DOCSLIB.ORG

The Great Debate the Great Debate

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Great Debate the Great Debate Learning more... The Great Debate The Great Debate On 30 June 1860 the Oxford The myth University Museum of Natural An account of the debate written thirty History hosted a clash of ideologies years after it happened has Wilberforce that has become known as the taunting Huxley by asking him whether ‘Huxley-Wilberforce Debate’, or ‘it was through his grandfather or his simply the ‘Great Debate’. grandmother that he claimed descent from a monkey?’ Huxley supposedly Thomas Henry Huxley whispered to Sir Benjamin Brodie: (1825-1895), nicknamed ‘The Lord hath delivered him unto my ‘Darwin’s bulldog’, was hand’ before replying, witheringly: ‘If championing Charles then the question is put to me whether Darwin’s revolutionary I would rather have a miserable ape for concept of evolution a grandfather or a man highly endowed by natural selection, by nature and possessed of great means Charles Darwin published less than a of influence and yet employs these year before. Meanwhile, faculties and that influence for the Samuel ‘Soapy Sam’ Wilberforce (1805- mere purpose of introducing ridicule 1873), Bishop of Oxford, threw all the into a grave scientific discussion, I force of his theological training into unhesitatingly affirm my preference for upholding the idea of the ape.’ But eye-witness biblical creation. Both accounts delivered sides claimed victory and soon after the event tell the debate continues to a somewhat different this very day. But what story. really took place? The protagonists The true story of what Huxley was a brilliant happened turns out to be young biologist, more complicated than Thomas Huxley Samuel welcomed into the the well-known myth... Wilberforce scientific establishment What is ‘Learning more’? first through his studies of invertebrate palaeontology and later of apes and ‘Learning more’ presents a series of humans. As one of Darwin’s closest articles about the Museum and its associates he was among the few to collections. It is designed for older know of the ideas in On the Origin students, teachers, researchers, of Species ahead of its publication. and anyone who wants to find out Reading it for the first time, he more about particular aspects of the declared: ‘How extremely stupid not to Museum’s work and its history. have thought of that.’ ‘Learning more’ articles are free, and available to all for educational, non- Wilberforce was Bishop of Oxford, profit purposes. Unless otherwise a position representing the pinnacle stated, the Museum retains copyright of a highly successful career in the of all material used in this leaflet. Church. Renowned as an eloquent and © Oxford University Museum of Natural History Page 1 Learning more... The Great Debate influential speaker, primarily on clerical Hydropathic Clinic in Petersham, topics, Wilberforce also had a first Surrey. Wilberforce was an Honorary class degree in mathematics and was a Vice President of the meeting: he Fellow of the Royal Society. was already an implacable foe of evolutionary ideas and had been tutored Before the confrontation of the Great in his arguments by Richard Owen, the Debate took place he had written a great anatomist and palaeontologist. review of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, in which he emphasised that On Thursday 28 June Professor Charles his rejection of the theory was ‘solely on Daubeny read a paper ‘On the final scientific grounds’, and that he had no causes of the sexuality in plants, with sympathy with those whose objections particular reference to Mr Darwin’s were on the grounds that it contradicted work...’. Owen countered with the what was ‘taught by Revelation’. exaggerated claim that the brain of a gorilla was more different from that of The scene is set a human than from The occasion for the debate was that of the lowest the annual meeting of the British primate. Huxley, Association for the Advancement of known for using the Science, an organisation established similarity of ape and in 1831 with the far-sighted aim human brains as of encouraging public debate and evidence of evolution, understanding of scientific matters. considered this a Each year it held a public conference in blatant challenge by a different city, attended largely by the Owen. He stood and well-to-do, but without the exclusivity Thomas Huxley contradicted Owen of London’s premier scientific academy, flatly, but politely. By Friday evening, the Royal Society. exhausted by all the argument, Huxley intended to go home. But another The meeting of 1860 marked the evolutionist, Robert Chambers, begged public inauguration of Oxford’s new him to stay on. ‘cathedral of science’, the University Museum, and took place before even Saturday’s meeting the collections had been fully installed On the Saturday morning the great or the architectural and good of British science assembled decorations - together with a crowd of Oxford completed. students, clerics and local ladies and gentlemen - in the library reading room Darwin’s On the on the first floor of the Museum. The Origin of Species by Rev. John Stevens Henslow, Darwin’s Means of Natural Cambridge botany professor and Selection had been lifelong friend, took the chair. published only seven months earlier. The main billing for Saturday’s session ‘Cathedral of science’ Darwin himself was was Dr John W. Draper of New York absent. Always in uncertain health, University, who read a long and he was taking a cure at Dr Lane’s boring paper titled ‘On the Intellectual © Oxford University Museum of Natural History Page 2 Learning more... The Great Debate Development of Europe, considered no! Let the learned Professor speak for with reference to the views of Mr. himself” and the like.’ Darwin and others, that the progression of organisms is determined by law’. July’s issue of a popular journal, The After he had finished, Henslow called Athenaeum, stated: ‘The Bishop of on others to respond and there was Oxford came out strongly against a some noisy reception from the students. theory which holds it possible that man After this, Henslow allowed the floor may be descended from an ape. But only to those with arguments and not others – conspicuous among these, ‘for mere declamation’. Prof. Huxley – have expressed their willingness to accept, for themselves, as Wilberforce then accepted an invitation well as for their friends and enemies, all to speak. He employed the same actual truths [...]’ Both accounts imply arguments that were set out in his that the ape-grandfather metaphor had anonymous review of The Origin, which originally been coined by Huxley rather was to appear in The Quarterly Review than Wilberforce. the following month. His rhetoric - now strictly logical, now witheringly Wilberforce sat down to tumultuous dismissive, always flamboyant - carried applause and Huxley rose to reply. the audience along; the majority was By his own account, in a letter to his with him in any friend Henry Dyster sent more than two case. Ladies in the window waved their months later, Huxley told the audience white handkerchiefs, students in the that he ‘had listened with great rear cheered and jeered, while the attention to the Lord Bishop’s speech clerics smugly applauded. At the end of but had been unable to discover either this all-out attack, Wilberforce added a new fact or a new argument in it – the one rhetorical flourish that has gone except indeed the question raised as to down in history. But what was it? Samuel Wilberforce my personal predilections in the matter of ancestry [...] That it would not have Insults traded occurred to me to bring forward such a Three days after the debate took place, topic as that for discussion myself, but John Richard Green wrote about it to that I was quite ready to meet the Right Sir William Boyd Dawkins. His letter Revd. Prelate even on that ground. If records: ‘Up rose Wilberforce and then, said I, the question is put to me proceeded to act as the Smasher. The would I rather have a miserable ape...’ white chokers [clergymen] who were and so on. present cheered lustily [...] as Samuel rattled on: “He had been told that Green’s account concurs: ‘Huxley – Professor Huxley had said that he didn’t young, cool, quiet, sarcastic, scientific see that it mattered much to a man in fact and in treatment [...] gave his whether his grandfather were an ape or Lordship such a smashing: “I asserted, and I repeat, that a man has no reason to be ashamed of having an ape for a grandfather. If there were an ancestor whom I should feel shame in recalling, it would rather be a man, a man of © Oxford University Museum of Natural History Page 3 Learning more... The Great Debate restless and versatile intellect, who, Hooker did not not content with [...] success in his own mention the ape- sphere of activity, plunges into scientific grandfather exchange questions with which he had no real which was the point acquaintance, only to obscure them by where Huxley had his an aimless rhetoric, and distract the success. One detects attention of his hearers from the real a certain rivalry as point at issue by eloquent digressions to which disciple and skilled appeals to religious Darwin should love prejudice.”’ best. Hooker prided himself that he had Hooker’s contribution ‘been congratulated and thanked by Darwin’s friend the botanist Joseph the blackest coats and whitest stocks Hooker did not think the exchange in Oxford.’ But the Bishop certainly worth mentioning when he wrote to tell judged Huxley his prime opponent, not Darwin what had passed. ‘Well, Sam Hooker. Oxon got up and spouted for half an hour with inimitable spirit, ugliness and Who won? emptiness and unfairness [...] Huxley All sides claimed to have won the answered admirably and turned the day.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Darwin and Doubt and the Response of the Victorian Churches Churchman 100/4 1986
    Darwin and Doubt and the Response of the Victorian Churches Churchman 100/4 1986 Nigel Scotland The Bible and Nineteenth Century Christians Although the Victorian Era was seen as one of the high points in the practice of English Christianity, and although outwardly speaking Church attendance remained at a relatively high level, below the surface many people were beginning to express a variety of doubts about the inspiration of the Bible and about points of Christian doctrine which had been cherished for centuries. These doubts stemmed in the main from two sources: discoveries in Science and the development of Biblical Criticism. The former caused men to question the traditional explanation of world origins and the latter brought doubts regarding the traditional doctrine of the inspiration of scripture. The main root of the problem lay in the Churches’ view of the scriptures. The Church in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century held a view of the scriptures which had been taken over from Greek thought in the early Christian centuries and been further reinforced by the Reformation. They thought of God literally breathing the Scripture into the writers of the Biblical documents. The result of this was that the Bible was held to speak authoritatively on all matters whether they related to man’s relationship to God or to the scientific origins of the Universe. The ordinary Christian man and woman in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries regarded the Judaeo-Christian religion as an Historical religion. It concerned the story of God’s historical acts in relation to his people.
    [Show full text]
  • Introduction
    5 Introduction Although the first finds of fossil hominids date back to 1891, thinking about evolution of Man started at least as early as 1844 when Robert Chambers anonymously published his book ‘Vestiges of Natural History of Creation’, in which he presented a development theory. Chambers did not stress the point, but his development hypothesis clearly made Man an immediate descendant of the apes. The anatomist Richard Owen used his expertise to disprove the theory of evolution at its most controversial point –man’s link with the apes by pointing at the heavy eye-brows of the great apes, which were missing in modern Man. As the eyebrows are independently developed, nor influenced by inner or outer factors, Man must have, if Man was descendent from the great apes, heavy eyebrows; and that, he pointed out is not the case. However, a decade later in the Neanderthal near Düsseldorf a skull was found with heavy eyebrows. The fossil came into the hands of Hermann Schaaffhausen, professor of anatomy at the University of Bonn, who was convinced that the remains were very old and hominid. Their strange morphology was caused by deformation, but the oligocephalic form of the skull was, according to Schaaffhausen, not comparable to any modern race, not even with the most ‘barbarian’ races. The heavy eyebrows, characteristic for great apes, were according to Schaaffhausen typical for the Neanderthal. The skull therefore must have belonged to an ‘original wild race of North-western Europe’. Some even considered it as the skull of an idiot, an ‘old Dutchman’ or a Cossack.
    [Show full text]
  • The Correspondence of Julius Haast and Joseph Dalton Hooker, 1861-1886
    The Correspondence of Julius Haast and Joseph Dalton Hooker, 1861-1886 Sascha Nolden, Simon Nathan & Esme Mildenhall Geoscience Society of New Zealand miscellaneous publication 133H November 2013 Published by the Geoscience Society of New Zealand Inc, 2013 Information on the Society and its publications is given at www.gsnz.org.nz © Copyright Simon Nathan & Sascha Nolden, 2013 Geoscience Society of New Zealand miscellaneous publication 133H ISBN 978-1-877480-29-4 ISSN 2230-4495 (Online) ISSN 2230-4487 (Print) We gratefully acknowledge financial assistance from the Brian Mason Scientific and Technical Trust which has provided financial support for this project. This document is available as a PDF file that can be downloaded from the Geoscience Society website at: http://www.gsnz.org.nz/information/misc-series-i-49.html Bibliographic Reference Nolden, S.; Nathan, S.; Mildenhall, E. 2013: The Correspondence of Julius Haast and Joseph Dalton Hooker, 1861-1886. Geoscience Society of New Zealand miscellaneous publication 133H. 219 pages. The Correspondence of Julius Haast and Joseph Dalton Hooker, 1861-1886 CONTENTS Introduction 3 The Sumner Cave controversy Sources of the Haast-Hooker correspondence Transcription and presentation of the letters Acknowledgements References Calendar of Letters 8 Transcriptions of the Haast-Hooker letters 12 Appendix 1: Undated letter (fragment), ca 1867 208 Appendix 2: Obituary for Sir Julius von Haast 209 Appendix 3: Biographical register of names mentioned in the correspondence 213 Figures Figure 1: Photographs
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 10, the Mistaken Extinction, by Lowell Dingus and Timothy Rowe, New York, W
    Chapter 10, The Mistaken Extinction, by Lowell Dingus and Timothy Rowe, New York, W. H. Freeman, 1998. CHAPTER 10 Dinosaurs Challenge Evolution Enter Sir Richard Owen More than 150 years ago, the great British naturalist Richard Owen (fig. 10.01) ignited the controversy that Deinonychus would eventually inflame. The word "dinosaur" was first uttered by Owen in a lecture delivered at Plymouth, England in July of 1841. He had coined the name in a report on giant fossil reptiles that were discovered in England earlier in the century. The root, Deinos, is usually translated as "terrible" but in his report, published in 1842, Owen chose the words "fearfully great"1. To Owen, dinosaurs were the fearfully great saurian reptiles, known only from fossil skeletons of huge extinct animals, unlike anything alive today. Fig. 10.01 Richard Owen as, A) a young man at about the time he named Dinosauria, B) in middle age, near the time he described Archaeopteryx, and C) in old age. Dinosaur bones were discovered long before Owen first spoke their name, but no one understood what they represented. The first scientific report on a dinosaur bone belonging was printed in 1677 by Rev. Robert Plot in his work, The Natural History of Oxfordshire. This broken end of a thigh bone, came to Plot's attention during his research. It was nearly 60 cm in circumference--greater than the same bone in an elephant (fig.10.02). We now suspect that it belonged to Megalosaurus bucklandii, a carnivorous dinosaur now known from Oxfordshire. But Plot concluded that it "must have been a real Bone, now petrified" and that it resembled "exactly the figure of the 1 Chapter 10, The Mistaken Extinction, by Lowell Dingus and Timothy Rowe, New York, W.
    [Show full text]
  • WHEATLEY CHURCH RECORDS Sent Through the Post to the Rev
    WHEATLEY CHURCH RECORDS sent through the post to the Rev. John Fuller in October 2001, and now listed in chronological order 1. n.d. [1827?], single sheet endorsed “State of the fund for the repair of the Chapel at Wheatley from 1802 to 1826”. 2. 26 January 1835, paper headed “Copies of some of the Papers in the Parish Chest at Wheatley”, 3. 23 October 1835, statement prepared by the Archdeacon of Oxford of the “State of the Fund set apart by decree of the Court of Chancery for the purpose of upholding and repairing the Chapel at Wheatley”, “From the 1st Investment in 1793 to the end of 1834”. It is not clear whether this document is a copy, or whether the word Copy which appears in three places is an instruction to copy. 4. 31 March 1842, statement of money received by Mr. Walsh, the Chapel Warden of Wheatley, from Mr. Burder, and of its expenditure. 5. 8 November 1845, Faculty from the Bishop of Oxford, Richard Bagot, giving the curate, the Rev. Bowater James Vernon, the churchwarden, parishioners and inhabitants of Wheatley permission to move the pulpit and reading desk The parchment is tom from the top to half-way down. 6. 24 December 1849, formal instrument signed by the Prime Minister, Lord John Russell, and the Bishop of Oxford, Samuel Wilberforce, as patron and incumbent of the Rectory of Cuddesdon, conveying their assent to the solemnization of marriages in St. Mary's Chapel at Wheatley. Registered in the diocese by John M. Davenport on 7 January 1850.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing the Dinosaur: Richard Owen's Response to Robert Edmond Grant Author(S): Adrian J
    Designing the Dinosaur: Richard Owen's Response to Robert Edmond Grant Author(s): Adrian J. Desmond Source: Isis, Vol. 70, No. 2 (Jun., 1979), pp. 224-234 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The History of Science Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/230789 . Accessed: 16/10/2013 13:00 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 University of Chicago Press and The History of Science Society are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Isis. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 150.135.115.18 on Wed, 16 Oct 2013 13:00:27 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions Designing the Dinosaur: Richard Owen's Response to Robert Edmond Grant By Adrian J. Desmond* I N THEIR PAPER on "The Earliest Discoveries of Dinosaurs" Justin Delair and William Sarjeant permit Richard Owen to step in at the last moment and cap two decades of frenzied fossil collecting with the word "dinosaur."' This approach, I believe, denies Owen's real achievement while leaving a less than fair impression of the creative aspect of science.
    [Show full text]
  • Marsupials As Ancestors Or Sister Taxa?
    Archives of natural history 39.2 (2012): 217–233 Edinburgh University Press DOI: 10.3366/anh.2012.0091 # The Society for the History of Natural History www.eupjournals.com/anh Darwin’s two competing phylogenetic trees: marsupials as ancestors or sister taxa? J. DAVID ARCHIBALD Department of Biology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA 92182–4614, USA (e-mail: [email protected]). ABSTRACT: Studies of the origin and diversification of major groups of plants and animals are contentious topics in current evolutionary biology. This includes the study of the timing and relationships of the two major clades of extant mammals – marsupials and placentals. Molecular studies concerned with marsupial and placental origin and diversification can be at odds with the fossil record. Such studies are, however, not a recent phenomenon. Over 150 years ago Charles Darwin weighed two alternative views on the origin of marsupials and placentals. Less than a year after the publication of On the origin of species, Darwin outlined these in a letter to Charles Lyell dated 23 September 1860. The letter concluded with two competing phylogenetic diagrams. One showed marsupials as ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals, whereas the other showed a non-marsupial, non-placental as being ancestral to both living marsupials and placentals. These two diagrams are published here for the first time. These are the only such competing phylogenetic diagrams that Darwin is known to have produced. In addition to examining the question of mammalian origins in this letter and in other manuscript notes discussed here, Darwin confronted the broader issue as to whether major groups of animals had a single origin (monophyly) or were the result of “continuous creation” as advocated for some groups by Richard Owen.
    [Show full text]
  • The Canterbury Association
    The Canterbury Association (1848-1852): A Study of Its Members’ Connections By the Reverend Michael Blain Note: This is a revised edition prepared during 2019, of material included in the book published in 2000 by the archives committee of the Anglican diocese of Christchurch to mark the 150th anniversary of the Canterbury settlement. In 1850 the first Canterbury Association ships sailed into the new settlement of Lyttelton, New Zealand. From that fulcrum year I have examined the lives of the eighty-four members of the Canterbury Association. Backwards into their origins, and forwards in their subsequent careers. I looked for connections. The story of the Association’s plans and the settlement of colonial Canterbury has been told often enough. (For instance, see A History of Canterbury volume 1, pp135-233, edited James Hight and CR Straubel.) Names and titles of many of these men still feature in the Canterbury landscape as mountains, lakes, and rivers. But who were the people? What brought these eighty-four together between the initial meeting on 27 March 1848 and the close of their operations in September 1852? What were the connections between them? In November 1847 Edward Gibbon Wakefield had convinced an idealistic young Irishman John Robert Godley that in partnership they could put together the best of all emigration plans. Wakefield’s experience, and Godley’s contacts brought together an association to promote a special colony in New Zealand, an English society free of industrial slums and revolutionary spirit, an ideal English society sustained by an ideal church of England. Each member of these eighty-four members has his biographical entry.
    [Show full text]
  • BIOL 1406 Darwin's Dangerous Idea
    BIOL 1406 Darwin’s Dangerous Idea - Video Exam I Essay Question: (Matching Format) Describe the history of the scientific theory, biological evolution by means of natural selection: and focus on the life of Charles Darwin as portrayed in the PBS production, Darwin’s Dangerous Idea. Be sure to describe the roles of the following: "Raz", Robert FitzRoy, Emma Darwin, Annie Darwin, Richard Owen, Charles Lyell, Thomas Malthus, Samuel Wilberforce, and Thomas Huxley.) 1.Describe Captain Fitzroy’s perspective when it comes to “free-thinking” 2. What does Fitzroy allow Darwin to borrow? 3. Who was “Raz”? 4. Who was Richard Owen? 5. What was Owen’s view on “free-thinking” with regard to human ancestory? 6. What was Owen so afraid of? 7. Who was Emma (Wedgewood) Darwin? How did she influence Charles Darwin with regard to his scientific inquiry ? 8. What type of disease do we now speculate that Darwin may have suffered from? How did he get the disease? 9. Who was Annie Darwin? 10. When Annie left, what affect did this have on Darwin? 11. Who was Charles Lyell? What role did he play in influencing Darwin? 12. Who was Thomas Malthus? What did he do to influence Darwin? 13. What did Richard Owen do that was scientifically unethical? Why did he do this? 14. Who was Samuel Wilberforce? 15. Who was Thomas Henry Huxley? What did he do to influence Darwin? 16. Who was Alfred Russel Wallace? What did he do to influence Darwin? 17. What motivated Darwin to study so many different organisms; i.e.
    [Show full text]
  • Styles of Reasoning in Early to Mid-Victorian Life Research: Analysis:Synthesis and Palaetiology
    Journal of the History of Biology (2006) Ó Springer 2006 DOI 10.1007/s10739-006-0006-4 Styles of Reasoning in Early to Mid-Victorian Life Research: Analysis:Synthesis and Palaetiology JAMES ELWICK Science and Technology Studies Faculties of Arts and Science and Engineering York University 4700 Keele St. M3J 1P3 Toronto, ON Canada E-mail: [email protected] Abstract. To better understand the work of pre-Darwinian British life researchers in their own right, this paper discusses two different styles of reasoning. On the one hand there was analysis:synthesis, where an organism was disintegrated into its constituent parts and then reintegrated into a whole; on the other hand there was palaetiology, the historicist depiction of the progressive specialization of an organism. This paper shows how each style allowed for development, but showed it as moving in opposite directions. In analysis:synthesis, development proceeded centripetally, through the fusion of parts. Meanwhile in palaetiology, development moved centrifugally, through the ramifying specialization of an initially simple substance. I first examine a com- munity of analytically oriented British life researchers, exemplified by Richard Owen, and certain technical questions they considered important. These involved the neu- rosciences, embryology, and reproduction and regeneration. The paper then looks at a new generation of British palaetiologists, exemplified by W.B. Carpenter and T.H. Huxley, who succeeded at portraying analysts’ questions as irrelevant. The link between styles of reasoning and physical sites is also explored. Analysts favored museums, which facilitated the examination and display of unchanging marine organisms while providing a power base for analysts. I suggest that palaetiologists were helped by vivaria, which included marine aquaria and Wardian cases.
    [Show full text]
  • ABSTRACT in the Early Nineteenth Century, the Church
    ABSTRACT In the early nineteenth century, the Church of England faced a crisis of self- understanding as a result of political and social changes occurring in Britain. The church was forced to determine what it meant to be the established church of the nation in light of these new circumstances. In the 1830s, a revival took place within the Church of England which prompted a renewal of the theology and practice of the church, including the Eucharist. This revival, known as the Oxford Movement, breathed new life into the High Church party. A heightened emphasis was placed on the sacramental life and on the Eucharist as the focus of worship. Adherents of the Oxford Movement developed a Eucharistic theology which promoted a closer connection between the elements and Christ’s presence in the Eucharist than did the earlier Anglican tradition. One of the exponents of this Eucharistic theology was Robert Isaac Wilberforce (1802- 1857). The second son of anti-slavery crusader William Wilberforce, Robert was raised in a family of prominent Anglican Evangelicals. At the University of Oxford he came under the influence of his tutor, John Keble, who was one of the four leaders of the Oxford Movement during its heyday. The Gorham case, whose focus was ostensibly the question of baptismal regeneration, turned into a debate on the state’s control over the established church. Robert 1 Wilberforce was called upon to articulate the sacramental theology of the Oxford Movement, which he did in his three major works, The Doctrine of Holy Baptism: With Remarks to the Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • Miranda, 5 | 2011 Jim Endersby, Imperial Nature: Joseph Hooker and the Practices of Victorian S
    Miranda Revue pluridisciplinaire du monde anglophone / Multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal on the English- speaking world 5 | 2011 South and Race / Staging Mobility in the United States Jim Endersby, Imperial Nature: Joseph Hooker and the Practices of Victorian Science Laurence Talairach-Vielmas Édition électronique URL : http://journals.openedition.org/miranda/2550 ISSN : 2108-6559 Éditeur Université Toulouse - Jean Jaurès Référence électronique Laurence Talairach-Vielmas, « Jim Endersby, Imperial Nature: Joseph Hooker and the Practices of Victorian Science », Miranda [En ligne], 5 | 2011, mis en ligne le 29 novembre 2011, consulté le 25 octobre 2018. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/miranda/2550 Ce document a été généré automatiquement le 25 octobre 2018. Miranda is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Jim Endersby, Imperial Nature: Joseph Hooker and the Practices of Victorian S... 1 Jim Endersby, Imperial Nature: Joseph Hooker and the Practices of Victorian Science Laurence Talairach-Vielmas RÉFÉRENCE Jim Endersby, Imperial Nature : Joseph Hooker and the Practices of Victorian Science (Chicago and London : The University of Chicago Press, [2008] 2010), 429 p, ISBN 978–0–226–20791– 9 1 L’ouvrage de Jim Endersby, Imperial Nature : Joseph Hooker and the Practices of Victorian Science, ne se veut pas une biographie du naturaliste Joseph Dalton Hooker (1817–1911). Bien au contraire. Hooker fut un scientifique véritablement victorien, dont la carrière retrace l’évolution du statut de scientifique, les enjeux et tensions au cœur de la profession et les liens entre scientifiques et naturalistes amateurs. L’étude de Endersby se concentre sur les années charnières de la carrière de Hooker, avant son accession à la tête de Kew Gardens, à un moment où le statut du scientifique est en pleine évolution.
    [Show full text]