Victorian Popularizers of Science: Designing Nature for New Audiences

565 Pages·2007·3.63 MB·English

by  Bernard Lightman

Victorian Popularizers of Science

Victorian Popularizers of Science
Designing Nature for New Audiences
B E R N A R D L I G H T M A N
TheUniversityofChicagoPress
chicago and london
bernard lightman isprofessorofhumanitiesatYork
University,Toronto.HeisauthorofTheOriginsofAgnosticism,
editorofVictorianScienceinContextandthejournalIsis,and
coeditorofFiguringItOutandScienceintheMarketplace.
TheUniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago60637
TheUniversityofChicagoPress,Ltd.,London
©2007byTheUniversityofChicago
Allrightsreserved.Published2007
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
161514131211 10090807 1 2 3 4 5
isbn-13:978-0-226-48118-0(cloth)
isbn-10:0-226-48118-2(cloth)
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Lightman,BernardV.,1950–
Victorianpopularizersofscience:designingnaturefornewaudiences/
BernardLightman.
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
isbn-13:978-0-226-48118-0(cloth:alk.paper)
isbn-10:0-22648118–2(cloth:alk.paper) 1. Science—Great
Britain—History—19thCentury. 2. Technicalwriting—Great
Britain—History—19thCentury. 3. GreatBritain—Socialconditions—
19thcentury. I. Title.
Q127.G4L54 2007
509.41(cid:1)09034—dc22
2007015179
(cid:3)∞Thepaperusedinthispublicationmeetsthe
minimumrequirementsoftheAmericanNational
StandardforInformationSciences—PermanenceofPaper
forPrintedLibraryMaterials,ansiz39.48-1992.
Contents
Preface (cid:1) vii
Acknowledgments (cid:1) xiii
chapter one (cid:1) 1
Historians,Popularizers,andtheVictorianScene
chapter two (cid:1) 39
AnglicanTheologiesofNatureinaPost-DarwinianEra
chapter three (cid:1) 95
RedefiningtheMaternalTradition
chapter four (cid:1) 167
TheShowmenofScience
Wood,Pepper,andVisualSpectacle
chapter five (cid:1) 219
TheEvolutionoftheEvolutionaryEpic
chapter six (cid:1) 295
TheSciencePeriodical
ProctorandtheConductof“Knowledge”
chapter seven (cid:1) 353
PractitionersEntertheField
HuxleyandBallasPopularizers
chapter eight (cid:1) 423
ScienceWritingonNewGrubStreet
conclusion (cid:1) 489
RemappingtheTerrain
Bibliography (cid:1) 503
Index (cid:1) 535

Preface
in 1875 an article appeared in the Saturday Review harshly condemning
those“scatter-brainedauditors”whofrequentedtheRoyalInstitutiontohear
lecturesaboutscience.Theanonymousauthordividedsuchaudiencesinto
twotypes.Onegroupdabbledinscience“outofshiftingcaprice,orindef-
erence to the dictates of fashion.”Another group attended lectures“with
the best and steadiest intentions,” but they were “incapacitated by lack of
general education from grasping any special subject.”The author’s low
opinion of the audience for science lectures was matched by an equally
dismal evaluation of what they heard. “It is to accommodate such feeble
votaries,” the Saturday Review critic declared, “that ‘popular science’ has
beeninvented.”Althoughtheauthoracknowledgedthattherewerebenefits
to“realsciencefrombeingfashionableandpopular,”neverthelessitshard
factscouldnotbeexpectedto“retainthefavourofthemultitude.”“Realsci-
ence”thereforeuseda“counterfeit”to“standforituponpublicplatforms”
in order to secure the “patronage of the vulgar.” Popular lecturers tended
to“garnishtheinformation”theyconveyedtotheiraudiencewith“rhetor-
icalflourishes”andtostresspeculiar,sensational,andstrangephenomena
rather than those that were intrinsically important. The popular lecturer
hada“strongpropensityforparadox”andsoughtto“surpriseandastonish
hisauditors.”Inordertoillustratethemostabstrusepointsofthelecture,
thespeakerreferredto“familiarobjectsandcircumstances”thatseemedto
illuminatethesubjectbutintheendmerelymuddledit.1
1.“SensationalScience”1875,321
vii
viii preface
Intheopinionofthisauthor,itwasreallya“hopelesstask”toattemptto
make“sounddisquisitionsonanyscientificsubjectthoroughlyintelligible
tothosewhohavenotundergonespecialtraining,unlesstheyhavereceived
athoroughgeneraleducation.”Conveyingscientificinformationtoanun-
informed reading public was doomed to failure. It created two unwanted
creatures, the dilettante and the incompetent lecturer. As to the first, the
Saturday Review critic denied that “sensational science” advanced the cul-
tureoftheage.Aliterarydilettantewastolerable,buta“dilettanteinscience
proudtomakesmall-talkoutofHuxley’sorTyndall’slectures,inflatedwith
fallacies of his or her own extraction...is a social pest.” Worse still had
beenthecreationoftheincompetentlecturerwhomerelyimitatedthedra-
matic lecturing styles of Thomas Henry Huxley or John Tyndall without
possessing their expertise. The existence of incompetent lecturers was a
“collateral evil entailed by the really competent teachers catering for the
frivolous and illiterate.” Under the present system “anybody of sufficient
socialstandingtodrawanaudienceconsidershimselfentitledtoholdforth
atpennyreadings,Mechanics’Institutes,andsoforth,onscientificsubjects
perfunctorily crammed up for the occasion.” There was only one “right
way”toinstill“ahealthyenthusiasmforscienceintoallclassesofsociety,”
thecriticinsisted.Therepresentativesofsciencehadto“exhibitthemselves
intheirtruecharacter,andtoabandonallthemeretriciousallurementsof
thaumaturgyand‘sensation.’”Theyhadtomakethepublicunderstandthat
the“genuinepursuitofscientifictruthisworkandnotplay.”2 Ifthecritic
fromtheSaturdayReviewhadhadhisway,onlythemenofsciencewouldbe
permittedtocommunicateknowledgetogeneralaudiences,andtheywould
makenoconcessionstothepublic’srudimentarylevelofunderstanding.But
who,exactly,werethepurveyorsof“sensationalscience”?Thecriticnever
mentionsanybyname.Wasthereanarmyofthemoronlyahandful?Were
they really as pernicious to the cause of scientific truth as this journalist
claimed?
Thisbookexaminesthosepopularizerswhooffered“sensationalscience”
totheBritishpublicinthesecondhalfofthenineteenthcentury.Theemp-
hasisisonthosewhowerenotpractitionersofscience.Manyofthemwere
professional writers and journalists. The overwhelming majority of them
weremembersoftheeducatedmiddleclass.Therewereasignificantnumber
ofthem.Idealwithoverthirtyofthesefigures.Icouldeasilyhaveincluded
2.Ibid.,322
preface ix
manymore,butIhavechosentolimitmyselftothemostprolific,themost
influential, and the most interesting among them. They assumed the role
of interpreters of science for the growing mass reading audience in this
period.Ido notattempttoanalyze thisaudience ingreat detail.Iam more
concernedwithhowthepopularizersconceivedoftheiraudienceandhow
thisconceptionaffectedthewaytheywroteandlectured.Theysawthem-
selves as providing both entertainment and instruction to their readers.
Cognizant that they were operating in a market environment, they con-
sidered the use of “thaumaturgy” as a necessity for those who wished to
be a commercial success. Some were extremely successful, producing best
sellers that were as widely read as the Origin of Species or the other key
scientifictexts of the day. For many of these popularizers, nature was full
of meaning, charged with religious significance. They looked back to the
natural theology tradition and in their writings offered new audiences a
vivid glimpse of the design they perceived in nature. Since they were in-
fluential, and since their interpretation of the larger meaning of scientific
ideas was often at odds with the agenda of elite scientists, they cannot be
ignored. Any attempt to investigate how the British understood science in
the second half of the century must take them into account. By focusing
onBritainIcanexaminethedevelopmentofsciencewritingandlecturing
forabroadaudienceinacountrythatwasamongthefirsttoexperiencea
communicationsrevolution.
Thisbookisdividedintoeightchapters.Ibeginwithachapterthatsets
the scene. Here I explore the transformation of the publishing scene, and
how it intersected with the changing world of science. I consider why the
scienceswerethoughttobeespeciallyimportantandexcitinginthesecond
halfofthecentury—whythisperiodissometimesreferredtoastheageof
the worship of science. I discuss the traditions of science popularization
that were important from the late eighteenth through the first half of the
century. The varied approaches adopted by scholars to study popularizers
ofVictoriansciencearealsoanalyzed.
In the next two chapters I examine two distinct groups of popularizers
activeinthesecondhalfofthecentury.Chapter2centersonthelargenum-
ber of Anglican parsons who wrote about science for the general reader,
including Ebenezer Brewer, Charles Alexander Johns, Charles Kingsley,
Thomas William Webb, Francis Orpen Morris, George Henslow, and
WilliamHoughton.Thiswasoneofthegroupsthatwould-beprofessionaliz-
erslikeThomasHenryHuxleyweretryingtopushoutofscience.Through
their work the Church of England maintained an active presence in the