First a little background: Considered to have been extinct for 65 million years (due to absence of fossilised remains: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T4A1Sw3kSOY) the surprise recovery of a coelacanth carcass from a fishing trawler in 1938 is the stuff of fairytales - like stumbling across a living dinosaur. The key figures in the story are:
- Hendrik Goosen, captain of the trawler which caught the first specimen in in 1938 - he reported it to have been alive for some time after it was caught and, on returning to port, called Miss Courtenay-Latimer to take any sample she liked from his catch. b.c 1905 d. 1990
- Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer, curator of the East London (SA) Museum, who saved the original fish for science in 1938. Extant coelacanths Latimeria chalumnae and Latimeria menadoensis (discovered 1997) are named after her and give rise to the suborder Latimerioidei and family Latimeriidae which include fossil species. 1907-2004
- Professor JLB Smith (James Leonard Brierley), who identified and named the first fish (Latimeria chalumnae - after Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer and the River Chalumna to indicate the location of the discovery) and who devoted himself to finding a further specimen. Before concentrating on ichthyology he had been an associate professor of organic chemistry. I mostly call him JLB within the text in order to avoid any potential confusion with his wife. 1897-1968, suicide by cyanide.
- Eric Hunt, who found the 2nd coelacanth specimen in the Comoros in 1952 (initially named Malania anjouanae by JLB - for the Prime Minister of South Africa who had assisted it's recovery and the island of Anjouan in the Comoros, again the location of the discovery) believing it to be a distinct species due to missing fins - still often referred to as Malania to distinguish it from the first fish; JLB had proposed the name Latimeria Hunti in Eric's honour but he refused) b.c. 1924 lost at sea 1956
- Margaret Smith (nee Mary Margaret Macdonald), second wife of JLB (very little seems known of his first wife and it is Margaret who figures in the coelacanth story; they were married the same year Latimeria was caught), and after his death was the director of JLB Smith Institute of Ichthyology for 14 years. She was an author, ichthyologist and taught physics and chemistry. 1916-1987, apparently shortly after viewing the first footage of a live coelacanth filmed.
Of these key figures only JLB published an account of the discovery - Old Fourlegs (1956) - which covers the first and second specimens recovered. Actually, given that it was arguably the biggest zoological discovery of the 20th century, surprisingly little has been written about coelacanths - in comparison to say the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb which has been extensively covered in fact and fiction. I first read about the coelacanth in The Children's Book of Questions and Answers (1981 - ISBN-10: 0706406206 / ISBN-13: 978-0706406207) and then nothing else until Samantha Weinberg's glorious A Fish Caught In Time (1999 - ISBN-10: 1857029070 / ISBN-13: 978-1857029070) which I can't recommend highly enough.
Naturally enough, having been fascinated by the story from childhood, I wished to read JLB's version of events and so I bought myself a first edition via ebay.
* * * * *
In 1992 'A. Wheeler' reviewed "Remembering the coelacanth: a 50th anniversary retrospective. Interviews with Marjorie Courtenay-Latimer and Hendrik Goosen..." - an article appearing in The International Society of Cryptozoology Newsletter (Vol. 8, no. 1 - 1989).
This review includes the statement that "[the accounts] should be taken as a supplement to J.L.B. Smith's account in Old four-legs...(1956), a work as notable for the aggrandisement of its author as for its factual content"
'The aggrandisement of its author'...not what I took away from reading it. JLB's narrative might put him centre-stage of the story...but he WAS. Yes, he rather skims past the other key characters, including his wife who gets very little look in. Is this self-aggrandisement, misogyny, or simply writing HIS story? JLB writes exclusively from his own experience leaving aside speculation as to what the other people were doing / thinking / feeling but perhaps it would not be his place to speak for others.
While JLB almost exclusively refers to Margaret Smith, a highly accomplished woman, as 'my wife' and speaks little of her involvement I do not feel that this is particularly because he felt that, as a man, his involvement was more important, more that this is HIS story and hers was hers to write should she wish to. Perhaps that is merely my interpretation but this line makes me think he had proper respect for his wife's work:
"This elicited a widespread response from scientists all over the world,
and as a result my wife was able to publish a composite account
giving detailed instruction for the care and preservation of a coelacanth,
so as to enable the maximum to be obtained from investigations" pp. 188-9
Such a work - a manual in layman's terms, for preparing samples for all kinds of specialists to examine - must have been quite an undertaking even with numerous specialists providing their requirements. It also shows that, far from being JLB's mere helpmeet, Margaret was exceedingly capable and well versed in coelacanths long before taking over her husband's work.
Even clearer, although not specifically in relation to Margaret Smith's scientific work, is this line from Appendix E:
"I have great respect for my wife's judgement,
even when she slashes at my work I think good." p. 250
I found Old Fourlegs written in an easy style, accessible to those outside the field of ichthyology. I appreciate his keeping scientific matters to the basics - avoiding unnecessary detail and description while explaining clearly and concisely what the reader needs to know. The only difficulty I had was, at times, following the timeline.
JLB is perhaps disdainful of the wider scientific community who passed judgement on 'his' coelacanth - calling the coelacanth 'degenerate' when, like sharks, it has remained unchanged by evolution for millennia precisely because it is perfectly adapted; claiming the coelacanth had escaped the (then) inaccessible depths of the ocean...despite having no deep sea adaptations - basically European and American scientists treated him with disdain so he returned the favour. There is certainly an air of possessiveness although he makes it clear that he wants the knowledge for humanity rather than his own sake. A certain possessive attitude is not unreasonable; when a second species of coelacanth, Latimeria menadoensis, was discovered by Mark Erdmann in 1997 it was described to science and named by Laurent Pouyaud before Erdmann could complete his work - effectively stealing the discovery (and even submitting a faked photo to try to claim his team found the fish first). Such a theft, especially of such a rare and interesting creature, is devastating to a scientist; of course JLB wanted to save his contribution!
The most self-importance is indicated in this passage comparing the political careers of Smuts (PM 1939-48; a scientific man one might reasonably presume would have supported Smith's endeavours...but refused to even speak with him) and Malan (PM 1948-54; deeply religious and seemed a very unlikely potential source of help to Smith...but help he did):
"It was even more fantastic that each of these two men had...
been himself treated by his own people almost exactly as he had treated me
- one spurned, the other supported.
One could not escape the conclusion that this indicated that the manner
in which each man had behaved in my case was symbolical
of the way he had treated his own people...every man reaps what he sows"
pp. 191-2
It would be quite a reach to say Smith felt Smuts lost his election for rejecting his pleas for help, or that the coelacanth aided Malan's career (although he was highly and rightly praised for his assistance in saving the 2nd specimen). This is a passage about karma as JLB saw it indicated through his specific interactions with two South African Prime Ministers; kindness rewarded and indifference punished...
It is important to specify that this is in regard to JLB Smith's particular interactions because Malan was the leader who brought in apartheid and it would be a leap too far to say that Smith in anyway condoned Malan's policies. Smith was deeply reluctant to approach Malan at all - partly due to the poor experience he'd had of Smuts, partly knowing Malan was a creationist, but possibly also if he disapproved of Malan's political stance. (More on the subject of race to follow)
Few, if any, people are all-good or all-wicked. That Malan did South Africa, black people and the world a great disservice with apartheid is undeniable but that does not mean he cannot have done a little good in other ways. Smith can acknowledge Malan's service to coelacanth knowledge without it meaning anything else. The praise is qualified and, at the time of writing, it was for a man still living and not without influence. To have understated or omitted Malan's involvement could have been disastrous.
It is a point many people struggle to understand that even in the current era not all people in all places are free to be as outspoken about politics as many of us take for granted. Regardless of the era JLB Smith's living came from government support. His research funds, his university professorship could have been withdrawn if he spoke out of turn; similarly his books could have been blocked from sale and his entire means of supporting his family lost. Some would find the moral stance worth the price, others would find the risk too great. Even so it is likely 1950s South Africa was not a politically outspoken time or place - indeed I feel UK politicians are criticised more openly now than they were in my youth. There are still places it would be extremely unwise to speak out openly and many of us fail to appreciate the freedom we have to speak our minds without fear of persecution.
There are some factual errors, indeed there is an annotated version by Mike Bruton (2017 - ISBN: 9781775844990) which addresses these. Incidentally, Bruton has also written a children's book on coelacanths and a biography of JLB and Margaret Smith called The Fishy Smiths (2018. ISBN: 978-1775846468).
The index of Old Fourlegs lists Hendrick Goosen as 'Goosen, Captain N.' which may be a simple typo, but on p. 148 calls the trawler the 'Aristea' when all other sources call it the 'Nerine'. I'd be inclined to generally believe Smith over other sources as his account is contemporaneous...although memory is clearly fallible too. Presumably Bruton, Weinberg and other authors have had access into family records, shipping archives and other sources not generally available for those looking into the story...
Descriptions the sheer brutality of fishing trawlers and of bombing for fish - including upon coral reefs - are deeply unsettling from a 21st century vegan's perspective! The concepts of animal cruelty and ecological harm were yet a long way off in the future - and there are still abhorrent practices out there.
"When the net is hauled up from the bottom...
the gas in the air-bladders of the fishes expands...
Often they are so much enlarged
as to stick out of the mouths of the fishes..." p. 92
"Then we went bombing [for fish] out among the coral heads
on the seaward side" p. 137
"It had long been my ambition to catch a coelacanth alive
so that the ordinary man could see it in an aquarium,
and be given the opportunity to look back to the kind of creature
that lived hundreds of millions of years ago" p. 194
This last point - one of mankind's slowest realisations - that animals are best kept and protected in their natural environments, is one we are still working on now. Indeed a rejection of zoos and aquariums is still in its infancy. It is a curious thing how the original trilogy of Jurassic Park movies (1993, 1997, 2001) had a message that 'life will find a way' and that human control is an illusion and yet when Jurassic World (2015) begins the initial response I felt to seeing the park finally open was awe...quickly replaced with disgust as I realised the horrors of captivity - especially in terms of the baby dinos in the petting zoo, some with saddles for kids to ride on. A very clever use of an animal rights message in mainstream cinema.
I cannot blame JLB for imagining a captive coelacanth as, for his time, that would have been seen as the ultimate achievement. In some small way I even appreciate that his interest was not limited to killing animals for dissection.
But most hard to stomach is the casual racism.
"It later became apparent that this surprisingly intelligent behaviour
on the part of the native was due to his being of a higher class,
a trained teacher" footnote, p. 157
"And now it appeared that malaria-soaked, worm-ridden,
bone-headed blacks of the Comores had been doing exactly that
for centuries past..." p. 162
It is important to remember that the author was a white South African, then aged 59, writing over half a century ago, during Apartheid (indeed, only a few years into that era: 1948 to the repeal of legislation in 1991). It would be oversimplifying the matter to call him racist - he was the product of his era and his nation.
Context is important and while I can empathise with people of colour who, quite rightly, find such books deeply offensive I do not agree with those who wish to ban or eradicate such things. Whether the fight is for racial equality, women's rights, gay rights or any other form of social justice removing the record of past injustices serves no good. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it - we need to look at the wrongs of the past in the cold light of day.
It is difficult to discern what JLB's own feelings on the matter were, not least as they cannot be separated from the society in which he was immersed, but this passage gives me cause to ponder:
"...when the peoples for whom they labour
clearly do not appreciate this or desire their presence.
They are the last of this passing phase of 'Colonial' administration,
the condescending gesture of White superiority
that is arousing increasing resentment in the awakening consciousness of existence that is is stirring in the backward ebony mind.
Where will it all end?" p. 186
It would seem that JLB felt whites were a superior race (probably as a learned belief) but there is a suggestion here that he believed this was transitory - that the 'backward ebony mind' was awakening, that colonialism was at an end and that whites were behaving badly. It is my interpretation that 'where will it all end?' is a premonition of conflict - the violence that was needed to end Apartheid - not distaste at the idea of black people gaining equal rights. It might even be that he feared there would NOT be equality in the future, that the 'condescending white superiority' might actually win the day. Presuming what he meant here is a risky undertaking; it would be even more foolish to presume his personal beliefs from his writing - it is perfectly possible to hide your true feelings in phrases couched to fit the sensibilities of the reader.
There is an awareness that rebellion is both inevitable and justified. I do not think he had a hatred or fear of black people, he was dismissive and condescending and used some appalling language but would he have been able to adapt to a modern inclusive society? I think so, rather more than many of his contemporaries, I suspect.
Another passage discusses being in Nairobi circa 1954 (during the Mau Mau uprising) where he talked to those who were 'informed' (presumably rather than relying on Eurocentric news) and walked "many miles through the streets, noticeably the only European to do so outside the central shopping area" and speculates what would happen if the same rebellion happened in his own nation:
"I reflected somewhat grimly that even if this happened in South Africa,
we should not be prepared to endure its dragging on like this.
It would come to a quick end, one way or the other; yes, one way or the other" p. 225
The way I read this is that, especially in the repetition of 'one way or the other', he has no special confidence in the whites being victorious. It would have been easy enough to say that 'even if this happened in South Africa it would not drag on, we would end it quickly' and the fact that he doesn't is, in my opinion, very telling.
"The bestiality of the Kikuyu in their slashing murders is world news,
but I learnt many other things about them. One is typical.
At night they will go into a field of mature potatoes, and
working through the soil with cunning fingers
will remove most of the tubers without killing the plants
or leaving any trace" [ibid]
Again, perhaps this is only my interpretation, but I read here 'bestiality' as a judgement upon brutal actions rather than a term of racial denigration; also, a statement of admiration for their intelligence rather than condemnation for the theft of potatoes. While other Europeans of the era may have seen ethnic groups like the Kikuyu as little other than violent and primitive there is definitely the suggestion that JLB thought there was much to be learned from non-white peoples and cultures, and that their different expertise and skills could be valuable. I acknowledge that this speculation is my own; I would rather hope that (other evidence being absent) people of the past were doing the best they could in the cultures and society of their day and should, in general, not be judged too harshly by modern day idealists.
"A bright spot in that difficult time was the arrival of three young coloured men
at the laboratory [F. Backman, B.Sc., L. Backman, B.Sc, and N. Dennis, B.Sc.]
...graduates of Fort Hare, the non-European university College,
they had heard we needed assistance, they had taken Zoology
and could they help in any way?
...They laboured for many days and would accept no reward.
We remain grateful for their kind thoughtfulness and service" pp. 183-4
Was it truthful that they would 'accept no reward'? I hope it was offered and these really were generous young graduates who wished only to help.
A modern writer might not think to include the volunteers' race but perhaps it seemed relevant to JLB that much needed assistance came from that community, not his own. It may have seemed quite poignant that it was not his own Rhodes University ichthyology students or graduates who offered their services.
As this passage relates to processing samples of fish that had been all but forgotten in the chaos around Malania it might easily have been omitted - I think it says something (slightly) redeeming for JLB that it is included.
If we only read books that were in keeping with modern sensibilities, I do wonder what we'd be left with. Sadly racism, sexism, cultural elitism, religious intolerance etc etc are part of human history. erasure of things which we find distasteful serves us ill. Toxic masculinity is another key term of the current era; could it be argued Old Fourlegs provided examples of this? Perhaps...
"...my friends laughingly reproved me
for having made many others weep from my emotion.
My young son certainly disapproved of that part" p. 190
JLB himself seems unfazed by having wept as part of a live radio broadcast (described on p. 166) but that his friends teased him and his own child (then aged 13 1/2) disapproved...although what teenager is not embarrassed by anything their parent does?!
A letter in response to this radio broadcast, signed 'from one of the many' said:
"...with you we wept on the deck of a boat at the islands
which we shall probably never see" p. 254
So it seems that, just like today, a man's tears are only disdained by a certain audience.
I add this just as a comment on the push against politically incorrect literature. If we censored material from our current perspective we would lose so much context of the past. So many prevalent attitudes of the past are incredibly harmful things but acknowledging their existence is necessary to combat them gaining support again.
Conclusion
I am glad to have read the only first-hand account of a story which has enthralled me from childhood and overall I enjoyed Smith's book.
I would still recommend that anyone interested in the story should read Samantha Weinberg's 'A Fish Caught In Time'...in all honesty I think it's a book you should read in order to become interested in fish! I suspect if you were new to the subject Smith's book is a little less gripping but still certainly very readable.
It is my feeling that the controversial content is an important aspect of 20th century social history and it would be unwise to despise the book on that account alone. However, I certainly acknowledge that it is uncomfortable reading in that regard.
