Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T22:46:39.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Rivalry between Charles Lyell and Roderick Murchison

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 January 2009

Leroy E. Page
Leroy E. Page
Affiliation:
Department of History, Kansas State University, Manhattan, Kansas 66506, U.S.A.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

There existed between Charles Lyell and Roderick Impey Murchison, the two most prominent British geologists of the mid-nineteenth century, a rivalry that was personal, professional, and theoretical. This rivalry, which was for the most part friendly, was most keenly felt by Murchison, who was always envious of the popular and professional success of Lyell's theories. Although both were born in Scotland and raised in England, where they lived most of their lives, their early lives were considerably different. Murchison's early career as an army officer and fox hunter contrasts rather strongly with Lyell's academic life at Oxford and as a law student. Each was the eldest child of a well-to-do Scottish family. Although Lyell's family was much the wealthier, Murchison personally always had more money than Lyell since Murchison ultimately inherited the estates of his father, father-in-law, and uncle, while Lyell's inheritance waited until his father's death in 1849, at which time the estate was left in trust for the many Lyell children.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 9 , Issue 2 , July 1976 , pp. 156 - 165
Copyright
Copyright © British Society for the History of Science 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1Wilson, Leonard G., Charles Lyell. The years to 1841: the revolution in geology (New Haven and London, 1972), pp. 1–134,Google Scholar
and personal communication; Geikie, Archibald, Life of Sir Roderick I. Murchison (2 vols., London, 1875), i. 1–95, 262; ii. 159.Google Scholar
2Geikie, , op. cit. (1), i. 123.Google Scholar
3Lyell, in 11 1829Google Scholar
regarded their attack on Buckland's diluvial theory as in danger of appearing to be a personal dispute ‘between Murchison, Lyell & Co. and Buckland’. See Lyell's letter to his sister, Marianne, 2 November 1829, Kinnordy MSS., quoted in Wilson, , op. cit. (1), p. 269.Google Scholar
4Murchison, to Whewell, W., 14 11 1831,Google Scholar
in Geikie, , op. cit. (1), i. 199.Google Scholar
Murchison, probably writing in the 1860s, recalled as his best geological friends during the period 1826–38, Charles Stokes, William Broderip, G. B. Greenough, W. H. Fitton, and G. W. Featherstonhaugh, but omitted Lyell; see Geikie, , op. cit. (1), i. 211–15.Google Scholar
5 [Mrs] Lyell, K. M. (ed.), Life, letters and journals of Sir Charles Lyell, Bart. (2 vols., London, 1881), i. 354–5, 359.Google Scholar
See also Wilson, , op. cit. (1), p. 327.Google Scholar
6Murchison, R. I., Geological Society ‘Anniversary address’, 17 02 1832,Google Scholar
in London, Edinburgh, and Dublin philosophical magazine, 2nd ser. xi (1832), 374–7.Google Scholar
7Lyell, to Murchison, , 27 06 1835,Google Scholar
Geological Society of London, and Lyell, , Principles of geology, vol. iii (London, 1833), preface.Google Scholar
8Lyell, to Horner, Mary, 29 12 1831 and 7 05 1832,Google Scholar
in Lyell, , op. cit. (5), i. 359, 384;Google Scholar
and Lyell, to Murchison, , no date [29 09 1832], Geological Society of London. Lyell did accept the presidency in 1835.Google Scholar
9Lyell, to Horner, Mary, 16 03 1832,Google Scholar
in Lyell, , op. cit. (5), i. 373.Google Scholar
10 Lyell to C. Babbage, no date [1832–3], British Library Add. MSS. 37187, f. 336. Murchison announced to the council that the Society had to thank Lyell for a new recruit, ‘Mr Grote’, who professed himself a convert because of Lyell's lectures. According to the Geological Society's records, however, George Grote did not become a member until 26 April 1843, and Grote, Arthur was elected on 6 05 1846.Google Scholar
11Lyell, to Murchison, , 29 06 1835, Geological Society of London.Google Scholar
12Quarterly review, liii (1835), 408:Google Scholar
‘In the dedication and preface to his third volume, Mr. Lyell acknowledges with warm gratefulness his obligations to Mr. Murchison, who accompanied him in the earlier parts of his continental investigation, and materially contributed to his accounts of Auvergne, the Velay, and Piedmont’. This footnote was inserted by the editor, John G. Lockhart, at the suggestion of his friend, Murchison; and Murchison had actually told Lyell about the footnote a week before it appeared, adding that ‘altho in works in general a compliment in the text was worth more than one in a note, yet in the Q.R. it was just the reverse’; see Lyell, to Murchison, , 27 06 1835, op. cit. (7). Both Lyell and Scrope complained to Lockhart about the footnote.Google Scholar
13Lyell, to Murchison, , 27 06 1835, op. cit. (7). Lyell wrote that his decision to write the book and die submission of a manuscript to the publisher in 1827 had been his first step in giving up the law for geology. His second step had been his decision to go to the continent, which meant missing the legal sessions of the spring and summer of 1828. The only role that Murchison had played had been to advise him to go on to Sicily for the winter rather than return to Scotland as he had promised his father. ‘This in no way’, Lyell wrote, ‘altered my career in life or materially modified the plan of my book … I am sorry that the necessity of reiterating such counter- statements should continue … But the reiteration in public and private of the “et quorum pars magna fui” arising from a real misconception of the facts of the case provokes me to it’. Murchison wrote on the letter: ‘Hot Weather’.Google Scholar
14Murchison, to Lyell, , no date [28? 06 1835], Geological Society of London: ‘I am wholly unconscious of having taken any such unbecoming steps, and if you value my friendship you will afford me the means of satisfying you that you have been on this point completely misinformed by whatever authority you learnt it from’. Murchison insisted that he wanted no more recognition than Lyell's own statement in his letter that Murchison had ‘contributed to the perfecting of an important part of the filling up of my plans’.Google Scholar
15Lyell, to Murchison, , 29 06 1835, op. cit. (11).Google Scholar
It was typical of Lyell to send off a protesting letter when he felt he had been wronged, but to go no further. He felt that public reply to criticism was not worth the effort, and he very seldom engaged in it: see Lyell, to Fleming, John, 3 02 1830,Google Scholar
in Lyell, , op. cit. (5), i. 261.Google Scholar
16Lyell, , Principles of geology (4th edn., 4 vols., London, 1835), i. pp. vii–viii.Google Scholar
17Lyell, to Babbage, C., 4 12 1838 and 16 08 1839, British Library Add. MSS. 37191, ff. 56–7, 226–7.Google Scholar
18Murchison, R. I., The Silurian system (2 vols., London, 1839), i. 545–6, 575–6.Google Scholar
See also Murchison, 's Siluria (London, 1854), pp. 459–61.Google Scholar
19Silurian system, op. cit. (18), i. 576.Google Scholar
In Siluria, op. cit. (18), p. 483, this passage reads: ‘he who looks to a beginning, and traces thenceforward a rise in the scale of being, until that period is reached when Man appeared upon the earth, must acknowledge in such works repeated manifestations of design, and unanswerable proofs of the superintendence of a CREATOR’. In the fourth edition (London, 1867), p. 506, the passage is much the same, except that, possibly because of the spread of evolutionary thought in the interim, the last phrase on superintendence has been deleted.Google Scholar
20 See Siluria, op. cit. (18), p. 461.Google Scholar
21Lyell, , Principles of geology (6th edn., 3 vols., London, 1840), iii. 405–6. The same statement was in the eleventh edition (2 vols., London, 1872), ii. 621. It was apparently borrowed from Lyell's King's College and Royal Institution lectures of 1832–3.Google Scholar
22 See especially Horner, to Murchison, , 18 11 1855, Geological Society of London, advising Murchison on his reply to an attack by Sedgwick.Google Scholar
23 Council minutes, 19 May 1852, Geological Society of London.Google Scholar
24Sedgwick, to Hunt, T. Sterry, 14 10 1872, Cambridge University Library, Sedgwick Papers, Add. 7652, III. 6.4.Google Scholar
25Murchison, to Ramsay, A. G., 21 05 and 27 12 1855,Google Scholar
Imperial College, London Ramsay MSS. (quoted with the permission of the College Archivist); see also Lyell, , A manual of elementary geology (5th edn., London, 1855), pp. 451–3.Google Scholar
26 In 1840, 1841, 1843, and 1844; see Geikie, , op. cit. (1), i. 289 ff.Google Scholar
27Murchison, to Ramsay, A. C., 03 1841,Google Scholar
in Geikie, , op. cit. (1), i. 312.Google Scholar
In 1830 Lyell, with Murchison's encouragement, had planned a geological trip to Russia which never materialized; see Lyell, to SirEgerton, Philip, 26 04 1830,Google Scholar
in Lyell, , op. cit. (5), i. 266.Google Scholar
28 In 1841–2, 1845–6, 1852, and 1853.Google Scholar
29 Murchison was ready to go to the British Association meeting in Montreal in 1857, but gave up the trip after his doctor recommended against it. See Geikie, , op. cit. (1), ii. 272.Google Scholar
30Geikie, , op. cit. (1), i. 353 ff.Google Scholar
Murchison opposed the Reform Bill in 1831 while Lyell supported it; see Geikie, , op. cit. (1), i. 213,Google Scholar
and Wilson, , op. cit. (1), pp. 321–2.Google Scholar
On Lyell's support of the North, see Lyell, to Spedding, T. S., 19 05 1863 and 12 03 1865,Google Scholar
in Lyell, , op. cit. (5), ii. 375–6, 392–400.Google Scholar
On Murchison's support of the South, see Murchison, to Denison, W., 16 08 1863,Google Scholar
in Geikie, , op. cit. (1), ii. 264.Google Scholar
Geikie (Geikie, , i. 356) wrote that Murchison's Russian successes and honours resulted in the stronger development of his more egotistical traits, such as his impatience with opposition or contradiction, his tendency to discover and resent the lack of recognition by others of his accomplishments, and his habit of speaking of younger geologists in a patronizing manner.Google Scholar
31Lyell, to Grove, W. R., 11 06 1849, Royal Institution, London (quoted with permission).Google Scholar
32 Murchison's ‘Diary’: ‘France, Scotland, Bohemia &c., 1861–62’, p. 133, Geological Society of London.Google Scholar
33Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l'Académie des Sciences, xix (1844), 32;Google Scholar
see also Geikie, , op. cit. (1), ii. 31. The votes (for British geologists) were Murchison 27, Sedgwick 4, Lyell 0.Google Scholar
34Murchison, to De La Beche, H., 3 04 1851, National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, De La Beche MSS.Google Scholar
35Comptes rendus, xxxvi (1853), 694,Google Scholar
Fournet, J. elected (Frenchmen only); xxxvi (1853), 722,Google Scholar
De La Beche, 45,Google Scholar
Lyell, 1; xl (1855), 410,Google Scholar
Haussman, J. F. L.38,Google Scholar
Lyell, 2; xli (1855), 1149,Google Scholar
von Haidinger, W.41,Google Scholar
Sedgwick, 4,Google Scholar
Lyell, 0; xlvi (1858), 968,Google Scholar
Sedgwick, 39,Google Scholar
Lyell, 3; xlvii (1858), 851,Google Scholar
J. Durocher elected (Frenchmen only). The correspondents were roughly divided between geologists and mineralogists and included some Frenchmen. On the 1858 election, see Lyell, to Horner, L., 10 08 1857,Google Scholar
in Lyell, , op. cit (5), ii. 243,Google Scholar
and Murchison, to Sedgwick, , 15 10 1857,Google Scholar
in Geikie, , op. cit. (1), ii. 278. Élie de Beaumont wrote to Lyell that, despite a desire on the part of some to nominate Lyell, he would throw his support elsewhere. Lyell had little regard for the Académie and paid no attention to it. Murchison wrote to Sedgwick that he had told Élie de Beaumont that ‘there could be no hesitation in bringing you in before any of our English contemporaries and that according to your merits you ought to have preceded me’.Google Scholar
36Comptes rendus, liv (1862), 149,Google Scholar
Lyell, 49, others 2.Google Scholar
37Lyell, to Hooker, J. D., 23 07 1862, ‘Letters to J. D. Hooker’, vol. xiv, no. 306, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.Google Scholar
38Comptes rendus, lvii. (1863), 1061, and lxvi (1868), 590. Murchison had a first-place nomination in 1868 but required two ballots to receive a majority over scattered opposition. He had been nominated eight times previously, beginning in 1854, whereas Lyell was never nominated.Google Scholar
39Murchison, to Peel, R., 12 11 1841, British Library Add. MSS. 40494, f. 331.Google Scholar
40Peel, R. to Murchison, , 13 11 1841,Google Scholar
British Library Add. MSS. 40494, f. 334. See also Murchison, to Peel, R., 16 11 1841, British Library Add. MSS. 40495, f. 7.Google Scholar
41Geikie, , op. cit. (1), ii. 13–15, 53.Google Scholar
42Murchison, to Herschel, J., 12 03 1845 (actually 1846),Google Scholar
Royal Society of London, Herschel, MSS., vol. xii, f. 409.Google Scholar
The quotation is from Peel's letter to Buckland, W., 5 02 1846,Google Scholar
given in Geikie, , op. cit. (1), ii. 54.Google Scholar
43Lyell, to Horner, L., 11 09 1848,Google Scholar
in Lyell, , op. cit. (5), ii. 148.Google Scholar
44Murchison, to Aberdeen, Lord, 9 12 1853, British Library Add. MSS. 43251, f. 263.Google Scholar
45Aberdeen, Lord to Murchison, , 27 12 1853, British Library Add. MSS. 43251, f. 265.Google Scholar
46Murchison, to Aberdeen, Lord, 19 05 1854,Google Scholar
Aberdeen, Lord to Murchison, , 22 05 1854, British Library Add. MSS. 43253, ff. 122, 131.Google Scholar
47Geikie, , op. cit. (1), ii. 330.Google Scholar
48 According to Dawkins, W. Boyd, Edinburgh review, cxlii (1875), 202,Google Scholar
Lyell received his title from Palmerston's government in 1864 ‘by the favour of Prince Albert, who highly appreciated his society’. Prince Albert, of course, died in 1861. Murchison received his title from Russell's government. See Brewster, D. to Murchison, , 29 12 1865, Geological Society of London, congratulating him, but stating that the government should have made him at least a baron (‘Lord Taradale’).Google Scholar
49Geikie, , op. cit. (1), ii. 108.Google Scholar
50Quarterly journal of the Geological Society, vi (1850), xxvii–lxvi; vii (1851), xxv–lxxvi.Google Scholar
51Murchison, R. I., ‘On the former changes of the Alps’, Royal Institution library of science (being the Friday evening discourse in physical sciences … 1851–1939). Earth sciences, vol. i (London, 1971), pp. 1–6Google Scholar
(7 March 1851); see also Geikie, , op. cit. (1), ii. 118.Google Scholar
After 1863 both Lyell and Murchison accepted the glacial theory for mountainous areas, but neither was willing to accept the action of land glaciers as a general explanation for striations, erratics, and drift; see Lyell, 's Elements of geology (6th edn., London, 1865)Google Scholar
and Murchison's presidential addresses to the Geographical Society, in Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, 1863–1870.Google Scholar
See also Davies, Gordon L., The earth in decay. A history of British geomorphology, 1578–1878 (London, n.d. [1969]), pp. 287–313, for an excellent account of the opposition by Lyell and Murchison to the glacial theory.Google Scholar
53Murchison, to Forbes, J. D., 15 08 1863, St Andrews University Library MSS.Google Scholar
53Geikie, , op. cit. (1), ii. 116–19,Google Scholar
and Murchison, R. I., ‘On the distribution of the flint- drift of the South-east of England on the flanks of the Weald and over the surface of the South and North Downs’, Quarterly journal of the Geological Society, vii (1851), 349–98.Google Scholar
See also Murchison, to Mantell, G., 17 05 1851,Google Scholar
Mantell MSS., Alexander Turnbull Library, Wellington, New Zealand. Murchison was still arguing against Lyell's marine erosion theory of Weald denudation in 1867, with barely a mention of the fluvialist theory; see Siluria (4th edn., London, 1867), PP. 493–4.Google Scholar
See also Davies, , op. cit. (51), pp. 254–9, 348.Google Scholar
54Murchison, to De La Beche, H., 3 04 1851, National Museum of Wales, Cardiff, De La Beche MSS.Google Scholar
55Edinburgh review, cxviii (1863), 254–302.Google Scholar
56Murchison, to Forbes, J. D., 5 07 1863, St Andrews University Library MSS.Google Scholar
57Geikie, , op. cit. (1), ii. 324–5.Google Scholar
See also Murchison, to Lyell, , 4 02 1864, Darwin- Lyell correspondence, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
58Murchison, to Reeve, H., 29 1863,Google Scholar
and Murchison, to Forbes, J. D., 15 08 1863,Google Scholar
St Andrews University Library MSS. During these years Murchison supported Lyell in his candidacy as a trustee of the British Museum and in 1864 for the presidency of the British Association; see Geikie, , op. cit. (1), ii. 256, 267.Google Scholar
59Murchison, to Lyell, , 24 02 1865, Darwin-Lyell correspondence, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
60Murchison, to Geikie, A., 10 02 1865,Google Scholar
Geological Society of London. See also Murchison, to Jones, T. Rupert, 16 08 1866, British Library Add. MSS. 45926, ff. 172–3: ‘[Lyell] knows nothing of [the old rocks and] had no right to interfere with my views and labours’.Google Scholar
61Murchison, R. I., ‘Anniversary address’, Journal of the Royal Geographical Society, xxvi (1866), cxxv; see also Siluria (4th edn.), op. cit. (53), pp. 495–7. See also Murchison to Lyell, 7 February 1863, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, Darwin-Lyell correspondence: ‘I am thankful for a slight move on your part towards occasional paroxysms [in Antiquity of man]’.Google Scholar
62Geikie, , op. cit. (1), ii. 118.Google Scholar
63 See Geikie, , op. cit. (1), ii. 345–6,Google Scholar
and the review by Dawkins, Boyd, op. cit. (48), pp. 173–203.Google Scholar