Saint Catherines Press

"It May Be Truth, but It Is Not Evidence": Paul du Chaillu and the Legitimation of Evidence in the Field Sciences Author(s): Stuart McCook Source: Osiris, Vol. 11, Science in the Field (1996), pp. 177-197 Published by: University of Chicago Press on behalf of History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/301931 Accessed: 12-02-2016 16:08 UTC

REFERENCES Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article: http://www.jstor.org/stable/301931?seq=1&cid=pdf-reference#references_tab_contents

You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Saint Catherines Press, History of Science Society and University of Chicago Press are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Osiris. http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "It May Be Truth,But It Is Not Evidence":Paul du Chailluand theLegitimation of Evidence in theField Sciences

StuartMcCook*

INTHE SPRING OF 1861, gorillas had captivatedthe public imaginationin England.The recentpublication of Darwin'sOn theOrigin of Species had fueled theongoing debate about theplace of humansin nature.A key piece of evidencein the debate was the recentlydiscovered gorilla. In the pages of learnedjournals and in themore popular Athenaeum, Richard Owen and Thomas HenryHuxley debated the significanceof gorilla skeletonsrecently brought to England. They based their argumentsabout theuniqueness of man on thephysiology of the gorilla,which was anatomicallycloser to man thanwas anyother animal. Owen arguedthat the human brainhad a lobe, the hippocampusminor, that distinguished it fromall otherliving organisms.Huxley countered by arguingthat the hippocampus minor was notpecu- liar to the humanbrain. The gorilla skulls over which Huxley and Owen debated had been broughtto England withgreat fanfare by a little-knownexplorer named Paul du Chaillu (see Fig. 1).' From 1856 to 1859, Du Chaillu had traveledthrough western equatorial Africa, studyingthe lands and people and collectingflora and fauna. He broughta choice selectionof his collectionsto England earlyin 1861, wherehe was quicklymade a celebrity.He describedhis adventuresto packed halls at the Royal Geographical Society and at theRoyal Institutionin London, witha row of stuffedgorillas on the stage and gorilla skulls on hand beside the lectern.2The eveningafter du Chaillu

* Departmentof History,129 DickinsonHall, Princeton,NJ 08544. Thisarticle is basedon mymaster's thesis, "The Monkey Business: Paul Du Chailluand Nonscien- tistRoles Withinthe Scientific Community" (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1990). Prof.Sydney Ross generouslyprovided me with the manuscript that introduced me to the world of Paul du Chaillu. I wouldalso liketo thankP. ThomasCarroll, Deborah J. Coon, Gerald L. Geison,Robert E. Kohler, HenrikaKuklick, Sal Restivo,two anonymous reviewers, and my classmates at Rensselaer Polytech- nic Instituteand PrincetonUniversity for their comments and guidance. ' For twoperspectives of thescientific world of VictorianLondon, see AdrianDesmond, Arche- typesand Ancestors: Paleontologyin VictorianLondon, 1850-1875 (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1982), particularlypp. 74-76; and NicholaasRupke, Richard Owen: VictorianNaturalist (New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1994). Owenand Huxleyrefer to du Chaillu'sgorilla skeletons in,among other places, "The Gorillaand the Negro,,"Athenaeum, 23 March 1861, no. 1743:395-396; andT. H. Huxley,"Man and theApes," Athenaeum 13 April1861, no. 1746:498. 2 LynnBarber, The Heyday of Natural History,1820-1870 (New York:Doubleday & Co., 1980), p. 276.

?) 1996by The Historyof ScienceSociety. All rightsreserved. 0021-1753/96/8401-0001$01.00

OSIRIS, 2ndseries, 1996, 11 : 177-197 177

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 178 STUART McCOOK

Figure 1. "Paul du Chaillu in hisafrican costume," frnom . Storiesof the Gorilla Country - (New York:Harper and Brothers, 1897), xii. lecturedat theRoyal Institution, Owen presented a paperthere on thedistinction betweenthe Negro and the gorilla, based on skullsgiven to himby du Chaillu. Du Chaillu'shoneymoon with the British natural history community was short- lived.Explorations and Adventuresin Equatorial Africa,du Chaillu'snarrative of his travelsin Africa,was publishedin May 1861. Inconsistenciesand ambiguities in thebook provoked a politelyfierce debate that temporarily eclipsed the debate overhumanity's place in nature.The argumentover du Chaillu'sreliability was one of thefew instances when scientists in VictorianEngland publicly discussed issues of whatconstituted good scientificpractice and whomade a good scientist,rather thanwhat constituted good scientifictheory. AlthoughPaul du Chailluis deservedlynot considered one ofthe great figures in Victorianscience, his case bringsto lightsome issues of interestto historiansof science.In recentyears historian s of science have begun to look at people who were essentialto theproduction of scientificknowledge, but who remained hidden from

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "IT MAY BE TRUTH" 179 publicview. Steven Shapin has written about the "invisible technicians" who worked on RobertBoyle's experiments.3 The Victorianera had its own shareof invisible technicians,most of whom normally remained out of the public eye. Invisibility was somewhatharder to establish in the field sciences, however, since the field collectors couldnot easily be writtenout of thestory of hownatural history specimens were obtained.Still, the scientific communities in Englandand the United States devel- oped strategiesof accommodatingfield collectors that ensured that they remained relativelyinvisible. The controversyover du Chailluthrew a spotlightonto a process thatnormally remained behind the scenes. Historiansof science have also recentlybegun to look at the production of knowl- edgein thefield sciences and to explorehow it differs from knowledge production inthe laboratory. The controversyover du Chailluillustrates the fragility of the process of legitimationof scientificknowledge in naturalhistory during the Victorian era. Field observationsin naturalhistory depended very heavily on theperceived credibilityof theperson who madethem. Observations without clear provenance hadgreatly diminished value. As withart objects, the provenance of natural history objectsdepended partly on concreterecords and partly on thecredibility of the person who offeredit. Credibilitywas, in turn,strongly tied to thesocial standingof theobserver. Du Chaillu'sclass, educational background, and race quickly became keyissues in thedebate over the scientific worth of the Explorations. The strategies thatdu Chaillu'sdetractors used to tearhim down and those that his supporters used to defendhim give a detailedpicture of theprocess by whichobjects collected in thefield became scientific evidence.

THE MAKING OF A FIELD EXPERT, 1831-1861 Paul du Chaillu'svoyage to equatorial Africa took place during the heyday of scien- tificexploration, which began with the voyages of Cook in thelate eighteenth century.Scientists, bureaucrats, and businessmen at the European and American centers of powersought information about the unknownregions of Asia, Africa,and America.This knowledge was partof the establishment ofEuropean political, eco- nomic,and intellectual hegemony over the region.4 Metropolitan governments, museums,botanical gardens, zoos, and scientificsocieties eagerly sought natural historyobjects and observations from travelers to theseunknown regions. Du Chailluwas probably born around 1831. His father,Charles-Alexis Duchaillu, was a Frenchtrader who had workedon theIle Bourbon(Reunion) before moving to the Gabon in the mid-1840s.5Little is knownabout his mother,who certain

StevenShapin, "The InvisibleTechnician," American Scientist, 1989, 77:554-563. 4 See MichaelAdas, Machinesas theMeasure of Men: Science,Technology, and Ideologiesof WesternDominance (Ithaca, N.Y.: CornellUniv. Press, 1989), 133-165; WilliamH. Goetzmann, NewLands, New Men: America and theSecond GreatAge of Discovery (New York:Penguin, 1987). 5 The best historicalreconstruction and analysisof du Chaillu's life appears in H. H. Bu- cher's"Canonization by Repetition:Paul du Chailluin Historiography,"Revue Franfaise d'Histoire d'Outre-Mer,1979, 66:15-32. Throughpainstaking research, Bucher reconstructs du Chaillu'searly years,which du Chailludeliberately obscured. Michel Vaucaire's Paul du Chaillu: GorillaHunter Beingthe Life and ExtraordinaryAdventures of Paul du Chaillu(New York:Harper & Bros.,1930) is an uncriticallycelebratory biography of du Chaillu.Unfortunately, it is vagueabout du Chaillu's lifebefore he came to America.Other reliable biographical fragments are Helen EverstonSmith,

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 180 STUART McCOOK historiansand contemporariesof du Chaillu have suspectedwas black or of mixed race. Others,however, conclude thatshe was Italian,apparently because of theItal- ian ringof "Belloni,"du Chaillu's middlename. Du Chaillu apparentlyspent some of his teenage years in Paris and was almost certainlythere during the February Revolutionof 1848. The seventeen-year-oldPaul firstarrived in the Gabon late in 1848, where he enrolled at the AmericanProtestant mission school.6 During du Chaillu's formativeyears, both Europeans and Americanshad extensivecommercial interestsin Africa.By the mid-i1850sa well-establishedtrading network had been formedbetween Europeans and Africansalong the Africancoast, reachingfar inland. In the late 1840s and early 1850s du Chaillu made severaltrips to the interior on behalfof his father'scompany. On these voyages,he learnedabout the culture, flora,and faunaof equatorialAfrica. Du Chaillu had become fascinatedwith the UnitedStates duringhis timeat the Americanmission school. In 1852 the chiefmissionary, John Wilson, arranged for du Chaillu to teachFrench at a girl'sschool in Carmel,New York.When he arrived in the UnitedStates, he foundthat his backgroundgave him an expertisevalued by American scientists.Western commercial, political, and religious involvementin Africahad spawneda greatdeal of popularcuriosity about Africa. Travel narratives such as thoseof Stanley,Humboldt, and Burtonwere devouredby a public eager to findout about an exotic world.As a European who had lived in Africafor many years,du Chaillu became a populardinner guest and speaker.He wrotearticles on Africafor the New YorkTribune and lecturedat learnedsocieties. His articlesat- tractedthe attention of some membersof theAcademy of NaturalSciences of Phila- delphia,to whom he donateda collectionof naturalhistory specimens that he had broughtwith him fromAfrica.7 Duly impressed,several members of theAcademy of NaturalSciences of Philadelphiaraised money for du Chaillu to make a collecting expeditionto Africa.Natural history specimens from Africa had been of greatinter- est in theUnited States. Ten yearsearlier, a missionarynamed Savage had published the firstdescription of the gorilla in the Journalof the Boston Societyof Natural History,gaining worldwide attention for the society. Du Chaillu's sponsorsin Phila- delphia hoped fora similarcoup. Du Chaillu returnedto the Gabon, on the west coast of Africa,in October 1855. His purpose was "to spend some years in the explorationof a regionof territory lyingbetween lat. 2? northand 2? south,and stretchingback fromthe coast to the mountainrange called the Sierra del Crystal,and beyondas faras I shouldbe able to penetrate."'8He returnedto the UnitedStates in 1859, havingspent several years exploringthe region and mappingthe outlets of theOgobay, Fernand Vaz, and Mex- ias rivers.He had also collectedplants and animals,sending periodic shipments and descriptionsto his sponsorsin Philadelphia.Many of these were duly describedin the Proceedingsof the Academy.John Cassin, vice presidentof the Academy,de-

"Reminiscencesof Paul Bellonidu Chaillu,"The Independent, 1903, 55:1,146-1,148; and Edward Clodd,Memories (New York:G. P. Putnam'sSons, 1916),pp. 71-75. The entriesin theDictionary ofAmerican Biographyand Who Was Who in American History Science and Technologyare unre- liable. 6 Bucher,"Canonization," pp. 16-18;Smith, "Reminiscences," p. 1,147. 7 Bucher,"Canonization," p. 18. 8 Paul Du Chaillu,Explorations and Adventuresin Equatorial Africa (New York:Harper & Broth- ers, 1861),p. 25.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "IT MAY BE TRUTH" 181 scribedover three hundred bird specimens, all of whichhad been sentto himby du Chaillu.9By du Chaillu's own account,he had travelledsome 8,000 miles on foot, "unaccompaniedby any otherwhite men." He claimed to have found sixtynew species of birdsand twentynew species of quadrupeds,as partof thetotal of three thousandanimals and birds he collected on the voyage.'0Although the details of theseclaims were laterquestioned, it was clear thathe had gone to Africaand made substantialcollections. Upon du Chaillu's returnlate in 1859, his relationswith the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphiabegan to sour. Du Chaillu had apparentlybeen underthe impressionthat the Academy itself,rather than individual members, had formally sponsoredhis voyage." When he presentedthe bill forhis workand forthe specimens sentto theAcademy and displayedin its hall, however,the Academy denied any obligationto pay him. The secretaryof the Academy regretted"that Mr. Du Chaillu shouldhave erroneouslysupposed that he was makingexplorations and collections in westernAfrica under the patronageand at the cost of the Acad[em]y, when in facthe had merelythe favor of manyof its membersas joint purchasersof partsof his collections."The cash-strappedAcademy could simplyhave been trying to getout of havingto pay his substantialbill of $866.50. "The Academyof Philadel- phia owes me moneystill," wrote an aggrieveddu Chaillu overa yearafter his return, "the amountI paid to the vessels which took me home is more than the whole amount of money I have received or will ever receive for the objects theyhave bought."12 His negotiationswith the Academy lasted well over a yearbefore he finally gave up in frustration. Du Chaillu spentmuch of 1860 touringthe UnitedStates withhis collectionsof exoticstuffed animals, giving popular lectures. He also began workon thenarrative of his voyageto Africa,which was to be publishedby Harper'spublishing company. Du Chaillu continuedhis negotiationswith Richard Owen, thesuperintendent of the BritishMuseum of NaturalHistory, for the sale of partsof his collection,especially

9 JohnCassin, "Description of New Speciesof Birdsfrom Western Africa, in thecollection of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,"Proceedings of theAcademy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia,April 1855, 7:324-328; "Descriptionsof new species of African Birds, in the Museum ofthe Academy of NaturalSciences of Philadelphia,collected by Mr.P. B. du Chaillu,in Equatorial Africa'"Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil., August 1856, 8:156-159; "Catalogue of Birds Collected at Cape Lopez,Western Africa, by Mr. P. B. du Chaillu,in 1856,with notes and descriptions of new species," Proc.Acad. Nat.Sci. Phil.,December 1856, 8:316-322; "Catalogueof Birds collected on theRivers Cammaand Ogobai,Western Africa, by Mr. P. B. du Chaillu,with notes and descriptionsof new species,"Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci. Phil.,January 1859, 11:30-55; April1859, 11:133-144;June 1859, 11:172-176. Du Chaillu, Explorations,p. x. "Membersof theAcademy also gavethat impression, although the wording was ambiguous.An accountwritten in 1857,while du Chailluwas stillcollecting in Africa, describes his original arrange- mentwith the Academy as follows:'At a meetingof theAcademy of NaturalSciences of Philadel- phia,held October16, 1855 [,] 'Mr. Cassin announcedthat M. du Chailluwas aboutto returnto WesternAfrica, for the purpose, exclusively, of geographicalexploration, and thecollection of objects of NaturalHistory. Arrangements have been made to secure,for the cabinet of thisSociety, the collectionsof Birdsespecially, and also of someother objects."' In AlfredMaury, Indigenous Races ofthe Earth (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott& Co., 1857),p. 324, fn.243. See also Bucher,"Canon- ization,"p. 23. 2 The secretaryof theAcademy to Paul du Chaillu,5 March 1860,MSS Coll. #464,Library of theAcademy of NaturalSciences of Philadelphia;Paul du Chailluto W. J.Vaux, 31 January1860. MSS Coll. #567,Library of theAcademy of NaturalSciences of Philadelphia;Paul du Chailluto RichardOwen, 1861. MSS 323A, SmithsonianInstitution Libraries.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 182 STUART McCOOK thegorillas. Du Chaillu had firstmade theoffer to Owen in 1859, whilehe was still in Africa.Jeffries Wyman, the prominentHarvard anatomist who had coauthored the firstscientific paper on the gorilla,reviewed du Chaillu's collectionswhile du Chaillu was lecturingin Boston. Du Chaillu presenteda paper on thegorilla to the Boston Society of Natural History,of which Wymanwas president.The Society elected du Chaillu a correspondingmember of theSociety. Although he remaineda correspondingmember until his death in 1903, he neverpresented another paper there.Du Chaillu's participationin the Society was largelysymbolic.'3 Priorto 1861, du Chaillu would have been consideredthe ideal fieldcollector. He had specialized knowledgeabout Africa that was not widelyshared. He avidlycol- lected objects of naturalhistory that were greatlyvalued by metropolitanscientific communities.Tensions with the Academy of NaturalSciences of Philadelphianot- withstanding,du Chaillu enjoyedgood relationswith prominent scientists and scientificsocieties on both sides of theAtlantic. He encouragedscientists to studyand describe his collections and offeredto sell them some of the most scientifically significantobjects. In his public lectureshe emphasizedthe moredramatic aspects of his travels-encounterswith cannibal tribesand savage animals-leaving the scientificanalysis of his discoveriesto the naturalhistory community. When he attemptedto do a scientificanalysis of his own, however,his comfortablerelationship withthe natural history communities quickly fell apart.

KNOWLEDGE CLAIMS AND SOCIAL STANDING IN THE FIELD SCIENCES

In thenineteenth century the only people who had theauthority to producescientific knowledgewere the self-selecting"gentlemen of science."14 The gentlemanlyspe- cialistswho studiedgeology or naturalhistory were caughtbetween the traditional disdain formanual labor on the one hand and the Baconian ideal of empiricalre- searchon theother. Geologists, for example, saw fieldworkas a riteof initiationand passage intothe community.Like geology,most of naturalhistory was necessarily tiedto specificplaces. One had to travelto obtainsamples. But scientistsin Victorian England and the United States had strongties to theirmetropolitan communities and so were oftenunable or unwillingto be away fromthe metropolisfor the long periodsthat collecting expeditions required. John Cassin, an ornithologistand vice presidentof theAcademy of NaturalSciences of Philadelphia,cautioned that

13 RichardOwen, "On Some Objectsof NaturalHistory from the Collection of M. Du Chaillu," Reports of the BritishAssociation for theAdvancement of Science, 1861:155. In the JeffriesWyman papersat HarvardMedical School is a seriesof lettersfrom du Chailluto Wymandiscussing the identificationand measurement of du Chaillu'sprimate skeletons, dated beginning October 1859 and continuinginto 1860. The lettersalso discussthe sale of theprimates to theBritish museum and du Chaillu'swork on themanuscript of hisbook. A letterfrom Richard Owen to Wyman dated Novem- ber 1861thanks Wyman for his letterof introductionfor du Chaillu.Owen had been"well satisfied with[du Chaillu's]conduct of business."Jeffries Wyman Papers, Countway Library of Medicine, HarvardMedical School. Paul du Chaillu,"Descriptions of the Habits and Distribution of the Gorilla and otherAnthropoid Apes," Proceedingsof theBoston Societyof Natural History,1860, 7:276-277. 14 Fordiscussions of the role of social standingin the English scientific community, see JackMor- rell and Arnold Thackray,Gentlemen of Science: Early Years of the BritishAssociation for theAd- vancementof Science (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981), Pts. 1 and3; andMartin Rudwick, The Great Devonian Controversy:The Shaping of ScientificKnowledge Among GentlemanlySpecialists (Chi- cago: Univ.Chicago Press, 1985), Chs. 2 and 16; foran earlierperiod, Steven Shapin, "The House ofExperiment in Seventeenth-CenturyEngland," Isis, September1988, 79:373-404.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "IT MAY BE TRUTH" 183

[Thedelights of the wild] are temporary, and only to be as a teacher,-wemust return everto thesocial lifeas theark of safety,bringing, we mayhope, the olive branch of peace withknowledge. For all thatI havesaid, or that anyone else has said,our greatest andtruest interests are in society.There only we acquiretrue cultivation and elevation. Science,Literature, Art, the greatest civilizers, there only flourish. Betake thyself not to thewilderness, or fora periodonly, and never longer than forty days,-never!-if thereis anyhelp for it.'5

Gentlemenof science interestedin Africannatural history had to relyon amateur and professionalcollectors to gatherdata for them.These collectorswere froma diverserange of class backgrounds.A veryfew were fromthe same social class as the scientiststhey served. For example,Henry A. Wardset up a businessof collecting and selling naturalhistory specimens in Rochester.16Ward was a professorat the Universityof Rochesterwhose primaryoccupation was the collectionand sale of naturalhistory specimens to othernaturalists. The naturalhistory collectors in westAfrica were froman unusuallywide variety of geographicaland social backgrounds.The nativeAfricans who sold gorillaskele- tonsto whiteson theAfrican coast were socially and culturallythe furthest removed fromthe social worldof themetropolitan scientific communities. Although the sci- entistswere quite happy to get hold of the skeletons,they only gave credence to nativeaccounts of gorillabehavior if therewere no accountsfrom white witnesses. European travelers,missionaries, traders, and consularofficers became a valuable sourceof naturalhistory objects and observationsin thenineteenth century. In 1819, an explorersaw whatwas laterdescribed as a gorilla,although he did notrecognize it as such. The Americanmissionary Savage obtainedthe firstgorilla skeletonsin the late 1830s fromhis fellowmissionary John Wilson, who was laterdu Chaillu's teacherin the Gabon. Ship's officersfrom the Frenchand Britishnaval vessels that patrolledthe coast supplementedtheir incomes by sellingexotic plants and animals to museums and collectorsin Europe and America. Othergorilla specimens had made it to European museums,but it is not clear how theywere obtained.'7 The transformationof an object collected in the fieldto an object thatappeared in a scientificpaper was a long and oftentenuous process of intellectuallegitimation. Ideally,the collector collected the "natural" object in thefield, making careful obser- vationsof the circumstances.Then the object and the descriptionof its mannerof collection were passed back to the metropolisthrough as few hands as possible, since each transferof theobject and observationsimplied a possible degradationof the information.Collectors such as du Chaillu raised problemsof authorityfor the scientistsback in the metropolis.The missionaries,ship's officers,and professional collectorswere generallynot practicingscientists, so theirdiscoveries were treated as tentativeknowledge until the collections had been processedand describedby a

'5 JohnCassin, Illustrations of theBirds of California,Texas, Oregon, and Britishand Russian America(Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott& Co., 1856),p. 292. 16 Sally GregoryKohlstedt, "Henry A. Ward:The MerchantNaturalist and AmericanMuseum Development,"Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 1980, 9:647-661. 1' For a briefoverview of thehistory of thediscovery of thegorilla, see RobertYerkes and Ada Yerkes,The GreatApes: A Studyof Anthropoid Life (New Haven:Yale UniversityPress, 1926), Ch. 4, "The Emergenceof theGorilla." See also IsidoreGeoffroy Saint-Hilaire, "Description des MammiferesNouveaux ou ImparfaitementConnus, Famille des Singes,"Archives du Museum D'HistoireNaturelle, 1858-1861, 10:1-21.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 184 STUART McCOOK metropolitanscientist."' Confirmation by a scientistwas essentialfor an object of naturalhistory to become scientificknowledge. Data fromthe jungles of Africa,however, was quite valuable to scientistsin Eu- rope and America. Describinga significantnew plantor animal could greatlyim- provea scientist'sstanding within the community. In practice,then, the metropolitan scientistsbent the norms for the collection of fielddata fromAfrica and otherinac- cessible regions.Scientists legitimated the findings of thecollectors by symbolically incorporatingthe collectors into the scientificcommunity. The collectorwould first be made a correspondingmember of a scientificsociety. Then, with the "assistance" of a regularmember, the collectorpresented a paper describinghis findingsto the society.The collectorthereby became a provisionalscientist, superficially vested withall thecredibility of a professional. This strategyof making collectorsprovisional members of scientificsocieties could yield greatbenefits. When the missionarySavage obtained the firstgorilla skeleton,he was elected a correspondingmember of the Boston Society of Natural History.In 1848, he prepareda paper describinghis findingswith the help of the Harvardanatomist Jeffries Wyman. The paper was duly publishedin the Society's journal and the Society basked in the gloryof a significantnew discovery.Savage neverpublished another scientific paper, and seems not to have participatedmuch in any subsequentactivities of the Society.'9The Academy of NaturalSciences of Philadelphia,the Boston Society of NaturalHistory, and the Britishsocieties all treateddu Chaillu muchthe same waya decade later.This patternwas repeatedwith mostother collectors; their participation in the scientificcommunity was symbolic, honorary,and quite limited. This strategyalso carriedrisks. The process of legitimatingknowledge brought fromfar afield involvedmany unknowns.Scientific societies took a considerable amounton trustwhen theyelected collectorsas members.Both socially and geo- graphically,collectors were often remote from the centers of metropolitanlife. Met- ropolitanscientists often knew littleabout the social and educationalbackgrounds and the fieldpractices of thecollectors who suppliedthem. Nor were thecollectors subject to the same social and intellectualstandards and controlthat the scientific establishmentcould impose upon itsregular members.2 Censure from the scientific communitymeant little to people who wereonly marginal members of thecommu- nityto begin with.Most of the time,neither the collectornor the specimen was subjecteither to intensescrutiny or controversy,and everythingworked out well. On occasion, however,the whole fragilestructure of legitimationcollapsed, as it did when RichardOwen and Sir RoderickImpey Murchisontried to vest du Chaillu withthe authorityof a scientistin theBritish scientific community.

18 Rudwick, The Great Devonian Controversy,pp. 424-425. 19 How Savageobtained the skeleton is describedin "Noticeof the External Characters and Habits of theTroglodytes Gorilla, A New Species of Orangfrom the Gaboon River,"Boston Journal of Natural History,1847, 5:117-119, reprintedin Science in America: Historical Selections, ed. John Burnham(New York:Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, 1971). 2() See, forexample, Brian Wynne, "Between Orthodoxy and Oblivion: The Normalizationof Devi- ance in Science," in On theMargins of Science: The Social Constructionof Rejected Knowledge, ed. RoyWallis. Sociological Review Monograph 27. (Keele, U.K.: Universityof Keele, 1979),pp. 67- 84. Wynnedescribes how the British physics community of the 1920s,1930s, and 1940saccommo- datedthe work of therenegade Nobel laureateC. G. Bakala to avoida controversythat could seri- ouslydamage the community.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "ITMAYBE TRUT' 185

. .~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I

Figure2. "Deathof my hunter," from Explorations and Adventures in EquatorialAfrica (New York Harper and Brothers,1861), 342. The illustrationsin the Explorationsreflect the tensionsbetween popular narrativeand scientificreporting that also characterizethe text.Here, an illustratorat Harper'sdepicted the death of one of du Chaillu's hunters.Du Chaillu did not see theattack himself, but onlydescribed its aftermath.

DU CHAILLU IN ENGLAND: THE BEGINNING OF THE "GORILLA WARS"

Du Chaillu's Explorations and Adventures in Equatorial Africa enjoyed immediate popularsuccess whenit appearedin earlyMay of 1861. It was snapped up by scientists and nonscientistsalike. The Explorationswas an impressivework over five hundredpages long,but it contained internal tensions. It was supposedto be simulta- neously a personaltravel narrative and a scientificanalysis. The account described new tribes,including the cannibal Fans; new geological features,such as an equatorial mountainrange; and new animals, including,as du Chaillu claimed, over "twentynew species of quadrupeds."2' The structureof thebook reflectedthe difficulty of maintaininga stimulatingnar- rativealongside accurate scientific description. Some passages were writtenin lurid prose to attractgeneral readers (see Fig. 2). One of the most famousof these passages describeddu Chaillu's dramaticencounter with a gorilla:

[B]eforeus stoodan immensemale gorilla.... Nearlysix feethigh, with immense body,huge chest, and great muscular arms, with fiercely-glaring large deep gray eyes, anda hellishexpression of face, which seemed to me likesome nightmare vision: thus stoodbefore us theking of theAfrican forests.... His eyesbegan to flashfiercer fire as we stoodmotionless on thedefensive . . . [and]now truly he remindedme of nothing butsome hellish dream creature-a being of that hideous order, half man half beast.....

2 Du Chaillu. Explorations,p. x.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 186 STUART McCOOK

Here,as he begananother of his roarsand beatinghis breastin rage,we fired,and killedhim.22

The colorful,dramatic narrative of the book is interruptedtwo thirdsof the way throughfor a seriesof analyticchapters on topics such as on the seasons and fevers of EquatorialAfrica, tribal politics, the greatapes, and the gorilla.These chapters were writtenin a sober,scientific style in whichdu Chaillu began behavingas if he were a scientist.For example:

All thefeatures of the gorilla, especially in the male, are exaggerated; the head is longer and narrower;the brain is backward;the cranial crests are of immensesize; thejaws arevery prominent, and show great power; the canines are very large. The proper cavity of thebrain is markedby immenseoccipital ridges. But the remainder of theskeleton ofthe gorilla comes much nearer to manthan that of any other ape. And,after a careful examinationof the osteological facts which have been mentioned; after having observed thelive gorilla and studied carefully its mode of progression, I came to theconclusion thatthe gorilla is thenearest akin to manof all theanthropoid apes.23

Du Chaillu's use of the scientificnarrative style was an attemptto reinforcethe scientificvalidity of his findings.The vivid narrativeresumed clumsily after this dryinterlude.24 Early reviewsof theExplorations criticized du Chaillu's writingstyle. One of the firstpublished reviews of thebook notedthat

[f]ora solidbook of serioustravel, the style is ratherairy, and thematter sometimes contradictory,butthis latter may arise from the opposite accounts the writer was likely to hearof thesame circumstances.To studentsof NaturalHistory, the volume will, deservedly,be attractive;but we arenot disposed to yield full credence to Mr. Du Chail- lu's assertionthat he is thefirst white man who has describedthe gorilla, or theNest- buildingape.25

This was a politeforeshadowing of the controversyto come. The most persistentcritic of du Chaillu was JohnEdward Gray.Gray was the keeperof the zoological collectionat the BritishMuseum and vice presidentof the Royal Zoological Society.As keeper,Gray had takena small collectionand builtit into one of the finestin Europe. He had publishedwell over a thousandscientific papersin his lifetime.Gray had firstexamined du Chaillu's specimensat thequarters of theRoyal GeographicalSociety in April.26His criticismsof du Chaillu wereper- fectlylegitimate from a scientificstandpoint, but the vigor with which he undertook his task suggestedmore than simple intellectual dissatisfaction. Richard Owen had been appointedsuperintendent of themuseum some yearsbefore, to thedispleasure

22 Ibid.,pp. 98-101. 23Ibid., p. 417. 24 The tensionsbetween the narrative and scientific modes of discourseare not unique to du Chail- lu's work.Mary Louise Prattdescribes the history of theinteraction of the two modes in "Fieldwork in CommonPlaces," Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politicsof Ethnography, eds. JamesClifford and GeorgeE. Marcus(Berkeley: Univ. California Press, 1986), especially p. 35. 25 Unsignedreview of Explorationsand Adventuresin EquatorialAfrica, Athenaeum, 11 May 1861,no. 1750:623. 26 The keyaccounts of du Chaillu'sarrival in Londonare Vaucaire,Gorilla Hunter, pp. 131-137, and JohnEdward Gray, "Zoological Notes on PerusingM. du Chaillu's'Adventures in Equatorial Africa,"'Annals of Natural History, 1861, 7:463-470; 1861,8:60-65.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "IT MAY BE TRUTH" 187 of Grayand someof the other section heads. They resented Owen's interference in whatthey considered to be theirpersonal fiefdoms. The problemsGray found with theExplorations gave himthe perfect chance to attackOwen vicariouslyby at- tackinghis protege du Chaillu.27 Grayfocused on questioningdu Chaillu'scompetence in thepractice of science. In a seriesof lettersto theeditor of theAthenaeum spanning several months, Gray attackedthe credibility of the book and du Chaillu'sauthority as a witness.Dissatis- fiedwith the Athenaeum's review of the Explorations, Gray lashed out in a letterto theeditor in thefollowing week's issue: "I haveexamined the collection of main- maliawith care," he contended,"and there is nota specimenamong them that indi- catesthat the collector had traversedany new region:" The gorillawas notnew to Europeanscience, despite popular assumptions to thecontrary: "we havebeen re- ceivingspecimens of them for the last fifteen years . .. untilalmost every museum inEurope is providedwith specimens." The book, he continued, was "full of improb- able stories,"and someof theillustrations in thebook were "copied from figures preparedin thiscountry to representother kinds, and without acknowledgement.?28 Graywas unimpressedby Du Chaillu'sattempts at namingand identifyingnew species:"We areoverburdened with useless synonyma, and Natural History may be convertedinto a romancerather than a scienceby traveller'stales, if theyare not exposedat thetime." Gray quibbled with almost every new species that du Chaillu had named,saying that most of them had beennamed elsewhere. There is, in fact, a greatdeal of ambiguityin identifyingnew species."Every man thinks his own geeseto be swans,"wrote one scientistin the Natural History Review, "and the error of describingold speciesas new,is one of suchordinary occurrence, that we fear thereis scarcelya livingNaturalist, who could wash his hands, and say that he was innocentof theoffense."29 It appears that Gray mostly resented having an amateur namenew species,since naming was normallythe province of professionalscien- tists. Graycommented that the popularity of du Chaillu'slectures and thesuccess of theExplorations "become important when the writer is putforward as an authority on subjectsupon which I believehe is notqualified to speak;and it is onlyagainst thework being considered as whatI conceivehe himselfnever intended it to be whenit was firstcompiled (that is, a regularand veracious work of travels and naturalhistory) that I haveever objected or desire to object."In a detailedcritique of the zoologyof the Explorations, Gray noted that du Chailluhad included reptiles under themammalia. He also questioneddu Chaillu'sability as a collector,specifically his abilityto preserveanimal skins. Gray described the skins of du Chaillu'sgorilla specimensas rottenand fragilebecause they had been inadequatelystuffed. Du Chaillu'smethod of stuffingthe gorilla skins led Grayto concludethat "they could nothave been preparedvery far inland; for no one wouldhave adopted such an inconvenientand dangerouspractice if theskins had to be carriedfor many miles on thebacks of men;and even near the coast it wouldhave been better if the skins

27 "Gray,John Edward," Dictionary of National Biography (hereafter, DNB) 23, pp. 9-10; DNB 42, pp. 435-444; A. E. Gunther,The Founders of Science at theBritish Museum, 1753-1900 (Suffolk, England:Halesworth Press, 1980), pp. 122-124;Rupke, Richard Owen, p. 319. 28 JohnEdward Gray, "The New Traveller'sTales," Athenaeum, 18 May 1861, no. 1751: 662- 663. 29 Ibid.,P. 662; "The Faunaof EquatorialAfrica," Natural History Review July 1861, 1:290.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 188 STUART McCOOK had been spreadout flatand allowed to dryon bothsides, and thenhad been packed in a small space, as is usual withgood collections."30 In subsequentletters to theAthenaeum through the summer of 1861, Graybacked up his originalcharges with even more detailed evidence. Gray showed, for example, thatthe frontispieceof the Explorationswas plagiarizedfrom an articleon the gorilla thatIsidore GeoffroySaint Hilaire had publishedsome threeyears previously in theArchives du Museum.3'The versionin du Chaillu's book added a strategically placed branchto cover thatpart of the gorilla's anatomythat would presumably offendVictorian sensibilities. He also showed thatmany other illustrations in the book werecopied fromother sources. Gray appears to have been angryat du Chaillu foroverstepping his bounds as a collector. The debatebegan to centeras muchon du Chaillu himselfas itdid on his discoveries. NeitherGray nor the Athenaeum made outrightslurs against du Chaillu'scharac- ter.The editorsof theAthenaeum edited one letterthat they felt had too muchper- sonal invective,and Gray always denied thathe was carryingout a personal war ("Gorilla war,"Gray punned) against du Chaillu. In fact,he said that"it is no fault of M. Du Chaillu that,to meet a supposed want of one or more of our scientific Societies, he was seized upon and put forthas a scientifictraveller and zoologist." Even in private,Gray maintained this charitable tone, while also makingmore seri- ous accusationsabout du Chaillu thanhe dared make in print:"I have always re- gardedDu Chaillu 'as more sinnedagainst than sinning.' He only wantedstrength of mindto tell the truththat the book was not writtenby him."32Publicly and pri- vately,Gray's tone, while not personally hostile, was stillone of paternalisticsympa- thy.Du Chaillu's credibilityamong scientistswas damaged by repeatedaccusations that a ghost-writerat Harper's had embellishedhis accounts to produce a more profitablebook. One way du Chaillu's detractorsdiscounted his claims was to exclude him from the communityof scientists."Traveler's tales" was a termof contemptthat cropped up several times duringthe debate, concerningthe works of several people. Du Chaillu used it in describingthe workof previousexplorers, and thenGray used it to describedu Chaillu, also calling him "an uneducatedcollector of animal skins forsale and an exhibitorof themin Broadway,New York."Thus, Du Chaillu's suc- cess withthe public did littleto help him: the truegentlemanly specialist sought recognitionfrom his peers, who were qualifiedto judge the quality of his work, ratherthan from the public, who were not.-3The Athenaeum'suse of "theNew Trav- eller'sTales" as theheading for the section of lettersabout du Chaillu and theExplor- ations suggestswhat the editors thought about the issue. Gray was not the only person to discoverproblems with du Chaillu's book. An anonymouswriter to theAthenaeum pointed out thatthe implicit chronology of the voyagesgiven in the book was impossible.Du Chaillu had giventwo differentand

3" JohnEdward Gray, "Zoological Notes on perusingM. Du Chaillu'sAdventures in Equatorial Africa,"Ann. Nat. Hist. 1861, 8:60-61; ibid., pp. 64-65. 1' JohnEdward Gray, "The New Traveller's Tales,"Athenaeum, 25 May 1861,p. 695; Bucher,"Can- onization,"p. 20, n. 32. 32 Gray,"Zoological Notes," Ann. Nat. Hist.,1861, 8:60; JohnEdward Gray, MS notein his per- sonalcopy of T. H. Huxley'sEvidence as to Man'sPlace in Nature(London: Williams and Norgate, 1863).Collection of SydneyRoss, Troy, N.Y. -3Gray, "Zoological Notes," (cit. n. 30), p. 60; SusanFaye Cannon, Science in Culture:The Early VictorianPeriod (New York:Science History Publications, 1978), p. 150.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "IT MAY BE TRUTH" 189 mutuallyincompatible accounts of what he had been doing in the earlymonths of 1858.34With the entirechronology of the narrativethrown into question,all the individualparts of thenarrative also became suspect. Anotherof du Chaillu's detractorswas an Americantrader named Walker,who had knowndu Chaillu in theGabon. Walkercontradicted many of du Chaillu's most sensationaldescriptions. Du Chaillu claimed thathe had traveledalone and thathe spoke the language of the natives.Walker asserted that du Chaillu had been accom- panied by a Frenchmanand had an interpreter.Du Chaillu wrote about being strandedon the coast forfour months and being miraculouslyrescued by a trading ship. Walker counteredthat du Chaillu spent most of the time comfortablyat an Americanmission and was onlyon thecoast fortwo weeks. Du Chaillu had, in fact, arrangedin advance to meet the ship. Withthese and othercriticisms, Walker felt thathe had "sufficientlyshown that M. Du Chaillu has been guiltyof manyincorrect statements-in fact,his workcontains almost as manyerrors and inconsistenciesas thereare paragraphs.It is, moreover,teeming with vanity; and, takingit as a whole, it is hardto say whetherthe author, in his attemptto imposeupon and in facthumbug the scientificworld, displays most mendacity or ignorance."35 The evidence providedby Walkerand Gray seemed prettydamning, but there were otherperspectives on the validityof du Chaillu's work.The reviewerin the NaturalHistory Review of July1861 arguedthat du Chaillu was neitherparticularly mendaciousnor ignorant. Rather, the reviewer attributed the defects of thenarrative to be the resultof "imperfectlykept notes,assisted by the effortsof a rathervivid imaginationand a notvery perfect memory." He attributedthe energy of theattacks againstdu Chaillu to jealousy: "We fear,owing to the somewhatover-zealous way in whichhe has been takenup and made a 'lion' of,that M. Du Chaillu has provoked such severecriticisms upon his performances;such, indeed, as, in ouropinion, ought not to have been put forward,until the most positiveand satisfactoryevidence of the untruthof his statementshad been obtained."36This reviewmakes explicitone of du Chaillu's key sins in the eyes of manyBritish scientists: his public acclaim. Science reviewers,naturally enamored of classification,identified du Chaillu's preciseplace in theconstellation of scientificexplorers. The reviewerfor the Natural HistoryReview argued that du Chaillu could notbe a "scientificnaturalist" because "he . . . who 'feels the breathof a serpentagainst his face'; and who 'turnsturtles' in freshwater lakes and then classifiesthem among the Mammalia in his list of newly describedspecies, is no doubt a vigorousvoyager and a livelynarrator, but wantsthe knowledge and thesobriety of a man of science."Nor was du Chaillu even a "scientifictraveller," for "he took no observations,either astronomical, barometri- cal, meteorological,or thermometrical."The reviewerfound evidence of du Chail- lu's honestyin thesevery mistakes and omissions-"that such errorsas we have last described,are of the verykind thatany one, intentionallydeceiving, would most surelyavoid." In spite of all du Chaillu's "not inconsiderable"shortcomings, then, the reviewerfound du Chaillu "to be an energeticand activeexplorer."37 Such was the subtlehierarchy between the differentcategories of traveler.

" Gray,"The New Traveller'sTales," (cit. n. 31), p. 695. 15 R. B. Walker,"M. Du Chailluand his book,"Athenaeum, 21 September1861, no. 1769: 374; Bucher,"Canonization," pp. 20-21. 36 "The Faunaof EquatorialAfrica" Nat. Hist. Rev., July 1861, 1:291. -3 Ibid.,pp. 288-289.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 190 STUART McCOOK

Behindthe polite facade of gentlemanlyscientific debate, some gentlemenof science foundother reasons to doubt du Chaillu. Charles Waterton,another pillar of the Britishscientific community, wrote "[Du Chaillu's] adventureswith the gorilla are mostformidable and false.... I suspectstrongly that the traveller has been nothing but a traderon the westerncoast of Africa,possibly engaged in kidnapping negroes."38 This was a harshjudgment coming from a man whose own travelnarra- tive had been widely doubtedand ridiculedjust a few decades earlier.In October 1861 George Ord, a memberof theAcademy of NaturalSciences of Philadelphia, told Watertonthat members of theAcademy thoughtthat du Chaillu was of mixed race. "If it be a factthat he is a mongrel,or a mustee,as themixed race are termed in the West Indies, then we may account for his wondrousnarratives; for I have observed thatit is a characteristicof the negro race, and theiradmixtures, to be affectedto habitsof romance."Even du Chaillu'sfriendssuspected he was of mixed parentage.Du Chaillu's "diminutivestature, his negroidface, and his swarthycom- plexion,"wrote one of his friends,"made him look somewhatakin to our simian relatives."39 It is notsurprising that racism, which was such a strongpart of thesocial fabricof the day,should also play an importantrole in the assessmentof scientific claims. Membersof disparagedraces were also disparagedas scientificwitnesses. Du Chaillu's authorityas a witnesswas underminedfor several different reasons. The processby whichhis authoritywas underminedillustrates the original bases of thatauthority. Authority derives partly from the moreobvious elementsone would expect: logical consistency,originality, accuracy, and honestyin reportingobserva- tions.But it also derivesfrom more subtle factors, such as respectingthe intellectual territoryof otherscientists by not makingclaims in theirareas of expertise,being of theright race, and not being too blatantlycommercial and publicity-seeking.Du Chaillu had clearlyfaked parts of his book or allowed themto be faked,and so it was perfectlynatural for the scientiststo questionthe validity of his data. The criti- cisms of du Chaillu,however, went beyond the criticism warranted by his transgres- sions. Some of du Chaillu's claims forhaving discovered new species of animals would probablyhave ordinarilyfallen within the bounds of normalscientific uncer- tainty.But because he was suspect as a witness,his ambiguous claims were dis- missed out of hand.

SAVING THE PHENOMENA: MURCHISON AND OWEN COME TO THE RESCUE

Historiansand sociologistsof science have noted thatthere is normallya circular relationshipbetween the observer and whatis observed.Credible observations lend

38 CharlesWaterton, Essays on NaturalHistory (187 1), p. 582; citedin Barber,Heyday (cit. n. 2), p. 277. 39 GeorgeOrd to CharlesWaterton. 20 October1861. Ord-Watertoncorrespondence, Library of theAmerican Philosophical Society, Philadelphia. Du Chaillu'slife had manysimilarities with that ofthe famous artist and naturalist John James Audubon. Both were born illegitimately of mothersof (at thetime) unknown race in Frenchcolonies. Both men distorted their personal histories, with a tendencyto dramatize their lives, and both functioned on themargins of the scientific establishment. Finally,both were subjects of the frequently vitriolic letters between George Ord and Charles Water- ton.For a furtherdiscussion of Audubon, see Alice Ford,John James Audubon: A Biography(New York:Abbeville Press, 1988); EdwardClodd, Memories (New York:G. P. Putnam'sSons, 1916), p. 72.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "IT MAY BE TRUTH" 191 authorityto theobserver; a credibleobserver lends authority to theobservations.40 Du Chaillu'sdetractors questioned both the observerand the observations.Du Chailluhad powerfulcritics, but he also had powerfulallies. Sir RoderickImpey Murchison,president of theRoyal Geographical Society, and RichardOwen, the superintendentofthe British Museum of Natural History, were his two most promi- nentdefenders in England.Murchison and Owen, both of whom had much of their owncredibility invested in du Chaillu, fought hard to reestablish du Chaillu's reputa- tionfor competence as an observer.Murchison tried to reassertdu Chaillu'sgood characterto supportthe evidence, whereas Owen used the evidence to try to deduce du Chaillu'sgood character. The annualmeeting of theRoyal Geographical Society took place shortlyafter Grayhad first publicly criticized the Explorations. Murchison took pains to defend du Chailluin his presidentialaddress to the Society.He was also defendingthe reputationof the Royal Geographical Society, where many of du Chaillu'sdiscover- ies hadbeen displayed. Murchison had a personalstake in establishingthe credibilityof du Chaillu'snarrative since some of du Chaillu'sgeographic observations con- firmedone of his pet theories about the existence of a chainof mountains in Central Africa.41Murchison affirmed du Chaillu'sgood characterand his reliabilityas a witness.In describingdu Chaillu'saccounts of thegorilla, Murchison cited the authorityof Owen to establishdu Chaillu'scredibility. Describing du Chaillu'sac- countsof thecountryside, Murchison said that"strikingly attractive and wonderful as arehis descriptions,they carry in themselvesan impressof substantialtruthful- ness."Du Chailluhad "brought to us whatmost will admit to be unanswerableevi- dencesof his fidelityof observation-evidenceswhich the Council of thisSociety hasconsiderately allowed him to exhibit in our own apartments inWhitehall place'" YetMurchison also distancedhimself from du Chaillu,reminding his audience that du Chaillu"never claimed to be a manof science."42 The editorsof the Athenaeum quickly refuted Murchison's defence of du Chaillu. Theeditors acknowledged the importance of Murchison's endorsement ofdu Chaillu butnoted that "Sir Roderick'sfavourable opinions will notreconcile the singular discrepanciesof dates in M. du Chaillu'sbook. No amountof friendly oratory will makeit possiblefor a manto havebeen in twodistant places at thesame time.43 Prominentscientists could use theirsocial standing to reinforceweak or controver- sial evidenceand observations,but social standingcould not overcome logical in- consistencies. Owens turnto defenddu Chaillucame at theSeptember 1861 meetingof the BritishAssociation for the Advancement of Science(BAAS) in Manchester.Owen

40 Thisis the"experimenter's regress," discussed in Harry M. Collins,Changing Order: Replication and Inductionin ScientificPractice (London: Sage, 1985),Ch. 4. StevenShapin has formulatedan observationalversion of this concept in "The House of Experiment,"(cit. n. 18),p. 376,n. 6. P. B. du Chaillu,Explorations et Aventuresdans l'AfriqueEquatoriale (Paris: Michel L6vy Fr&res,Libraires, Editeurs, 1863), pp. vi-vii.Murchison was no strangerto controversyhimself. His rolein controversiesin Victoriangeology is documentedin MartinJ. Rudwick, The Great Devonian Controversy(cit. n. 18); JamesA. Secord,Controversy in VictorianGeology: The Cambrian-Silurian Dispute(Princeton: Princeton Univ. Press, 1986); and David Oldroyd,The Highlands Controversy: ConstructingGeological Knowledge Through Fieldwork in Nineteenth-CenturyBritain (Chicago: Universityof Chicago Press, 1990). 42 SirRoderick Impey Murchison, 'Anniversary Address," Journal of the Royal Geographical Soci- ety,1861, 31:clxxxii-clxxxiii. 4 "OurWeekly Gossip," Athenaeum, 1 June 1861, no. 1753:729.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 192 STUART McCOOK emphasizeddu Chaillu's naturalhistory collections, which could be independently verified,and avoided discussionof du Chaillu's personalobservations, which could not. Owen presenteda paper discussingthe specimensthat du Chaillu had sold to theBritish Museum, but only peripherally mentioned any of du Chaillu'sclaims that could not be independentlyconfirmed. In this way,many of du Chaillu's claims became Owen'swhile du Chaillu was eased out of thepicture. Du Chaillu was pres- ent at thatBAAS meetingand at the discussionof the paper,but appears to have had littleto say.44 Owen lentcredence to du Chaillu's narrativeby focusingon du Chaillu's natural historycollections. In one of the most dramaticpassages of his book, du Chaillu describedhow he shotan attackinggorilla in thechest. Owen's paper confirmed this account,saying that the wounds suggestedthat the gorillahad indeed been shot in thechest. Gray subsequently published a letterin theAthenaeum saying the wounds were consistentwith the gorilla havingbeen shot in the back. Grayinvited anyone who was interestedto look at thewounds and decide forthemselves (see Fig. 3). "I mightcite manynames of high authorityin corroborationof whatI have here ad- vanced,"he wrote,"but I am notdisposed to appeal to anyauthority, however great, wherethe facts are open to all. On these,and theseonly, I shall restmy case."45 The "facts"did not speak as clearlyas Grayclaimed. His own authoritywas im- portantin establishingthem as facts.Nor was he entirelysuccessful in establishing themas such. Owen, who was defendinghimself as well as du Chaillu, rose to the challenge and argued thatthe factsdid not speak forthemselves. Owen cited the authorityof a well-knownhunter who arguedthat the same "facts"could be consistentwith the gorilla havingbeen shot fromthe front.But since the facts did not speak for themselves,and neitherman had enough authorityto defeat the other decisively,the debate over the bulletholes was simplydropped. The evidence re- mainedsuspect, neither proved nor disproved. Du Chaillu's textwas clearly tainted,but the task of sortingout the fraudulent fromthe merely exotic was beyondthe capability of anyonein London. Du Chaillu had a geographicadvantage over his detractors:he was theonly personinvolved in thedebate who had actuallybeen to Africa.Although some evidencesuggested that a few of du Chaillu's tripswere faked,nobody in London could decisivelyprove them so. Since so few othertravelers had been in the region,no otheraccounts existedby whichdu Chaillu's could be judged. Because of du Chaillu's geographic advantage,attempts in London eitherto supporthim or to discredithim had to focus on his characterinstead. T. H. Huxley,who had been watchingthe debate but not participatingin it actively,remarked that '4S]o long as [du Chaillu's] narrativere- mains in its presentstate of unexplainedand apparentlyinexplicable confusion, it has no claim to originalauthority respecting any subject whatsoever. It maybe truth, butit is notevidence."46 Huxley recognized the potential value of du Chaillu's observations,arguing at the same timethat du Chaillu's credibilitywas not sufficientfor the observationsto be categorizedas evidence.

"Section' D.-Zoology and Botany,"Athenaeum, 14 September1861, no. 1768: 347-349.Du Chaillu'spresence was noted,but no commentsof hiswere recorded. 45 "Prof.Gray to thePresident of SectionD," Athenaeum, 21 September1861, no. 1769:373. 46 ThomasHenry Huxley, Evidence as to Man's Place in Nature (London:Williams and Norgate, 1863),reprinted in Huxley's Mans Place in Nature and OtherAnthropological Essays (New York: D. Appleton & Co., 1898), pp. 71-72.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "IT MAYBE TRUTH' 193

418 W T. GOMML

Explorationsand Adventures in Z ~~~~~~~~~~~~EquatorialAfrica(New York: Harperand Brothers,1861). JohnEdward Gray argued that thisdrawing was copiedfrom a photographof a gorillaskeleton. Thesephotographs were sold as :':dm4 _ &iA postcardsat theBritish museum E F~ax . "Seeoso an fora fewpence. Even these 9 Cap _ (,"la)- ~~~~simpleand thedrawings fromwere also misrepresentations,since "the skeletonof the Gorilla is made stronger,broader, and more powerful, while that of the Man SWIM is proportionally diminished so a a of UMOWM 'realuIS& WMW~n " on 1I (.in II as to give anythingbut an IVONAMaccurate comparison."John iS i'@-A:=.,Edw;NsaT.::_.0i::".-:: ard Gray, "Zoological .S MCMI ~ ~ ...Notes on Per-using M. Du CinrsinIS ; (Uy~q)~~ins--FJ ' Chaillu's Adventures in |'F. --T ,.;. -*--O- M=W EquatorialAfrica,( Annals of A NaturalHistory, 1861, 7:465.

Dui Chaillu'ssilence throughout the debates over the Explorations was a clear indication of his marginal status m the scientific community. Apart from one letter he wrote to the editor of the Athenaeum his defense within the scientificcommunity was carried out by others, gentlemen who were members of the scientific community.Even his supporters moved him to the periphery of the arguments, discussing du Chailluonly in thethird person. The factsdid not "speak for themselves" and du Chaillu did not speak forthe facts.They always needed an interpreterof standing from within the community. While the Athenaeumhad been highlycritical of du Chaillu, the editorssaw a conclusionto thecontroversy only when Winwood Reade wentto Africain 1861 specificallyto checkout du Chaillu'sclaims. Reade was a twenty-three-year-old "traveller,novelist, and controversialist"who had studiedat Oxford,although he did not take a degree.When he hearddu Chaillu's stories,he raised moneyand wentto the Gabon. For fivemonths, Reade followed the path of du Chaillu's travelsand interviewed many of the native porters and others with whom du Chaillu had

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 194 STUART McCOOK worked.He confirmedmany of du Chaillu's accounts about the geography and tribes ofWestern Africa, but rejected almost all of du Chaillu'saccounts of thegorilla.47 WhenReade returnedto Englandin 1862,he presentedhis findingsto theRoyal GeographicalSociety and published articles in severalmagazines. In an observation thatechoed the commentary on du Chaillu,Murchison said that "the Paper showed thatMr. Winwood Reade was an enterprisingtraveller, who had visited many parts ofAfrica, but not, as he modestlysaid, as a scientificman."48 Reade'sfinal assessment of du Chailluand the Explorations is a curiousmixture ofcriticism and sympathy. Reade concluded that the Explorations was a mixof truth andfiction, "prepared by a gentlemanwell known in theNew Yorkliterary world" usingdu Chaillu'snotes. Reade also foundthat du Chaillu's"labours as a naturalist havebeen very remarkable. And a fellowlabourer, though a humbleone, may be permittedto regretthat, actuated by a foolishvanity or by ill-advice, he shouldhave attemptedto add artificialflowers to a wreathof laurelswhich he had fairlyand hardlyearned.49 Although Reade nevernames this mysterious figure in New York whohelped du Chaillu write the book, his claim is plausible.Accounts of du Chaillu whenhe firstarrived in theUnited States say that his Englishwas notvery good. Certainlyit is veryawkward in hisearly correspondence with Jeffries Wyman, during thetime that du Chailluwas supposedlyworking on thebook. The levelof languageused in thebook is farsuperior to the language in hispersonal correspondence,suggesting that he hadat leastsome strong editorial help. Quite possibly, the editorialprocess went from simply cleaning up du Chaillu'slanguage to spicingup thefacts. Reade'sletter was publishedin theAthenaeum in Novemberof 1862,almost a yearand a halfafter the controversy had broken.The editorsof theAthenaeum, ignoringmany of the debates that had taken place in thepages of their own journal, saidthat "[p]eople refused to believe that a bookfull of amusing contradictions and absurditieswas true;and forthis refusal they have now received from an English witnessat theGaboon a furtherand conclusivewarrant:'50 Although people from theGabon gave convincing evidence of some fraud on du Chaillu'spart within seven monthsof thebeginning of thedebate, it was notuntil a yearlater that Reade, an Englishwitness and a gentlemanlyemissary of thescientific community, provided an assessmentcredible enough that the debate could publicly be declaredfinished. Eventhough Reade was not"a scientificman," as Murchisonpointed out, his En- glishnessand his rectitudemade him a betterwitness than du Chaillu.Certainly Reade'sown accounts of Africa were never given the same kind of critical scrutiny as du Chaillu's.Du Chaillu'sobservations had been superseded by those of a more crediblewitness. Despitethe judgments of theAthenaeum and JohnEdward Gray, much of du Chaillu'swork did notfade from the public or scientificeye. Many of du Chaillu's observationsfell legitimately within the bounds of scientificuncertainty. Reade's

47 "Reade,William Winwood' DNB, 47, pp. 361-362. 48 W WinwoodReade, "Travelsin westernAfrica," Journal of theRoyal GeographicalSociety, 1863,7:106-107. 49 WinwoodReade, "News From the Gorilla Country," Athenaeum, 22 November1862, no. 1850: 662-223. Nobodyhas yetfound the manuscript for the Explorations or correspondencerelating to thepublication of thework that gives any details about how it was puttogether. 50 "OurWeekly Gossip," Athenaeum, 22 November1862, no. 1830:665 (emphasisin original).

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "IT MAY BE TRUTH" 195 explorations,for example, had also confirmedmany of du Chaillu'sobservations. For thenext sixty years most people who did fieldwork on thegorilla took the Explorationsas theirstarting point. Even if du Chaillu'sclaims were not proved, theydid give subsequent explorers to theregion an importantlist of observations to be confirmed,modified, or refuted. Du Chailluhad unintentionally helped to define theresearch agenda for subsequent natural historians, explorers, and anthropologists whovisited the Gabon. In 1863,du Chaillureturned to thesame region of Africato provesome of his morecontroversial points. He spentanother several years there and got another book out of it. This secondbook, A Journeyto Ashango-Land,was popularbut not as controversialas theExplorations. The Explorationswere also a motivatingforce behindRichard F. Burton'sexpedition to thearea a fewyears later. "Travelling with M. Paul B. du Chaillu's"First Expedition" in myhand," Burton wrote, "I jealously lookedinto his every statement, and his numerous friends will be pleasedto see how manyof his assertionsare confirmed by my experience." Burton devoted a chapter of thebook to thegorilla. A Frenchsurveying party had by then largely confirmed manyof du Chaillu'sgeographical discoveries. Nonetheless, many of thefacts concerningthe habits of the gorilla were still disputed as lateas 1876.5' Laterassessments of du Chailluvaried. An 1881account of du Chaillu'sfirst book notesthat some of thefacts that du Chailluhad discoveredon his firsttrip had "excitedunreasonable and unreasoning hostility in England.'52This assessment was notuniversally shared. In theirpioneering study on primatelife, the famous prima- tologistsRobert and Ada Yerkesfound du Chailluto be "grosslycareless in exposi- tion,and perhaps also handlingof thegorilla exhibits. At anyrate his publications wereso farrepudiated by the scientific world that even today [1928] they are consid- eredfirst rate examples of 'naturefaking'.... Howevercharitable his inclination, one mustadmit that his showing is bad."'53The explorerCarl Akeley argued that du Chailluhad grossly misrepresented the behavior of the gorilla. "If you read the tale as Du Chailluwrote it, it gives an impressionthat the gorilla is a terribleanimal. If youread merely what the gorilla did, you will see thathe didnothing that a domestic dog mightnot have done under the same circumstances.... All I wantto pointout is thatthe gorilla should be judgedby whathe does,not by how thepeople who hunthim feel."54 Whatever the final assessment, it is significantthat for more than fiftyyears after the Explorations were written, people who workedwith primates oftenfelt obliged to addressdu Chailluand his discoveries. This is a tellingindica- tionof theextent of his impact. Pauldu Chailluwas far from ruined by this scientific controversy. While this study has focusedon thereception of du Chailluand theExplorations by thescientific

51 RichardE Burton,Two Trips to Gorilla-Landand theCataracts of the Congo, 2 vols.(London: SampsonLow, Marston, Low, and Searle, 1876; reprint edition, New York: Johnson Reprint Corpora- tion,1967), p. vii; Paul du Chaillu,A Journeyto Ashango-land: And Further Penetration into Equa- torialAfrica (London: J. Murray, 1867). 52 CharlesH. Jones,Livingstone's and Stanley'sTravels in Africa, also; theAdventures of Mungo Parke,Clapperton, DuChaillu, and otherFamous Explorers in theLand ofthe Palm and theGorilla (New York:Hurst & Co., 1881),p. 220. 53 RobertM. Yerkesand Ada W.Yerkes, The Great Apes: A Studyof Anthropoid Life (New Haven: Yale UniversityPress, 1929; reprint edition, New York:Johnson Reprint Corporation, 1970), p. 34. 54 Carl E. Akeley,In BrightestAfrica (Garden City, N.Y.: GardenCity Publishing,1923), pp. 237-239.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 196 STUART McCOOK community,scientists were nevera major partof his audience. Monthsafter most scientistshad washed theirhands of him,he could stillpack lecturehalls and earn severalhundred pounds in a singleevening lecturing to thepublic. His second voyage to Africawas financedby the proceeds fromthe animals he sold to theBritish Museum. He also wrotea highlysuccessful series of children'sstories loosely based on his two voyagesto Africa.Du Chaillu supportedhimself from the proceeds of thesebooks and by givingpublic lecturesabout his experiencesin Africa.With the proceedshe spentseveral years in Scandinavia,resulting in thetwo-volume ethnog- raphyentitled Land of theMidnight Sun, whichearned him even more moneyand got him invitedto more lectures.He was workingon a similarethnographic study of Russia when he died in 1903.--

CONCLUSION

The fieldsciences in VictorianEngland and theUnited States dependedheavily on trust.Out of necessity,metropolitan scientists accepted reports and collectionsfrom people who wereon thesocial marginsof thescientific world but who had privileged access to the field.Their elaboratestrategies for incorporating collectors and their reportsand collectionsinto the scientificsphere generally worked well. Both the explorersand the societiesbenefited from the exchange.Where the fieldreports fit withwhat was previouslyknown, they were accepted withouta murmurof dissent and indeed sometimeswith celebration. The controversyover the Explorations and Adventuresin EquatorialAfrica made thefundamental weakness of thissystem clear to all. It illustrateda crucialdifference between the laboratory sciences and thefield sciences. In the laboratory,all experimentsare at least in principleindependent of time and space. Doubts can be resolvedby repeatingthe experiment.In contrast, the fieldsciences depend heavilyboth on timeand on space. Replicability,particu- larly in the nineteenth-centuryfield sciences, was difficult,if not impossible.Ac- cordingly,the field scientists depended much more heavily on authoritythan did the laboratorysciences. Authoritycould be vestedin objects and textsas well as people. The substantial naturalhistory collections offered proof of du Chaillu's accomplishmentsin Africa. The authorityof othernatural history objects was, however,subject to differentin- terpretations.The bullet holes in the gorilla skin were not sufficientto prove du Chaillu's accountone wayor another.The Explorationswas criticizedfor its "fantastic" accounts,but equatorialAfrica was also a place whereEuropeans expectedto encounterthe fantastic, so littlethat du Chaillu said was inherentlyimplausible. The chronologicalcontradictions and basic scientificmistakes in thenarrative effectively underminedits independentauthority. Given thatneither the authorityof the evidence nor thatof the textwas sufficientto establishtruth, attention turned to du Chaillu himself.Just as theydissected the mammals and insectsin theircollections,

15 Paul du Chaillu, The Land of the MidnightSun: Summerand WinterJourneys Through Sweden, Norway,Lapland, and NorthernFinland (New York: Harper & Brothers,1882). Some of the more popular of du Chaillu's children'sbooks include Lost in the Jungle: narratedforyoung people (New York: Harper & Brothers,1870); Stories of the Gorilla Country:narratedfor youngpeople (New York:Harper & Brothers,1881); WildLife under the Equator (London: Sampson Low, Son & Mar- son, 1869); The Countryof theDwarfs (New York: Harper & Bros., 1899); and My Apingi Kingdom: with life in the great Sahara, and sketches of the chase of the ostrich, hyena, &c. (New York: Harper& Brothers,1871).

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions "IT MAY BE TRUTH" 197 scientistsin VictorianLondon minutelydissected Du Chaillu's credibilityinto its componentparts-personal background,education, race, social class-and found it wanting.Nor were Owen and Murchison'sauthority sufficient to reestablishthe credibilityeither of du Chaillu or of his narrative. Since appeals to authoritydid not resolve the question,attention shifted back to thefield. Although it was impossibleto replicatedu Chaillu's observationsprecisely, it was at least possible to follow in his footsteps.Even so, no crucial experiment could decisivelyprove du Chaillu wrong.If subsequenttravellers did not see the thingsthat du Chaillu claimed to have seen, such observationsdid not, in and of themselves,refute du Chaillu's claims. Observingdocile gorillasdid not provethat gorillasnever attacked. Instead of beingdecisively refuted, the authority of du Chail- lu's observationswas graduallyeroded over the next fifty years. During these years, scientistsbegan to resolvethe problem of fieldobservations either by going intothe fieldthemselves or by sendingtrained observers to thefield. Instead of movingparts of thefield back to themetropolis, scientists increasingly moved parts of themetropolis out to the field.By doing so, theygot aroundthe weakestlink in the fieldsciences, theirtraditional dependence on untrainedcollectors. Replicability was still impossible,but at least scientistscould bringtheir knowledge and authorityto field observationswith no mediations.Anybody could discovertruth, but as faras scien- tistswere concerned, only scientifically trained people could turnthat truth into evidence.

This content downloaded from 194.117.40.76 on Fri, 12 Feb 2016 16:08:46 UTC All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions