Showing 7 results

Transcript

Belton. | Gt Yarmouth.
27 Sepr 1890.

My dear Wright,

You will remember my speaking to you here about the correspondence of my Grandfather the late Dawson Turner. He was in the habit of binding the letters addressed to him, & hence accumulated during a long & active life a considerable number of letters, some from persons of mark in their way, & curious also as illustrative of life & habits from, roughly 1790 to 1850. He was in early life, much devoted to botany, & there are among the letters a good many from botanists on the Continent which Joseph Hooker tells me illustrate the early progress of the Science. Afterwards Mr Turner directed more attention to archaeology—& there are letters on this subject also.

I have taken out of the volumes all the private letters, & those from members of his Family.—this however does not detract from the interest of those which remain.

My question to you was—Will your College Library give an acceptance permanently to these 50 to 60 Volumes. If you say—yes—I will ask Mrs Jacobson, who is the present owner to consent to this arrangement.

Mrs Jacobson is now an old Lady—& as I am constantly reminded of the miserable lapse of time—I shall be glad to settle this matter. Will you kindly assist me.

I am sorry we have not seen more of each other—or rather that I have not seen more of you this year—but I hope we shall do better in the future.

Yours very truly
R H Inglis Palgrave

Hitcham, Bildeston, Suffolk - JSH sends WW a list of Royal Society publications concerned with Botany. He has been unable to hunt down Hooker's [Joseph Hooker] scattered articles on De Candolle [Augustin Pyrame de Candolle], however the Chronicle Index for 1856 will soon be out: 'I wrote to Hooker, who is so infinitely more au fait at Botanical Progress than myself, and he tells me has written to you to say he will, as soon as he possibly can, devote the time necessary to meet your wishes'. WW will have probably seen Hooker's Introduction to Cryptogamic Botany: 'more advance has been made of late years in this part of the subject than in any other - this has been owing to the vast improvement of late in Microscopes, toys in the hands of so many - mighty engines in the service of progress with the few - I find our botanical nomenclature sadly grates upon the ear of some of our Cambridge friends - in the notice of what we require at the next Natural Science Tripos - I tell the V.C. [Vice Chancellor] the Classics of the Universities are to blame in having allowed the Natural Sciences to progress without their aid - no doubt a scientific idea can be conveyed by a barbarity as well as by a University - but the latter is to be preferred if we can have it - as much as good manners are preferable to vulgarity'.

9 Montague Place, Worthing - From what JDH can remember of WW's chapter on the Language of Science in his 'Philosophy' [On the Philosophy of Discovery: Chapters Historical and Critical, 1856], he does not think it requires further illustrations from Botany. The Linnaean system and Brown's [Robert Brown] sagacious example [the discovery of gymnosperm] 'have kept the majority of good working Botanists within proper limits in the matter of nomenclature and terminology too'. The Germans that have tried to introduce a cloud of new terms have not found a single advocate: 'There is an extremely good article by G. Bentham, a very able Botanist and author of an introduction to logic as the principles of terminology, in the first or second volume of the Linnaean Society's 8 vol. Journal which is perhaps worth your reading - it is very short and well put'. Thanks WW for the invitation to stay at the Trinity Lodge.
A small piece of paper cut from another letter from JDH to an unidentified person is attached, in which JDH states that WW 'is the only man who has fairly guessed Linnaeus's mind and reform'.

Kew - alludes 'to your History [The History of the Inductive Sciences, from the Earliest to the Present Time, 1837] not being appreciated by Naturalists, this is in part due to their defective early education in all that regards science. Really highly educated men have told me, that they supposed from its title 'that it was all about physics and mathematics; - and I know several eminent cultivators of the physical and mathematical sciences who regard Nat. Hist. as an accumulation of details of observation, and not an Inductive Science at all'. A scientific classification and nomenclature is required for general society: 'At present the terms Natural Science, Natural History, Physics, Physical Science etc, are entangled. You, and the Royal Society, use the term Phys. Science as equivalent to if not synonymous with Natural Knowledge; but most people regard it as pure physics'. JDH gives an analysis of the perception of Botany and its place in the classification of science. 'At present the student is rarely taught that Botany has a history as a science, that it is a member of the inductive sciences and that it is based upon observation and reflection - nothing can be more unphilosophical than much of the present mode of teaching, nothing comes from it, and nothing is to be expected, - or perhaps hoped for'.

Kew - JDH had not read WW's 'History' [The History of the Inductive Sciences, from the Earliest to the Present Time, 1837] for upwards of five years: 'I am surprised to find how little there is to add, and nothing that affects the general purport of the work' [WW is bringing out the third edition]. The only two subjects to require touching up are Cryptogamia and Geographical Botany. If WW wants to follow up developments on the former he will send him 'Berkeley's Intro. to Crypt. Bot': - [Miles J. Berkeley, Introduction to Cryptogamic Botany, 1857] Henfrey's [Arthur Henfrey] Report to Brit. Assn. [BAAS] - and a German pamphlet or two'. With regard to geographical Botany, he agrees with WW that in the strict sense it belongs to Paleontology: 'I am puzzled what to say about about it - my own opinion being, that in the present state of our knowledge, we are quite in the dark as to the philosophy of distribution. This subject however occupies so much of the attention of Botanists and Geologists, that it can scarcely be avoided'. Charles Lyell's views are the 'most able and original, and as developed by Edward Forbes have thrown a new light'. We must 'draw upon our imaginations, as to assume that species are created as such, and in one place only'. WW will find it worth while looking at JDH's recent review of Augustin Pyrame de Candolle's work upon Geographical Botany: 'I appear (to myself) however there to favor the doctrine of transmutation more than I really do...My views of progression in Fossil Botany are directly opposed to the prevalent ones; - those I mean which Hugh Miller advocates so strongly'. JDH will also send WW 'another Introductory Essay, and contains some observations upon the study of Systematic Botany; whatever may be good in this attempt is as you will see due in a great measure to the influence of the 'History of the Inductive Sciences' upon the author'. JDH gives a few suggestions on certain other details. The foundations of the natural system were laid by Carl Linnaeus, to a greater extent than most botanists are aware of. 'Brown's [Robert Brown] discovery of gymnosperm is the only real advance hitherto made in the right direction'.