 marked a break with the tradition of the perception of “science” by Victorian society. According to Cannon, ‘Darwinian’ science shattered the alliance between science and religion as it was denied “normative status by moralists and theologians”. 1

At this point, I shall not discuss the question, whether Darwin’s theory indeed represented any significant threat to the concept of “science as norm of truth”, developed by Cannon as characteristic feature of the early Victorian period. ² Nevertheless, scholars and contemporaries recognised the work of Darwin as a turning point, not only in relation to the development of science but to the expression and modification of social, political and religious concepts as well. The vast bulk of Literature on Darwin and Darwinism corroborates the fact that the ‘Origin’ GLG have a significant impact and still represents one of the major achievements of western science. The term “Darwinian Revolution” is used by scholars to illustrate the tremendous impact of the Darwinian theory on science and society. 3

The main purpose of this essay will be to ask whether the ‘Origin’ ⁴ ZDV revolutionary and to which extent it can be viewed in terms of fundamental change. Therefore I have to examine the theory, part of the scientific and public debate in the aftermath of its publication and the structure of “Victorian” society by asking the question: Why became Darwinian thought (or what was associated with it) so widely discussed, glorified or condemned? Is it possible to draw conclusions out of the theory and the public debate which might lead to a better understanding of a certain “Victorian” world view?

The following chapters will be an attempt to grasp the “spirit” of mid Victorian society by discussing the impact of Darwin’s theory. Certainly, this can only be a broad overview, focusing

S. Faye Cannon, 6FLHQFHHLQ &XOWXUH7KHH(DUO\\9LFWRULDQ3HULRG, New York: Science History 1

Publications, 1978, pp. 1-3.

² Faye Cannon, pp. 3-28.

See for example G. Himmelfarb, 'DUZLQ DQGG WKH 'DUZLQLDQ 5HYROXWLRQ, London: Chatto & 3

Windus, 1959 and D.R. Oldroyd, 'DUZLQLDQQ ,PSDFWV $Q ,QWURGXFWLRQ WRR WKH 'DUZLQLDQQ

5HYROXWLRQ, Milton Keynes: Open University Press, 1980.

Full title: C. Darwin, 2Q WKH 2ULJLQQ RI 6SHFLHV E\ 0HDQV RI 1DWXUDO 6HOHFWLRQ RU 7KH 4

3UHVHUYDWLRQRII)DYRXUHGG5DFHVLQWKHH6WUXJJOHHIRU/LIH, London: J. Murray, 1859. Subsequent

references in this essay will be to the following edition: M. Peckham (ed.): 7KH2ULJLQQRI6SHFLHV

E\\ &KDUOHV 'DUZLQ $ 9DULRUXPP 7H[W, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1959,

which contains all revisions carried out by Darwin in the later editions. Quotations will refer to

the text of the 1st edition.

2

on major subjects as religion and morality, science and scientific thought and the way in which Darwin’s work was used to justify political and social concepts of the time.

,,7KHHWKHRU\RIIHYROXWLRQ

Before discussing the impact of the theory, I should pay my attention to its content. The basic concept developed by Darwin was the theory of evolution by natural selection. If HYROXWLRQ meant continuous change, the idea that every branch of organic life was in motion, constantly renewing and developing, QDWXUDOO VHOHFWLRQ represented the manner through which change occurred. By means of ‘natural law’ every species and the wide range of variations within this species would be constantly tested and transformed. Darwin saw this ‘struggle for life’ mainly within one species rather than between different species, one of the major deficits of his theory. ⁵ ‘Nature’, however one might define it, “acted” in favour of the best adapted individuals and groups, wiping out the remaining in a continuous process of selection. In this “struggle for existence”, only the strongest survived, as Darwin pointed out at the end of chapter III:

When we reflect on this struggle, we may console ourselves with the full belief, that the war of nature is not incessant, that no fear is felt, that death is generally prompt, and that the vigorous, the healthy, and the

happy survive and multiply. 6

In the 4th edition of the ‘Origin’, Darwin added to chapter IV, in which he describes the mechanisms of natural selection, the subtitle “survival of the fittest”, a term which was in fact one of the basic points in the philosophy of Herbert Spencer. Another (voluntary?) tribute to the world of social theory was the terminology, Darwin used in describing the major principles of evolution and natural selection. He refers to the “war of nature”, to the survival of the “vigorous”, the “healthy” and the “happy” within one species. In the subtitle of his book he even calls them “favoured races”. This does not mean that Darwin himself intended the application of his theory to social or political thought. I mentioned it to show that science in Victorian society (or more general in the nineteenth century) was (and may be still is in our days) highly influenced by the values and paradigms of its social surroundings. Even if Darwin’s theory was “revolutionary”, it was nevertheless a product of its time. This becomes more clear if we look on Darwin’s second major work, the ‘'HVFHQWRII0DQ¶ (1871), in which he even justifies the

⁵ For a wider discussion of the theory, its content and its problems see Oldroyd, pp.83-104 and

Himmelfarb,'DUZLQ, pp. 256-260.

3

social order of Victorian society with regard to gender by “scientific” explanation mainly the mechanism of sexual selection. ⁷ These are only a few examples for the massive interaction between natural science as it was understood in Victorian society and social conditions and values.

To return to one of the basic questions: Why was Darwin’s theory perceived as revolutionary? At least, the concept of evolution was not new. Spencer developed it in his ‘Synthetic Philosophy’ on his own. Darwin himself mentions the Malthusian idea of the principle of population which focused on the growth of population as a major factor of pressure and forced change emerging in war, famine, poverty and disease. Darwin applied it on his own concept of evolution and made it one of the main points of his argument on the causes for the struggle for existence. 8

One powerful demonstration of the idea of “struggle” was performed by Thomas Hobbes in his famous µ/HYLDWKDQ¶ (1651). But while Hobbes described this struggle as a state of brutal anarchy which had to be mastered by the force of law ⁹ , Darwin’s struggle was intended to be inescapable, eternal and universal. Darwin did not explicitly include man into his concept, but it seemed clear that man was part of the universal ‘natural law’.

The reinterpretation of this evolutionary struggle by many of the so called “Social Darwinists” and their attempt to define it in terms of good or evil is a significant point I shall refer to later on.

Shortly after its publication, Darwin’s theory was widely discussed, passionately accepted or rejected, not only in academic or scientific circles, but, thanks to growing literacy, the emergence of the popular press and the status of science, it gained wide public attention within Victorian society. Yet, to which extent and how rapid evolutionary theory reached a wider

Darwin, 2ULJLQ, p. 162. 6

C. Darwin, 7KHH 'HVFHQW RI 0DQ DQG 6HOHFWLRQ LQ 5HODWLRQQ WR 6H[, London: J. Murray, 1871(Reprint-Princeton, 7

New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981), Darwin argues that evolution and natural selection (mainly sexual

selection) provided man with much greater abilities to master the struggle for existence than women. See for

example pp. 327-8. See also S. Strawbridge, “Darwin and Victorian Social Values” in E. M. Sigsworth (ed.),,Q

6HDUFK IRU 9LFWRULDQ 9DOXHV $VSHFWV RI 1LQHWHHQWK&HQWXU\ 7KRXJKWW DQGG 6RFLHW\, Manchester/New York:

Manchester University Press, 1988, pp. 102-115.

⁸ See Darwin, 2ULJLQ, p.147. On Spencer’s philosophy and Malthus see Oldroyd, pp. 66-69, pp. 204-211.

⁹ On Hobbes’ idea of the horrors of the natural condition see A. Ryan, “Hobbes’ Political Philosophy” in T.

Sorrell (ed.), 7KHH&DPEULGJHH&RPSDQLRQQWR+REEHV, Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996,

pp. 208-225, especially pp. 216-225.

4