Charles Darwin 1809 - 1882
Charles Darwin 1809 - 1882 was very interested in homeopathy and he received treatment from James Manby Gully over many years.
Darwin was also connected to John Chapman, a homeopathic colleague of James Manby Gully, and Charles Darwin was very interested in the work of homeopath Charles Harrison Blackley whose work on allergy, Darwin described as ‘ingenious and profoundly interesting’.
Charles Darwin was also a friend of homeopath John James Drysdale and his brother Charles Robert Drysdale, and Darwin was also a friend of Thomas Henry Huxley.
Charles Darwin also consulted homeopath James Smith Ayerst, and he also received treatment from Edmund Smith who was a homeopath and the proprietor of Ilkley Wells House, a homeopathic treatment facility.
John Chapman had already published articles by Charles Darwin in the Westminster Review and he was also responsible for publishing Thomas Henry Huxley’s articles promoting Charles Darwin’s The Origin of Species in his influential magazine the Westminster Review April 1860 issue.
This publication probably did more for the promulgation of Charles Darwin’s work than any other source. The Westminster Review was the leading radical periodical of its day.
Charles Darwin lay low at his home in Kent, was plucked from poverty and obscurity by publisher John Chapman. Charles Darwin’s first paid employment was as scientific reviewer on the Westminster Review, the radical quarterly periodical that John Chapman bought in 1851 and turned into the best journal of the century.
Interestingly, Charles Darwin’s friends, Catharine Crowe, Harriet Martineau and Charles Babbage, as well as Charles Darwin himself (and many others), were suspected of being the author of The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, published anonymously in England in 1844, 17 years before the The Origin of Species:
The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation proposed a natural theory of cosmic and biological evolution, tying together numerous speculative scientific theories of the age, and created considerable political controversy in Victorian society for its radicalism and unorthodoxy.
The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation argued for an evolutionary view of life in the same spirit as the late Frenchman Jean Baptiste Lamarck. Jean Baptiste Lamarck had long been discredited among intellectuals by the 1840s and evolutionary (or development) theories were exceedingly unpopular, except among the political radicals, materialists, and atheists.
Such was the popularity of The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation that Charles Darwin chose to refer directly to this book in his introduction to On the Origin of Species, identifying what he felt was one of its gravest deficiencies with regards to its theory of biological evolution:
“The author of The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation would, I presume, say that, after a certain unknown number of generations, some bird had given birth to a woodpecker, and some plant to the mistletoe, and that these had been produced perfect as we now see them; but this assumption seems to me to be no explanation, for it leaves the case of the coadaptations of organic beings to each other and to their physical conditions of life, untouched and unexplained.
The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation caused Alfred Russel Wallace to part company from his friend Charles Darwin. Alfred Russel Wallace is best known for independently proposing a theory of natural selection which prompted Charles Darwin to publish on his own theory.
The anonymous publication of the The Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation in 1844, and the very great caution shown by Charles Darwin in publishing his radical ideas had a similar cause, the need to avoid a direct conflict with religion whilst giving voice to scientific ideas. We know that Charles Darwin owned a copy of William Lawrence’s book, and that he did brood about the consequences of publishing his ideas.
In William Lawrence’s day the impact of laws on sedition and blasphemy were even more threatening than they were in Charles Darwin’s time. Charles Darwin referred to William Lawrence (1819) six times in his Descent of man (1871).
William Lawrence’s Natural history of man contained some remarkable anticipations of later thought, but was ruthlessly, and successfully, suppressed. The suppression was so effective that to this day William Lawrence does not seem to get the recognition he deserves. He is omitted, for example, from many of the Charles Darwin biographies, and from some evolution textbooks.
Charles Lyell and Joseph Dalton Hooker were instrumental in arranging the peaceful co-publication of the theory of natural selection by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858: each had arrived at the theory independently.
However, Alfred Russel Wallace no longer saw Natural Selection as the agent of human progress, believing to his end that the spiritual influences on humanity far outweighed any influences from the material World.
Alfred Russel Wallace became a spiritualist. At about the same time, he began to maintain that natural selection cannot account for mathematical, artistic, or musical genius, as well as metaphysical musings, and wit and humour.
Alfred Russel Wallace eventually said that something in “the unseen universe of Spirit” had interceded at least three times in history. The first was the creation of life from inorganic matter. The second was the introduction of consciousness in the higher animals. And the third was the generation of the higher mental faculties in mankind.
Alfred Russel Wallace also believed that the raison d’être of the universe was the development of the human spirit. These views greatly disturbed Charles Darwin, who argued that spiritual appeals were not necessary and that sexual selection could easily explain apparently non-adaptive mental phenomena.
While some historians have concluded that Alfred Russel Wallace’s belief that natural selection was insufficient to explain the development of consciousness and the human mind was directly caused by his adoption of spiritualism, other Alfred Russel Wallace scholars have disagreed, and some maintain that Alfred Russel Wallace never believed natural selection applied to those areas.
Reaction to Alfred Russel Wallace’s ideas on this topic among leading naturalists at the time varied. Charles Lyell endorsed Alfred Russel Wallace’s views on human evolution rather than Charles Darwin’s. However, many, including Thomas Henry Huxley, Joseph Dalton Hooker, and Charles Darwin himself, were critical…
This debate has never been reconciled.
Indeed, Rudolf Steiner developed a new path to spiritual knowledge which he called ‘Spiritual Science‘, maintaining that in our modern World, we should gain a direct knowledge of the supersensible by developing our latent spirituality in full rational consciousness.
This debate split Charles Darwin from his friends, but Origin of Species does not attempt to tackle the numinous. It does not even attempt to address the issue. Charles Darwin lived at a time when ideas were rapidly evolving and he was surrounded by radical ideas. Charles Darwin knew the established Church would react violently to Origin of Species, but the World needed radical ideas to break free from the dogma of the past.
I can imagine Charles Darwin turning in his grave if he knew that his Origin of Species was being used as a new fundamentalist bible to reintroduce a new scientific and materialistic dogma, and with such force aforethought that humanity is being trampled underfoot. What is quite so terrible about allowing humanity a sense of the numinous?
Charles Darwin himself was not opposed to the numinous, and neither were his friends and family. It was William Darwin Fox who convinced Charles Darwin to try homeopathy and visit the establishment of James Manby Gully, ably abetted by Bartholomew Sulivan, who sailed with Charles Darwin on the HMS Beagle during Charles Darwin’s voyage of 1836.
Charles Darwin suffered repeated episodes of illness involving stomach pains from 1838 onwards, and had no success with conventional treatments. In 1849 after about four months of incessant vomiting he followed the recommendation of his friend Captain Bartholomew Sulivan and cousin William Darwin Fox, and after reading James Manby Gully’s book rented a villa at Malvern for his family and started a two month trial of the treatment on 10 March.
Charles Darwin was a friend of homeopath John James Drysdale and his mother Elizabeth Drysdale. Elizabeth Drysdale was the wife of William Drysdale and the mother in law of the hydropathic specialist Edward Wickstead Lane whose establishment at Moor Park Charles Darwin visited.
John James Drysdale was a constant visitor at Moor Park who ‘made his brother in law’s home his own’ and came often with his younger brother Charles Robert Drysdale, who was a physician with homeopathic sympathies.
Charles Darwin knew *John James Drysdale well enough to know his views on various scientific and social subjects well enough to be able to recommend him to Herbert Spencer as a potential subscriber to the ‘System of Synthetic Philosophy‘. (Though Darwin did know *John James Drysdale and Charles Robert Drysdale at Moor Park, he would also have met another brother George Robert Drysdale (the author of of The Elements of Social Science; or, Physical, Sexual, and Natural Religion) and several other Drysdale family members so it is not completely clear which Drysdale he actually mentioned to Herbert Spencer).
Charles Darwin received hydropathic treatment in 1859 for his illness from Edward Wickstead Lane. He wrote that he played billiards here and said “I really think I shall make a point of coming here for a fortnight occasionally, as the country is very pleasant for walking”.
Charles Darwin assisted Edward Wickstead Lane in establishing a library at Edinburgh Royal Infirmary by sending him copies of Household Worlds, a weekly journal edited by Charles Dickens, and other books.
Charles Darwin wrote to Edward Wickstead Lane on 12.10.1852 saying:
I cannot help remarking that I doubt the expediency of your choice of books in one particular. I question the propriety of putting the Pilgrim’s Progress in the hands of mad people unless upon the homeopathic principle of alleviating a disease with a medicine that would very often cause it.
Edward Wickstead Lane transfered his business to Sudbrooke Park, where Charles Darwin also went for treatment.
Darwin was also a friend of homeopath Moncure Daniel Conway, who linked together Charles Dickens, Robert Browning, Charles Lyell, and Thomas Carlyle. Charles Darwin was part of a social set which included homeopathic supporters Charles Babbage, Charles Darwin’s brother Erasmus Alvey Darwin, Harriet Martineau, George Everest and his brother, homeopath Thomas Roupell Everest, Robert Everest (?brother of George Everest and Thomas Roupell Everest - a geographer who lived in India). Publisher John Chapman and Thomas Henry Huxley were part of this group.
Darwin wrote:
“I much like & think highly of Dr. James Manby Gully (24.3.1849)” and “Dr James Manby Gully gives me homoeopathic medicines three times a day, which I take obediently without an atom of faith (19.3.1949)” and “Dr. G. feels pretty sure he can do me good, which most certainly the regular Doctors could not (28.3.1849)” and “I determined to give up all attempts to do anything and come here and put myself under Dr. James Manby Gully.
It has answered to a considerable extent: my sickness much checked and considerable strength gained (6.5.1849)” and “Dr. James Manby Gully & the Cold Water Cure, which has had an astonishingly renovating action on my health (13.6.1849)” and “Dr. James Manby Gully tells me I shall have to follow treatment for a year. I consider the sickness as absolutely cured.
And about 3 weeks since I had 12 hours without any flatulence, which showed me that it was possible that even that can be cured, as Dr. G. has always said he could (7.7.1849)” and “I steadily gain in weight & eat immensely & am never oppressed with my food.
I have lost the involuntary twitching of the muscles & all the fainting feelings &c black spots before eyes &c &c Dr James Manby Gully thinks he shall quite cure me in 6 or 9 months more (12.10.1849)” and “Having gained weight ever since I commenced is a clear sign that I have not overdosed myself.”
Dr. James Manby Gully has had plenty of experience & with me has always been cautious (May 1850)“.
Darwin does criticise homeopathy and Dr. James Manby Gully, despite of the improvement in his health:
“I cannot but think in my beloved Dr James Manby Gully, that he believes in everything” when his daughter was very ill, he had a clair-voyant girl to report on internal changes, a mesmerist to put her to sleep”an homeopathist, viz Dr. John Chapman; & himself as Hydropathist! & the girl recovered (4.9.50)“
However, despite being disillusioned by Dr. James Manby Gully at times, Charles Darwin still brought his daughter Annie to see Dr. James Manby Gully when she was so ill on 27.3.1851. Dr. James Manby Gully offered him hope but Annie worsened:
“She has been very quiet all morning, but vomited badly at 6 A.M. which, however bad, shows she has more vital force than during two previous days.
and hope faded and she remained at death’s door even though Dr. James Manby Gully slept nearby. Annie unfortunately died in April 1851.
Nonetheless, Darwin continued to use hydropathy, even if he does not credit those little white pills he also took from Dr. James Manby Gully!
“Dr James Manby Gully did me much good (7.12.1855)” and “It was very kind in Dr. James Manby Gully to speak so of me: if you go there again, pray remember me most kindly to him, & say that never (or almost never) the vomiting returns, but that I am a good way from being a strong man (3.10.1856)“
and Darwin continues to recommend Dr. James Manby Gully to his friends:
“most heartily glad I am that Dr. James Manby Gully has done you some good (22.2.1857)“
though Darwin does criticise Dr. James Manby Gully too:
“And in one respect I like him (E W Lane) better than Dr. James Manby Gully, viz that he does not believe in all the rubbish which Dr. G. does (30.4.1957)“.
It must have been very difficult for Darwin to see Dr. James Manby Gully after Annie’s death, when Darwin’s daughter died but Dr. James Manby Gully’s daughter survived, and indeed Darwin did not return himself for treatment after this time.
Even so, Darwin remained fascinated by the ideas and philosophy he learnt from Dr. James Manby Gully. He continued to investigate homeopathy for many years after Annie’s death:
“P.S. The letter with curious address forwarded by Mrs Hooker was from a German Homeopathic Doctor”an ardent admirer of the Origin” had himself published nearly the same sort of book, but goes much deeper”explains the origin of plants & animals on the principles of Homeopathy or by the Law of Spirality”… (the) Book fell dead in Germany” Therefore would I translate it & publish it in England &c &c?! 16.2.1862“
Dana Ullman believes he has been able to identify the German homeopath:
After consultation with various historians, especially Dr. Robert Jutte (chief historian of the Robert Bosch Institute), we have determined that the German homeopath is probably Augustus Wilhelm Koch (1805-1886). For details, see pages 112-114 of Dana Ullman’s book The Homeopathic Revolution.
The CDP have not been able to identify the German Homeopath mentioned (though interestingly they do include a disclaimer to make it look as if Darwin was not influenced by homeopathy - interesting!) :
“The German homeopathic doctor has not been identified. He was seemingly an adherent of Johann Wolfgang von Goethe’s law of spiral growth of plants. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe claimed in his paper, [there is in plants a general spiral tendency, through which, in connection with a vertical tendency, every construction, every form of plant following the law of metamorphoses is achieved] (Goethes Werke pt 2, 7: 49).
And we all know that Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was a supporter of homeopathy! (Johann Wolfgang von Goethe compared Samuel Hahnemann to Paracelsus)
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe is considered one of the greatest Western literary figures of all time, with works as a German poet, novelist, playwright, courtier, and natural philosopher.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was a German contemporary of homeopathy’s founder, Samuel Hahnemann, and they both were Freemasons. When Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was given an amulet containing a very small gold ornament (September 2, 1820), he wrote:
‘The jewelers of Frankfort must have heard of the Leipsic Dr. Hahnemann’s theory’ now certainly a world famous physician and taken the best of it from their own purposes now I believe more than ever in this wonderful doctor’s theory as I have experienced and continue to experience so clearly the efficacy of a very small administration.”
And in another letter Johann Wolfgang von Goethe strongly proclaims himself a Hahnemannian disciple.
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe not only espoused the virtues of homeopathy in his letters to friends and colleagues, but even in most famous play Faust, in which his lead character, Mephistopheles, asserts the homeopathic credo, making specific reference to the homeopathic principle of ’similars’: ‘To like things like, whatever one may ail; there’s certain help.
Darwin investigated homeopathic dilutions (1860) and continued his studies on drosera until 1881:
“In this connection I may refer to Darwin’s researches with the fly catching plant, Drosera, or Sundew. Darwin found that solutions of certain salts of ammonia stimulated the glands of the tentacles and caused the latter to turn inwards.
He made this solution more and more dilute, but still the plant was able to detect the presence of salt.
Darwin was almost frightened by his results. Writing to Dodders he says:
“The 1/4,000,000th of a grain absorbed by a gland clearly makes the tentacle which bears the gland becomes inflected; and I am fully convinced that 1-20,000,000th of a grain of the crystallised salt (i.e., containing about one-third of its weight of water of crystallisation) does the same.
“The leaves are first rate chemists & can distinguish even an incredibly small quantity of any nitrogenised substance from non=nitrogenised substances.”
Darwin abandoned his original intention to publish a short paper on the subject, fearing that his estimate of the astonishing sensitivity of the leaves of these plants to minute quantities of nitrogenous substances would scarcely be believed without further supporting evidence (letter to Edward Cresy, 12 December [1860]).
This work was not published until 1875, when Insectivorous plants appeared. (letters to Charles Lyell, 24 November [1860], and to Daniel Oliver, 20 October [1860]).
“I care more about Drosera than the origin of all the species in the world. But I will not publish on Drosera till next year, for I am frightened & astounded at my results.
“Is it not curious that a plant shd be far more sensitive to a touch than any nerve in the human body! Yet I am perfectly sure that this is true.” (equivalent to a 7th homeopathic decimal dilution).
Now I am quite unhappy at the thought of having to publish such a statement.
The reader will best realise this degree of dilution by remembering that 5,000 ounces would more than fill a thirty one gallon cask or barrel and that to this large body of water one grain of the salt was added – only half a drachm or thirty minims of the solution poured over the leaf. Yet this amount sufficed to cause the inflection of the leaf.
In fact, every time that we perceive an odour, we have evidence that infinitely smaller particles act on our nerves. Moreover, this extreme sensitiveness, exceeding that of the most delicate part of the human body, as well as the power of committing various impulses from one part of the leaf to another, have been acquired without the intervention of any nervous system.”
It is not surprising that homeopaths were amongst the first people to embrace Darwin’s Origins of Species and to write to him to share their ideas and offer him support.
Darwin returned to the Hydropathic cure at Malvern to be treated by James Manby Gully’s successor homeopath James Smith Ayerst. Darwin went to see him there in 1863.
Emma writes on 29 Sept 1863:
We like Dr Ayerst tho’ he has not the influence of Dr James Manby Gully. Dr James Manby Gully. it is hopeless to try to see tho’ I must say he has been to see Ch. twice & he quite approves of his treatment. He takes 2 or 3 wet rubbings in the day & small walks in the garden, but he is weak— Our stay here has however been of real use to our sick boy & put us on a better system with him. Ch. appetite is so good I think he must get strength soon & he has struggled on for 5 days without sickness.
CD had formerly received hydropathic treatment from James Manby Gully at Great Malvern, Worcestershire, but was treated on this occasion by Ayerst, presumably on the recommendation of James Manby Gully, owing to James Manby Gully’s own ill health (see letter from William Darwin Fox, [16--22 May 1863], and letters to William Darwin Fox, 23 May [1863], and 4 [September 1863]
Sue :: Aug.24.2007 :: British History :: No Comments »