Scientific Visual Culture and the Origins of Modern British Zoology, 1815

The Reverent Eye: Scientific Visual Culture and The Origins of Modern British Zoology, 1815-1840 David Lowther 085282098 Doctor of Philosophy School of History, Classics, and Archaeology Newcastle University November 2016 Abstract The Reverent Eye: Scientific Visual Culture and the Origins of Modern British Zoology, 1815- 1840 Between 1815 and 1840, decades of unprecedented social and political upheaval, the life sciences in Britain were transformed. What for centuries had been a single subject, natural history, fragmented into a set of related but distinct scientific disciplines, defined by their objects of investigation. This study focuses on one of them, zoology, and the ways in which its emerging, transitional practices and methodologies, prompted by the vast increase in empirical information, the emergence of new institutions, development of new audiences, and increasing colonial expansion, were codified and disseminated in some of the most stunning images ever created of life on earth. At the heart of this process was quinarianism, a now almost forgotten system of ordering the natural world which originated in the long-running and acrimonious ‘Species Debate’, the single most important issue in early-nineteenth century biology. Far from being a historical and scientific irrelevance, quinarianism was crucial to the institutional and methodological development of zoology in Britain. As developed by a small, politically-diverse group of zoologists centred upon the Linnean and Zoological Societies of London, it fused natural theology and continental Idealism in a powerful synthesis which, for twenty years, defined zoology as a British, imperial science, providing the institutional framework which made possible the great advances of the 1860s and 1870s. At a time when widespread unrest, calls for political reform, and imported European materialism seemed to threaten the stability of British society, the quinarian vision of a stable, divinely-ordained world was mobilised to both establish zoology as a discipline and promote a ‘safe’, hierarchical social order. Ornithology was one of the first biological disciplines to emerge from the broader natural history, and it was here that quinarianism made the greatest impact. It was also the most visual and ornithological works, from relatively cheap editions to the vast expensive folios of John Gould were copiously illustrated by well-known artists and engravers. These illustrated works have long been neglected as a historical resource, their images regarded as secondary to text as a source of scientific knowledge and often regarded purely on aesthetic grounds. To fully understand the genesis and appeal of quinarianism, it is crucial to consider these images not simply as art objects, but as sources of scientific authority within their wider context. Deploying an interdisciplinary methodology, and building upon recent studies by Lorraine Daston, Peter Galison, and Jonathan Smith, it is demonstrated here that, created through the manipulation of the visual conventions of natural history, images such as Gould’s were central to the epistemological and extra- scientific agendas of early nineteenth-century zoologists, and crucial to our understanding of a formative, transitional period in British science that has long been shrouded in obscurity. For my parents, Ann and Douglas Acknowledgements In the three and a half years spent researching and writing this thesis, I have notched up debts to many people and many institutions. First and foremost, I would like to thank my parents, Ann and Douglas Lowther, and my brother, Christopher. Without their unstinting love and support I would not have returned to university after several false starts, and certainly would not have proceeded this far down the academic route. In the latter and more traumatic stages of revisions, Luke Dargie did much to bolster my flagging enthusiasm with characteristic pragmatism and good humour, and to him I owe a great debt. Thanks also go to Laura Richardson, Rob Herald, and Zoe Fiennes, who patiently listened to my ideas and kindly read through innumerable drafts with a critical eye. This project was made possible through the grant of an Arts and Humanities Research Council PhD studentship, and I would like to take this opportunity to extend sincere thanks to the Council for its generosity. This thesis was also made possible by the academic staff in the School of History, Classics and Archaeology at Newcastle University. I will forever regard it as a stroke of extraordinary good fortune that my efforts were overseen throughout by Dr Joan Allen. As primary supervisor, her vast knowledge of nineteenth-century British history, rigorous professional expertise, and endless patience have not only ensured the success of this research, but also provide me with a peerless model for my own academic career. I cannot thank her enough. Dr Scott Ashley, as second supervisor, brought his own extraordinary breadth of knowledge to bear on the project, and along with Dr Sarah Campbell kindly read through sections of the final draft, contributing decisively to its eventual shape. Many others in the department gave generously of their time at various points, and particular mention must be made of Dr Felix Schulz, Professor Helen Berry, Dr Rachel Hammersley, and Professor Jeremy Boulton; and also of Barbara Cochrane and Sandra Fletcher, who have both been of incalculable practical help throughout my (long) undergraduate and postgraduate career as a student in the department. Many others lent their time, and particular mention must be made of Dr Mark Watson, Dr Clemency Fisher, and Professor Polly Winsor, by whose enthusiasm for nineteenth-century natural history I was greatly encouraged, and from whose professional expertise in botany and zoology I profited greatly. Christine E. Jackson, Ann Datta, and David Waterhouse all looked over various sections, and were unfailingly helpful in response to my frequent enquiries. My research was principally carried out in the library of the Zoological Society of London, and greatly facilitated by its small but incredibly helpful and expert team of librarians and archivists, headed by Ann Sylph. I am particularly grateful to Ann for pointing me in the direction of the Hodgson zoological paintings, and to countless other items in the library’s collections, which have gone on to inspire the next big project. From 2013 to 2016, as Visiting Library Scholar, I was allowed privileged access to the ZSL’s matchless and almost-unknown collections of nineteenth-century zoological papers, manuscripts and artworks, and it would be remiss of me not to record my sincere thanks to the ZSL Library Council for appointing me to the post. In addition, the following bodies generously granted permission to access and make notes from manuscript material in their care: the President and Council of the Linnean Society of London; the Natural History Museum, London; the Royal Asiatic Society; the Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh; and the Great North Museum (Hancock). It is a pleasure to acknowledge the help of the library and archives staff of all these institutions, and for sharing their expertise along the way. Contents List of Abbreviations List of Illustrations Introduction. Anything but Gentlemanly: Zoology in Britain, 1815-1840 i Chapter 1. Magic Circles: Quinarians and their Fellow Naturalists 1 Chapter 2. The Bird Man and his Apprentice: The Ascendancy of Nicholas Vigors 59 Chapter 3. Beauty and Truth: Aesthetics and the Mediated Image in Early Nineteenth- Century Zoology 108 Chapter 4. Quinarian Autumn: Seeds of Decline 151 Chapter 5. Quinarianism and the Limits of Fashion 183 Chapter 6. Imperial Nature: Quinarianism’s Colonial Afterlife 226 Conclusion 272 Bibliography 280 List of Abbreviations BHH Hodgson Zoological Collections, Zoological Society of London. London. BP Brown Papers, Linnean Society of London. London. CP Castlereagh Papers, Public Records Office Northern Ireland. Belfast. GP Gould Papers, Natural History Museum. London. HP Hansard, Parliamentary Papers JH John Hancock Correspondence, GNM: Hancock, NEWHM. Newcastle-upon- Tyne. JP Sir William Jardine Papers, Harvie-Brown Collection, Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh. KU John Gould Ornithological Collection, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas. LS Linnean Society of London. LPS Letter Books, Literary and Philosophical Society of Newcastle. Newcastle- upon-Tyne. MBP Marquess of Bute Papers, National Library of Wales. Cardiff. MP Macleay Papers, Linnean Society of London. London. MW William MacGillivray, original watercolours for History of British Birds, NHM, London. PJS Prideaux John Selby, original engravings for Illustrations of British Ornithology, GNM: Hancock, NEWHM, Newcastle-upon-Tyne. RSM Royal Scottish Museum, Edinburgh. SC Swainson Correspondence, Linnean Society of London, London. SDUK Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge. WP Wellington Papers, Southampton University Special Collections, Southampton. ZSL Zoological Society of London. List of Illustrations 1. W. S. Macleay’s quinarian arrangement of the animal kingdom. viii 2. Macleay’s arrangement of the animal kingdom, author’s interpretation. ix 3. Vigors’ arrangement of the Class Aves (1824). xviii 4. Vigors’ arrangement of the Class of birds, author’s interpretation. xix 5. Coggon’s (2002) interpretation of Swainson’s quinarian arrangement of birds. xxiii 6. ‘Shortshanks’ [Robert Seymour], ‘The March of Intellect’, c.1828. 7. G. Cruikshank, Poor Bull & his Burden. Coloured

Load more