The Naturalist on the River Amazons

“H.W. BATES”

The notices of the book were as appreciative as its author could expect or desire. The easy and luminous style, the vividness and, withal, sober exactness of the descriptions, the air of veracity, of real but never obtruded knowledge throughout, imparted a fascination to which every review, save that of the Athengum, jealous of its ancient v6le of advocatus diaboli, paid just tribute. The following extract from the lengthy notice which appeared in the Revue des Deux Mondes may be taken as a fair specimen of the rest:—

‘* Without dwelling on the special interest which attaches to Mr. Bates’s discoveries, it is easy to show by a few quotations that the phenomena which +he describes speak to the imagination of every man, scientific or not, to

Ixiv MEMOIR.

whom nature is not absolutely a sealed book. There is, in these reminiscences of a scientific voyage under the equator, a whole series of studies which relate, not to this species of monkey, or that sub-genus of lizards, but to the general aspect of the places that the naturalist has visited. Whether he describes his astonishment in presence of this tumultuous nature in the neighbourhood of Para, or whether, on entering the primeval forest, he depicts its silent and mysterious horror, he awakens impressions, he speaks to sympathies, which each of us feels in our inmost heart, and which, to those who have not lived under a tropical sky, seem like the recollection of a former existence.’’*

To turn from the book to the man. Bates’s prospects at the time of its publication were not bright. The chances of getting employment suited to his tastes and abilities seemed remote. His impaired health and his dislike to the business were fatal obstacles. to his joining his brothers, who, moreover, could have made room for him only with difficulty. He tried lecturing, but, hearty as was his reception, especially on a Leicester platform, found it distasteful as well as unremunerative. At last, in the hope that he might get more in touch with men and things likely to bring permanent work in science, he removed to London, in April 1863. The following extract from a letter to Darwin, dated the 20th of that month, shows the state of affairs.

‘* With regard to the other matter you mention, namely, my prospects; I must be open with you as I have been heretofore. My total income is £123 —£100 of which is allowed to me by my brothers on account of my withdrawing from their small business (which was not large enough to support three of us), and leaving £1000 of my capital on loan; the other £23 is interest on shares. Now I hope to add by scientific or literary work sufficient to enable me to live modestly. I should consider myself well off if I could gain an additional £150. There is, perhaps, some slight chance of my getting in at British Museum, which of course would fix me for life. I can get plenty of entomological work from private persons, but it is of a tedious, mechanical nature, and would prevent me from undertaking original research. One of my reviewers ‘hopes that I have made my expedition answer ina pecuniary point of view.’ It certainly did not answer, for the total savings of my eleven years’ work did not exceed £800.”’

The discredit thrown by the authorities of the British Museum on Bates’s statement as to the number of new species discovered by him, which has been already referred to, is a main subject of the following letters:—

• Revue des Deux Mondes, August 1863, p. 510.

&

HT. W. Bates to Dr. J. D. Hooker.

‘622, HARWOOD STREET, HAVERSTOCK HILL, N.W.,

“* May 12th, 1863.

‘““My DEAR DR. HOOKER,

‘‘ Many thanks for the good service you have rendered me, and for the advice as to future work.

‘IT am afraid I need the spur a little as to wrz¢z7g, but I am sure none is necessary in the matter of ‘ cabinet working,’ which Dr. Gray prizes so much; for I am always at it—naming, arranging, labelling, etc.—when other more important matters are waiting. ‘‘ On Monday morning I fell into a nest of hornets at British Museum, in the shape of a knot of the leading curators (Dr. Gray at the head) criticising fiercely my statement of having found 8,000 new species out of 14,700.

“IT should be very vexed if it came to get abroad amongst naturalists that I had exaggerated, but I have not exaggerated; how could they suppose I should make the statement without a preliminary calculation. The truth is that in all the groups of insects which have been so far welZ worked out, more than two-thirds of my species were new to science. “‘These few groups already worked are partly the most conspicuous amongst insects—a greater proportion of new species will be found in the more obscure orders and families. ‘« There are exceedingly few new mammals or birds, but the insects of the Amazons (especially Upper Amazons) were very generally new. ‘* The following is a list of species of a few of the best worked groups:—

‘‘ Thus 324 out of 477 are new—a very much larger proportion than 8,000 out of 14,700. I repeat that in all the obscure small groups of diptera, hymenoptera, moths, etc., of which I sent home some thousands of species, still unnamed for most part, the proportion of new species will be still greater. ‘‘T mean absolutely zew species to Europe; for if you examine Clark’s ‘British Museum Catalogue of Halticide,’ you will find that a// my new sfeczes did not exist in collection before they were sent home by me. ‘** Yours sincerely,

“i. W. BATES,”

é

Dr. J. D. Hooker to H. W. Bates.

“Kew, May 13th, 1863.

‘ My DEAR BATES,*

‘Do not be disconcerted by Gray’s doubts as to your statements: it is a way he has got of abusing everybody.* Luckily he overdoes it so prodigiously that, oddly enough, he has never made an enemy thereby! I never heard him speak well of any human creature, and never knew him to do a man a really bad turn; indeed, he is a strange compound. I never doubted for a moment your statement, nor have I heard of its being doubted except by J. E. Gray, as you tell me. It might at some future time, if the report is circulated, be good to draw up a short statement for the Axzals of Nat, Hist., but not as a reclamation, and with no allusion to having been doubted. A man must lose in some one’s eyes by letting it be known that he has been doubted. ‘‘The amount of novelty is quite what I should have expected. Above all things, my dear Bates, I am sure I need not advise you to take all these attacks of the museum men with Zerfect good part, and show neither feeling nor even dislike to have your statements contradicted as rudely as they like. According to my experience there is no other way of meeting and confound-zag your opponents. It is extremely difficult to establish a footing in London scientific society; it is all along of the law of the struggle for life! You are instinctively regarded as an interloper, and it must be so in the nature of things. Do, I entreat you, smile at their sneers, and tell them good-humouredly that ‘time will show.’ Your position is now critical; you have published a book far above the méfer of a host of entomologists. That they cannot attack; they can attack numerous statements and you must allow them their little day. Let them suppose they will carry their mole-hill, and do you take to the mountain; in good time they will find you have got above them after all. To get employment especially, nothing is so essential as a character for never being offended, which, after all, is true dignity. ‘‘But there is no use blinking this fact, that to establish your position will take several years of good, hard, unremunerative scientific writing. You have no competitors in your line; you have laid an undeniable foundation for rising to the top of the tree, but your position is most critical at this moment. Singleness of purpose, equanimity, and, above all, a character for good humour under (but not indifferent to) all attacks, will raise you socially and scientifically to what you should be, and I am sure will be, respected and loved by all, and especially by those who now care nothing for you personally, and envy your success. Above all things, remember that entomologists are a poor set, and it behoves you to remember this in dealing with them. It is their misfortune, not their fault; deal then kindly with them and their feelings, and they will soon own your superiority. Remember no man can afford to have one enemy of /zs own making, and the weaker your collabora-teurs are the easier they are made enemies of. ‘* Ever sincerely yours, “Jos. D. HOGEHES

• Cf. Darwin's Life and Letters, ii., 243.

HT. W. Bates to Dr. J. D. Hooker.

**22, HARWOOD STREET, HAVERSTOCK HILt, N.W.,

“* May 16th.

‘““My DEAR DR. HOOKER,

‘“‘T am glad to say that the storm appears to have blown over, for Dr. Gray, in the kindest manner possible, has confessed that the data on which he was about forming his judgment on my errors were not complete, and I conclude he thinks I have not exaggerated. A little opposition and criticism is what I expect, but I thank you for reminding me of the necessity of preserving equanimity; for unless one’s resolution to do so is repeatedly strengthened by such reminders, it is apt to give way. With regard to the difficulty of climbing the scientific and social tree, all that you say does not depress me, for I have a settled conviction that the reputation and friendships I have already acquired are more than I had a right to expect. ‘‘The hardships of foreign travel have the good effect of cooling the ardour of one’s expectations and ambition. I do not know whether it is the same with other travellers as myself, but these tough experiences seem to bring one under the truest of the beatitudes, namely, ‘ Blessed are those who expect little or nothing, for they shall not be disappointed.’ **T am now trying to write a paper for Natural History Review, on the * Geographical Relations of Species, and their Varieties.’ ‘“‘To bring entomological facts into comparison with botanical I am again reading your wonderful treatises on New Zealand, Australian, and Arctic floras. “‘ Wallace, the other day, told me he was reading your Arctic paper, and it convinced him that A/azfs alone offered satisfactory data for generalisation on distribution, recent geological change, etc. ‘*T think it is rash to say so at present, seeing that this branch of science is at present in its youngest infancy. Am I not right in saying that you are the originator of it? ** But what I want to do now is to ask you a question or two relative to some of your published statements.

“You say in flora of Australza that the best-marked varieties of a species occur on the confines of the specific area, and that the mean_form of the species towards its centre; giving a species of rhododendron as an example. No doubt this point has been thought over by you many times since you published, therefore I should very much like to know whether you still consider it the rule in plants. I fancy it is not the rule in insects sufficient to be called a law for application in biological science. It may be pretty general that varieties occurring at the extreme points of the area ofa species diverge most from the assumed type; but there are numerous cases in which small areas within the larger area contain very divergent varieties, or races, producing the impression that such areas exert a strong derverting imjeuence on species; such as the islands Corsica and Sardinia in the Mediterranean fauna, the Sula Islands in the Malayan, etc. If this subject bores you just now pray do not waste time in answering. “Yours sincerely,