The Selection of the Authors of the Bridgewater Treatises Author(S): W

The Selection of the Authors of the Bridgewater Treatises Author(s): W. H. Brock Source: Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 21, No. 2 (Dec., 1966), pp. 162- 179 Published by: The Royal Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/531066 . Accessed: 04/05/2013 23:49

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].

The Royal Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 162

THE SELECTION OF THE AUTHORS OF THE BRIDGEWATER TREATISES By W. H. BROCK Lecturerin the Historyof Science,University of Leicester

[Plates 13 to 16] THE argumentfor the existenceof God from Design using the model of Newtonian scientific methodology formed the basis of the Natural Theology of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. Since the proof of God's existencerested on what God was believed to have accomplished,and His continual benevolent activity was regardedas the explanationof every- thing which science could not explain, the power of the argument decreased proportionally as the horizons of science expanded. Nevertheless, a steady stream of learned and more popular literature on natural theology was published during the one hundred years after Newton's death in 1727. The spate of publicationscontinued despite Hume's contention at the end of the eighteenth century that the use of analogical reasoning in theological dis- course had no logical validity (I). In theology, unlike science, hypotheses cannot be tested either directly or by the fulfilment of certain predictions based on the original hypotheses. Although the use of analogicalreasoning in scientific discourseis an invaluable aid to the formulation of hypotheses, these always have to be tested against experience. This is impossible in theology since the design analogy does not produce (in Hume's requirement) a constant conjunction between the hypothetical first cause, God, and its effects,the materialsof the observedworld. We cannot confirm the existence of a World Designer by observing Him make one. Even so, as has been pointed out recently, the design argument continued to be used after Hume because 'previously acquired and emotionally grounded prejudices in its favor' were psychologically persuasive (2). In fact, this kind of natural theology remained a subject of considerablepopularity, and it survived, in GreatBritain at least, until the biological theory of evolution demolishedthe last vestiges of the design argument'sempirical foundations. The epitome of this continuing tradition was Archdeacon William Paley's very successfulNatural Theology which appearedin I802 and became a set-book at the Universitiesof Cambridgeand Oxford during the remainder of the century.At Cambridge,Paley's argumentsbecame indelibly impressed upon the mind of the young CharlesDarwin (3); while at Oxford, Paley's chapterswere used by the Duncan brothersas part of their scheme for the

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Plate 13

FRANCIS HENRY EGERTON, F.R.S., 8th EARL OF BRIDGEWATER (1756-I829)

From an engraving in the possession of the British Museum.

[Facingpage 162

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Plate 14

DAVIES GILBERT, F.R.S. (1767-1839)

From a portrait by T. Phillips in the possessionof the Royal Society.

[Facingpage 163

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 163 classification of the University Museum's Natural History collection in 1836 (4). Paley (1743-I805), who was committed to the 'Sovereign Order of Nature' of the English Newtonian tradition, reacted strongly against the atheistic 'blind chance' of the French savantsand of such English radicalsas ErasmusDarwin. His design arguments were drawn principally from examples of organic contrivances;that is, he argued that the various species of plants and animalswere all examples of beautifully designed artifacts.Paley paid little attention to the premises of the argument for design, and he completely ignored Hume's critique. This is not so surprising; for the Christianreligion seemed to many people at that time to be the bulwark of an ordered, decent society, and Paley sincerely believed that the only alter- native would be the blind chance, atheism and anarchy of the French materialistsand revolutionaries. There were some twenty editions of Paley's manual before I820, and a further ten or more had appearedbefore the end of the century. The book became the Bible of Nature for many a scrupulouslypious scientist,especially physicianswho, despite their frequently barbariceducation, usually became models of ethical and religious propriety (5). It is not a coincidence that four of the eight authorsof the BridgewaterTreatises were practisingphysicians. For the clergyman, on the other hand, Paley's study was full of useful ammunition which could be fired againstfreethinkers and atheists. The terms of the Bridgewater legacy have been interpreted by most historiansas one sign of the worry and confusion over contemporaryscien- tific developments, especiallythose which were taking place in geology (6). The dispute over 'Genesisand Geology' which took place between scientists of a uniformitarianor catastrophicpersuasion, together with the clergy nourished on natural theology, was over both the interpretation of the geological record, and over whether this record did or did not reveal a providentialdeity who constantlyintervened and actively participatedin the development of nature by supernaturallyadapting means to benevolent ends. It was certainlyin this environment that the Bridgewater Treatisescame to be written, and it is interesting to notice that all the authors believed in a catastrophic geology, a providential deity, a God who had created the universe specifically for man, and a God who continually supervised its operationswith this purposein view. The Bridgewater Treatiseswere sponsored by the will (7), dated I825, of the eighth and final Earl of Bridgewater, the Reverend FrancisHenry Egerton (1756-I829). The son of a bishop, Egerton was a clergyman who Sc

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 164 'assiduouslyneglected his parish'(8), a literaryscholar rather than a scientist, anda familyhistorian; but thesewere sufficientqualifications to gain him an 'F.R.S.'in the dayswhen the Royal Societywas to a largeextent a Gentle- man'sClub, not a thrivingscientific society. His rich store of'Egerton Manu- scripts',which dealwith the historyand literature of Franceand Italy, were left to the BritishMuseum together with a sum of 12z,ooofor theirpro- vision.The EarlofBridgewater, Viscount Brackley, Baron Ellesmore, Prince of the Holy RomanEmpire, and Fellow of All Souls,Oxford, had both title and money. The Dictionaryof NationalBiography notes politelythat he also hadhis eccentricities.He filledhis 'HotelEgerton' in Pariswith catsand dogs, manyof whichhe dressedin men'sand women's clothing, fed at histable, and took out with him in his carriage.An aristocratto the end, 'in his lastfeeble dayshe stockedhis gardenwith largenumbers of rabbits,and with pigeons andpartridges with clippedwings, in orderto enjoythe sportof killinga few headsof gamefor his table'(9). Egertonhad written a Paley-inspiredTreatise on NaturalTheology for privatecirculation (io), andin his 'verylong andvery extraordinary'will (7) he bequeathed,8,ooo to the Royal Societyas a paymentto the personor personschosen by its Presidentwho would: . . write, print and publish,one thousandcopies of a work on the Power, Wisdomand Goodnessof God, as manifestedin the Creation: illustratingsuch work by all reasonablearguments, as for instancethe varietyand formationof God'screatures in the animal,vegetable and mineralkingdoms; the effectof digestionand thereby of conversion;the constructionof the handof man, and an infinitevariety of otherargu- ments;as also by discoveriesancient and modem, in arts,sciences, and the whole extentof literature(ii). Royaltieswere to be given to the authoror authors. The termsof thislegacy placed a considerableburden of responsibilityon Davies Gilbert,the personalfriend of Sir HumphryDavy, who had suc- ceededto the Presidencyof the Royal Societyon Davy'sresignation because of ill-healthin 827.Gilbert's responsibility was made difficult by thefact that throughouthis Presidencyhe was the centreof the controversyover the powerstructure of the Royal Societybetween the Scientistsand the Gentle- men Amateurs.Gilbert's position finally became intolerable and he resigned from the Presidencyin November 1830 in favour of the non-scientific Duke of Sussex.Gilbert, therefore, had no directhand in the finalprinting and publicationof the BridgewaterTreatises which appearedbetween 1833 and 1836; this administrativeresponsibility was directedby the Society's

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions capable Secretary,Peter Mark Roget (I779-I869), who was himself one of the chosen writers. However, before his resignation,Gilbert co-ordinated the searchfor suitable authors, and commissioned the writing of eight treatises. His apparentlypersonal decision that the legacy, which had been quickly invested in 3% Bank Annuities, should be broken down into eightdivisions, did not go uncriticized (12), and it became used as yet another excuse for dissatisfactionwith Gilbert's Presidency. With some foresight, however, Gilbert had wisely aligned both the Archbishop of Canterbury, William Howley (I766-I848), and the Bishop of London, Charles Blomfield (I786- 1857), on to his side, and invited them to suggestnames and even to negotiate terms with writers of their own choice. The collection of correspondence connected with the Bridgewaterauthors that was publishedprivately later in the century by Gilbert'snephew, John Enys, reveals how these eight men were chosen (I3). Gilbert noted in I831 that he had been 'fully aware of the duty imposed on him to select persons amply qualified for discharging in an adequate manner the task they would have to perform; and he [had been] also impressedwith the conviction, that however carefullya selectionmight be made, several gentlemen must be omitted possessing the requisite qualifications, equally, perhapswith those who received the appointment'(14). As soon as the terms of the bequest were made known to him, Gilbert contacted the elderly politician Baron Farborough (CharlesLong, 1761-1838), who had been related to Egerton by marriage,in order to make certain that neither Egerton's large family or his three executors intended to challenge the endowment (I5). Secure with Farborough's reassurances,early in 1829 the Reverend G. D'Oyley, chaplainto the Archbishopof Canterbury,informed Gilbert that both Howley and Blomfield were willing thereforeto assisthim in the choice of authors(16). Meanwhile, one may read between the lines of the Enys correspondence that Gilbertreceived a number of letterswhich either solicited a commission to write the BridgewaterTreatise, or recommended their friendsas excellent candidates.One such claimantwas John F. (sic)Graves, who was describedby his supporter,the Bishop of Cloyne (John Brinkley), as 'a young man of most excellent characterand attainments'(I7). This must have been John Thomas Graves (I806-I870), the Irish mathematician and lawyer who became Professor of Jurisprudenceat University College London, in 1831 and F.R.S. in 1839 (I8). Since Charles Babbage later felt obliged to write an unofficial mathematical Bridgewater Treatise, the fact that Graves was primarily a mathematician might explain why no call was made on his

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions I66 talents.However, Howley revealedin 1830 that 'Mr Grave's(sic) application does not tell in his favor .. ., and I conceive the intention of the Testator was not so much to give the prize to an ingenious young man, as to en- courage the publication of a work or works which might be really useful to the public' (I9). Howley suggested, somewhat impractically,that a number of 'eminent persons' should be selected to plan a large work on naturaltheology whose parts 'might be filled up by them respectively,as they might agree amongst themselves' (I9). For some time Gilbert held to this plan; for example, in June 1830, he still clearly envisaged eight separate essays in two octavo volumes (20). The eventual production of 8 large volumes in 12 seems to have been a purely practicaldecision taken by the authors themselves at a much later date when they found the essay form was too restrictive. By June 1830 names were being examined and rejected by the three selectors.Howley remarkedto Gilbert that he had been pleasedwith a book of Peter Roget's which Gilbert had sent him (21), and also by Herbert Mayo's Outlinesof Physiology(22). He also noted suggestively that the pro- spectus of John Macculloch'sProofs and Illustrationsof the Attributesof God, which had been sent to him recently for approval,appeared 'to be very well done' (23). Of these three men only Roget was eventually chosen to be an author. Mayo (I796-I852), an excellent anatomist and physiologist, was Professor of Anatomy at King's College, London, but despite his member- ship of that 'Godly Institution'he was turned down by the three selectorsin favour of John Kidd (I775-I85I), who eventually wrote the anthropomor- phic treatiseon the physical constitution of man (24). As for the geologist Macculloch, nothing more is mentioned of him in the correspondence. Ironically,Macculloch deliberately withheld the publicationof his own large book until the way had been preparedby the publicationof all the Bridge- water Treatises.The book had to be publishedposthumously in 1837 because of his tragichoneymoon death in I835. Maccullochwould have been a good choice, but he was ignored perhaps because he was personally disliked by most scientists,and becauseWilliam Buckland,who was in holy orders,was such an obviously dignified choice for the controversialsubject of geology. The successes of eighteenth-century mathematical astronomy had also made the astronomical design argument rather controversial and difficult. Gilbert spent some time anxiously searching for a suitable writer on astronomy, and with perhapsa diplomatic thrustat John Herschel, who was one of the principalspokesmen for the reform of the Royal Society, he first offered the commission to the great astronomer.Herschel's dignified reply is

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 167 worth quoting,for it was criticalof the mannerin which Gilbertand his adviserswere directingthis embarrassing legacy (25).

Slough, July Ist, 1830 My Dear Sir, I am duly sensibleof the honor you do me by proposing that I should write the treatiseon Astronomy in fulfilment of the conditions of Earl Bridgewater'sbequest for publishing a work 'on the Power, Goodness, and Wisdom of God as manifested in the Creation'; though I must decline the undertaking. No one, as you well know, is more deeply impressedwith the great truths intended to be inculcatedin this work; but in precisely the same proportion is the repugnanceI feel to weaken the weight of my testi- mony in their favour by promulgating them under the direct and avowed influence of pecuniaryreward. To any one who considershow argument loses in persuasion,and praisein value (humanly speaking)by the bare mention of such an origin, it will I fear appear questionable whether much effective supportis likely to accrueto Religion or Glory to God from the adoption of the means in question. To yourself, as President of a great scientific body, there is however another point of view in which it may very reasonablybe expected to occur, and has very likely done so-viz: as an opportunity of calling forth to something like lucrativeexertion the talentsof men, who with realscience and irreproach- ablecharacter, have their zeal chilled and their sphereof utility contracted by the 'res augusta domi.' To such persons (men, for example, such as Ritchie, who I mention as a specimenof the class I allude to) who live, or ratherstarve on their science,but who preferhunger in that good cause to competency in a less dignified calling, a thousand pounds (the sum you propose to devote to each of the eight sections of the work) would indeed be a more materialand noble assistance.Such men, who deserve all encouragement, but who receive none, in the ordinary course of events, in this country, are the people who every lover of sciencewould wish might receive at least the benefit of windfalls such as these. William Ritchie (I790-I837), the physicistreferred to by Herschel,had been educatedfor the ScottishChurch and had only taken up physicswhen he was in his twenties (26). A born experimentalist,Herschel and others helped him to become successivelyProfessor of Natural Philosophy at the Royal Institu- tion and at the University of London. Although he was a Fellow of the Royal Society, Ritchie suffered from the same defect as Howley saw in

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions i68

Edward Hawke Locker (1777-1849), a commissioner of Greenwich Hospital who was suggested by Baron Farborough (27): both were ingenious men, and very useful as writers for the lower classes. 'But I question whether [their]depth of knowledge is such as to qualify [them] for the production of a book which would stand the test of professionalcriticism' (28). Herschel's point was never taken by the selectors. Another candidate, the Reverend Samuel Wix (I77I-I86I), was suggested by one of Egerton's executors, the banker J. C. Clarmont. However, Blomfield dismissed Wix brusquely with the confidence that although he was 'a highly respectableclergyman, his turn of mind and habits of thought are not precisely those which would qualify him for a share in this undertaking' (29). Wix, a Fellow of the Royal Society, was of the High Church party, but his ecumenical ideas had involved him in much controversy. Complete theological orthodoxy was obviously a fundamentalcriterion of choice for the Bishop and Archbishop. In mid-August 1830 Roget pointed out to Gilbert that all sorts of demarcationproblems could ariselater if a decision about the authorshad not been reached before Gilbert officially resigned on the 30 November (30). Fortunately some measure of agreement between Gilbert, Howley and Blomfield had been reached already. They unanimously agreed that the anatomist Charles Bell, who had already published a work on natural theology, should tackle the subject of 'Human Anatomy including . . . Lord Bridgewater'sfavorite topic the Human Hand' (3I); that Roget should be given 'Physiologicalor Comparative Anatomy'; that William Whewell (Blomfield'schoice) should write the work on astronomy; and that William Buckland (Howley's choice) should be given geology. Four more authors were still to be found. It is clear from the Enys correspondencethat initially Gilbert did not think in terms of a separate chemical treatise, but of one which would include an incidental discussionof the imponderableelements of light and heat (32). The name of David Brewster (1781-1868), who was famous for his work on polarization,was proposed and seriously considered. Brewster, a member of the establishedChurch of Scotland,had preachedas a young man before nervousness had caused him to abandon the thought of a clerical profession. Prompted by the Bishop of London (33), by 2 September 1830 Gilbert instead suggested a treatise 'Chemistry chiefly in reference to the Etherialor ImponderableFluids or especiallyto Light, including Optics with the recent discoveries of Polarization'. This enlarged treatise was to be written by either William Prout (I785-I850), or by Brewster. Blomfield then

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Plate 15

PETER MARK ROGET, F.R.S. (1779-1869)

From an engraving in the possessionof the Royal Society.

[Facingpage 168

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 169 advisedGilbert that Prout was 'afirst-rate chemist', and 'I shouldthink would do whateverhe undertookwith greatability'; but he spoiledthe effectby admittingin a postscriptthat 'I don'tknow what sort of writerDr Proutis; never having seen his publications'(34). He concludedhis advice by em- phasizingthat the literarymerits of Proutand Brewsterwere an important factorin decidingbetween them. In fact, althoughBrewster was the more productiveof the two men,there was little to choosebetween their respective literarygifts and scientificexperience. Why Proutrather than Brewster was eventuallychosen is not revealedby the Enys correspondence;for with Gilbert'sresignation, the taskof organizationseems to have fallenentirely on to the shouldersof Roget. It may be conjectured,however, that Prout was successfulbecause he was well-knownpersonally to both Roget and Gilbertthrough his Councilmembership of the Royal Society,and above all becausehe was known to be interestedin the subjectof digestionwhich hadbeen mentioned specifically in Bridgewater'sbequest. The resultwas the delectablytitled Chemistry,Meteorology, and the Functionof Digestioncon- sideredwith referenceto NaturalTheology. A sarcasticAthenaeum reviewer noted wittily: To dismemberMeteorology from Geology-theone involving causesof whichthe otherpresents the effects-inorder to makeit the link between Chemistryand Digestion,was the work of no ordinarymind; and to separateDigestion from Physiology-apart from the whole-and again place Physiologydeprived of the Hand,in oppositionto the Physical Natureof Man, allowed to retainhis hands,evinced most uncommon tact in classification.The ingenuitywith which Dr. Prout has connected his subjects,does not rendertheir combinationa bit the less ridiculous(35). Therewas also some difficultyover the choice of an authorfor natural history.Blomfield had immediatelythought of JohnLeonard Knapp (I767- I845), 'the authorof thatvery ingeniousand pleasant work TheJournal of a Naturalist'(36), and both Gilbertand Howley seem to have agreed.But in Septemberof 1830 Blomfieldbegan to make furtherenquiries and 'upon looking againinto Mr Knapp'sbook' he doubted'his competencyto the task'(34). Whatever the reason,perhaps that Knapp had written a best-seller for the 'lower classes',he was rejectedin favourof the orthodox Suffolk septuagenarianclergyman and entomologist,William Kirby (I759-I850). The final two treatiseswere a curiousexample of demarcation.Howley noted from Gilbert'spreliminary list of authorsthat none were Scotsmen. (He overlookedBell who had lived in Londonfor so long.) Both he and

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 170 Blomfield had immediately thought of the Scots reformerThomas Chalmers (1780-1847) who had given scientific sermons from his Glasgow pulpit. Blomfield urged that: ... there should be an Essayon the adaptationof the PhysicalConstitution of man to his intellectualand moral faculties,his social propensities,and the provision made for his wants in the works of nature.This part of the subject might perhaps be advantageously divided into two, and the intellectualand moraldiscussion proposed to Dr Chalmers,the physicalto Dr Kidd of Oxford, or Dr Mayo whose Outlinesof Physiology is a very ingenious book (37). Apart from the substitition suggested by Archbishop Howley of Kidd for Mayo which was noted earlier,the task of the selectorswas finished. Blomfield's invitation to Chalmers was printed by the Reverend John Cumming in his posthumous edition of Chalmers' treatise (38). It implied that the expensesof publicationwould be defrayedout of each /I,ooo. But it is difficult to believe that this was done; in any case its legality would almost certainly have been challenged. Such an arrangementwould have been especially unfair on Buckland, half of whose treatiseon geology was made up by costly illustrationson which threeartists had to be employed (39). During the winter of 1831 scandalousrumours began to appear in the press concerning the 'competitors for the legacy' (40). Buckland was appalled(41) and appealedto Gilbertfor a public statementfrom him which would give the names of the authors and explain that there had been no lobbying. Gilbert obliged with a suitable statement of the true facts in the PhilosophicalMagazine for March 1831 (42). The Reverend and Right Honorable Francis Henry Egerton Earl of Bridgewater died in the month of February1829, at Paris, leaving his last will and testamentbearing date on the 25 February1825, in which he desiredand directedhis trusteesto lay out and invest in their own names in some or one of the public stocks or Fundsof GreatBritain, the sum of eight thousandpounds sterling; the said sum with all accruingdividends thereon to be held at the disposalof the Presidentfor the time being, of the Royal Society of London, to be transferred,paid and applied, according to the order and direction of the said Presidentof the Royal Society, in full, and without any diminution or abatement whatsoever, in such proportionsand at such times, accordingto his direction and judgement, and without being subject to any control or responsibility whatsoever, to such person or persons the said President,for the time being, should or might nominate or appoint and employ.... And

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions I71 he [Bridgewater]desired that the profitsarising from and out of the circulationand sale of the aforesaidwork shouldbe paid to the said Presidentof the Royal Society,as of right,as a furtherremuneration to such person or personsas the said Presidentof the Royal Society should so nominate,appoint and employ, with a furtherpower to advancethe sumsof 300oand of 5sooduring the writingand printing of the saidwork. ... Each[author had] been pledged to takea part,as designatedby the testator,most adaptedto his acquirementsand to his pursuits;and thus it is confidentlyhoped and expected,that a work intrustedto such individualswill appear,as a whole,worthy of the age andof the country aboutto give it birth. The namesof the authorsand the titlesof theirbooks were then listed. MeanwhileRoget had greatdifficulty finding a publisher(43). Murray acceptedthe series,then backeddown becauseof a declineof trade;Long- mansrefused to publishonly the initiallimited edition of a thousandcopies which the will seemedto legallydemand. (If interpretedto the letter,only 250 copies of each book could have been printed-a most uneconomic proposition.)At last,at a meetingof the nomineesin Londonon i October 1832 (44), the final allocationswere decidedand contractssigned with the publisherWilliam Pickering (45). Lord Bridgewater's desire for a professional a posterioridemonstration of the existenceof a benevolentdeity was finally satisfiedby the publicationof the eight 'strangeand deadly'volumes inter- mittently between 1833 and 1836 (8). Therewere still two furtherepisodes before the Royal Societywas able to finallyclose its file on the Bridgewaterlegacy. In February1837 Buckland sent the followinglegal bombshellto Gilbert(46). Ch.[rist]Ch.[urch] Oxford Feb. 28, 1837 My Dear Sir You will no doubt recollect that in the appointmentyou were pleased to make of myself and others to write the BridgewaterTreatises, it was expressly stipulatedas directed by the will of the Earl of Bridgewater that the sum of J8,ooo should be vested in the Fundsuntil the whole of the Treatises were finished to the satisfactionof the President of the Royal Society and that then the said sum with interestand accumulation of interest should be divided among the eight Authors as Tenants in Common.

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 172 On the completionof the work by the publicationof my Treatisein Septemberlast the Authorsconjointly applied for theirrespective shares of intereston the j8,ooo, and were informedthat the whole of the moneywas soldout in 1833,and has not beenkept at interestas the will directeduntil all the Treatiseswere fiished. This communicationfrom Mr Parkinson,the Solicitor to Lord Bridgewater'sTrustees, was accompaniedby an opinionof Mr Knightof the ChanceryBar thatthe Trusteeswere underthe circumstancesof the case,justified in the course theyhad taken. I havesubsequently submitted this opinion of Mr Knight to the SolicitorGeneral [Sir Robert Rolfe] andhave obtained from him a decidedopinion that interest is due to eachof the Authorsup to the time when he receivedhis 1I,oooon the completionof his Treatise. Having these two conflictingopinions it has been agreedby the Authorsto referthem both to the AttorneyGeneral [Sir John Campbell] as an Umpire,if Mr Parkinsonon behalfof the Trusteeswill agreeto suchan Arbitration,and thatall the partiesconcerned should abide by the AttorneyGeneral's decision. It is thewish of the Authorsto settlethe matterin questionamicably and quietly,and we considerthe course proposedof referringit for finaldecision to the AttorneyGeneral to be the mostdelicate that can be pursued,and to be thatwhich we shouldbe gratifiedto find approvedof by yourself. I was in hopesof seeingyou in Londonin the courseof two or three recentvisits to the GeologicalSociety when I might have explainedto you in personthe detailsof thismatter as I hope soon to havean oppor- tunityof doing. Wm. Buckland Presumablythe authorshad been contracted to producetheir manuscripts by a certaindate, otherwise, on the briefof Bucklandand the SolicitorGeneral, an author could have gained more interestmerely by dallyingwith his manuscript.As it was, Bucklandstood to gain most from the successof his argument;for his book took him six yearsto write and was the last of the BridgewaterTreatises to be published.However, no recordof any legal actionhas been discoveredand it must be assumedthat an amicablequiet settlementwas reached.The possibilityof a civil actionby the Bridgewater authorsagainst the Bridgewaterestate, or againstthe ex-Presidentof the Royal Society would have led to an appallingscandal. The commonest criticismof the BridgewaterTreatises was that they had been writtenfor money (47). Althoughthe authorspublicly and privatelydenied the credi- bility of this,Buckland's letter, and an earlierone from Whewellto Gilbert

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Plate 16

WILLIAM BUCKLAND, F.R.S. (I784-I856)

From an engraving in the possessionof the British Museum.

[Facing page 172

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 173 (48), revealthat whatevertheir individualpiety, the motives of the eight writersmay not havebeen entirely altruistic when offereda thousandpounds. Finally,as if to underlinealtruism, Charles Babbage, who had been unpleasantlycritical of Gilbert'sPresidency, published his extraordinaryand unofficialNinth Bridgewater Treatise in 1837 (49). OstensiblyBabbage's book was writtenin oppositiontoWhewell's denial in his BridgewaterTreatise that pure and applied mathematicianscould marshalnatural theological argumentsfrom mathematics.Babbage proceeded to demonstratethat they could, noting causticallythat his demonstrationwas voluntaryand that no moneywas involved.This TristramShandy of a book-Chapter 6 is largely blankspace, and Chapter 14 consistsof a singlesentence-was very muchthe 'Fragment'indicated by Babbage'ssub-title. However, it is a mostinteresting documentwhich containsdissertations on free will and miraclessupported from argumentsdrawn from his calculatingengine. It is clearthat the eightBridgewater authors had to fulfilthree conditions: (i) They had to be good, and if possible,well-known scientists. (One suspectsthat they were expectedto be Fellowsof the Royal Society.) (ii) They had to have literaryability and be able to write for an educated,if not, academicpublic. (iii) They had to be piousindividuals who were theologicallyorthodox, and who would not write solelythrough financial inspiration. How successfullywere thesecriteria achieved? With the exceptionof Chalmersall the authorswere Fellows of the Royal Societyand very distinguishedscientists. As CanonRaven remarked in his famousGifford Lectures of I95I: A team which included Thomas Chalmersof Edinburgh,William Whewell,afterwards the greatMaster of Trinity,William Buckland the geologist,and William Kirby, the doyen of entomologists,could not easilybe improved(50). To thiswe need only stressthat the teamalso included John Kidd, who with Bucklandand Daubenypioneered the teachingof sciencein nineteenth- centuryOxford, Charles Bell the skilledartist and investigator of thenervous system, and William Prout, who is famousfor his hypothesisabout the natureof matterand for his analysisof gastricjuice. All eight men wrote fluently,and, as may bejudged from the numberof editionsrecorded in the Bibliographyto thispaper, their Treatises sold exceptionally well. In general, too, the authorswere well-treatedby reviewers.To the modem reader,of course,all the treatisesseem to sufferfrom the basicfault that evolutionary changeappears to be perverselyunrecognized. Each species of plant,animal 6a

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions I74 and mineralis assumedto have been createdspecially, and the authorsseem to us to labourunder the impossibletask of demonstratingthe finalintention of Godfor everystructure which they describe. Frequently the authorsare led into logical incongruities,for when final causesare assignedthey have an unfortunatetendency to cancelone anotherout. On the otherhand, in their own time, the BridgewaterTreatises were of high merit as scientifictext- books.For example, they stressedthe advantagesof Cuvier'sclassification of animals,and the neologism,convection, first came into scientificuse through one of the Treatises(5Ia). Theologically,they were less successful.Four of the authorswere 1i holy orders,and in theirChristian orthodoxy the eightmen rangedfrom the quaintfundamentalism of Kirby to the High Anglicanismof Whewell. Althoughthe Treatiseswere sincerelywritten-only Whewelland Buckland appearto haveinquired the exactsize of theiremoluments-their logic was only as good as the DesignArgument can ever be. None of themreally tried to get to gripswith the difficultiesof theirreasoning; the problemsof pain, disease,disaster and death were either ignored, or disposedof in a hurriedand faintlyembarrassed fashion as the mysteriousways of the beneficentdeity. Despite the careful vetting of Howley and Blomfield, two of the Treatiseswere heterodoxin tendency.Oddly, thesetwo treatises,those of Bucklandand Prout, were to my mind the best and most creativescien- tifically.As was to be expected,Buckland's Geology and Mineralogy was the most controversialbook simply becausehe had to say somethingabout Genesisand Geology.Dictated at night to his devotedwife (52), the book was awaitedwith eager anticipationby Buckland'sfollowers. Would he attackCharles Lyell's uniformitarian Principles of Geology?How would he reconcilethe biblicalchronology with geologicaltime? Althoughhe said nothingabout Lyell's thesis, his firstchapter was devotedto the problemof reconcilingGenesis with Geology. The Bible, said Buckland,was not a scientifictextbook, even thoughit frequentlyharmonized with the scientific record;the Bible had been writtento revealGod and instructmen of the Divine purpose,and not to teach men science.For these opinions,which echo those of Galileo,Buckland was attackedin the daily presswhich had evidentlyexpected a defenceof Mosaicgeology from him. Instead,what Bucklandgave his contemporarieswas an extremelygood geology textbook which even madefavourable reference to Lyell. Prout'sheterodoxy was ratherdifferent and potentiallymore serious theologically.Because of his researchinterests in animalchemistry Prout believed that an animalor organicagent was necessaryto organizethe

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 175 organicsubstances which went to makeup living things.This agentwas of a differentorder from the inorganicforces that held togetherthe moleculesof organic substances.In later editions of his BridgewaterTreatise Prout postulateda largenumber of organicagents which he describedas 'intelligent' consciousbeings 'possessing knowledge, will and power' (sIb). 'We must confess',wrote one hostilecritic a proposthis 'ugly excresence'to an otherwise brilliantbook, 'ourinability to discernthe essentialdifference between this figment,and the mythicalnotions of the ancientsrespecting their deities or semi-deities,which we presumethat Dr Prout would condemn as absurd'(53). Prout's metaphysical ideas sounded dangerously like polytheism, a doctrinewith which ArchbishopHowley and BishopBlomfield must have takencare to avoid when they vettedpotential authors for the Bridgewater commissions.But to be fair, these tendenciesof Prout'swere not at all obviousin 1830, andthey were only explicitlyvoiced by him in 1845.

Acknowledgements.The Librarianof the Royal Society,Mr I. Kaye, for answeringmy postal inquiries;Mrs D. Brinklerof the South Western Regional LibrarySystem, Miss W. M. Bennettsthe County Librarianof Cornwall, and P. L. Hull the County Archivistof Cornwall for their intensiveand successful search for a copy of the 'EnysCorrespondence'. My papercould not havebeen written but for the greatkindness of the Reverend C. R. S. Enysof Enys,Penryn, who allowedme to examinethe copy of this pamphletwhich is in his library.

BIBLIOGRAPHY William Paley, Natural Theology,or Evidence of theExistence and Attributes of the Deity Collected from the Appearancesof Nature,London, I802. (See British Museum Catalogue for the large number of later editions.) The BridgewaterTreatises On The Power WisdomAnd GoodnessOf God As ManifestedIn The Creation,8 vols. in 12, William Pickering, London, 1833-1837; also 12 vols., Bohn Library, London, 1852-I869. These and other editions andimpressions are noted individuallybelow. TreatiseI: The Rev. Thomas Chalmers, On the Power, Wisdom,and Goodnessof God as Manifestedin the Adaptationof External Nature to the Moral and Intellectual Constitutionof Man (dedicated to Blomfield), 2 vols., I833 (I833, 1834, I840, I853, 1884). TreatiseII: The Rev. Dr John Kidd, On the Adaptationof ExternalNature to the Physical Condition of Man (dedicated to Howley), 1833 (1833, 1834, 1837, I852, I887). TreatiseIII: The Rev. William Whewell, Astronomyand GeneralPhysics Consideredwith Referenceto Natural Theology(dedicated to Blomfield), 1833 (1833, 1834, 1836, 1837, 1838, 1842, I847, 1852, I864).

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 176 TreatiseIV: Dr Sir Charles Bell, The Hand: Its Mechanlismand VitalEndowmtents as Evincing Design, 1833 (I833, 1834, 1837, 1852, i86o, I865, 1874, I885). TreatiseV: Dr Peter Mark Roget, On Animal and VegetablePhysiology Consideredwith Referenceto Natural Theology(dedicated to the Duke of Sussex), 2 vols., 1834 (1839, 1840, I862, 1867, I870). TreatiseVI: The Rev. William Buckland, Geologyand Mineralogy Considered with Reference to NaturalTheology (dedicated to Gilbert),2 vols., I836 (I837, i856, i860, 1869). TreatiseVII: The Rev. William Kirby, On theHistory, Habits and Instincts of Animals,2 vols., I835 (I835, 1852, 1853). TreatiseVIII: Dr William Prout, Chemistry,Meteorology, and the Functionof Digestion Con- sideredwith Referenceto Natural Theology(dedicated to Gilbert), 1834 (1834, I845, I855). CharlesBabbage, The Ninth BridgewaterTreatise: A Fragment,London, 1837; 2nd ed., 1838. Rev. (now Canon) D. W. Gundry, 'The Bridgewater Treatisesand their Authors,' History, 31, 140 (1946); 32, 122 (I947); 33, 125 (1948). A. C. Todd, The Life of Davies Gilbert(1767-1839): A Study in Patronageand Political Respon- sibility.Ph.D. thesis, London, I958.

NOTES (I) Sec 'Dialogues concerning Natural Religion' inlk. Wollliciml (ed.), ilume onrReligion, Collins Fontanapaperback, London, 1963. (2) R. H. Hurlbutt, III, Humn, Newton, and the Desiqn Argument,Lincoln, U.S.A., I965, p. 164. (3) See F. Darwin (ed.), Life and Lettersof CharlesDarwin, 3 vols., London, 1887, vol. I, p. 47; vol. 2, p. 219. (4) H. M. and K. D. Vernon, A Historyof the OxfordMuseum, Oxford, 1909, p. 36: 'Happily at this time a taste for the study of Natural History . . . [has] been executed in the university by Dr Paley's very interesting work on Natural Theology, and the very popular lecturesof Dr Kidd on ComparativeAnatomy and Dr Buckland on Geology.' The Museum's contents were arranged so that: 'The first division proposes to familiarizethe eye to those relations of all naturalobjects which form the basis of the argument in Dr Paley's Natural Theology; to induce a mental habit of associating naturalphenomena with the conviction that they are the mediaof Divine manifestation; and by such associationto give proper dignity to every branch of naturalscience.' (5) E.g. Charlotte Hall, the devoted wife of Dr Marshall Hall, recalled her husband's engrossmentin Paley, Memoirsof MarshallHall, London, I86I, p. 58. (6) C. C. Gillispie, Genesis and Geology, Cambridge, U.S.A., 1951, pp. 209-216, 298; L. Eiseley, Darwin'sCentury, London, 1959, pp. I77-I78. (7) For a full descriptionof the will see GentsMag., 99, i, 559 (1829). (8) C. C. Gillispie, op. cit., p. 209. (9) C. W. Sutton, 'FrancisHenry Egerton', Dictionaryof NationalBiography (cited as D.N.B.), 17, I54. This account was based largely on the material of note (7) supra. (IO) Cited in refs. (7) and (9) supra;there is no copy in the British Museum. (I ) Quoted in the front papers of all eight Bridgewater Treatises.The Bridgewater legacy became the model for many other zealous benefactions. For instance, in 1838, a certain Mrs Hannah Acton, widow of Samuel Acton, 'from motives of respect and regard for the memory of her deceasedhusband, and in order to carry into effect his desire and intention, caused an investment to be made of the sum of ki,ooo in 3%

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 177 Consol Bank Annuities, in the names of the Trusteesof the Royal Institutionof Great Britain, the interest of which was to be devoted to the formation of a fund out of which the sum of one hundred guineas was to be paid septenially,as a reward or prize to the person, who in the judgement of the committee or managersfor the time being of the Institution, should have been the author of the best essay illustrative of the wisdom and beneficence of the Almighty, in such department of science, as the committee of managersshould, in their discretion, have selected'. The first winner of this Actonian Prize was the Professor of Practical Chemistry at University College London, George Fownes. His ChemistryAs Exeinplifyingthe Wisdom and Beneficence of God,London, 1844, from which the quotation is taken, was inferior to the Chemical Bridgewater Treatise of William Prout. (See G. Wilson, Religio Chemici,London, 1862, pp. I-So, for a joint criticism of Fownes and Prout.) The Royal Institution's Actonian Prize is now given to an invited lecturer, and is not competitive. Note also The University of North Carolina's'John Calvin McNair' lecture bequest of 1857 to 'prove the existence and attributes . .. of God from Nature', and the terms of the Scottish Universities' Gifford Lecturesof 1887. (12) E.g. Athenaeum, 58, 349-350 (1834); Edinb. Rev., 58, 422-426 (I833-I834). (13) John D. Enys (ed.), CorrespondenceRegarding the Appointlicintof the Writers 'f the Bridge- ivater TreatisesBetveen Davies Gilbertand Others, priv. printed, Penryn, Cornwall, J. Gill & Son, 1877, 32 pp. Hereaftercited as 'Eiys'. (14) Phil. Mag. (2), 9, 200 (March 1831); Enys, p. 23. (I5) 14 February I829, Enys, p. 3. Farnboroughinherited property worth £4,ooo p.a. from the Bridgewater estate because Egerton was his wife's uncle. Sec 'Charles Long', D.N.B. 34, 99. (I6) I4 May 1829, Enys, p. 4. (I7) 12 May I829, Enys, p. 3. (i8) See 'John Thomas Graves', D.N.B. 22, 430. (I9) 8 June 1830, Enys, p. 4. (20) LettertoJohn Herschel,29June 1830,Enys, p. 5. (For original letter, see the Royal Society Herschel correspondence,HS. 8. I27.) Farnborough,on the other hand, was under the impression that the work was to be divided into only threeparts, 7 August 1830, Enys, p. 7. (21) 8 June 1830, Enys, p. 4. Roget's 'treatise'must have been either his An IntroductoryLecture on Human and ComparativePhysiology, London, I826, or one of his essays for the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge: NaturalPhilosophy, vol. 2, Electricity, Galvanism,Magnetism, Electromagnetism, London, 1829, etc. (22) H. Mayo, Outlinesof Physiology,London, I827, with several later editions. For Mayo, see D.N.B. 37, 172. (23) John Macculloch, M.D., F.R.S., F.L.S., F.G.S. (1773-1835), Proofsand Illustrationsof the Attributesof Godfromthe Factsand Lavws of the PhysicalUniverse, being the Foundationof Naturaland RevealedReligion, 3 vols., London, 1837, posthumous. See D.N.B. 35, 17. (24) Note thatJohn Kidd, Regius Professorof Medicine at Oxford, had previously published An IntroductoryLecture to a Coursein ComparativeAnatomy, illustrative of Paley'sNatural Theology,Oxford, I824. (25) Enys, pp. 6-7. See supra,note (20) for Gilbert'sletter. Enys did not print the second halves of Gilbert's letter and Herschel's reply; these were concerned with comments on a paper on optics by John Herapath. For Herschel's original draft, see Roy. Soc. Herschel correspondence,HS. 25.. . 5.

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 178

(26) See D.N.B. 48, 326; Phil Mag. (3), 12, 275-276 (1838). (27) 7 August 1830, Enys, p. 7. Locker had edited The Plain Englishmanwith CharlesKnight from I820-I823. A Fellow of the Royal Society, he is now principallyremembered for his creation of the gallery of naval portraitsat Greenwich. See D.N.B. 34, 4I. (28) iI September 1830, Enys, p. I5. (29) 28 August 1830, Enys, p. I2; note also ibid. pp. 8, io. For Wix, see D.N.B. 62, 275, and Gents Mag. 12, i, 94 (1862). (30) 17 August 1830, Enys, p. 8. (3I) 23 August 1830, Enys, p. 9. Bell's earliervolume was AnimalMechanics, or Proofsof Designi in theAnimal Frame, London, 1827 (Society for Diffusion of Useful Knowledge). Later he produced an annotated edition of Paley with Lord Brougham, Paley's Natural Theology, with . . . notes by Henry Lord Brougham . . . and Sir Charles Bell; to which are addedsupplementary dissertations by Sir C. Bell, London, 1836, 1842 and I845. (32) Enys, pp. 9, 10, II. (33) 'I agree with you in thinking thatLight might be the subjectof a distincttreatise, provided that it embracesOptics. Is chemistry to form a branch?If not Heat should be coupled with Light', 28 August 1830, Enys, p. ii. (34) i October 1830, Enys, p. I6. (35) Athenaeum, 58, 349, col. I (1834); note also Edinb. Rev. 58, 424 (1833-I834). (36) 28 August 1830, Enys, pp. II-I2. Knapp, a botanist, was never made a Fellow of the Royal Society. HisJournalof a Naturalistwas issued anonymously in I829, with further eds. in the same year and in 1831. See D.N.B. 31, 235. (37) 28 August I830, Enys, p. II. (38) T. Chalmers,First Bridgewatcr Treatise, 5th ed., edited byJ. Cumming, Bohn Scientific Library,London, I853, p. xxvii. For Chalmers'reply to Blomfield, 15 December 1830, see Enys, p. 20. (39) Buckland noted there were 87 plates and 705 figures, Sixth Bridgewater Treatise, London, 1836, vol. 2, p. vii. According to Alliborne'sDictionary of EnglishLiterature, London, 1885, I, 277, Buckland spent much of his fI,ooo on the illustrations. (40) E.g. The LiteraryGazette andJournal of Belles Lettres,Arts and Sciences,no. 733, p. 88, 5 February1831. (4I) 8 February 1831, Enys, pp. 20-21. (42) Phil. Mag. (2), 9, 200 (1831); Enys, pp. 21-24. (43) 13 October 1832, Enys, p. I7. (44) Chalmersand the infirm Kirby were unable to attend. (45) Aldus' English disciple; see S. H. Steinberg,Five HundredYears of Printitg,Pelican Books, 2nd ed., Harmondsworth, I96I, pp. 308-309. (46) Enys, pp. 31-32. (47) Cf. Herschel'sfeelings supra;also note the later reaction of John Tyndall when asked to edit a posthumous edition of Prout's treatisein I854, A. S. Eve and C. H. Creasey, Life and WorkofJohn Tyndall,London, 1945, p. 56. (The date of Tyndall's remark is incorrectly given as Io June 1854; it should be 19 November I854.) (48) 17 October 1830, Enys, p. I9. (49) C. Babbage, The Ninth BridgewaterTreatise: A Fragment,London, 1837, 2nd ed., I838. It was published by Murray who was perhaps somewhat vexed by the success of Pickering'seight treatises. (50) C. E. Raven, NaturalReligion and ChristianTheology, Cambridge, 1953, p. I73.

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 179 (51) W. Prout, Eighth Bridgewater Treatise, London, 1834. (a) p. 65. (b) 3rd ed., 1845, P. 399. (52) Mrs Gordon, Life and Correspondenceof WilliamBuckland, D.D., F.R.S., London, I894, p. I93. (53) Br. & For. Med. Rev. 21, 123 (I846).

This content downloaded from 150.135.114.29 on Sat, 4 May 2013 23:49:52 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions