Louis Agassiz: Creator of American Science
In the introduction to his wonderful new biography Louis Agassiz: Creator of American Science, Christoph聽Irmscher carefully lists some of the more 鈥渦ndelightful鈥� aspects of the life and work of聽the eminent Swiss zoologist, glaciologist, and paleontologist: 鈥渉is shabby treatment of聽his first wife, whom he left when he traveled to the new world; his relentless resistance聽to Darwinism; and perhaps most of all his reprehensible belief that America belonged to聽whites only.鈥� And it doesn鈥檛 get much better from there.
Agassiz (born Jean Louis Rodolphe Agassiz), a world-renowned and celebrated Swiss-born scientist whose name, more than 100 years later, would grace street signs,聽schools, and even a mountain range in Switzerland, recently had his reputation almost聽single-handedly felled by a Cambridge, Mass., eighth-grader. The student, who聽attended the Agassiz School there, discovered Agassiz鈥檚 abhorrent racial views in an聽edition of biologist Stephen A. Gould鈥檚 The Mismeasure of Man." The horrified student,聽Irmscher writes, 鈥渟uggested that the school change its name, which it did.鈥�
Irmscher, a professor of English at Indiana University, asks some very difficult questions聽about Agassiz鈥檚 legacy at the onset of this biography. Despite the book鈥檚 rather generous subtitle, Irmscher ultimately cannot reconcile Agassiz鈥檚 numerous and significant scientific achievements with his abhorrent views on evolution聽and race.
For example, Agassiz was an early and vociferous proponent of such聽biological quackery as polygenism (the idea that races of humans stemmed from distinct聽and different ancestors and thus were of separate origin) as well as miscegenation, or racial admixture within a society. Agassiz could also be called a prototypical 19th-century 鈥渞acial philosopher鈥� because of his curious obsession with comparative brain size and cranial capacity, and their relationship to intelligence among races of humans.
Agassiz, always the charismatic showman,聽compounded the damage to his own reputation by regaling attendees at a Charleston, S.C., conference with his racial sophistry, which unfortunately encouraged and enabled聽much of America鈥檚 pro-slavery faction. His patrons included the notorious Alabama聽physician Josiah C. Nott, who, as the owner of nine slaves, sought out Agassiz鈥檚 counsel to validate his own theories about the subjugation of blacks through slavery.聽Nott infamously stated that those indentured achieved their greatest perfection, physical聽and moral (as well as longevity), in a state of slavery. Agassiz and other scientists who聽espoused polygenism also emboldened colonialists, who believed that the inherent superiority of the white race gave credence to Kipling鈥檚 鈥渨hite man鈥檚 burden" 鈥� the聽obligation and duty of whites to rule over other, presumably inferior, races.
Agassiz鈥檚 youth in Switzerland had a powerful influence on his own attitudes toward his family, students, and colleagues. His autocratic father was a merchant with both a聽manipulative personality and a provincial worldview. He sought聽to control his son鈥檚 career path by repeatedly suggesting that studying to聽become a zoologist (with two doctoral degrees, no less) was a waste of聽 time and聽money. Agassiz鈥檚 mother was also aggressive, perhaps even abusive. The pressure she exerted on Agassiz鈥檚 beautiful and artistically talented wife聽C茅cilie (Silli) Braun to subject herself to her husband鈥檚 ambitions left Silli feeling helpless聽and abandoned.
Eventually 鈥� in an act Irmscher likens to that of a 鈥渕odern woman鈥� 鈥� Silli took their children and left Agassiz. In September, 1846,聽Agassiz, whose writings and traveling lectures on glaciers, Brazilian fishes, and other聽exotic and arcane topics had brought him worldwide acclaim, would leave Europe for聽good to accept a professorship at Harvard University. And Silli, who once illustrated her husband鈥檚 published works and shared his professional enthusiasms,聽would die in loneliness and despair two years later.
Agassiz鈥檚 second wife, Elizabeth Cabot Cary, fared considerably better. Born into聽鈥渂lue-blood鈥� Boston in 1822, 鈥淟izzie鈥� Cary had a powerful intellect rivaling that of Agassiz. She employed her intelligence to her future husband鈥檚 advantage 鈥� as well as her own 鈥� by聽editing his books and other writings. But hidden underneath the scholarly veneer and聽the "strenuously rational language" of their correspondence, Elizabeth had a 鈥渢rue,聽lasting affection鈥� for Agassiz. Following their marriage in 1850, she sought to realize her聽keen interest in education by starting a private school for young girls in the attic of their聽Quincy Street home. Twenty-two years after Agassiz鈥檚 death, she became the first聽president of Radcliffe College. In between, she accompanied聽Agassiz on his Charleston lectures and assisted him in gathering specimens on the聽Galapagos Islands. And in her attempt to solidify her late husband鈥檚 legacy, she also聽authored a comprehensive and well-regarded biography of Agassiz.
Alexander von Humboldt, the pre-eminent zoologist during Agassiz鈥檚 youth, also had聽a profoundly important influence on Agassiz鈥檚 career. Mentor, patron, and cheerleader聽to Agassiz, von Humboldt had royal patrons, which gave him wealth and added to his聽prestige. He would write fawning letters to Agassiz, and his 鈥渟cion鈥� would respond聽with equally fawning, almost obsequious, replies. But if anyone could conjure聽insecurities in Agassiz, it was von Humboldt, whom Irmscher likens to Agassiz鈥檚 鈥渟urrogate聽father鈥� 鈥� the one who really saw Agassiz鈥檚 scholarly potential and unselfishly nurtured and聽financed it.
Agassiz鈥檚 anxiety about von Humboldt鈥檚 towering legacy was never more in聽evidence than when Agassiz was asked to prepare a series of lectures at Harvard on聽the occasion of what would have been von Humboldt鈥檚 100th birthday in 1869. Agassiz fretted about every detail, and was adamant that it be carried off perfectly 鈥� in聽other words, to his own satisfaction.
Agassiz鈥檚 career-long competition with English naturalist Charles Darwin was focused on a few distinct areas of contention, including Darwin鈥檚 theories of evolution and natural聽selection, in which Darwin emphasized an evolutionary process for the adaptation of聽species dependent on their mobility. Agassiz, although particularly religious,聽believed that though man was mobile, species of animals were not, and that they聽developed where God placed them.
Darwin, 鈥渁 sharp observer of other people鈥檚 foibles,鈥� saw聽Agassiz鈥檚 work as 鈥渃ontemptible rubbish鈥� and also compared him to one of the jellyfish聽Agassiz obsessively researched and chronicled: 鈥渨eird, infinitely interesting,聽capable of inflicting a certain amount of harm, but destined ultimately to fade into聽insubstantiality.鈥� Regarding Agassiz鈥檚 Charleston folly, Darwin sarcastically wrote to聽his cousin William Darwin Fox, 鈥淎gassiz lectures in the US in which he has been聽maintaining the doctrine of several species 鈥� much, I daresay, to the comfort of the slave-holding Southerns.鈥�
Over his academic career, Agassiz earned another unfortunate reputation: that of a聽stingy, domineering, and credit-stealing professor who both alienated and smothered聽the ambitions of legions of students and research assistants. Here, Irmscher has聽exhaustively examined numerous letters and journals (the book contains 44 pages聽of endnotes) of former prot茅g茅s such as Charles Girard and 脡douard Desor, who聽worked and studied with Agassiz at the University of Neuch芒tel in Switzerland, and聽Henry James Clark and Addison Emery Verrill, who were both assistants to Agassiz at聽Harvard. Agassiz鈥檚 rancorous yet fascinating episodes with these young men were marked by common themes of professional jealousy, theft of what would now be聽called 鈥渋ntellectual property,鈥� and bitter personal attacks.
Particularly revealing (as well as heartbreaking) is the case of Clark, who toiled in聽penury within Agassiz鈥檚 shadow for years as an 鈥淎djunct鈥� professor helping to organize聽Agassiz鈥檚 career-long ambition, the Harvard Museum of Comparative Zoology. Clark,聽shortchanged both in credit and in remuneration, was eventually pushed out of his聽position by the Harvard Corporation after a very public quarrel with Agassiz. And in聽the case of Girard 鈥� who came to regret following his 鈥渇lawed master鈥� Agassiz from聽Switzerland to America and eventually defected to Washington D.C.鈥檚听Smithsonian, headed by Spencer Fullerton Baird 鈥� Agassiz could not help but badmouth聽his former student to Baird, saying that Girard had 鈥渘o judgment,鈥� was 鈥渙bstinate as聽a mule,鈥� and needed to be led with 鈥渁 high hand and kept in an entirely subordinate聽position.鈥�
When it comes to his books, Agassiz鈥檚 "脡tudes sur les Glaciers" (1840), is聽outstanding, not only for its scholarship, but also for its exceptionally beautiful,聽lithographed atlas volume. But for all its beauty and scientific importance, the name聽of Agassiz鈥檚 friend and fellow glaciologist, Karl Friedrich Schimper, is absent from its聽pages. Even the initial use of the term 鈥渋ce age鈥� (eitzeit), Agassiz cribbed from聽Schimper. As Irmscher asserts, this was 鈥渢he first prominent instance of the cavalier,聽unattributed use of other people鈥檚 ideas that, in the eyes of Agassiz鈥� critics, would聽become a hallmark of his career.鈥�
And in a supreme act of hypocrisy added to what聽Irmscher terms 鈥渁 similar mix of ruthlessness and ... naivet茅,鈥� Agassiz, who thought聽that another, contemporary author, Jean de Charpentier, had pre-empted his "脡tudes," wrote of his 鈥渄isappointment鈥� that Charpentier 鈥渉adn鈥檛 used his [Agassiz鈥檚] observations聽in order to establish 鈥榮ynonymy鈥� between 鈥榶our theory and mine.鈥欌�� Embarrassment was聽obviously not in Agassiz鈥檚 lexicon.
There is no question that Agassiz鈥檚 shadow looms large in numerous scientific聽disciplines. But Irmscher鈥檚 devastating new appraisal pushes Agassiz out of that shadow and into the klieg lights 鈥� leaving all the聽hagiographic and illusive imagery behind. In the book's epilogue, Irmscher writes, 鈥淭he history of聽science is unforgiving; it remembers those who were right and commits to the dustbin聽those who were wrong. And Agassiz certainly was, dead wrong, about evolution and聽about race.鈥� What this groundbreaking book distills is ugly and very disturbing; but聽ultimately, it is the necessary and timely exposure of a great man who in truth really聽wasn鈥檛.
Chris Hartman is a Monitor contributor.
