Tuesday 27 September 2011

Evolution's Captain - the Tragic Story of Captain James Fitzroy

Many of us are familiar with the story of Charles Darwin and his historic voyage on the HMS Beagle. Far fewer know the tale of Captain James Fitzroy - the Beagle's doomed captain. In many ways, Fitzroy was a man of the Enlightenment and the embodiment of the basic tenets we outlined last class. Here is an overview of his life, and role in Darwin's legacy. The following is my summary of the excellent book "Evolution's Captain" by Peter Nichols. I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on Fitzroy and how much of science is often based on chance. In this case, Darwin would have never made his historic discoveries had it not been for Fitzroy - a man that would later condemn him for writing the Origin of Species.


The Story of Captain James Fitzroy, Captain of HMS Beagle, is a tragic one. It is intrinsically linked with that of Charles Darwin, the young naturalist who accompanied him as his companion on this five year voyage of discovery (27 December 1831 to 2 October 1836). The first captain of the Beagle, Pringle Stokes, had committed suicide several years earlier -after  succumbing to the loneliness of many years at sea. A young James Fitzroy later assumed command of the Beagle. While Fitzroy was a man of much stronger character, he sought a gentleman companion to make the time move more swiftly on the ship's next voyage - one that would be substantially longer than her first.

Charles Darwin almost didn’t get the position. After a mutual friend recommended Dawwin to Fitzroy, the latter remarked that the position had already been taken by a Mr. Chester. Darwin was upset, but the two met for dinner. At the time both were young. Fitzroy was 26 and Darwin only 22. They hit it off and Darwin was invited along for the voyage.

In addition to completing major cartographic survey work, the voyage had a second purpose. Years earlier, Fitzroy had embarked upon an experiment based upon his ideas of about the nature of primitive versus civilized man. He was very much a scientist, although more in the Victorian sense. His interest in natural history was aided by his use of systematic methods of observation - such tools of the Enlightenment as the theololite, chronometer, and alike. However, he also subscribed to the idea that all human societies were equally perfectible.

While on an earlier voyage in 1830, Fitzroy had “invited” three native Fuegians (members of the Yanama tribe) from their home in Tierra del Fuego to England. The three were given English names: Jemmy Button (a young man in his late teens); a 10 year old girl called Fuegia Basket, and a young adult in his mid 20’s called York Minister. Another young person was also brought to England. However, Boat Memory as she was called, died of smallox soon after arriving. Fitzroy attempted to transform his Fuegian guests into 'civilized' persons using the basic tenets of the enlightenment. They were dressed in English clothes, and mimicked English mannerisms - even fopish phrases! After York Minister began showing sexual interest in the young Fuegia Basket, Fitzroy decided that they should be returned home. One of the aims of this repatriation was spread the seeds of civilized behavior and English customs to their more “savage brethren”.

As the voyage progressed tensions emerged between Fitzroy and Darwin. Fitzroy was a student of phrenology, and firmly beleived that one’s character was apparent in the morphology of the face and skull. Initially, Darwin’s high forehead had make him distrustful of the man. However, most of their disagreements were minor ones - except for a particularly bad argument in which Darwin condemned Fitzroy’s support for slavery in Brazil.

It became immediately apparent to Darwin and Fitzroy that the three Fuegian’s had been transformed by their time in England to the point where they might not integrate into native Fuegian culture. Upon arriving in Tierra del Fuego, the three seemed embarrassed by their compatriots, in the same way that one might be embarrassed by one’s family. Darwin seemed especially concerned about the logic of leaving them behind, given the length of time they had been away from their native surroundings. Several years later, their fears would be realized. When they returned to the place where they had left their Fuegian refugees, they found  Jemmy Button  thin and destitute. Most of his possessions had been stolen by York Minister and Fuegia Basket, whom he had now taken for his wife. They had abandoned Jemmy and his family, departing in a large canoe. Fitzroy asked if he would like to return to England, but he refused. Jemmy Button was later implicated in the massacre of the captain and crew of a whaling ship.

The rest of the voyage resulted in Darwin’s gathering of all of the data he needed to eventually develop his theory of natural selection. Upon their return to England, the two men rarely say each other. They became immersed in writing their respective accounts of the voyage. It was at this point that the two men began moving in almost opposite directions. Darwin, stimulated by the ideas of Thomas Malthus and Charles Lyell, was beginning to question the validity of literal accounts of creation as written in the Old Testament. Fitzroy, on the other hand, was becoming increasingly more religious.

Fitzroy published his account of the voyage, which consisted of dry descriptions of weather patterns, sea conditions, and hydrographic readings. Darwin’s section, which was sold separately, was a description of the landscape, plants, and animals of the many exotic locations visited by the Beagle. It sold much, much better. The seeds of resentment were thus sewn.

With the eventual publishing of his book “The Origin of Species” the Victorian public was abuzz over the controversial nature of his theories of life on earth. Darwin sent Fitzroy a copy, thanking him and stating that without him, the book might never have been written. This horrified Fitzroy, who tersely wrote back that he felt it offensive that Darwin’s theory suggested that humans had not been made in the image of the creator - rather they had evolved from Apes!

Fizroy became increasingly melancholy and withdrawn in the years that followed. Indications are that there was a history of depression in his family. In one particularly sad account, Fizroy was travelling to Oxford to deliver a paper on weather patterns. He heard that there was to be a debate on The Origin of Species at Oxford while he was there. After giving his paper, he sat in on the presentations. In attendance were Thomas Huxley (Darwin's Bulldog), James Beaufort, and John Richardson (the eminent Arctic researcher and explorer). As per usual, the debate was lively and digressed into a shouting match. Fitzroy felt compelled to speak........

If you had been there that day, you would have witnessed a 55 year old man (who looked much older than his years) lifting a bible above his head, and shouting that he regretting the publication of the Origin of Species, and that he had cut ties with his old friend because his theories contradicted the book of Genesis. No one listened or even saw him. He left the lecture and returned home by train - a broken man full of regrets.

In his dressing room, on a Suday morning in April of 1865, the depression finally got the better of him. He slit his own throat with a straight razor.

13 comments:

  1. “’Savage!’ Called the first arrivals, as they alighted from their machine. ‘Mr. Savage’” (Huxley, 206). Oh my the idea of bringing home ‘Savages’ from the wild is exciting, that is, until a scene from Brave New World appears and all I can see is the ‘Savage’ hanging from a noose. I think it’s first of all hilarious that a supposed ‘moral’ man of God can condemn someone for writing a book and yet has no problem with kidnapping teenage and pre-teen humans from their homeland, and effectively destroying lives and who knows what else. It’s so ironic though that Fitzroy became his own worst enemy in the end. He picked a man to inspire him and he inspired this man to write an abomination.

    I’ve heard this story before with more emphasis on the arguments between Darwin and Fitzroy and it just makes sense. I feel like anything great generally needs multiple perspectives, inspirations and skepticisms (like within the scientific method). I have no doubt that Fitzroy’s daily interactions with Darwin inspired him in many ways. However I don’t think that this can be called luck, it was probably a calculated decision to bring Darwin along. As they set out for the voyage they must have been thinking of the great discoveries they will undoubtedly make. (Had they not expected to make discoveries, why would they be going at all?) Had no discoveries been made we would be ascribing it to bad luck (or not describing it at all because there would be nothing to talk about.). Obviously this Fitzroy was a good captain (He survived a 5 year round world excursion.) and knew what would get the job done. Like picking teams in sports; go for the pieces that fit. Had Darwin never of been on the voyage, one of the other naturalists that separately came up with a theory of natural selection would now be credited. It was bound to happen, had Darwin gone on the voyage or not.

    From Fitzroy’s perspective I guess I sort of see a tragedy. Again from his perspective I relate it to how Oppenheimer must have felt after the bomb was dropped. Science has no morals it is inanimate and so before you embark on a scientific journey you must take a look at the consequences of your own actions. I suppose if he failed to do this, it is his own fault, but in some strange way I do feel sympathy for Fitzroy. I can only imagine how horrible it would feel in my guts to think that I directly and intentionally laid the ground floor of the opposing forces to my entire existence and way of life.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm wondering what caused Fitzroy to become more religious. Was it something that occurred to him on his travels or when he arrived back home? Was it a result of his increasing depression? Did this become even more fervent when he became resentful of Darwin's success? (Although I'm sure that he would have had more readers if he has published his experiments with the natives.)


    Also I find it very interesting that a man who can believe in the psychic unity of men and of cultural progress can be so anthrocentric and limited--unable to believe that other creatures of the earth can go through the same general processes (even in a physical sense) just because of he had been taught in a certain way and is unwilling to question his beliefs. Which I understand is a hard thing to do. However, to think critically is to be able to change your ideas when new evidence arises. And for a man interested in science, this is a good skill to have. If he had bothered to listen to his former friend's argument and then respond even sceptically it would be a potentially credible way to argue against the theory. Darwin's hadn't perfected it after all. But instead he decided to argue in a way that people automatically ignored him.
    However, I suppose it is not completely his fault...because he was just acting on the Victorian principals that he had been brought up in. It is possible that his depression might also have had an effect.
    -MM

    ReplyDelete
  3. I find it both amusing and ironic that the pinnacle of Victorian principle, which was supposedly based on Christian virtues, allowed men such as Fitzroy to condemn men of science, such as Darwin, in one breath and in the next, support slavery and the "enlightenment and civilization" of "savages". The latter is in direct conflict with what the Bible teaches, Jesus having said to "love thy neighbor as thyself", (not only ones English neighbors, as so many people interpreted this passage as). So, I find the whole Victorian lifestyle highly hypocritical, and Fitzroy's actions very contradictory in nature.

    ReplyDelete
  4. The Bible (New Testament) is an interpretive text and Jesus says a lot of things that can be interpreted as anything a reader wishes, to some it may be contradictory, but to anyone with the right imagination it isn't.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Chance favours the prepared mind" - Pastuer
    This really is a quote that speaks to the scientist. In Darwin's case, it really was chance that brought him onto the Beagle and brought him in contact with what would later inspire him to write The Origin of Species, but it is really what he did with this bit of chance that really changed our thoughts on evolution today. For us, it is impossible to think of science without thinking of minds like Charles Darwin, and I wonder what would have happened if Chester had bordered the HMS Beagle in Darwins place. If this, by chance had happened, I wonder what Darwin would have gone on to do
    It seems that what Darwin really had going for him was a bit of luck and an inquisitive mind. I think that is one thing that Fitzroy lacked; a truly inquisitive mind. It limited him when he began taking a strong stand on Christianity. He couldn't picture a place where religion and evolution both existed
    Whats interesting is that Darwin never claimed to not believe in God. Possibly he had a more liberal view on what God is capable of while Fitzroy seemed to be chained to the definition of God that he had created. I wonder if Darwin knew what affect he would have on the future generations. Now it seems some (not all) Christians are afraid of the word 'Darwin' while some atheists (not all) plaster their cars with the corrupt version of the fish of Christ. I wonder what Darwin would think if he know about the two extreme schisms that seem to have been created out of his inquisitive mind.
    Another interesting fact I thought of while reading this, is that I had just finished watching Departures, where they had visited Chile. They had just met with the last surviving Yamana tribes woman and she was saying that basket making was the last bit of their culture to survive. It makes you think of the impact we have on other cultures. While I'm sure Fitzroy was just conducting a small 'experiment' by taking native Fuegans back to England, I wonder what would have happened if he had not. I wonder if the Yamana would still be in existence.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I think Fitroy's character is extremely interesting. It's incredible how a man who is so knowledgeable about the World and who has travelled so much could be cose minded to the point of not accepting or wanting to believe in a study which was already supported and suggested (even if with some variations) by people such as Lamarck. I mean, Fitzroy travelled a lot, he was interested in science, and also had a passion for meteorology. In my view, such people are not usually too attached to religion, since these are usually the ones trying to understand the world without thinking of divine intervention as a solution to everything. Hence, I find that Fitzroy is a character presenting a lot of contradicitons, who could have acheived more recognition if he had supported Darwin instead of trying discredit him. His "decision" or beliefs blinded him to the point of rejecting popularity and a greater scientific acheivement.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I feel for Fitzroy the man was right there with Darwin learning about the same things, but when their books are published Darwin gets all the praise and credit and Fitzroy gets hardly any. Then later in his life when he's supposed to have a lecture at a University he finds out more people went to the discussion of Darwin's findings even though Darwin wasn't even at the lecture. Not saying he did the right thing by killing himself but a he could only take so much before it wasn't going to get to him

    ReplyDelete
  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I think that it is quite a crazy that Fitzroy thought that the theory of Evolution was so evil and was worth ruining a friendship over. Frankly I think that the act of taking four natives out of their homeland, trying to civilize them, and then giving up and returning them to their home land should have been considered more immoral and evil than Darwin's book.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Unknown said...
    I think that Fitzroy had a problem with his ego getting in the way. The manner in which he becomes so defensive with Darwin shows just how egotistical Fitzroy was. Being unable to see that slavery was so disdainful while others in England and Europe were questioning the morality of it makes it look as if he was moving backwards rather than becoming more enlightened. I find it sad that by the end of his life he was still so self absorbed that he could not even entertain the idea that his voyage and companionship with Darwin could have been influential on scientific thought. We will never know his full contributions to Darwin’s theory just because of a little ego.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The tragic story of Captain James Fitzroy brings up a few interesting themes. Firstly, it demonstrates that there is an element of chance to any scientific inquiry – without someone bearing witness to something and evoking a curiosity in them to conduct an experiment, our scientific knowledge today could look very different.
    Secondly, this scientific “chance” for Fitzroy is an example of how a flawed scientific “experiment” pushed him from being an enlightened thinker to a “creationist “one. This experiment did not really test enough people/villages to see what could really happen –it was a social experiment without enough evidence to gather. When the experiment failed, Fitzroy tuned out his enlightened thoughts and returned to his religious roots, despite Darwin’s continued research of the origin of species. The simplistic evidence he gathered gave Fitzroy proof that Darwin was wrong (even with Darwin’s evidence to the contrary).
    Fitzroy, like many other, undoubtedly suffered from depression, or “bouts of melancholy” as it used to be called– and the failed experiment would have magnified this.

    Rob Leach

    ReplyDelete
  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This story fascinates me. When I first read it in September I got so interested in it that I actually neglected to post anything. To me this story is resemblence of how religion can have a strong, influential role in individuals lives. To be so against evolution and Darwinian theory to the point of actually make a public specticle of yourself and eventually end your life, to me, should be studied in a cultural perspective. This occurred not even 200 years ago, and how much has our culture changed? People, for the most part, have large flexibility in what they wish to publish and read. If someone is to speak out against a certain book or religious ideal, they will usually gain tremendous support for others feeling the same. This makes me wonder if there was a cult of people, that maybe Fitzroy was unaware of, that gathered to dispute and undoubtedly go against the teachings of the controversial Darwin. Also, this could be crucial in viewing the role that religion played on historical cultures. Were people so compelled to follow their religious ideals that they were willing to die over it? And if so, what evidence do we have that suggests this?

    ReplyDelete