Letters from the President: The Correspondence of Sir Joseph Banks

Letters from the President: The Correspondence of Sir Joseph BanksAuthor(s): Neil ChambersSource: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 53, No. 1 (Jan., 1999), pp. 27-57Published by: The Royal SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/531927 .

Accessed: 14/06/2014 12:18

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

The Royal Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes and Records ofthe Royal Society of London.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.78.109.54 on Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:18:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=rsl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/531927?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Notes Rec. R. Soc. Lond. 53 (1), 27-57 (1999)

LE"ITERS FROM THE PRESIDENT: THE CORRESPONDENCE

OF SIR JOSEPH BANKS1

by

NEIL CHAMBERS

Harrow Road, Waringham, Surrey CR6 9EY, UK

INTRODUCTION

Nothing gives so just an idea of an age as genuine letters; nay, history waits for its last seal from them.

Horace Walpole2

Many scientific ideas have been described in works that have deeply affected the way we regard ourselves and the world. Even when a scientist has not been so influential, his writings might still be a rewarding source of interest. Indeed, they might have artistic worth and broad historical relevance of a kind that is rarely appreciated. Nothing could be more true of the 18th century, when the literary nature of science made the spread of knowledge and enquiry possible. At this time some men made voyages of discovery to distant lands. They collected, described and classified, imposing scientific order on the 'New World' as they went. The reports that were sent back excited readers in Europe eager to hear more of remote places, and not least those considering the form an imperial order might take. Meanwhile, other men crowded into societies dedicated to learning, or gathered their fellows together in correspondence. The mass of information available for scientists increased with their ability to draw on such web-like networks. A few became powerful through them, even manipulating the course of history. This combination of science and literature as a means of shaping events drew Sir Gavin de Beer's attention to one man: 'It is curious that Banks should not yet have been recognized as one of the greatest letter-writers in the English language, but such he clearly was.'.3

Sir Joseph Banks was the wealthy gentleman botanist who travelled with Captain James Cook (1728-1779) on the HMS Endeavour (1768-71) to the South Pacific, where the Transit of Venus was observed on Tahiti (King George III's Island, Otaheiti) in 1770. The islands of New Zealand were circumnavigated and named on this momentous voyage. The east coast of Australia (New Holland) was examined as well, and places like Botany Bay commemorate the arrival of Europeans there. But Banks's explorations in the southern hemisphere were matched by those in the northern hemisphere, where he sailed to North America (on HMS Niger, 1766-67) and Iceland (on HMS Sir Lawrence, 1772). The first of these was Banks's earliest venture abroad as a field botanist, and he led the second, which initiated scientific interest in Iceland.

27

© 1999 The Royal Society



Neil Chambers

By the age of 30 he could claim to have visted much of the world beyond Europe. This was when he settled in England, where he became unofficial Director of the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew in 1773, and made them greater than any other. He was elected President of the Royal Society in 1778, the same year he took on an active role as a Trustee of the British Museum. In 1795 Banks received the Order of the Knight of the Bath for his 'literary character'.4 Two years later his knowledge of affairs was recognized when he rose to the position of Privy Councillor. As the impressive list of accolades grew, so too did his correspondence, which extended steadily across the globe. We may therefore regard Banks as both a man of science and as a man of letters. The formidable truth is that 20,000 of them made his collected correspondence substantial, even in a period when letter-writing flourished. In fact, Banks's wider influence was based primarily on the day-to-day use of the humble letter.

Sir Joseph's writings were not confined to correspondence either. His journals, for instance, deserve to be read alongside others concerned with tours through the British Isles and beyond. Literary travels to the Hebrides made by Johnson (1709-1784) and Boswell (1740-1794) were partly inspired by Banks's exploits, but were dwarfed in geographical scope by his account of the Endeavour voyage.5 However, reticence was never a virtue of heroes, and so Banks parted with literary tradition in not telling the epic tale of his journeys. Instead, like a man of action, he sought involvement in historic events with scant regard for his own thoughts and feelings, or the demands of posterity6: 'now drive away your cares with wine / tomorrow we will again cross the immense ocean.'7 Thus, the Endeavour voyage was a way of serving the needs of England, of indulging the adventurer of his youth, and exploring the world in pursuit of scientific advance. It was not for the enlargement of his own fame, which was neglected along with the business of publishing the journals.

Fanciful ideas and speculation do not form an important part of Banks's accounts. He was certainly no champion of the sentimental and romantic traditions. We might say, instead, that he wrote of what he found rather than what he felt. Banks combined clarity with rare moments of personal insight marked by a heightened prose style in his journals. This was a course set by men like William Dampier (1652-1715) in A Voyage to New Holland (1703). Dampier remarked:

But if I have been exactly and strictly careful to give only True Relations and Descriptions (as I am sure I have); and if my Descriptions be such as may be of use ... to such Readers at home as are more desirous of a Plain and Just Account of the true nature and State of Things Described than of a Polite and rhetorical Narrative, I hope all the Defects in my Stile will meet with an easy and ready Pardon.

Accordingly, many travel writers paid scrupulous attention to fact, adding greatly to the Englishman's knowledge of the world. Exotic customs, climate, geology and natural history are all described in Banks's journals, which also reflect British interest in commerce and trade. Perhaps, he recalled the Directionsfor Sea-men, bound for far Voyages issued by the Royal Society in 1666,8 to which were appended further remarks entitled General Heads for a Natural History of a Countrey, Great or Small, imparted likewise by Mr Boyle.9

Banks attempted poetry too. When so little of the rest of his work was published,

28



The correspondence of Sir Joseph Banks

it is significant that some halting efforts on public themes went to press. This was an early interest which never deserted him, but the best attempts are concerned with personal experiences of local, natural places, or are light occasional verse. As a man of enormous public commitment, Banks was not unusual in finding that the lyrical style suited him when in reflective mood. He explained the pleasure reading poetry gave, and the admiration he felt for those who write it:

Sir: Jos begs also permission to seize this opportunity of requesting that he may not be rankd among those narrow minded mortals who despise poetry. He is too well acquainted with the effort of mind necessary to write & the Effect producd on the minds of others by reading Good Poetry not to esteem the writers of it, among whom he begs leave to class Mr. Parsons, as persons intitled to a high rank in the literary world.'°

A fulsome, if undeserved, compliment, but Banks's preference was always for the firm reliability of prose.

Banks should be seen as a well-informed individual of considerable personal presence. Although most frequently regarded as a patron of science alone, he represented much of what Georgian England could offer among its foremost minds." Thus, Banks used most of the literary forms one would expect of this period, dealing with an enormous number of subjects through them. His correspondence, in particular, keenly reflects the language, personalities and feelings of the age. It forces us to reconsider the literary status of such writing, and to ponder work which might otherwise be thought trifling and uninteresting.'2 Following his extensive survey of Banks's letters, Warren Dawson came to a similar conclusion:

As a letter writer Banks was sui generis. The great diversity of his interests brought him into contact with all sorts and conditions of men, and it may be doubted whether any other writer-in the golden age of letter-writers-covered so vast a field in his correspondence.'3

SCIENCE AND STYLE: THE ROYAL SOCIETY

By the time Banks became President of the Royal Society his major travel journals had been drafted, but he never returned to them in earnest. Following the election in November 1778 his correspondence grew apace, and for more than 41 years subsequently he would write and speak as President of one of Europe's distinguished societies. This was a prolonged tenure during which Banks's word dominated. However, Fellows thought carefully about their language, more carefully perhaps than those of any other society Banks joined, and a particular style had long been adopted. To be acceptable, Banks had to behave and sound like the president of a scientific society, so we ought to examine what this entailed.

Royal Society Fellows who considered language, did not ponder it lightly. They had scientific and social concerns in mind when attempting to define a role, aware that language is not simply a transparent way of making statements. Instead, it is rich with ambiguity. For scientists concerned with analysis and debate this was a problem. Clear and accurate language was essential, particularly when dealing with complex business. In addition, the conduct of Fellows, the ways in which they wrote and spoke to each

29



Neil Chambers

other, provided an example of the type of behaviour necessary for wider social stability. The Royal Society would only thrive if the means for disputation were available while hostility was discouraged. Its standing depended on this, as Johnson indicated in his Lives (1779-81):

... to minds heated with political contest they [the Fellows] supplied cooler and more inoffensive reflections; and it is said by Addison, in a subsequent work, that they had a perceptible influence upon the conversation of that time, and taught the frolic and the gay to unite merriment with decency. 4

Francis Bacon's (1561-1626) emphasis on things and not words set the early tone, heralding what has here been generally called 'science'. In The Advancement of Learning (1605) Bacon explained that 'the first distemper of learning, when men study words and not matter ... for words are but the images of matter; and except they have life of reason and invention, to fall in love with them is all one as to fall in love with a picture.' He wanted progress, and believed that ancient knowledge, however attractive, should not be taught without question. His was a programme designed to correct the bias towards classical authority, usually that of Aristotle (384-322 BC), over observation and practical experiment. It was a subversive one in which Bacon set

'Oportet edoctum judicare' against 'Oportet discentem credere'. In other words, 'disciples do owe unto masters only a temporary belief... not perpetual captivity'. A crucial part of this argument depended on language, because the traditional influence of rhetoric over reasoned plainness had to be broken first:

... for men began to hunt more after words than matter; more after the choiceness of the phrase, and the round and clean composition of the sentence, and the sweet falling of the clauses, and the varying and illustration of their works with tropes and figures, than after the weight of matter, worth of subject, soundness of argument, life of invention or depth ofjudgement.

Although Bacon used clever rhetorical devices of his own even here, he had realized

something important. He had realized that the style of a piece-the 'words'-affected what was meant and understood. He was struggling to establish a suitable approach to language and style in learning, and was mindful of the bearing this would have on science.'1

Struggles of many kinds prompted concern at the influence of language. Englishman found moderate language hard to achieve throughout the turbulent 17th century, so discussion of its reform was rarely confined to the needs of scientists alone. Some even suggested an organized approach. In his Dedication to The Rival Ladies (1664) John Dryden (1631-1700) lamented:

I am sorry, that (speaking so noble a language as we do) we have not a more certain measure of it, as they have in France, where they have an Academy erected for the purpose.

Dryden hinted at forces that would shape English culture in following centuries-

English feelings of respect for and uneasy rivalry with the French, the function of learned societies, the drive to 'measure' and classify. But above all he stressed the need for a surer grasp of language. It was a need the Royal Society took seriously. Dryden

30




was therefore a member of a committee set up to 'consider means for improving the English Language"'6 in this very year. From now on, we might say, the language of 'improvement' and the 'improvement' of the language were to be themes in the intellectual life of the Royal Society.

Thomas Sprat discussed the form 'improvement' should take in his official account, The history of the Royal Society of London, for the Improving of Natural Knowledge (1667).17 He suggested that the writing and speaking of English by Fellows ought to be free from the worst license, obscurity and coarseness of the 17th century. His anti- scholastic stance was in keeping with Bacon's, but Sprat had also been appalled at the carnage of civil war. He wanted to dissociate violent social and political feeling from Society discourse. The Royal Society afforded 'the satisfaction of breathing a freer air, and of conversing in quiet with one another, without being engag'd in the passions and madness of that dismal Age.' The project to adapt language to science was therefore promoted through the Fellows themselves, with their amicable relations making progress possible:

They have therefore been most rigorous in putting in execution the only remedy that can be found for this extravagance; and that has been a constant resolution to reject all the amplifications, digressions, and swellings of style: to return back to the primitive purity, and shortness, when men deliver'd so many things, almost in an equal number of words. They have extracted from all their members, a close, naked, natural way of speaking; positive expressions; clear senses; a native easiness; Bringing all things near the Mathematical plainness, as they can; and preferring the language of Artizans, Countrymen, and Merchants, before that of Wits, or Scholars.

Sprat knew that post-Restoration English was used for an increasing variety of transactions, and that his reforms could succeed only if they were flexible and direct enough to cope with the demands of 'Artizans, Countrymen, and Merchants'. If he failed, the 'Royal Society style' would have little relevance elsewhere. Sprat therefore explained why elaborate speech was dangerous in all situations. Good scientists had no need of persuasive arts in the search for rational truth.18 Likewise, he argued, peaceful citizens were much better off without violent political rhetoric. Instances of this attitude are common enough: 'eloquence ought to be banished out of all societies as a thing fatal to peace and good manners'; [one must separate] 'the knowledge of nature from the colours of rhetoric, the devices of fancy or the delightful deceit of fables'; 'the unfeigned and laborious philosophy gives no countenance to the vain dotage of private politicians; that bends its disciples to regard the benefit of mankind, and not the disquiet, that by the moderation it prescribes to our thoughts about natural things, will also take away all sharpness and violence about the civil ...'

So, a proud adherence to a steady, well-organized and regular pattern marked Sprat's approach where science and language were concerned: 'the unfeigned and laborious philosophy.'. He conveyed a sense of abstract precision through the use of metaphors. 'Mathematical plainness' suggested the accuracy and economy of 'when men deliver'd so many things, almost in an equal number of words.' Language was matched closely to experience, with the additional benefit 'that by the moderation it prescribes to our thoughts about natural things, will also take away all sharpness and

31



Neil Chambers

violence about the civil ...'. Sprat believed the style in which a group wrote and spoke might ensure harmony, and just because scientific statements could be agreed. It seemed that the purity, elegance even, of such English would bring peace. However, his argument was flawed. He had twisted words in a way hardly consistent with a 'close, naked' and 'clear' style. Like Bacon before him, Sprat could not avoid some rhetorical effects. There was the confusion of time whereby 'to return back to the primitive purity' of the past led to contemporary progress. The nostalgic sense of a lost 'utopia' here is certainly not rational. Furthermore, the emphatic tones are less convincing if we admit that behaviour and language are frequently uncontrollable. We are perhaps reminded that the need for 'improvement' was motivated by both the promise of scientific advance and a deep fear of chaos. Indeed, dissatisfaction and hope are combined in a word which nicely suggests ambivalence.

Sprat's mentor, John Wilkins (1614-1672), attempted to reform language-in his case to develop a new language-to a further extreme in pursuit of a refined, functional instrument. In his Essay Towards a Real Character, and a Philosophical Language (1668) he proposes symbols that are 'a real universal character, that should not signify words, but things and notions, and consequently might be legible by any nation in their own tongue.' Were this miracle achieved, Wilkins might have reversed the effects of the fall of Babel. However, the symbolic gap between knowledge, objects and the words that refer to them is unbridgeable. Walpole (1717-1797) later suggested as much when he investigated the distance between Wilkins's aspirations and ability:

Next, I discovered an alliance between Bishop Wilkins's art of flying and his fantastic plan of an universal language; the latter of which he no doubt calculated to prevent the want of an interpreter when he should arrive at the moon.9

Scientists rely on language like everyone else, and attempts to radically alter its character drew the scorn of satirists who had always known this. Swift (1667-1745) derided language reformers earlier in the century. In Book III of Gulliver s Travels (1726) they use objects to converse.

Despite this, in 1712 Swift had advised Robert Harley (1661-1724), the Tory Lord High Treasurer, that an academy was needed in A Proposal for Correcting, Improving and Ascertaining [i.e. fixing] the English Tongue. Notions of 'improvement' were ventured in a political context, where little was achieved. Indeed, academies proved less important than the operation of general ideas of correctness. These were championed by writers such as Joseph Addison (1672-1719), and spread through the common-sense approach of correspondents and essayists at large. Classical examples were closely followed in education, but overall an institutionalized approach to language reform was not typical of the English.20 Thus, Dr Samuel Johnson argued against an academy in the preface to his Dictionary (1755). He sensed the national mood, the developments taking place in English, and the mutability of language itself.

Scientists were not daunted. Taxonomies and jargons were directions they had taken in the exploration of language. These made it possible to describe the world systematically. Naturalists in particular needed a more scientific approach to raise their

32




activities above what Johnson called the mere 'culling of simples'. Carolus Linnaeus (1708-1778) gave a coherent way of organizing and describing the physical world. Banks and his close friend Dr Daniel Carl Solander (1736-1788) were disciples of Linnaeus. Indeed, Banks once called him 'that God of my adoration'.21 Alternatively, mathematicians had already taken one of Banks's predecessors as their idol. Newton's (1642-1727) work showed how effective mathematics was as a language for describing, abstracting and theorizing. The development of scientific prose can be traced to each of these influences, as can some of the disturbances that troubled Sir Joseph's presidency in 1783 and 1784.22

Banks had been unhappy with the Society's Foreign Secretary, Dr Charles Hutton (1737-1823), a Professor of Mathematics at the Royal Military Academy, Woolwich. Hutton was effectively deprived of his post late in 1783, when it was decided that it should be filled by a person resident in London alone. Another mathematician, the Reverend Samuel Horsely (1733-1806), rallied some Fellows against Banks. There was a feeling that Hutton had been treated harshly, and that the mathematical sciences were poorly served by a naturalist President. Further, Banks had been accused of judging candidates for Fellowship more on their social standing than their academic merits. Thus, the Royal Society did descend into squabbles from time to time, and the language used then was less than 'philosophical'.

However, Banks was able to retain control when challenged because he did not stoop to recriminations. He set an example consistent with Sprat's aims and seemed to be above argument:

Cool headed people will consider the real advantage of the Society. If it is judgd for the advantage of it that I remain I shall. If not I shall retire to my plough without a sigh.23

Opposition to him was crushed in January of 1784 after ill-judged outbursts from the malcontents, who ought to have known that the thing most likely to offend a Fellow's sense of propriety was a crude and ugly attack. This month saw a motion of confidence in Banks as President carried by 119 votes to 42-just as he had ominously predicted to Horsely:

... in truth our controversy ended as I told him it would on the very first day that war was regularly commenced. 'You have raised a storm, my good Doctor', I said, '&, trust me, I will ride upon it'.24

Banks was chastened though, and afterwards refrained from meddling with institutional change, Instead, he insisted that candidates were 'agreeable', thereby protecting the Society's ethos, and, of course, his own position.

These debates provide a partial context for Banks's correspondence. We can see the elements that characterized Banks's prose style-simplicity, flexibility, directness and warmth-as rooted in a view of language and writing closely associated with the Royal Society itself. It is striking that the President exhibited many of the ideals Sprat lauded, and remained President for 41 years while they had widely been adopted.25 Both men seemed to value a natural, utilitarian voice suitable for dealing with a variety of different individuals. However, for a literary context we need to look

33



Neil Chambers

beyond the Royal Society to a world from which some are all too ready to exclude the writing of both great men and their correspondents, however representative of an age they may be. It was a lively world, in which the effective use of prose mattered greatly, particularly in letters.

LETTERS AND LETTER WRITERS: A BROADER VIEW

The 18th century saw the growth of a flourishing literary market.26 The rise of booksellers and publishers allowed professional writers to ply their trade as the reading public expanded.27 Writers who once flattered patrons in the hope of support had a commercial alternative on Grub Street. Wealthy aristocrats and eccentrics who wished to write as a genteel hobby still did so, but now faced competition from impoverished hacks whose ranks supplied many of the finest writers of the time. These were men like Johnson. He triumphed, but the cost was considerable. Most scribblers were condemned to lives of unrewarding drudgery instead. Banks toiled away against this background. The transactions of learned societies were the organs most suited to his needs, and they included many common forms of non-fictional prose. In the Royal Society, for instance, papers regularly started with the phrase, 'From a letter to Sir Joseph Banks, Bart, P.R.S.'. A fascinating portion of his incoming correspondence therefore appeared in the Philosophical Transactions, but we must consider more than this in the broader view.

Non-fictional prose-that of diaries, journals, memoirs, biography, periodicals, essays, articles and letters-emerged vividly from the 17th century. It comprised a voracious interest in the detail of social observation, private and public life, commerce and travel, trivia and revelation. Letters allowed a peculiar freedom to writers discussing this variety of news, and were favoured as the best technology for passing messages. However, letters are often considered to be a form of private communication and no more. When presented as art, they can become a curious and awkward mixture of what is intended to appear as personal conversation and what is not intended to appear as showy performance. If a writer makes no attempt to conceal his aspirations, he risks falling into an exaggerated style which is too obviously witty and journalistic. The voluble results may be impressive, but can sometimes also be unattractive. A letter-writer with no such pretensions is often clumsy or predictable, and devoid of interest; or, rarely, his writing is well-judged and touchingly significant.

Regardless of their uneven standards, private and 'familiar' letters do contain valuable insights: we all like to know what was secretly thought and done. Reading them is not straightforward though. For instance, we might miss implications close friends and colleagues took for granted. Thus, correspondence containing hearsay or innuendo, while enjoyable to read, is also among the most difficult to fully understand. Indeed, some writers use tempting gossip or a deft word to dupe unwanted readers- if only because they know some people never leave well alone. Alternatively, formal letters give the solid impression of reliability. Some are important historical accounts, others are bland business documents, but the historian knows these cannot always be

34




FIGURE 1. Scientific man of letters: Sir Joseph Banks, by John Russell, R.A., 1788. Banks is

holding an image of the moon which Russell had drawn using one of William Herschel's

reflecting telescopes. Reproduction courtesy of Lord Braboure.

35



Neil Chambers

trusted either. He is cautious because writers get things wrong, or even try to distort the truth. For students of history and literature alike, the fascinating nub of any letter is that we can never be entirely sure what prejudices and misunderstandings motivated writers.

So, private letters may be beguiling whether we go to them in the legitimate search for historical fact, or for the guilty pleasure of prying into someone else's personal affairs. Yet the most beguiling are those that are published. Once published, private letters suddenly become nothing of the sort. There is enormous pressure on writer and editor alike to alter content or distort style. Reputations and sales depend on it, but in the process much is lost. Students who prefer to see originals may therefore be disappointed with printed versions. In addition, single letters sent 'To the Editor' or posted as notices conform to general rules for style and brevity whatever their subject. The aim of many is simply to be informative or to state an argument, and few writers prefer them for serious prose exploits. For these reasons, they are too frequently forgettable. Establishing a critical viewpoint of correspondence as a genre is therefore a difficult thing to do. Much of it is unlike other literary forms in intention and effect. Different rules seem to apply to poetry, drama and creative prose. Nevertheless, it is possible to locate Sir Joseph Banks in a tradition he is not commonly associated with. This tradition is a literary one.

As has become clear, letter writing was part of a broadly defined prose tradition in the 18th century. The Fourth Earl of Chesterfield, Philip Dormer Stanhope (1694-1773), was an exponent.28 Although Johnson had crushed Chesterfield in the famous letter of February 1755 rejecting an offer of patronage, Chesterfield admired the power of Johnson's language and kept this severe rebuke. As a man of social standing, and a letter writer of note, Chesterfield's opinion on the subject of correspondence was significant. In a message to his godson, Philip Stanhope (1755-1815), on 15 September 1768, he described the different purposes for which letters were used, and the styles required for each. Chesterfield's point of view was that of an older man advising a younger man, and his own style reflected this. It was clear and direct without being overly familiar. He always tended towards the polite in what he wrote, avoiding excitement and outbursts. This is why some contemporaries found his emphasis on dress, good breeding and useful connections a little too worldly and smug.

The types Chesterfield referred to were letters of business, 'Small Talk', intimacy, 'Letters galantes', and those to inferiors. In his view business 'requires great clearness and perspicuity in the treating. There must be no prettynesses, no quaintness, no Antithesis, not even wit. Non est his Locus.' Sparse fare, but Chesterfield considered these 'as the easiest either to write or to answer', presumably because the subjects were decided and the style unembellished. Private letters proved just as easy, but this was because 'there the heart leaves the understanding little or nothing to do. Matter and expression present themselves.' Chesterfield's godson might have doubted that a finished piece could be produced with so little effort though, not least because business and private life are rarely so uncomplicated. Perhaps he ignored the advice altogether, as he did much of what his uncle suggested, but Chesterfield was still a perceptive man.

36




For instance, Chesterfield knew that the social class of correspondents was evident in the styles used by writers. He wrote with more humour and understanding when he advised flattery to superiors: 'I can assure you that men, especially great men, are not in the least behind hand with women in their love of Flattery.'. These were 'Letters galantes', and others of similar sort. At the opposite end of the social scale were letters to 'persons greatly your inferiors'. Once again, the stress was on the need for cordial relations: 'let your letters speak, what I hope in God, you will always feel, the utmost gentleness and humanity.' There was a hint of shrewdness too: 'it will be taken kindly, and your orders will be better executed for it'. Chesterfield's remarks remind us of the social and economic importance attached to letters.

Chesterfield knew that the crux lay in letters written to demonstrate a person's ability with language. The most interesting letters to read, it appears, are not always the most important written. Chesterfield explained this appreciatively:

The letters that, Are the hardest to write are those upon no subject at all ... For as they are nothing in themselves, their whole merit turns upon their ornaments; but they should seem easy and natural, and not smell of the lamp, as most of the letters that I have seen printed do, and probably because they were wrote in the intention of printing them.

Chesterfield was rightly suspicious of letters written merely for entertainment, however cunningly. Their pretty ornaments, he warned, may not amount to much. We must be alert too, or we might miss the value of private letters concerned with important issues, letters that at least deserve the attention lavished on their literary cousins.

The poet and man of sensibility, William Cowper (1731-1800), later took the subject of 'nothing' and wittily referred to fashion when writing to William Cawthorne Unwin (1745-1786) on 6 August 1780.29 His was a private letter designed to amuse a younger man. By explaining the difficulties of writing a letter 'about nothing', he managed to produce the majority of one, before seeing through superficial appearances to the substance beneath: 'a Modem is only an Ancient in a different Dress'. This epigrammatic phrase recalled Augustan interest in classical life and the wisdom of general truths. Cowper emphasized the natural, conversational voice:

A Letter is Written, as a Conversation is maintained, or a Journey perform'd, not by preconcerted, or premeditated Means, by a New Contrivance, or an Invention never heard of before, but merely by maintaining a Progress, and resolving as a Postillion does, having once Set out, never to Stop 'till we reach the appointed End. If a man may Talk without thinking, why may he not Write upon the same terms?

A direct, simple but fluent style is preferred. However, many would find such a well- written letter harder to produce than Cowper suggests. He was confident, but without proper thought we might stumble through important or complex matters, and perhaps to 'Talk without thinking' implies as much.

Johnson observed that letters are not always rehearsed, or even published.30 When letters are published,3' they may lose the very authenticity that makes reading worthwhile to begin with. He described the elements typical of a letter writer seeking the form merely as an accomplishment, and identified the elusive qualities superior writers achieve:

37



Neil Chambers

Some when they write to their friends are all affection, some are wise and sententious, some strain their powers for efforts of gayety, some write news, some write secrets, but to make a letter without affection, without wisdom, without gayety, without news, and without a secret is, doubtless, the great epistolick art.

Johnson's was a private letter, a letter to an 'intimate' as Chesterfield would say, and both he and Cowper might have approved of the unforced yet moving language. Gracing Hester Thrale (1741-1821) with a firm and noble honesty in style, Johnson explained:

Is not my soul laid open to you in these veracious pages? Do not you see me reduced to my first principles? This is the pleasure of corresponding with a friend, where doubt and distrust have no place, and everything is said as it is thought. The original Idea is laid down in its simple purity, and all the supervenient conceptions are spread over it stratum super stratum, as they happen to be formed. These are the letters by which souls are united, and by which Minds naturally in unison move each other as they are moved themselves.

There is great emotional power in these lines, but Johnson cautioned against excess and posturing. Instead, he prized the openess, the freedom from artifice correspondence allowed. This was all a welcome relief from the demands of writing for money, but Johnson knew that producing a good letter was a demanding task. In straining to be 'natural', a correspondent risked appearing contrived. The problem was how to recreate a pleasing informal style that did not seem planned, and this perplexed many eighteenth-century thinkers.32 Thus, one enters the world of eighteenth-century letters, and in it there is plenty to admire and question.

SIR JOSEPH BANKS'S CORRESPONDENCE: STRUCTURE AND SIGNIFICANCE

Sir Joseph did not have time to devote himself to writing as an end in itself, but he could not afford to neglect a medium he relied on so heavily either. He was a man who saw little virtue in writing of 'nothing'. Instead, his letters are replete with substance. The most celebrated letter writer of the period, Horace Walpole (1717-1797), has a published correspondence of 48 volumes in the Yale edition by W. S. Lewis et al. Banks's might stand comparison in terms of volume. It was, however, the scope of his writing which was remarkable. Sir Joseph's correspondence was global in circulation and global in concern. In fact, the myriad of his life and time can be unravelled from papers which were the real means for 'rendering a host of local particulars "universal" '.33 When searching for an epithet for Banks then, the broad structure of his correspondence indicates that 'scientific man of letters' would do. This is an attempt to outline that structure from letters scattered across some 250 repositories worldwide.34

A significant number of Banks's letters are to do with scientific matters at home and abroad. An estimate of those with scientific themes is 2950. This reveals a remarkably well-balanced concern, as 1475 letters are to do with British science and 1475 with foreign science. These are not exclusively scientific in their tenor though. Many of Banks's addressees were friends as well as colleagues, and the style and

38



The correspondence of Sir Joseph Banks 39

l IZ81

0 r_ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ . 6 18 1

| - 8I

I O ' ' ...8.

£18I

1181

6081 g

L081 9

8 081

.. £HH ̂ S M M 081

1081 [

661' LI

L6LLI

_6LLI

16LI .\

68LI 9

LLI ,

58LI

18LI 9Z

' ',',',",88°61'

- '_ 8 6LI 1

'1-' "" "'- £L[[[ 9LI A 69LI

' O . . . . . . ,,,,, :: II,,"'"~ ..... ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I I I



Neil Chambers

content of the letters modulate accordingly. Even so, this series is a unique record of the development not only of British, but international scientific thought from the late 18th to the early 19th century. We might add 375 letters to do with the Royal Society and a further 350 with other societies and institutions here. Banks was a valuable member of the various bodies, helping to found a number of them.35 A significant collection is interwoven with these aspects: 300 letters are related to the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew.

Sir Joseph was involved not only in estate management, but also such enterprises as the enrichment of the royal and national flocks with Merino sheep smuggled from Spain. At least 1450 letters were exchanged concerning this fine-wool breed, and the first were quite secret. More generally, agricultural subjects feature in 750 other letters. In terms of his estates, particularly those around Revesby Abbey in Lincolnshire, and Overton in Derbyshire, 1450 letters are evidence of the work of an active landowner across six decades of agricutural change. These comprise letters to and from stewards, tenants, supplicants, and even poachers describing the detail of life as a county magnate. Drainage, enclosure and accounts of farm business are carefully recorded in them. In addition, 1700 reveal Banks's enormous influence in Lincolnshire and throughout its surrounding area. Some letters are urgent with concern about Napoleonic invasion, defiant and meticulous as to what might be done to resist. Such letters hurry from minister to minister, and refer to national and Lincolnshire defence. Banks had not failed to anticipate the strategic importance of the exposed coasts of his sometimes unsettled county home. Hence his printed 'Outlines of a Plan of Defence Against A French Invasion' in 1794, and his strenuous efforts to quell riots in Lincolnshire late in 1796.36 The volatile feelings of the time are vividly embodied along with the seasonal rhythms of a provincial world, and, taken together, these letters form a substantial narrative of social and economic history.

An important feature of this narrative is the way that attitudes common to estate management provided a pattern for economic botany and colonial development of the New World. The productive use of the land was paramount, and we could regard the gardeners and collectors Banks dispatched from the Royal Botanic Gardens at Kew as labourers or stewards engaged in 'cultivating' a natural empire. Kew became a forcing-house for what was gathered, and if the colonies were to resemble the mother country at all, then in certain respects they would appear very much as well-kept English gardens and farms. Indeed, British expansion looked very much like this. Spanish ambitions in the Pacific flickered out at such sights as that of Port Jackson in March 1793, while concern at the threat British bases posed to their possessions in the South Americas grew. Alejandro Malaspina's (1754-1809) expedition, 1789-94, revealed 'the happy change in conduct of some men who, if they had been enemies of society, were today useful to their country by their application to work, and because of the constant efforts by which they transformed a rough and uncultivated country into pleasant garden. It had been in existence for hardly five years, and yet had the appearance of an old establishment.'37 This 'pleasant garden' was intended as an 'improvement' to increase benefits through systems of horticultural exchange, to exploit the natural world and its productions globally.

40




Plans for the Botanic Gardens at Calcutta were another example. In 1787, Banks stated the benevolent self-interest that would be served in a rousing eulogy:

To exchange between the East & West Indies the productions of nature usefull for the support of mankind that are at present confined to one or the other of them, to increase by adding this variety the real Quantity of the produce of both Countrys, & by that means their population, furnishing at the same time to the inhabitants new resources against the dreadfull effects of Hurricanes & droughts, to one or the other of which all intertropical countries are subject, are the more immediate objects of his Majesty's present intentions, the disinterested humanity of which seems alone sufficient to inspire diligence & activity into the minds of all those who may be fortunate enough to be allowed a share in the honor necessarily consequent in having carried ideas of such exalted benevolence into Execution.38

Fine words, but behind them lay Bank's strategy for a concerted British challenge to the competing Dutch and French spice trades. This relation of general issues to local ones was usual with Banks, and so was the way he combined many elements in each

single enterprise. His numerous instructions and proposals are remarkable evidence of this.39 Following Miller's use of Latour's terms, we might say Banks took numerous 'domains (economics, politics, science, technology, law)' and made them 'conspire towards the same goal'.40

At a time of competition for trade and foreign dominions, and the establishment of British power abroad, Sir Joseph's hand extended far beyond his pastures and farms. Even once he had ceased to travel beyond Britain, he was invariably consulted when voyages of discovery were mounted. Charles Burney (1726-1814) described him as the 'Patron and Friend to all deserving Circumnavigators',41 and James King (1750-1784) proclaimed 'I look up to you as the common centre of we discoverers'.42 Thus, through Banks's offices the pattern of scientific research and naval inquiry launched with HMS Endeavour was continued into the 19th century. The great figures of exploration, such as Bligh (1754-1817), Cook (1728-1779), Flinders (1774-1814), Park (1771-1806), Phipps (1744-1792) and Scoresby Jnr (1787-1857) were all assisted by Banks. They revealed continents more completely to Europeans, and the landscape of Banks's correspondence was duly enriched by Africa, India and Australia. The Arctic, numerous islands, ocean ways and seas are also traced in his letters. Banks sought to glean what scientific knowledge he could from these missions, and in return he attempted to inform and encourage the growth of empire, even when this led, as we have seen, to rivalry between nations. A record of the part he played in shaping the world we know today, for good or for ill, is to be found in the following collections: India and England, 200; Middle East and Africa, 275; North America and the Arctic, 100; the Indo-Pacific, 1975; and Iceland, 275. To these might be added letters with the Board of Longitude, of which there are 100. Banks was at the influential centre of an international network of writers that could not be matched by any other private individual of his day, and possibly none since.

For this reason, interruptions to his scientific correspondence were carefully avoided. Banks felt that breaches between nations could be overcome only while science remained neutral. He therefore fostered enlightened relations with continental Europe throughout much upheaval, and especially with men of science in France.43

41



Neil Chambers

When writing abroad as President, his tone was that of a statesman of science, deploring war and advocating peace:

It has, indeed, been always my wish to promote the scientific intercourse among nations, notwithstanding any political divisions which might subsist between them; and, during the late, peace, I neglected no opportunity of drawing closer the connexion between Members of the National Institute and of the Royal Society.44

Thus the Royal Society style was projected well beyond England, even in troubled times, as Banks tried to facilitate international discussion across Europe. French appreciation of this was shown in 1801, when he was elected a Foreign Associate of the Institut National de France. It was a gesture in keeping with Amiens and Banks accepted, but his diplomatic reply caused anger among gallophobes who felt nothing for the traditions he had honoured.45 Critics in and out of government conveniently forgot, or ignored, the practical benefits to be gained through Banks: the liberation of prisoners; the safe passage of explorers; and the exchange of journals and scientific letters between countries.

As one more theme this is remarkable, but we might add others. In England, his opinion shaped the business of state, and provides a view of a great man's exchanges on contemporary affairs. There are 1250 letters that fall into such a category, to which one might add 125 on political and diplomatic subjects, or 125 to do with the Privy Council. Developing a more literary vein, Banks exchanged views on matters of taste, art and figures prominent in the London social scene, figures we recall more readily today because they have been mythologized. These are themes for which other letter writers are justly celebrated, and are impressive in their Banksian extent. Furthermore, one can overhear the distinctive voice Sir Joseph used with those closest to him, as a friend, a husband and a brother. Thus, the importance of Banks's writing is not exhausted, and one might refer to still more richly detailed correspondence: social and domestic life, 1100; the arts, 295; and 250 concerning Banks's enormous library and herbarium.

It is estimated that some 30,000 plant specimens were gathered on the Endeavour voyage.46 This was a magnificent achievement, and it may be that over 1400 plant species were new to European science. Banks's herbarium was eventually incorporated with the General Herbarium at The Natural History Museum, London. His collection of insects now resides there as well, and this contains specimens gathered on the voyage.47 Johann Christian Fabricius (1745-1808) described many new species from such material, which are thus taxonomic types. Figures for the size of the collection vary, but might exceed 4690 items. The quantity of animals collected surpassed 1000, including the first startling evidence of a kangaroo. Banks and Second Lieutenant John Gore (ca. 1730-1790) had encountered them in July 1770 on the east coast of North Queensland. Banks collected and purchased widely, gathering from across the globe and his life. The material eventually available at 32 Soho Square, his London home, grew and grew. Along with his library, it shaped 18th-century European understanding of natural history, especially in the Southern Seas. Following Banks's death some 22,000 titles from his library were willed to the British Museum, and this list might be extended further.

42




Privy Council

Political and diplomatic

Arts

la

0^ * o

I

- ------

m-

- I i 1 1 ( I- i -

43

.

{D

3

I:

o

c)

c)

0

.I

Social and domestic

Contemporary affairs

Library and herbarium

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Societies and institutions

Royal Society

British science

Foreign science

Agriculture and horticulture

Estates

County matters

Sheep and wool

Board of Longitude

North America and Arctic

India and England

Middle East and Africa

Iceland

Indo-Pacific

o 0 0 o 0

o) 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 @0 ~ O O

e4

0 0 CD

0

- S

I r, 1 ,-- __

I I



Neil Chambers

However, we must now also turn to more than 20,000 letters, many of which require comment for the first time. They are evidence of Banks's ability to organize more than drawers of specimens. He collected correspondents as well, and arranged them with scientific care. Arthur Young (1741-1820) observed Banks's system:

There is a catalogue of names and subjects in every drawer so that the enquiry was ... scarce named before a mass of information was before me. Such an apartment and such apparatus must be of incomparable use ... in any circumstance.48

Banks's attention to documents was comparable to that given to the library and herbarium. In his hands, letters became a powerful tool. He used them to make enquiries into almost every aspect of his time, along with the other resources at Soho Square, creating a sort of private academy working for the 'public good': 'C'est que M. Banks lui meme bien toute une Academie'.49 In keeping with 18th-century usage, Banks would certainly have thought such an academy a 'literary' one.

CLOSE ANALYSES OF AN EXAMPLE LETTER: SIR JOSEPH BANKS TO THOMAS ANDREW KNIGHT, F.R.S., 23 JANUARY 181650

Boswell reported a conversation with Johnson thus:

We talked of Letter-writing. Johnson. 'It is now become so much the fashion to publish letters, that in order to avoid it, I put as little into mine as I can'. Boswell. 'Do what you will, Sir, you cannot avoid it. Should you even write as ill as you can, your letters would be published as curiosities'.51

Writers of stature mock readers when they dismiss writing of quality, but they can afford to, and know it. Johnson knew those who followed would fall into the ironic trap of publishing his remarks on not publishing. Boswell would see to that. We must not be so careless if we are to avoid neglecting work of merit though, and Johnson's casual taunt plays on just this point. It is one relevant to Sir Joseph's correspondence, for he could be flippant too, and talk like this might well have been heard down at the Turk's Head in Gerrard Street, Soho.52

Banks's corpus is larger than academic and general readers might imagine.53 This is because he neglected one of the activities now expected of great men: he rarely published. Nevertheless, the letters are evidence of his career as a writer, and from them emerges a sense of a lively mind engaged in almost every aspect of Georgian life. He mixed modesty and indifference in a comment towards the end of a long and active life:

I know myself too well to suppose myself a proper member of a Society of Belles Lettres. I am scarce able to write my own language with correctness, and never presumed to attempt elegant composition either in verse or in prose, in that or in any other tongue. It is fitting, therefore, that I continue to confine myself, as I have hitherto done, to the dry pursuits of Natural History.54

We could take Banks at his word, but a sense of irony indicates this remark was a

44




Soho Square 23 January 1816

My dear Sir

I have delayed an answer to your favor too long in the full expectation of receiving your letter with the name & address of your correspondent, which I concluded would somehow reach my hands, as I can without the least trouble procure it to be directed in German, which is always the best way, as the German postmasters are not so good linguists as the French & Dutch, with whom English addresses pass very well. Be so good then as to send it with the name & address, & I will do all the rest.

I shall say but little on the subject of equivocal generation when opposed to your Brother, whose strong mind has so much exhausted itself on Greek &c. as to leave little force left for the explanation of Natural Phenomena. For the Louse & woodcock argument, be good enough to tell him that nature has provided for every species of animal one or more especial lice, who fatten upon the Carcase they are destined to inhabit, but cannot exist on any other animal, or by any other food.

Thus the noble creature, man, is the destined prey of the head louse, the body louse, & the crab louse, neither of which can exist in any other situation than on the human body. Of course, as man was the last work of Creation, he must have maintained all these three animals untill he had a wife, who might release him from supporting one or two of them; but till Abel, the younger brother of Cain, was born, there were not more men than lice destined to feed upon them.

But enough of this nonsence. Untill an actual experiment has taught us that an animal can proceed from another without having been created or begotten, what inducement can we have for believing that possible from abstract reasoning, which appears impossible from actual experiment ? Carlisle has not entered my house since the Commee of Papers of the R.S. refused to print a paper of his; &, I am told, has declared that he never will. I hear that he is employed in Hatching a Publication in which countenance will be given to those

equivocal Doctrines; but I do not hear of one experiment he has to produce in favour of his doctrine,

The by-Law party of the Horticultural [Society] have triumphed, & Salisbury, who has been defeated threatens to withdraw. I dread the consequence, because the Lawgivers look

up to R. Wilbraham as their leader, who cannot know any thing of Horticulture, & who never was famed for being very nice in his general Conduct.

Adieu my dear Sir. May we when we meet again see better times for farming & for Horticulture.

Believe me always, Truly & faithfully yours,

Jos: Banks.

Figure 4. Letter from Sir Joseph Banks to Thomas Andrew Knight.

45



Neil Chambers

type of conceit common among correspondents. Indeed, this very letter was an amusing example of polite but witty self-effacement. In it, Banks demured with the sly observation:

I see no objection to a room being occupied one day by a Society of Philosophers, and on the next day a company of masqueraders; and the less so as it will probably on both occasions be frequented by the same persons.

A comedy of shared roles, but Banks was the one masquerading-as the incompetent. It is not a role one should readily allow him. We might regard this instead as a knowing example of talent, significant for the way it demonstrates exactly those skills in the art of writing which Banks pretends not to possess. Indeed, this letter went through at least two drafts before Banks deemed it 'dry' enough to be sent. One should also note the caution, even disdain, with which Banks appeared to regard writing, particularly when for show or publication. A characteristic attitude on his part, which had little to do with a lack of experience or ability. In fact, his letters now deserve a wider readership, and one brief example (figure 4) provides evidence of Banks's style as President in the 'golden age' described by Warren Dawson.

The need for humour was nearly as marked as the need for energy when dealing with the business of the Royal Society. From time to time Sir Joseph was drawn into controversy when papers were rejected. He relies on reason and common sense for his effect in a letter where apparent simplicity belies careful order. This simplicity becomes more amusing as the treatment of Richard Payne Knight's intellect and Sir Anthony Carlisle's theories becomes obviously ridiculous.5"56 Banks proceeds from the vagaries of the European postal system to Creation, from lice to the father and mother of mankind. He is fully aware of the irony of doing so, but does not ruin the effect by appearing contrived. Instead, he retains a sense of composure, a plainness which is coolly dispassionate, as he derides the notion of spontaneous generation. His control of language reinforces the sense of a superior mind at ease with its subject, and humour is derived from the comic effect of treating the foolish in a mock-serious way. The appeal of this letter arises from Banks's urbane wit.

Banks does not rush into the business of refuting Payne Knight or Carlisle, although this is the main concern of the letter. He first considers far more important matters: the post. Relegating Payne Knight and Carlisle in this way implies a studied dismissal, but makes Banks appear eminently sensible and genial. Here is a man whose correspondence and understanding are truly international, graciously laying his assistance at the disposal of a younger friend and fellow President: 'be so good then as to send it with the name & address, & I will do all the rest'. However, such politeness does not dull Banks's condescension when he turns to his adversaries. The attitude in the second paragraph will be sharply different to that of the first.

Banks is going to relish the opportunity of ridiculing 'nonsence'. The phrase 'I shall say but little on the subject of equivocal generation' should wet the appetites of those familiar with his sense of irony. Banks acknowledges Payne Knight's 'strong mind' only in order to remark on its feeble condition, thus making the best use of contrast. He pretends to be unimpressed by classical learning, as the off-hand phrase 'Greek

46




&c' indicates. In this view, Payne Knight has wasted time and energy along with his mind in pursuit of antiquity. Consequently, he is not a scholar unqualified in matters of natural history. He is just a fool speaking out of turn. Payne Knight's opinions are therefore irrelevant, and can be easily ignored. It is enough merely to state a basic scientific fact regarding parasites in language simplified as if for the benefit of a child:

... nature has provided for every species of animal one or more especial lice, who fatten upon the Carcase they are destined to inhabit, but cannot exist on any other animal, or by any other food.

There is no need for further elaboration, since Banks is correct in his account, and, it seems, Payne Knight might not grasp very much more.57 In such a context the phrase 'be good enough' is cutting, and implies little good will-unlike that of the first paragraph.

The attraction of the language in the third paragraph lies in the cruelly mocking restatement of Carlisle's folly in biblical terms. Banks takes Genesis as his text, and appropriately so. His exegesis is satirical, and stresses the irrelevance of Carlisle's views. The myth of creation attributes universal origin to God ab initio, against which Carlisle's speculation seems less than feasible. But in referring to Adam and Eve, Banks makes the most of developing the theory ad absurdium. Treating the myth literally, and pursuing the logic of spontaneous generation, Banks calculates the earliest population growth, not only of man, but of his lice. In this 'analysis', the fallen world Adam inhabits with his offspring is no more important than the lice he also shares with them. Having carefully explored the terms of the argument beyond what appears in the least plausible, Banks is able to conclude with full bathetic certainty that 'till Abel, the younger brother of Cain, was born, there were not more men than lice destined to feed upon them'. Words and phrases such as 'thus' and 'of course' increase the comic effect, because they imply a seriously reasoned account, which this is not. Instead, we have a form of ridicule in which Banks has adopted a flawed idea in order to refute it. He develops faults as if they were credible, thereby exposing the underlying fallacy. His literary method works well in a scientific argument, and good satirists have always employed it to effect.

Having amused himself, Banks cannot avoid contempt in paragraph four: 'But enough of this nonsence.' It is a sentiment the tone and structure of the writing have prepared us for, and introduces a firmer prose style. Sound reasoning will now be made to count, for Banks's argument is based both on stylistic competence and scientific method. Indeed, an emphasis on material evidence, collected data and experimental science marked Banks's presidency. This is clear from the searching nature of his

enquiry here. His rhetorical question gains force because an answer is unavailable rather than because one is not required:

... untill an actual experiment has taught us that an animal can proceed from another without having been created or begotten, what inducement can we have for believing that possible from abstract reasoning, which appears impossible from actual experiment?

Carlisle's theories could be persuasively explained, but without proof they could

47



Neil Chambers

never be accepted. Banks has not heard from Carlisle of 'one experiment he has to produce in favour of his doctrine'. If the Committee of Papers were to accept a view simply because someone insisted on it, this would rather contradict the Royal Society's motto, Nullius in verba ('not bound to swear on the word or the text-of any master.')

So, what Sprat called 'Sceptical doubting' opens a way to knowledge, and Banks cannot resist a final swipe at Carlisle. The verb 'Hatching' closely associates Carlisle's work with the lowly lice that are the subject of his concern. The poor philosopher's indignation appears less than justified under all this scorn, as he valiantly maintains his beliefs without any evidence to support them. The publication of Carlisle's views will only expose him to further ridicule. Now is the time to distance oneself from what may be a painful public humiliation. Banks is off-hand once again: 'I am told'. In the final paragraph Banks reflects with regret on dissentions, on a lack judgement in the legislature of another society.58 He emphasizes, 'I dread the consequence', reminding us of the anxiety with which such men regarded discord, both within such bodies, and in the world at large.

Looking closely at Banks's writing in this way is rewarding, and letter by letter, correspondent by correspondent, one can follow the complex development of his literary career across many busy years. The full narrative is most satisfying only with all its characters, their changing relationships, attitudes and settings though. Such an approach requires us to read the letters very much as an unfolding story. Thus, those involving Knight were horticultural conversations warmed by the enthusiasm of both men. Thoughts on the movement of sap and the growth of plants enlivened the friendly discussions. Unusually for Banks, they bore fruit in print in the Transactions of the Horticultural Society.59 A further glimpse reveals the physician Sir Charles Blagden (1748-1820), who was Secretary of the Royal Society from 1784 to 1797. He could be prickly, and in 1789 was upset by some unintentional slight. His writing became coldly hostile and was marked by the distant formality of the third person. After years of intimate confidence Banks was baffled by such letters, but responded in the friendly tones so typical of him. Eventually, the two were reconciled, and some 430 letters relate diverse scientific matters to do with the Royal Society and wider international developments. They were rapid accounts of life, particularly those with Blagden when in Paris. Subjects range from the Montgolfiers and their exploits ballooning to Lavoisier's (1743-1794) emulation in June 1783 of Cavendish's (1731-1810) experiments with hydrogen and oxygen.

Other relationships were not troubled by jealousy or misunderstanding. Informative letters to and from Sir William Hamilton (1730-1803) in Naples were animated by volcanic eruptions and a range of social comment. Banks rarely failed to make his compliments to the beautiful Emma (ca. 1761-1815) in them. Farther away, Governor John Hunter (1738-1821) relied on the assurances Banks gave. In 1799 Banks sympathized with the difficulties the colonists in New South Wales faced, given ministerial preoccupation with Europe. He entreated Hunter to persevere nevertheless, and pledged his voice in support at home:

48




I flatter myself we shall, before it is long, see her Ministers made sensible of its [the colony] real value; rest assured, in the mean time, that no opportunity will be lost by me of impressing them with your ideas of the probable importance to which it is likely before long to attain, & to urge them to pay it that degree of attention which it clearly deserves at their hands.

In a percipient aside Banks announced another addition to resources, and one that would prosper:

You will have Grapes of the sorts from whence the valuable wines of Europe are made. These, I hope, will encourage you to plant Vineyards: & some of them surely will produce marketable wine.6

The early seeds of an Australian wine industry, and the hope of fresh and dried fruits.

Supplying the colonies was a struggle fraught with disappointment, as the voyage of HMS Porpoise demonstrated. Banks was well placed to try though. Indeed, as

Special Director of Kew and a Privy Councillor he was attempting to fulfil a promise made to Philip Gidney King (1758-1808) two years earlier in 1797:

It pleased his Majesty a few days ago to order me to take a seat in the Privy Council. I mention this only because it may possibly be in my power to be of some service to you or your establishment. Be assured, Sir, if I find it in my power I shall not neglect the opportunity. I have for some time seen with regret that Ministers, fully occupied with the business of carrying on a calamitous war, have too much neglected the Interests of your Establishment, my favorite Colony.61

Hunter would not have forgotten that on the very day Banks wrote to King, he also

explained in symbolic terms:

I am a bird of peace. My business an encourager of the transport of Plants from one Country to another is suspended during war, and then, as I am no politician, I am the least employd when all other people are in hurry & bustle.61

Nearer to home, anecdotal messages were essential to communications with John

Lloyd (1749-1815) of Denbeigh, Wales. Lloyd was interested in scientific matters, and their closeness extended across nearly 40 years. As a landowner, Lloyd had much in common with Banks. The business of monitoring estates required a steady flow of letters, which Banks actively encouraged. Those with John Parkinson

(1744-1821), his steward at Revesby Abbey from 1795 to 1821, were always copious. Alternatively, Banks's fascination with etymology as a pastime enriched hours in old

age spent writing to Francis Douce (1757-1834). Numerous individuals populate Banks's correspondence, and they always introduce new concerns and tones. The claims were just as insistent when it came to the institutions and bodies that looked to Banks. In these cases he rarely neglected a duty. Sometimes it took the form of brief administrative letters to colleagues, but there were also essay-length reports sustained

by a lucid style, which he produced almost until the end. Great men and great matters are rehearsed in these. Some of the longest were written to the Court of Directors of the Honourable East India Company, and to men like Charles Jenkinson (1727-1808), President of the Board of Trade. The most touching letters were still the most personal though. Those to Charlotte Seymour (d. 1827) were later examples. The effects of

49



Neil Chambers

illness were lamented, and affectionate joy mingled with regret as Banks found travelling to see the Seymours increasingly difficult. These letters reveal Sir Joseph in a more sensitive temper, happy to explain his literary tastes and comment on the value of Byron's (1788-1824) verse, to quip and gossip as he approached the close of his life at Spring Grove.

CONCLUSION

We see there may be many orders and foundations, which though they be divided under several sovereignties and territories, yet they take themselves to have a kind of contract, fraternity, and correspondence one with the other; insomuch as they have provincials and generals.

Francis Bacon

Some scientific figures may not be innovative theorists, but should be recalled for their literary and historical legacy anyway. Indeed, scientific advance often compels us to an appreciation of these aspects. When established ideas are invalidated by some new discovery, the calculations and thoughts of an earlier view remain. Such writing is rich with meaning. One figure was persistent in his endeavours, despite divisions between 'sovereigns and territories':

I beg, Sir, however, that you will be assured that, whatever may happen between our rulers, my regard for my Literary friends will be kept entire, and no pains spared by me to carry on with them the necessary communications which were so happily kept up during the later Period of the Last war.'63

For international letters to endure in Europe, or to take root in the 'New World', men like Banks would have to make good Bacon's vision.

Thus, we find energy in Sir Joseph's writing. His demands were constant, and for more information. His style was as lively as Chesterfield's, though no less immediate and organized. His letters have in them the pace of a life urgent with responsibilities, diverse with themes, and crowded with friends or associates. They were rarely less than warm, irrespective of the class of person to whom they were addressed. This does not mean Banks was not also observant, subtle and complex, or scathing when aroused. He was well aware of the various effects available to him in the language, and adapted them readily to his purposes. However, he was never distracted by language alone. Instead, he combined brevity and wit with a keen eye for detail in all his dealings. This was a matter of necessity for such a ubiquitous correspondent.

Although one would hesitate to compare him with Johnson in all respects, the two men were certainly direct and confident letter writers. Neither was fussy or sentimental, yet both understood how language might be inflected to produce meaning. Such effects were marked because they were judiciously used. This was particularly so with Banks, for cultivating literary pretensions would appear ludicrously out of place in business letters of the type Chesterfield described. Nevertheless, there was always much to express, and such strict formal demands remind us that a letter writer

50




must sometimes be all the more ingenious to communicate what he really thinks and feels. At one moment Banks was clear and factual. In the next he might advise, persuade, plead, harangue or bully. But he was not affected or foppish. Chesterfield, Cowper and Johnson, in their different ways, valued a 'natural' style. Banks did too, and his writing never 'smells of the lamp'. So, in adhering to Sprat's advice, or following the early examples of his education at Eton, where reading the Spectator (1711-12 and 1714) was included in the curriculum, Banks was taking his place in the prose currents of his age.

We may now also draw comparisons between Sir Joseph's correspondence and that of other scientific figures. Sir Hans Sloane (1660-1753) and Charles Darwin (1809-1882)64 were two. Like Banks, they were travellers who wrote copiously, and in different ways each set a mark on his world. Generations of scientific writers like them have excelled in letters, journals, essays and articles through four centuries or more. With the institutions that fostered clear styles, they have produced an impressive literature. Moreover, scientists enjoy creative writing too, using it to explore controversial ideas or simply to amuse others. For instance, in his poem, The Loves of the Plants (1789), Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802) depicted relationships between plants in sexual terms. He was considering Linnaeus's theories, in which the Swedish naturalist argued that plants could be male or female and reproduce together. Erasmus excited and informed a wealthy audience with cheeky anthropomorphism, and some notable Romantic poets admired his verse. As with his friend, Sir Joseph, and his grandson, Charles, letters came fluently.65 Such men-and women-have always been active across a broad range of intellectual pursuits, enriching cultural life. They reflect changes at work in society like any writer, but they also influence thought and expression deeply. This is why scientific men of letters deserve a place alongside the celebrated arbiters of taste and social fashion, whose writing is sometimes cherished as if no other mattered.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am grateful for helpful comments offered by a number of people. They are: Desmond King-Hele; Marie Boas-Hall; Tim Fulford; Paul Cornelius; Rex Banks, and Samantha Quash. Harold B. Carter also read the early drafts of this paper, which were circulated in 1996. The Banks Archive at the Natural History Museum proved, and will continue to prove, an indispensable research base in this area.

NOTES

1 The repository references used in this paper are for: UY, Yale University; BL Add MSS, British Library, Additional Manuscripts; NHM BL DTC, British Museum (Natural History), Botany Library, Dawson Turner Copies; RS, The Royal Society, London; BRO, Buckinghamshire Record Office; ML, Mitchell Library, Sidney; SL, Sutro Library, California; RGS, Royal Geographic Society, London; UW, University of Wisconsin; ULL, University

51



Neil Chambers

of London Library; PRO, Public Record Office; de Beer collection, collection of correspondence which belonged to Sir Gavin de Beer; Hawley MSS, Lincolnshire Archives; LCL, Lincolnshire County Library; PML, Pierpont Morgan Library, New York; BPL, Boston Public Library, Lincolnshire; LS, Linnean Society of London.

2 W.S. Lewis, 'Editing private correspondence', Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 107 (4), 289-293.

3 W.R. Dawson (ed.), The Banks Letters: A calender of the manuscript correspondence, pp. vii-ix (British Museum (Natural History), 1958): 'Preface', pp. vii-ix.

4 Banks to Dundas, 5/4/1794, de Beer Collection; Banks to Hawley, 6/7/1794, Hawley MSS. 5 J.C. Beaglehole, The Endeavour Journal ofJoseph Banks 1768-1771, (Public Library of New

South Wales and Angus and Robertson, 1962): Hereafter called The Endeavour Journal. The

question of the publication of Banks's Endeavour journal is discussed on pp. 119-126 of the 'Introduction'. Banks allowed his journal to be used by Dr John Hawkesworth (1715-1773) in the publication of the official account of the Endeavour voyage under Cook's name: Account of the Voyages undertaken by order of His present Majesty for making Discoveries in the Southern Hemisphere (1773). He also permitted extracts from his Iceland journal to be used by Thomas Pennant (1726-1798) in Tour of Scotland ... (1776), and Walpole thought these the most interesting parts to read. Furthermore, Banks was an adviser in the publication of the account of Cook's final circumnavigation: Voyage to the Pacific Ocean ... for making discoveries in the northern hemisphere (1784). Nevertheless, Banks's name does not appear as prominently in the travel literature of the time as it ought to. Yet he stands condemned for the fleeting glare of popular triumph he returned to in 1771: R. Hough, Captain James Cook. A Biography, (Hodder & Stoughton, 1994), pp. 300-301: 'he [Banks] accepted too much of the credit for the success of the first voyage to the Pacific'; p. 213: 'Later thanks to Banks's unashamed publicity-seeking, giants of science and the arts sought his company and Cook's role was increasingly forgotten.'

6 PRO Prob/10/4524. (Copy in NHM, GL MSS BAN). When he died, Sir Joseph gave instructions that no monument should be raised in his memory, and that he be buried discreetly and with little ceremony. His burial site is at the parish church of St Leonard, Heston. Also relevant: Banks to Unknown Correspondent, 21/7/1819, PML; Banks to Blagden, 7/12/1819, R.S. B. 85.

7 Banks to Sarah Sophia Banks, 2/1773, ML Banks MSS A80/4. Banks explained 'The Motto of the Print is taken from a part of Virgils Eneid which Eneas encouraging his people says'. The motto-'cras ingens iterabimus e[a]quor'-is written on paper under Banks's left hand in the portrait of him by Joshua Reynolds, completed in 1773. In fact, the lines appear to come from Horace, Odes, 1, 7, 31-32.

8 'Directions for sea-men, bound for far voyages', Philosophical Transactions 1, 140-143 (1665-66).

9 'General heads for a natural history of a countrey, great or small, imparted likewise by Mr. Boyle', Philosophical Transactions 1, 186-189 (1665-66).

10 Banks to Parsons, 22/5/1787, UY Banks MSS Osborn Collection. 11 Beaglehole tries to characterize the age and place Banks in it throughout his 'Introduction'

to The Endeavour Journal. He describes Banks as 'the Gentleman Amateur of Science's pp. 1-3, and decides 'we may speak of the Age of Banks', pp. 124-126.

12 Over 3,000 individual correspondents appear in what remains of Sir Joseph's collected correspondence. It is estimated that there are more than 20,000 extant letters. Of these, some 4,000 were from Banks.

13 W.R. Dawson (ed.), The Banks Letters: A Calendar of the manuscript correspondence, British Museum (Natural History), 1958: 'Banks as a letter-writer', pp. xx-xxiii.

14 Samuel Johnson, Lives, (1779-81): 'It has been suggested that The Royal Society was instituted soon after the Restoration to divert the attention of the people from public discontent. The Tatler and Spectator had the same tendency; they were published at a time

52




when two parties-loud, restless, and violent, each with plausible declarations, and each perhaps without any distinct termination of its views-were agitating the nation; to minds heated with political contest they supplied cooler and more inoffensive reflections; and it is said by Addison, in a subsequent work, that they had a perceptible influence upon the conversation of that time, and taught the frolic and the gay to unite merriment with decency.'

15 Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), Leviathan, (1651): 'To conclude, The Light of humane minds is Perspicuous Words, but by exact definitions first snuffed, and purged from ambiguity; Reason is thepace; Encrease of Science, the way; and the Benefit of man-kind, the end. And on the contrary, Metaphors, and senselesse and ambiguous words, are like ignesfatui; and reasoning upon them, is wandering amongst innumerable absurdities; and their end, contention, and sedition, or contempt.' Hobbes's thought dominated late 17th century England. He gave philosophical weight to political and social theories, and wrote with a fearful sense of the turmoil of civil war. The figure of the 'Leviathan' expresses the desire for stable government. Less optimistic than Bacon, he too saw the importance of science and language to each other and society. Sprat was influenced by both Bacon and Hobbes.

16 J.A. Winn, John Dryden and his world, (Yale University Press, 1987): Dryden was expelled from the Royal Society in 1666 for non-payment of dues. This is considered along with the membership and role of men of letters in the early life of the Royal Society, pp. 128-136.

17 M. Purver, The Royal Society. Concept and Creation, (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967): The value of Sprat's account, and the aims of the Royal Society as originally established are discussed, especially in Part One, Chapters 1-5, pp. 9-142. Purver explained: 'The History is the only publication that ever received from the Royal Society such supervision in its documentation; and this scrutiny was carried out by those who were chosen for their personal knowledge of the facts. It shows that Sprat was not speaking for himself, nor for any other private person, but for the Royal Society as an institution, which considered this book to be its special concern, the first comprehensive and public account of its origin, policy and business', pp. 18-19. Apart from the interesting evidence the account provides, in Banks's time Sprat's prose style was admired as well. Samuel Johnson thought highly enough of Sprat's work to recommend it to friends, and wrote of it in his Lives, (1779-1781): 'This is one of the few books which selection of sentiments, and elegance of diction have been able to preserve, though written upon a subject flux and transitory. The History of the Royal Society is now read, not with the wish to know what they were then doing, but how their transactions are exhibited by Sprat.'

18 A.G. Gross, The rhetoric of science, (Harvard University Press, 1990): Chapter 3, 'Taxonomic language', and Chapter 6, 'The arrangement of the scientific paper'. Along with taxonomic language, Gross discussed the role of rhetoric, and emphasizes the different scientific approaches entailed by Baconian and Newtonian method. The early chapters provide a context for such views as well. See also: M.M. Slaughter, Universal languages and scientific taxonomy in the seventeenth century, (Cambridge, 1982).

19 W.S. Lewis et al. (eds), The Yale edition of Horace Walpole s correspondence (Yale University Press, 1937-83).

20 John Locke (1632-1704), Some thoughts concerning education, (1693): 'whatever foreign languages a young man meddles with (and the more he knows the better), that which he should critically study, and labour to get a facility, clearness, and elegancy to express himself in, should be his own, and to this purpose he should be daily exercised in it'. Significantly, this is almost a statement of the requirements and pattern of activity any earnest letter and essay writer would subsequently follow. Both forms are closely related in a number of ways.

21 Banks to Saint-Amans, 22/2/1792, NHM BL DTC VIII 13. Banks did not give unqualified approval to everything Linnaeus proposed. Later in life: Banks to Smith, 25/12/1817, LS. F.R. Stafleu, Linnaeus and the Linnaeans: The spreading of their ideas in systematic botany, 1735-1789, A. Oosthoek's Uitgeversmaatschappij N.V.: Chapter 7, 'The Banksian Era' to

53



Neil Chambers

'Kew Gardens and Soho Square', pp. 199-240. In this work Stafleu discussed the development of Linnaeus's ideas in systematic biology, and their spread through scientific Europe in the 18th century. Banks is introduced in 'The Banksian Era': 'One figure, perhaps the archetype of the British naturalist curiosus, was intimately associated with this development: Sir Joseph Banks, "spoilt child of fortune" (Beaglehole), the "autocrat of the philosophers" (H.C. Cameron), traveller, collector, practical idealist, philanthropist, long-time President of the Royal Society. The influence of Banks on British systematics (as on British natural science in general) during the closing decades of the eighteenth century and the early years of the nineteenth was such that the era could bear his name' (p. 217).

22 J. Gasgoigne, Joseph Banks and the English Enlightenment, (Cambridge University Press, 1994), Chapter 1, 'Joseph Banks (1743-1820): A biographical sketch', pp. 9-14. Banks could be a little too direct for some Fellows. He spoke the robust language of the Lincolnshire Fens just as well as the polite conversation of London Society

23 Banks to Blagden, 27/12/1783, R.S.: B.98. 24 Banks to Unknown Correspondent, 2/3/1794, NHM BL DTC IX 28-28A. 25 J. Dryander, Catalogus Bibliothecae Historico-Naturalis Josephi Banks, (London,

1796-1800), vol. 1 Scriptores Generales (1798), p. 6. Banks was, of course, aware of Sprat's work. His library volume may be found at 432.c.1 in the British Library. In 1996 the Royal Society had 13 copies of The history of the Royal Society of London, for the Improving of Natural Knowledge (1667) in its library, one of which was 'Presented to the R. Society from the Author by the hands of Dr john Wilkins, Octob. 10. 1667'.

26 I. Watt, The Rise of the Novel, Chapter 2, 'The Reading Public and the Rise of the Novel', pp. 35-59. (Hogarth Press, 1994). The epistolary form was important in the development of the novel. Later in this study, Watt commented on 'familiar letters'-suburban, personal and commonplace-and the way novelists like Samuel Richardson (1689-1761) drew on them for their narratives: 'The letter form, then, offered Richardson a short-cut, as it were, to the heart, and encouraged him to express what he found there with the greatest possible precision, even at the cost of shocking literary traditionalists. As a result, his readers found in his novels the same complete engrossment of their inner feelings, and the same welcome withdrawal into an imaginary world, vibrant with more intimately satisfying personal relationships than ordinary life provided, that they had afforded Richardson in the writing: both author and readers, in fact, were continuing the tendencies and interests which had originally led to the development of the formal basis of the narrative mode ofPamela-the development of the cult of familiar letter writing', pp. 195-196. This analysis, though, explained the way letters influenced creative work. For the purposes of this paper, we, like Banks, are interested in fact not fiction; not in imaginary ones, but in how the real world was determined. Familiar letters were handled by Banks, but his correspondence was on an altogether more impressive scale.

27 J. Brewer, The pleasures of the imagination: English culture in the eighteenth century (Harper Collins, 1997): the plight of professional writers and the world from which they emerged is considered on pp. 131-166. Johnson provides, as always, an impressive example. The importance of the reading public is stressed, Chapter 4, 'Readers and the reading public'.

28 The Earl of Canarvon (ed.), Letters of Philip Dormer Stanhope fourth Earl of Chesterfield to his godson and successor, (Oxford, Clarenden Press, 1890)

29 J. King and C. Ryskamp (eds), The letters and prose writings of William Cowper, (Oxford, Clarenden Press, 1979).

30 Writers who published their own letters often altered them beforehand. Both Pope and Walpole did.

31 B. Redford (ed.), The letters of Samuel Johnson, (Oxford, Clarenden Press, 1992-94). 32 For example, J. Browne, Chapter 8, 'Botany in the boudoir and garden: the Banksian context',

in D.P. Miller and P.H. Reill (eds.) Visions of Empire: voyages, botany, and representations of nature, (Cambridge University Press, 1996), pp. 160-169.

54




33 Ibid., Miller and Reill (eds). D.P. Miller, Ch. 2, 'Joseph Banks, empire "centers of calculation" in late Hanoverian London', pp. 21-25 (Cambridge University Press, 1996).

34 Working totals rounded up to the nearest 25 have been used, but the best figures currently available are given here: sheep and wool, 1460; Iceland, 275; Indo-Pacific, 1973; Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 58, plus 225 with Kew as a clear secondary theme gives 283, which is a more realistic figure; library and herbarium, 249; agriculture and horticulture, 762; Indian and England, 209; Middle East and Africa, 278; North America and Arctic, 106; Royal Society, 387; Board of Longitude, 94; British science, 1479; foreign science, 1474; Privy Council, 123; societies and institutions, 347; arts, 296; estates, 1458; county matters, 1701; social and domestic, 1114; political and diplomatic, 136; current affairs, 1251.

35 The Linnean Society of London (1788); the African Association (1788), (later the Royal Geographic Society); the Board of Agriculture (1793); the Smithfield Club (1798); the

Royal Institution (1799); the Horticultural Society (1804), (later the Royal Horticultural

Society). 36 Some letters on the disturbances in mid-1790s Lincolnshire: Banks to King, 7/11/1796,

LCL; Banks to King, 3/12/1796, LCL; Banks to Coltman, 13/12/1796, LCL. 'Outlines of a Plan of Defence Against A French Invasion', 4/4/1794, SL.

37 Luis Nee and Antonio Joseph Cavanilles, 'Observation on the soil, natives, and plants of Port Jackson and Botany Bay', ML 2337, p. 4, ML SLNSW. Quoted by A. Frost, 'The antipodean exchange', in Visions of Empire: voyages, botany, and representations of nature (eds D.P. Miller and P.H. Reill), p. 69 (Cambridge University Press, 1996). Also relevant: A. Frost, 'The

planting of News South Wales: Sir Joseph Banks and the creation of an Antipodean Europe', in Joseph Banks: a global perspective, (eds. R.E.R., Banks et al.), (The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1994).

38 Banks to Yonge, 15/5/1797, NHM BL DTC V 159-166, PRO BTE/30/11 337 [Comwallis MSS vol 13].

39 Banks to Phipps, April 1773, UW Thordarsdon collection; Banks to the Court of Directors, Honorable East India Company, 25/11/1788, NHM BL DTC VII 31-33; Banks to Devaynes, 27/12/1788, NHM BL DTC VI 103-111; Banks to Menzies, 22/2/1791, NHM BL DTC 7 197-207, BL Add MSS 33979 75-78; Banks to Wiles, 25/6/1791, NHM BL DTC VII 218-226A; Banks to Morton, 17/11/1791, NHM BL DTC VII 283-287; Banks to Inglis, 18/8/1796, SL Banks MSS, SL Banks MSS A 5 33, RGS (SC) 652-658; Banks to Jenkinson, 8/6/1799, NHM BL DTC II 233-235, BL Add MSS 38233 94; Banks to Douglas, 1/2/1801, NHM BL DTC XII 171-179; Banks to the Court of Directors, Honourable East India

Company, June 1806, NHM BL DTC XIII 152-156; Banks to Barrow, 12/8/1815, ULL Banks MSS 3, NHM BL DTC XIX 174-178; Banks to Smith, 1816, SL Banks MSS A 5 87; Banks to Abel, 10/2/1816, NHM BL DTC XIX 239-245.

40 B. Latour, Science in action: How to follow scientists and engineers through society, p. 222, (Oxford University Press, 1987), quoted by D.P. Miller in Miller op.cit. note 33, pp. 33-34.

41 Burey to Banks, 6/7/1791, ML Banks MSS series 72 013, NHM BL DTC VII 230-231. 42 King to Banks, 10/10/1780, NHM BL DTC I 304. 43 Sir Gavin de Beer, The sciences were never at war, (Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1960). The

relationship with continental Europe is tackled. He also refers to Banks's status as a writer. 44 Banks to Jean-Baptiste-Joseph Delambre, 30/1/1804, NHM BL DTC XIV 196-198; UY

Osbor Collection. 45 Banks was elected a Foreign Associate of the Institute National de France in the Class of

Science, Physics and Mathematics: President and Secretaries of the Institut National to Banks, 26/12/1801, BPL. This award followed the release of Deodat de Dolomieu

(1750-1801), whom Banks had struggled to help: Banks to Dolomieu, 16/7/1801, NHM BL DTC XII 240-243. The gradual improvement in Anglo-French relations continued, and on 25th March 1802 the Peace of Amiens was signed. The two earlier drafts of Banks's acceptance letter were made following the arrival of his certificate in January 1802: Banks

55



Neil Chambers

to the President and Secretaries of the Institut National, 21/1/1802, ML Banks MSS series 73 075. A translation of this letter was printed in French in the Moniteur, 18 March. This was then translated back into English, and used as the basis for an attack on Banks in a letter in William Cobbett's (1762-1835) Weekly Political Register. The attack was written by an annonymous figure called 'Misogallus', and expressed 'disgust at this load of filthy adulation'. April saw the appearance of his letter as a pamphlet entitled A letter to the Right Honourable Sir Joseph Banks K.B., once again by Cobbett and Morgan.When the annual elections for President of the Royal Society came, another letter, dated 4 November, appeared in the Weekly Political Register. This time the annonymous writer thought Banks unworthy of his place as President given the nature of his acceptance letter to the Institut National. Banks ignored 'Misogallus', who reacted to his re-election as President on 30 November with a final letter, 7 December. Banks had been unwell, and tended to avoid ugly public exchanges anyway. 'Misogallus' never declared himself openly, but William Windham (1750-1810) or John Alexander Woodford (d. 1817) might well have known who he was: Smith to Banks, 16/12/1802, NHM BL DTC 13 329-331; Banks to Aiton, 21/12/1802, ML Banks MSS series. H.B. Carter, Sir Joseph Banks 1743-1820, (British Museum (Natural History), 1988), pp. 386-389 for an account of these events.

46 H.B. Carter et al., History in the science of systematics, the Banksian Natural History collections of Endeavour voyage and their relevance to modem taxonomy; number 1, pp. 61- 70, (London, 1981).

47 M. Fitton and S. Shute, Sir Joseph Banks s collection of insects (1994). This was a report prepared in The Natural History Museum. Much of it appeared in R.E.R. Banks et al. (eds), Joseph Banks: a globalperspective, (The Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, 1994), pp. 209-211.

48 A. Young, A general view of the agriculture of the county of Lincoln, (1799), p. 234. Young was describing Revesby Abbey offices, but Banks was just as methodical at Soho Square. He kept bound volumes of correspondence under the titles 'General' or 'Foreign' there. Alongside these, he kept many folders concerned with special subjects. Most of this material has been broken up and sold at auction.

49 Blagden to Banks, 18/6/1783, NHM BL DTC III 49-53. 50 Thomas Andrew Knight (1759-1838). Plant physiologist and horticulturist. Also President

of the Horticultural Society from 1811 to 1838. Banks to Knight, 23/1/1816, NHM BL DTC XIX 233-234.

51 R.W. Chapman (ed.), Boswell s life ofJohnson, Oxford Standard Authors (Oxford University Press, 1904), pp. 1143-1144, with a stab at Stanhope.

52 Banks was a member of the Literary Club which Samuel Johnson (1709-1784) and Sir Joshua Reynolds P.R.A. (1723-1792) presided over at the Turk's Head in Gerrard Street. On joining Johnson had written to Bennet Langton (1737-1801) to say Banks would be 'a very honourable accession', 31/10/1778; a view he repeated to Boswell: 'he will be a reputable member', 21/10/1778. In December 1784 Johnson died, and Banks was one of his pall-bearers. Committees were established to arrange a monument to Johnson. Banks argued that it should be placed in Westminster Abbey with Johnson's grave, which is at Poet's Corer. Banks was a member of a special committee set up on 5 January 1790 to conclude matters. Banks withdrew when St Paul's Cathedral was chosen, and this is where the statue by John Bacon, R.A. (1740-1799) can be found: Banks to Windham, 26/3/1791, ML Banks MSS series 78 03.

53 F. Pryor (ed.), The Faber book of letters (Faber and Faber, 1988). Frank Kermode and Anita Kermode (eds), The Oxford book of letters (Oxford, Clarenden Press, 1996). Both of these include the unexceptional letter: Franklin to Banks, 27/7/1783, BL Add MSS 8095 176. A selection based on Banks's letters would be more revealing as a sample of eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century science and society.

54 Banks to Greville, 6/6/1807, BL Add MSS 33981 256v. 55 Richard Payne Knight (1750-1824), numismatist and virtuoso. Resident at 3 Soho Square

from 1808 to 1824.

56




56 Sir Anthony Carlisle (1768-1840), surgeon. Resident at 12 Soho Square from 1800 to 1819. 57 R.P. Lane and R.W. Crosskey (eds), Medical insects and arachnids (Chapman and Hall, 1993):

on p. 517 lice are described as 'highly host specific', and 'Each species of human louse specializes in infesting particular parts of the body'. The lice (Anoplura) Banks has in mind are Pediculus capitis, Pediculus humanus and Pthirus pubis. The body louse is also known as the clothing louse because it lays its eggs on clothing and visits the body to feed.

58 H.R. Fletcher, The story of the Royal Horticultural Society 1804-1968 (Oxford University Press, 1969). Richard Anthony Salisbury, F.R.S. (1761-1829) resigned his office as as Secretary of the Royal Horticultural Society in 1816 after a committee investigating the affairs of the Society produced a highly critical report of the accounts. This was issued in March 1816. Although Salisbury was not explicitly referred to, his position was untenable. Joseph Sabine (1770-1837), who had been an Inspector-General of Assessed Taxes and who prepared much of the report, was appointed Secretary in his place. Roger Wilbraham (1743-1829) was a politician and scholar.

59 The Horticultural Transactions 1 (1812): Banks contributed ten papers to this volume, most of which demonstrate his interest in cultivating fruit and vegetables from other countries and climates. Many of the experiments he conducted would have been at Spring Grove, his Middlesex retreat. In order the papers appeared on: pp. 8-12 (on potatoes and the hill wheat of India); pp 21-25 (on inuring tender plants to the British climate); pp. 54-56 (on managing strawberries); pp. 74-78 (on cultivating American cranberries at Spring Grove); pp. 140-141 (on managing the sweet or Spanish chestnut tree); p. 147-146 (on Roman forcing-houses and the fruit cultivated in them); on pp. 197-198 (on apples-the Spring Grove Coddling); pp. 252-254 (on figs); Appendix, pp. 4-10 (on horticultural observations from french authors); Appendix, p.27 (on hereditary diseases of fruit trees). In 2 (1813): pp. 161-169 (on the appearance of the Aphis lanigera in Britain).

60 Banks to Hunter, 1/2/1799, NHM BL DTC XI 187-189. 61 Banks to King, 30/3/1797, NHM BL DTC X (2) 75-76. 62 Banks to Hunter, 30/3/1797 ML Banks MSS series 38 04. 63 Banks to Fourcroy, 4/5/1803, NHM BL DTC XIV 79-81. 64 F. Burckhardt (ed.), Charles Darwin s letters: a selection, (Cambridge University Press

1996). 65 D. King-Hele (ed.), The letters of Erasmus Darwin, (Cambridge University Press, 1981).

57



Date post:	20-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	neil-chambers
View:	218 times
Download:	2 times

Letters from the President: The Correspondence of Sir Joseph Banks

Documents