Asa Gray and the Journal
In 1834 there appears in the Journal (25, 346) a “Sketch of the Mineralogy of a portion of Jefferson and St. Lawrence Counties, New York, by J. B. Crawe of Watertown and A. Gray of Utica, New York.” This appears to be the first mention in the Journal of the name of Dr. Asa Gray, who, shortly after that date, became thoroughly identified with its botanical interests. In the early part of his career both before and immediately after graduating in medicine, Gray gave much attention to the different branches of natural history in its wide sense. He not only studied but taught “chemistry, geology, mineralogy, and botany,” the latter branch being the one to which he devoted most of his attention. Among his early guides in the pursuit of botany may be mentioned Dr. Hadley, “who had learned some botany from Dr. Ives of New Haven,” and Dr. Lewis C. Beck of Albany, author of Botany of the United States North of Virginia. At that period he made the acquaintance of Dr. John Torrey of New York, with whom he later became associated in most important descriptive work. During the years between his graduation in medicine and 1842, the year when he came to Harvard College, his activities were diverse and intense; so that his preparation for his distinguished career was very broad and thorough. His first visit to Europe, in 1838, brought him into personal relations with a large number of the botanists of Great Britain and the Continent. This extensive acquaintance, added to his broad training, enabled him even from the outset to exert a profound influence upon the progress of his favorite science. He made the Journal tributary to this development. His name first appears as associate editor in 1853, but there are articles in the Journal from his pen which bear an earlier date. The first of these early botanical papers is the following: “A Translation of a memoir entitled ‘Beiträge zur Lehre von der Befruchtung der Pflanzen,’ (contributions to the doctrine of the impregnation of plants, by A. J. C. Corda:) with prefatory remarks on the progress of discovery relative to vegetable fecundation; by Asa Gray, M. D.” (31, 308, 1837). Dr. Gray says that he made the translation from the German for his own private use, but thinking that it might be interesting to the Lyceum, he brought it before the Society, with “a cursory account of the progress of discovery respecting the fecundation of flowering plants, for the purpose of rendering the memoir more generally intelligible to those who are not particularly conversant with the present state of botanical science.” The translation occupies six pages of the Journal, while the prefatory remarks fill nine pages. The prefatory remarks constitute an exhaustive essay on the subject, embodied in attractive and perfectly clear language. The translator shows complete familiarity with the matter in hand and gives an adequate account of all the work done on the subject up to the date of M. Corda’s paper. A second important paper by him near this period is his review of “A Natural System of Botany: or a systematic view of the Organization, Natural Affinities, and Geographical Distribution of the whole Vegetable Kingdom; together with the use of the more important species in Medicine, the Arts, and rural and domestic economy, by John Lindley. Second edition, with numerous additions and corrections, and a complete list of genera and their synonyms. London: 1836” (32, 292, 1837). A very brief notice of this work in the first part of the volume for 1837 closes with the words, “A more extended notice of the work may be expected in the ensuing number of the Journal.” The extended notice proved to be a critical study of the work, signed by the initials A. G. which later became so familiar to readers of the Journal. Citation of a few of its sentences will indicate the strong and quiet manner in which Dr. Gray, even at the outset, wrote his notices of books. In speaking of the second edition of Professor Lindley’s work, he says:
“It is not necessary to state that a treatise of this kind was greatly needed, or to allude to the peculiar qualifications of the learned and industrious author for the accomplishment of the task, or the high estimation in which the work is held in Europe. But we may properly offer our testimony respecting the great and favorable influence which it has exerted upon the progress of botanical science in the United States. Great as the merits of the work undoubtedly are, we must nevertheless be excused from adopting the terms of extravagant and sometimes equivocal eulogy employed by a popular author, who gravely informs his readers that no book, since printed Bibles were first sold in Paris by Dr. Faustus, ever excited so much surprise and wonder as did Dr. Torrey’s edition of Lindley’s Introduction to the Natural System of Botany. Now we can hardly believe that either the author or the American editor of the work referred to was ever in danger, as was honest Dr. Faustus, of being burned for witchcraft, neither do we find anything in its pages calculated to produce such astonishing effects, except, perhaps, upon the minds of those botanists, if such they may be called, who had never dreamed of any important changes in the science since the appearance of good Dr. Turton’s translation of the Species Plantarum, and who speak of Jussieu as a writer who has greatly improved the natural orders of Linnæus.”
In the Journal for 1840 there is a large group of unsigned book reviews under the heading, “Brief notices of recent Botanical works, especially those most interesting to the student of North American Botany.” The first of these short reviews deals with the second section of Part VII of De Candolle’s “Prodromus.” In 1847 the consideration of the “Prodromus” is resumed by the same author and the initials of A. G. are appended. This indicates that Dr. Gray was probably the writer of some of the unsigned book reviews which had appeared in the Journal between 1837 and 1840. Doubtless Silliman availed himself of the assistance of his associates, Eli Ives and others, in New Haven, in the examination of current botanical literature, and it is extremely probable that he early secured help from young Dr. Gray, who had shown himself to be a keen critic as well as a pleasing writer. The notices of botanical works from 1840 bear marks of having been from the same hand. They cover an extremely wide range of subjects. While they are good-tempered they are critical, and they had much to do with the development of botany, in this country, along safe lines.
Gray as Editor.—Gray’s name as associate editor of the Journal appears in 1853. He had been a welcome contributor, as we have seen, for many years. His influence upon the progress of botany in the United States was largely due to his connection with the Journal. His reviews extended over a very wide range, and supplemented to a remarkable degree his other educational work. It must be permitted to allude here to his sagacity as a writer of educational treatises. In his first elementary text-book, published in 1836, he expressed wholly original views in regard to certain phases of structure and function in plants, which became generally adopted at a later date. His Manual of Botany was constructed, and subsequent editions were kept, on a plan which made no appeal to those who wanted to work on lines of least resistance; in fact he had no patience with those who desired merely to ascertain the name of a plant. In the Journal he emphasizes the desirability of learning all the affinities of the plant under consideration. At a later period, when entirely new chapters had been opened in the life of plants, he sought by his contributions in the Journal to interest students in this wider outlook.
Professor C. S. Sargent has selected with good judgment some of the more important scientific papers by Professor Gray and has republished them in a convenient form.184 Many of these papers were contributed to the Journal in the form of reviews. These reviews touch nearly every branch of the science of botany. As Sargent justly says, “Many of the reviews are filled with original and suggestive observations, and taken together, furnish the best account of the development of botanical literature during the last fifty years that has yet been written.” In these longer reviews in the Journal, Gray was wont to take a book under review as affording an opportunity to illustrate some important subject, and many of the reviews are crowded with his expositions. For example, in his examination of vonMohl’s “Vegetable Cell” (15, 451, 1853) he takes up the whole subject of microscopic structure, so far as it was then understood, and he points out the probable errors of some of Mohl’s contemporaries, showing what and how great were Mohl’s own contributions to histology. Such a review is a landmark in the science. The physiology of the cell and the nutrition of the plant were favorite topics with Professor Gray, and he brought much of his knowledge in regard to them into such a review as that of Boussingault (25, 120, 1858) on the “Influence of nitrates on the production of vegetable matter.”
As a systematic botanist, Gray was naturally much interested in the vexed question of nomenclature of plants. One of his most important communications to the Journal is his review, in the volume for 1883 (26, 417), of DeCandolle’s work on the subject. He deals with this strictly technical matter much as he did in a contribution to the Journal which he made in 1868 (46, 63). In both of these papers he states with clearness the general features of the code of nomenclature. He says explicitly that the code does not make, but rather declares, the common law of botanists. The treatment of the subject at his hands would rightly impress a general reader as showing a strong desire to have common sense applied to doubtful cases, instead of insisting on inflexible rules. For this reason, his rule of practice was not always acceptable to those who were anxious to secure conformity to arbitrary rules at whatever cost. As he said in a paper published in the Journal in 1847 (3, 302), “The difficulty of a reform increases with its necessity. It is much easier to state the evils than to relieve them; and the well-meant endeavors that have recently been made to this end, are, some of them, likely, if adopted, to make confusion worse confounded.” This feeling led him to be very conservative in the matter of reform in nomenclature.
This subject of botanical nomenclature illustrates a method frequently employed by Professor Gray to elucidate a difficult matter. He would find in the treatise under review a text, or texts, on which he would build a treatise of his own, and in this way he made clear his own views relative to most of the important phases of botany. When he faced controverted matters, his attitude still remained judicial. While he was tolerant of opinions which clashed with his own, he was always severe upon charlatanism and impatient of inaccuracy. The pages of the Journal contain many severe criticisms at his hands, but an unprejudiced person would say that the severity is merited.
Sometimes, however, instead of reviewing a book or an address, he would follow the custom inaugurated early in the history of the Journal, of making copious extracts, and thus give to its readers an opportunity of examining materials which otherwise might not fall in their way.
Gray’s contributions to the Journal comprise more than one thousand titles, without counting the memorial notices and the shorter obituary notes. In these notices he sums up in a few well-chosen words the contributions made to botany by his contemporaries. Even in the few instances in which he felt obliged to note with disapproval some of the work, he expressed himself with personal friendliness. The necrology, as it appeared from month to month, was a labor of love. All of the longer memorial notices are what it is the fashion now-a-days to call appreciations, and these are so happily phrased that it would seem as if the writer in many a case asked himself, “Would my friend, about whom I am now writing, make any change in this sketch?”
Gray on Darwinism.—In October, 1859, Darwin’s epoch-making work, “The Origin of Species,” was published. An early copy was sent to the editor of the Journal, Professor James D. Dana. This arrived in New Haven on December 21, but it was preceded by a personal letter which is of so much interest that it is here transcribed in full. It should be added that Dana was at this time in Europe where he was spending a year in the search for health after a serious nervous breakdown. In his absence the book was noticed by Gray as stated below. The letter is, as follows:
Down, Bromley, Kent.
Nov. 11th, 1859.
My dear Sir,
I have sent you a copy of my Book (as yet only an abstract) on the Origin of Species. I know too well that the conclusion, at which I have arrived, will horrify you, but you will, I believe and hope, give me credit for at least an honest search after the truth. I hope that you will read my Book, straight through; otherwise from the great condensation it will be unintelligible. Do not, I pray, think me so presumptuous as to hope to convert you; but if you can spare time to read it with care, and will then do what is far more important, keep the subject under my point of view for some little time occasionally before your mind, I have hopes that you will agree that more can be said in favour of the mutability of species, than is at first apparent. It took me many long years before I wholly gave up the common view of the separate creation of each species. Believe me, with sincere respect and with cordial thanks for the many acts of scientific kindness which I have received from you,
My dear Sir,
Yours very sincerely,
Charles Darwin.
In March, 1860 (29, 153), Gray published in the Journal an elaborate and cautious review of Darwin’s work. He alluded to the absence of the chief editor of the Journal in the following words:
“The duty of reviewing this volume in the American Journal of Science would naturally devolve upon the principal editor whose wide observation and profound knowledge of various departments of natural history, as well as of geology, particularly qualify him for the task. But he has been obliged to lay aside his pen to seek in distant lands the entire repose from scientific labor so essential to the restoration of his health, a consummation devoutly to be wished and confidently to be expected. Interested as Mr. Dana would be in this volume, he could not be expected to accept its doctrine. Views so idealistic as those upon which his ‘Thoughts upon Species’ are grounded, will not harmonize readily with a doctrine so thoroughly naturalistic as that of Mr. Darwin.... Between the doctrines of this volume and those of the great naturalist whose name adorns the title page of this Journal [Mr. Agassiz] the widest divergence appears.”
Gray then proceeds to contrast the two views of Darwin and Agassiz, “for this contrast brings out most prominently and sets in strongest light and shade the main features of the theory of the origination of species by means of Natural Selection.” He then states both sides with great fairness, and proceeds:
“Who shall decide between such extreme views so ably maintained on either hand, and say how much truth there may be in each. The present reviewer has not the presumption to undertake such a task. Having no prepossession in favor of naturalistic theories, but struck with the eminent ability of Mr. Darwin’s work, and charmed with its fairness, our humbler duty will be performed if, laying aside prejudice as much as we can, we shall succeed in giving a fair account of its method and argument, offering by the way a few suggestions such as might occur to any naturalist of an inquiring mind. An editorial character for this article must in justice be disclaimed. The plural pronoun is employed not to give editorial weight, but to avoid even the appearance of egotism and also the circumlocution which attends a rigorous adherence to the impersonal style.”
In this review he moves slowly and thoughtfully, but not timidly, over the new paths. There is no clear indication in the review that he has yet made up his mind as to the validity of Darwin’s hypothesis. But, in a second article appearing in the Journal for September of the same year (30, 226), under the title “Discussion between two readers of Darwin’s treatise on the origin of species upon its natural theology” Gray plainly begins to incline to take a very favorable view of the Darwinian theory, and makes use of the following ingenious illustration to show that it is not inconsistent with theistic design. A few paragraphs here quoted show the felicity of his style in a controverted matter:
“Recall a woman of a past generation and show her a web of cloth; ask her how it was made, and she will say that the wool or cotton was carded, spun, and woven by hand. When you tell her it was not made by manual labor, that probably no hands have touched the materials throughout the process, it is possible that she might at first regard your statement as tantamount to the assertion that the cloth was made without design. If she did, she would not credit your statement. If you patiently explained to her the theory of carding-machines, spinning-jennies, and power-looms, would her reception of your explanation weaken her conviction that the cloth was the result of design? It is certain that she would believe in design as firmly as before, and that this belief would be attended by a higher conception and reverent admiration of a wisdom, skill, and power greatly beyond anything she had previously conceived possible.”
By this review Gray disarmed hostility to such an extent that some persons who had been antagonistic to Darwinism accepted it with only slight reservation. It may be fairly claimed that the Journal bore a leading part in influencing the views of naturalists in America in regard to the Darwinian theory.
Dr. Gray soon put the Darwinian hypothesis to a severe test. In the Journal for 1840 he had called attention to the remarkable similarity which exists between the flora of Japan and a part of the temperate portion of North America. The first notice of this subject by him occurs in a short review of Dr. Zuccarini’s “Flora Japonica,” a work based on material furnished by Dr. Siebold, who had long lived in Japan. In this review (39, 175, 1840), he enumerates certain plants common to the two regions, and says, “It is interesting to remark how many of our characteristic genera are reproduced in Japan, not to speak of striking analogous forms.” In a subsequent paper (28, 187, 1859), he recurs to this subject, and, after alluding to geological data furnished by J. D. Dana, he says:
“I cannot resist the conclusion that the extant vegetable kingdom has a long and eventful history, and that the explanation of apparent anomalies in the geographical distribution of species may be found in the various and prolonged climatic or other vicissitudes to which they have been subject in earlier times; that the occurrence of certain species, formerly supposed to be peculiar to North America, in a remote or antipodal region, affords in itself no presumption that they were originated there, and that interchange of plants between eastern North America and eastern Asia is explicable upon the most natural and generally received hypothesis (or at least offers no greater difficulty than does the arctic flora, the general homogeneousness of which round the world has always been thought compatible with local origin of the species) and is perhaps not more extensive than might be expected under the circumstances. That the interchange has mainly taken place in high northern latitudes, and that the isothermal lines have in earlier times turned northward on our eastern and southward on our northwest coast, as they do now, are points which go far towards explaining why eastern North America, rather than Oregon and California, has been mainly concerned in this interchange, and why the temperate interchange, even with Europe, has principally taken place through Asia.”
This paper was communicated in 1859, on the eve of the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species.” At a later date he applied the Darwinian theory to the possible solution of the problem, and came to the conclusion that the two floras had a common origin in the Arctic zone, during the Tertiary period, or the Cretaceous which preceded it, and the descendants had made their way down different lines toward the south, the species varying under different climatic conditions, and thus exhibiting similarity but not absolute identity of form. Before the American Association for the Advancement of Science, in his Presidential address, in 1872, he used the following language:
“According to these views, as regards plants at least, the adaptation to successive times and changed conditions has been maintained, not by absolute renewals, but by gradual modifications. I, for one, cannot doubt that the present existing species are the lineal successors of those that garnished the earth in the old time before them, and that they were as well adapted to their surroundings then, as those which flourish and bloom around us are to their conditions now. Order and exquisite adaptation did not wait for man’s coming, nor were they ever stereotyped. Organic Nature—by which I mean the system and totality of living things, and their adaptation to each other and to the world—with all its apparent and indeed real stability, should be likened, not to the ocean, which varies only by tidal oscillations from a fixed level to which it is always returning, but rather to a river, so vast that we can neither discern its shores nor reach its sources, whose onward flow is not less actual because too slow to be observed by the ephemeræ which hover over its surface, or are borne upon its bosom.”
Gray’s active interest in the Journal continued until the very end of his life. There were many critical notices from his pen in 1887. His last contribution to its pages was the botanical necrology, which appeared posthumously in volume 35, of the third series (1888). His connection with the Journal covered, therefore, a period of more than a half a century of its life.185
The changes that were wrought in botany by the application of Darwinism were far reaching. Attempts were promptly made to reconstruct the system of botanical classification on the basis of descent. The more successful of these endeavors met with welcome, and now form the groundwork of arrangement of families, genera, and species, in the Herbaria in this country, in the manuals of descriptive botany, and in the text-books of higher grade. This overturn did not take place until after Gray’s death, although he foresaw that the revolution was impending.
One of the most obvious changes was that which gave a high degree of prominence in American school treatises to the study of the lower instead of the higher or flowering plants, these latter being treated merely as members in a long series, and with scant consideration. But of late years, there has been a renewed popular interest in the phænogamia, leading to a more thorough investigation of local floras, and also to the examination of the relations of plants to their surroundings. The results of a large part of this technical work are published in strictly botanical periodicals and now-a-days seldom find a place in the pages of a general journal of science.