Talk:Charles Lyell

Add external link

Please add a link to <http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/>, which is editing and publishing all of the correspondence of Charles Darwin. Charles Lyell was a significant correspondent of Darwin. Eadp 14:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Image source

Dr Steven Plunkett (Talk) | (contribs) added this "Image source" section heading and the following line to the article at 19:01, 9 January 2007 (UTC):

• Portraits of Honorary Members of the Ipswich Museum (Portfolio of 60 lithographs by T.H. Maguire) (George Ransome, Ipswich 1846-1852)

To what does this pertain? Might its pertinence to Charles Lyell be specified? Athænara ✉ 19:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The lithograph of Sir Charles Lyell by T Maguire is one of the series of 60+ commissioned by George Ransome (Secretary of Ipswich Museum) and published as such by him in the years 1846-1852 consecutively. These images were all of Honorary members, Vice-presidents, patrons, etc, of the Ipswich Museum. The lithos are now known mainly from detached examples and dissociated from their source, but the publication reference I have cited is the original and only form in which this lithographic series was issued. It is therefore appropriate bibliographical information pertaining to the lithograph. It is the proper name for the ultimate image source. Hope that makes sense! Sorry to be so slow in replying, heart attack intervened. bw Dr Steven Plunkett 02:02, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

So which is it?

Section 1:"Lyell continued to firmly reject the idea of organic evolution in each of the first nine editions of the Principles. Confronted with Darwin's On the Origin of Species, he finally offered a tepid endorsement of evolution in the tenth edition."

Section 2.5: "Charles Darwin was a close personal friend, and Lyell was one of the first prominent scientists to support On the Origin of Species; he also fully accepted natural selection as the driving engine behind evolution in his tenth edition of Principles."

Tepid endorsement, or full acceptance? I'd favor the second since it seems to have a source, though I don't have access to it. 71.136.181.209 (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Desmond, Adrian; Moore, James (1991), Darwin, London: Michael Joseph, Penguin Group, ISBN 0718134303 make quite a lot of Lyell's struggle to accept evolution and natural selection, but as far as I've found aren't clear exactly what came when. Certainly Lyell was cautious at the time of publication of the Origin in 1859, supporting Darwin in publishing but struggling to accept the ideas. Quoting p. 547 – In July 1867 Lyell was in despair, working on a tenth edition of the Principles of Geology, trying in vain to turn what was an anti-Lamarckian opus into a pro-Darwinian fudge. Darwin, ever hopeful, rejoiced that he was going to "speak out plainly about species" for the first time, even though his proof chapter on man was... "too orthodox, except for the beneficed clergy". – Haven't been able to find the letters quoted, but earlier correspondence in 1863 shows Darwin and Hooker disappointed that Lyell's Antiquity of Man published earler that year failed publicly to endorse natural selection in the book,[1] and showed an inability to decide about modification of species.[2][3][4] ... dave souza, talk 23:44, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Some more information:

On May 3, 1860, Charles Lyell wrote in his notebook: "I adopted the hypothesis of limited variability 30 years ago & have adhered to it, not that we have experience enough to establish such a dogma. Mr. Darwin has written a work which will constitute an era in geology & natural history to show that the rival hypothesis of unlimited variability is the more probable of the two, & that the descendants of common parents may become in the course of ages so unlike each other as to be entitled to rank as a distinct species, from each other or from some of their progenitors. (Leonard G. Wilson, ed., Sir Charles Lyell's Scientific Journals on the Species Question. Yale University Press, 1970. Pg. 407)

This certainly supports Lyell's cautious attitude shortly after the Origin was published. He refers to Darwin's "hypothesis" as being "the more probable" if one were to weigh the evidence. He is certainly not expressing any absolute acceptance or certainty. In Darwin's Feb. 24th letter to Hooker, Darwin wrote that "I have read Lyell's book...He has showed great skill in picking out salient points in the argument for change of species; but I am deeply disappointed (I do not mean personally) to find that his timidity prevents him giving any judgment." [5] Albie34423 (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

The para on evolution is quite misleading, because it fails to appreciate the mental torment this issue caused Lyell (for religious reasons). The reality is that he never accepted nat sel as the main couse of evolution, and he was quite a late-comer to evolution as well. In Desmond's Archetypes and Ancestors: palaeontology in Victorian London (Blond & Briggs 1982) page 179 (one of many references to Lyell in this excellent source) we find:

"Even Charles Lyell agreed with Argyll that 'natural selection was a force quite subordinate to that variety-making or creative power to which all the wonders of the organic world must be referred.' "

Lyell's Antiquity of Man is famous for its equivocation on all the points of most interest at the time, and almost all biographers have inferred that from such an honest and professional geologist this equivocation reflected his concern for the damage Darwin's ideas might do to his religion.

None of this bears on his personal frienships with his three more secular friends CD, JDH and THH, which were remarkably secure. Bearing in mind several comments above, I think there is an overwhelming case for rewriting the section on evolution to better reflect those hist sci biographers whose sources we are going to use. And let's not forget Janet Browne's two volumes as an important – almost essential – source. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that sounds right, sorry I'm a bit tied up with other work but a rewrite would be welcome. One quibble – "reflected his concern for the damage Darwin's ideas might do to his religion" seems rather close to the creationist perception of Darwin as anti-religion, from memory it was more that he simply could not see or accept that evolution was undirected or without a teleological aim, but found Darwin's arguments convincing and had a huge struggle trying to reconcile them with his religious beliefs. .. dave souza, talk 10:03, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so at last I've done something about it, plus some refs. Improvements to the article are still needed, but at least what it says in different sections is now approximately consistent. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, this is a bit embarrassing... I find that it is by no means clear that L. rejected the idea of evolution in Principles, rather that he rejected Lamark's mechanism. He was equivocal about whether spp were immutable, and letters suggest he was at least open to the idea that species change with time. The first para of this section are therefore too bald. (The sources are mainly LLL and Principles vol 2.) I'll write an intro para to clarify this. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Can't find any mention of Vol. II in Browne's Voyaging, the index is a bit unreliable and she tends to go out of sequence at times. However, Desmond & Moore p. 131 goes into some detail –

"Where [vol I] had delved into gradual changes in past landscapes, this asked whether animals and plants had been modified to match. Was there a natural mechanism for slowly transforming them to keep pace? No, was the short answer. ... a book-long refutation of Lamarck.... each species of animal or plant was adapted to its birth-spot – its 'centre of creation.' Any change, any environmental stress, would exterminate it, not transform it. Species are continually turning over; as old ones die naturally, new ones are born mysteriously. ... a lawyer's book, piled with clever arguments against the idea that life had evolved and could be represented as a family tree. Can all animals trace their ancestry back to a single stem? Lyell answered no, appalled at the thought of a chimpanzee in the family, of an ape aspiring to 'the attributes and dignity of man.' ... The sequence of fossils... showed no progress towards humanity... with no progress there could be no transmutation. But Lyell had at least posed the question of how species die and are reborn, and in a more genealogical way than Darwin had ever encountered"

So, it was replacement with time rather than change with time, according to D&M. .. dave souza, talk 09:14, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Based on the refs now given, I have now written what was known (but not previously said in this article) that Lyell had a deliberate tactic to be much more conservative in print compared to his thoughts in letters. In 1830, this tactic was perhaps reasonable, considering the pasting given to Wm. Lawrence in the 1820s. It was not so reasonable after 1858 when Darwin & Wallace broke cover. I assume we can all agree that letters were a much more important medium in the 18th/19thC than they were in the 20thC, and since many of Lyell's are published they can be brought forward to support the text. I have adjusted the prose in the earlier section on his Career to 1. de-emphasise over-statement on his originality, and 2. to make the comments on evolution match those below more closely.
I assume (but can't say in the article) that what started as a tactic became something of a neurosis as he continued to fret over the consequences for Anglicanism of Darwin's ideas, especially nat sel. There is some evidence that he became more conflicted about this as time passed. His later years were rather sad: he was pessimistic as well as blind. Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What were Lyell's religious beliefs? Hutton was a Deist. Was Lyell or was he some kind of Christian? Scots Calvanist or Anglican? Did he ever write about his belief. Did he attend church. If so which? alphasierra —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphasierra (talk • contribs) 16:22, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Lyell was definitely a Christian, and probably a Deist philosophically (as defined in our enWP article). I think an Anglican. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Lyell was definitely an Anglican and shared a fairly conventional concept of natural theology, even if he rejected what he thought of as simple minded scriptural geology. Lyell saw the earth as having been created through divine providence in such a way that it would maintain itself as a suitable place for life practically indefinitely by renewing itself through endless cycles. Climate change and local disasters such as earthquakes, rising and sinking land, erosion, floods, and volcanoes occurred as part of cyclical processes that maintained the earth in an overall steady state capable of supporting life. This was the real root of his opposition to transmutational ideas like Lamarck's because they implied that life had a direction, progressing from the simple to the complex, which would imply that life on earth might have both a beginning and a predetermined end, rather than as Lyell believed, being created adapted to local conditions, going extinct and being replaced when local conditions changed by organisms adapted to the new conditions that themselves would be replaced when conditions changed again as part of the endless cycles that maintained the earth in steady state. For a sources see Rudwick, Martin Worlds Before Adam (2008), Rudwick Martin The Meaning of Fossils 2nd edittion (1976), and Christopher McGowan The Dragon Seekers (2001), and also some of Stephen Jay Gould's writings that discussed directional vs cyclical views of the earth's history, but which I don't have a hold of at the moment to provide exact citations. In my opinion this article does not treat these ideas very well. I think the problem is that almost all the sources used for this article are part of the Darwin Industry and view Lyell through his interactions with and affects on Darwin's work rather than looking at his work on its own terms and in terms of its place in the historical development of geology and paleontology before the publication of Origin as do the sources I mention. This is something I plan to remedy at some point but I am busy now with Mary Anning and William Buckland. So if someone wants to beat me to it that would be great. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. However, the article certainly does one thing well: it answers the question "why was he notable?" square-on with the answer: for his science, and his friendship with Darwin. He wasn't notable for anything else. Macdonald-ross (talk) 14:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

True, but the problem is that the one, his relationship with Darwin, has been allowed to color (or I guess colour since this is a Br. spelling article) the presentation of the other, his contributions to the development of the science of geology (really the sciences of geology and paleontology though Lyell would hardly have recognized the distinction). The thing is that Darwin is such a towering figure and his theory was so important (and has, at least in some non scientific circles, has been so polarizing for so long) that there is an almost inevitable tendency to look at many other 19th and even 18th figures and their ideas strictly through the lens of how their work related to his, but this distorts the history of science. To understand how science develops you have to understand the way the important players' ideas and work fit into context with previous and contemporary ideas (including influences and effects that may be outside of strictly what we would now consider science), not just how they compared with what came later. For a half century or so before Darwin ever set foot on the Beagle a major sea change was underway in ideas about the history of the earth and of living things including concepts like extinction, deep time, and the geologic timescale. These developments and the way they unfolded deserve to be chronicled on their own terms, not just for how they influenced the history of evolutionary thought. Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the principle that the article should ideally focus more on Lyell's direct influence on science, as well as covering his effect on Darwin. The correspondence between Lyell and John Herschell drew widespread attention to the implications of geological uniformitarianism for the formation of species, written before Darwin had met Lyell or formulated his own ideas on the subject.[6] One aspect that could be covered, though I can't recall just now where the source was, is that Lyell's history of geology in his Principles had considerable influence in how later generations perceived Lyell's predecessors. As polemic, it presented a rather distorted view of the "catastrophists" opposing his uniformitarian ideas: will try to watch out for a source. Another minor issue: we mention Hutton and Playfair, but in Sandra Herbert's article pp. 171–172 she states that Sir James Hall, 4th Baronet of Dunglass, had considerable influence around 1819 in promoting Huttonian ideas. . . dave souza, talk 16:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Knighthood

The article has Lyell as a Knight of the Order of the Thistle (shortened to KT), but these two sources have him as a Knight Bachelor (shortened to Kt), [7][8] are there any sources that disagree with this? Mikenorton (talk) 10:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for asking the question. Lyell is not in the list of Thistles for 1848 or any other year as far as I can see. So it seems almost certain that he should be listed as Kt. Bt. (there is no doubt about the baronetcy). A check of his entry in the Dictionary of National Biography (which I do not have handy at present) should be the clincher, but I am now persuaded by your refs, and by the fact that KT was not on his funeral notice (Letters of CL, vol 2). Macdonald-ross (talk) 18:26, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Concise DNB gives Kt. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't seem any doubt now , but I just found this, [9] if any more proof were required (p 347 N.B. 81 MB file!). Mikenorton (talk) 21:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Sent down?

'Sent down' means rusticated. Evidence? None quoted. Concise DNB gives MA, Exeter College, 1821. If no evidence for rustication, out it comes. Macdonald-ross (talk) 20:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Done, with text plus ref. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Books and links

As of this writing, some of the titles in the list of Lyell's books have an author/editor name, but others do not. (Yes, I know I'm the culprit.) I've considered putting each title into a Wikipedia "cite" template. Is this worth doing, or will it simply lead to "link rot" and a sea of blue text? I'm not sure that I have enough bibliographical information to complete a "cite" template in each case. Suggestions will be appreciated. - Astrochemist (talk) 12:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I see no particular benefit in using the cite template here, because the references are completely satisfactory as is. The arrangement of 'Principles' editions looks a bit scrappy, though; needs tidying. For the reader, the links to on-line text versions is useful, and they are placed in two difference positions. Will amend. Macdonald-ross (talk) 06:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Herschel's letter

I notice that in the Evolution section Lyell is quoted as writing "If I had stated... the possibility of the introduction or origination of fresh species being a natural, in contradisctinction to a miraculous process, I should have raised a host of prejudices against me...."

It may depend on the date, but this could well be a reference to the letter which Sir John Herschel wrote to Lyell on 20 February 1836, praising his Principles of Geology as a work which would bring "a complete revolution in [its] subject, by altering entirely the point of view in which it must thenceforward be contemplated." and opening a way for bold speculation on "that mystery of mysteries, the replacement of extinct species by others. Many will doubtless think your speculations too bold, but it is as well to face the difficulty at once. For my own part, I cannot but think it an inadequate conception of the Creator, to assume it as granted that his combinations are exhausted upon any one of the theatres of their former exercise, though in this, as in all his other works, we are led, by all analogy, to suppose that he operates through a series of intermediate causes, and that in consequence the origination of fresh species, could it ever come under our cognizance, would be found to be a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous process...".van Wyhe 2007, p. 197, Babbage 1838, pp. 225–227

Desmond & Moore suggest that there was wide discussion of this letter in London early in 1837, but when it appeared in print in Babbage, Charles (1838), The Ninth Bridgewater Treatise (2nd ed.), London: John Murray it was read by Darwin as novel and welcome support for the theory he had by then conceived.[10]

In any event, it's a notable comment on Lyell's book and worth looking into. . . dave souza, talk 17:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The letter you mention in your first para was Lyell to William Whewell, March 7, 1837. I should have put this in the f/note, and have now added it. The sentence leading into the quote is "In regard to the last subject [ie 'changes from one set of animal & vegetable species to another'], you remember what Herschel said in his letter to me. If I had said as plainly as he has done...&c". So you are quite right to link Herschel's and Lyell's letters together. The letter to Whewell is long, five pages in print, and follows the principle that Lyell was much more forthcoming in letters than he was in his books. Both Herschel and Whewell had clearly picked up that more was implied by gradualism than Lyell had openly spoken about in the Principles. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Nationality

I just reverted a change to 'Scottish', as this article has been stable with 'British' for some time. That makes sense to me, given he spent most of his life (including much of his childhood) in England. However, I would be interested in hearing other views. Mikenorton (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

It makes no difference how much time he spent in your country. He was a Scotsman, and it's as simple as that. You lot are always trying to rob Scotland of its achievements and culture by trying to pass off Scots as English. I have removed the spurious Anglo/Scot stubb and replaced it with the Scottish geologists stubb as appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.240.137 (talk) 22:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I indented your reply for clarity - I hope that was OK. Mikenorton (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that his nationality be described as 'English', just that 'British' is a better description, but let's wait for other opinions. Mikenorton (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Article Evaluation

I found the lead section of this article to be a little bit scarce with information about Charles Lyell. I rely on the lead section of any article to summarize the article's key points. Specifically, in a biography, I want to know why this person is significant and what they are known for. The lead section in this article only skims the surface of what is covered in the article. I would suggest adding information about his contributions to evolution, geological surveys, and stratigraphy. The section on stratigraphy begins by stating this was Lyell's most important specific work; however, it is not even mentioned in the lead section.

Another recommendation I have for this article is perhaps to add information about his praise as well as any criticism he may have received. As uniformitarianism is a stark contrast to catastrophism, there must have been some critics of his viewpoint. I would like to read more about the reception his works received when they were first published and how those viewpoints may have changed over time.

Overall, I think this is a great article with a lot of pertinent information!

-- Lizziewalters (talk) 16:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Article Improvement

I would like to offer suggestions to the lead article. Overall it hit on some key points but it did not highlight all the summarizing information that it could have given the updates this article has had over time. I agree with Lizewalters that the lead session needs to mention something about stratigraphy but could also benefit from additional information from the biography section, as well as, the evolution section. The lead mentions uniformitarianism but then only gives a short definition of what this actually is and if a user just read this I fear that it could be interpreted a few ways. A way to cut down on perhaps personal bias while reading that part would be to define what "process is still in operation today". In addition, the portion where it talks about how Charles Lyell was one of the first men to believe that the world was more than 300 million years old is slightly understated. It is not in reference to anything else and I believe that adding some context, that most people at this time thought it was only 6000 years old, would help show the gravity of his statement especially given the time.

There are some really great aspects of this article and I think with a little more research it could really shine!

--JessicaCmaguire (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:25, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, why don't you fix it like that? Chiswick Chap (talk) 22:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Charles Lyell. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080513031028/http://geology.com:80/publications/lyell/ to http://geology.com/publications/lyell/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Scottish?

On the basis of Michael Ruse in The Darwinian Revolution which says Lyell was "born in Scotland, but brought up as an English country gentleman", I undid a change from British to Scottish. Mais has changed it back, linking to Britannica. That does indeed describe Lyell as Scottish, but also says his "principal childhood associations, however, were with the New Forest near Southampton, Eng., where his parents moved before he was two years old." and his education and career seem to have also been very much in England. Will leave it as Scottish, but would like to see better sources about how he identified himself. . dave souza, talk 11:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I attempted to open a discussion on this point a few years ago Talk:Charles_Lyell#Nationality, but there wasn't much response. His father, Charles Lyell (botanist), has been variously described as English, Scottish and British in our article - he moved to Kinnordy at the age of 59, having been born, and lived in England (particularly the New Forest, hence the link) until then. I looked at Google Books and found that the subject of this article has been described as English, Scottish and British in turn. I always thought that 'British' covered the bases best but, as before, I'll await further comment. Mikenorton (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

A basic error in this page regarding geological eras

The current page says of Lyell, ″He also coined the currently-used names for geological eras, Palaeozoic, Mesozoic and Cenozoic″. This sentence is false in all respects and needs deleting or modifying. Adam Sedgwick invented the term Palaeozoic in 1838, which he initially just used to group the Cambrian and Silurian periods (Ref: Sedgwick, Adam (1838). "A synopsis of the English series of stratified rocks inferior to the Old Red Sandstone – with an attempt to determine the successive natural groups and formations". Proceedings of the Geological Society of London. 2 (58): 675–685). Later, John Philips (1840 and 1841) redefined the Palaeozoic and suggested the terms "Mesozoic" and "Kainozoic" for subsequent eras, where the latter eventually became the Cenozoic. In fact, the wikipedia page for Mesozoic says that John Philips proposed the term Mesozoic. And similarly, note #4 for the Paleozoic wikipedia page correctly attributes the term to Sedgwick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charliecat1 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Associate of Darwin

Somebody thinks this phrase is misleading. It's a neutral characterization. To point out that Lyell "associated" with Darwin and "is associated with Darwin, is uncontroversial and factual and supported in body of article (42 times). To dispute this isn't useful. Generally his textbook isn't read today. 35.8.218.249 (talk) 21:23, 25 April 2023 (UTC)