Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-08T05:37:25.578Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Scientists and Broad Churchmen: an Early Victorian Intellectual Network*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2014

Walter F. Cannon
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The late Victorians popularized several ideas which have tended to obscure what was actually going on in intellectual matters in the early part of the nineteenth century. One of these is the notion that, whenever science and religion came into contact, some degree of scientific excellence was sacrificed, if only because the scientists themselves believed in the theological ideas. Another is the judgment that Dean Stanley, a “passive peaceable Protestant” always seeking compromise, was the typical Broad Churchman. And a third is the acceptance of Leslie Stephen's description of an arid “Cambridge rationalism” not only as enlightening (which it is) but also as complete.

These and other similar misconceptions could be propagated because the later Victorian intellectual “aristocracy” or “self-reviewing circle,” as described so well by Noel Annan, was not continuous with that of the earlier period. Such physical descendants as did remain, notably Matthew Arnold and Leslie Stephen, played quite different roles in the new circle from those which their fathers had filled in the older, looser, grouping. The founders of the new aristocracy selected their mythic figures with an eye to current usefulness rather than with strict attention to the history of the earlier generation. This was to be expected. One could not expect Thomas Huxley to emphasize the great abilities of the geologist Adam Sedgwick when it was just such a reputation which supported “the old Adam” in his attack on Darwin's theories.

In order to indicate the inadequacy of the three conceptions listed above, and others like them, it is the purpose of this article to use the indirect method of sketching the coming together of those men who were the mentors not only of Darwin but also of Stanley, of Tennyson, of Frederick Denison Maurice, of Lord Kelvin, and of James Clerk Maxwell.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of British Studies , Volume 4 , Issue 1 , November 1964 , pp. 65 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © North American Conference of British Studies 1964

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

This article was written during the tenure of a grant from the National Science Foundation. I should like to thank the Council of the Royal Society for permission to use their archives, and the Librarian of the Royal Society for furnishing a year-long welcome. I should also like to thank the Curator of Astronomy and Mathematics of the Science Museum, the Astronomer Royal and Dr. P. S. Laurie of the Royal Greenwich Observatory, and the Councils and/or Librarians of the Royal Astronomical Society, the Geological Survey, the Cambridge Philosophical Society, the Colleges of St. John and of the Holy and Undivided Trinity (Cambridge), and Somerville College, for permission to use their archives, and for their assistance.

References

1. Derived from Lyell, Charles, Principles of Geology (2nd ed.; London, 1832–1833), I, 2-13, 69–70Google Scholar; popularized by Huxley, Thomas, “On the Reception of the Origin of Species,” in Darwin, Charles, Life and Letters, ed. Darwin, Francis (London, 1888), II, 179–204Google Scholar; widely repeated down to the present.

2. Prothero, Rowland, The Life and Correspondence of Arthur Penrhyn Stanley (New York, 1894), II, 173Google Scholar.

3. Expertly recapitulated in Annan, Noel, Leslie Stephen (London, 1951), pp. 140ff.Google Scholar

4. “aristocracy” is Annan's term, “self-reviewing circle” is mine.

5. See the studies of Sanders, Charles R., Coleridge and the Broad Church Movement (Durham, N.C., 1942)Google Scholar; Forbes, Duncan, The Liberal Anglican Idea of History (Cambridge, 1952)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Winstanley, D. A., Early Victorian Cambridge (Cambridge, 1940)Google Scholar; Brookfield, Frances M., The Cambridge Apostles (New York, 1907)Google Scholar.

6. Private communications.

7. Sanders, , Coleridge and the Broad Church Movement, p. 113Google Scholar.

8. In terminology, therefore, this article is a correction to Cannon, Walter F., “The Role of the Cambridge Movement in Early Nineteenth Century Science,” Proceedings of the Xth International Congress of the History of Science, 1962Google Scholar.

9. See her Scientific Correspondence, in the Mary Somerville Papers, Somerville College, Oxford.

10. Thus Thomas Macaulay refused to take mathematics seriously but was made a Fellow of Trinity in 1824 because of his classical abilities: Trevelyan, George O., Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay (London, 1901), pp. 60–61Google Scholar.

11. Schneider, Ben R. Jr., Wordsworth's Cambridge Education (Cambridge, 1952)Google Scholar, is a good study of the University's intellectual life at the end of the eighteenth century.

12. Lubbock, Constance A. (ed.), The Herschel Chronicle (Cambridge, 1933), pp. 348–50Google Scholar.

13. Cf. John Herschel to Fearon Fallows, 8 Dec., 1816. John Herschel Papers, St. John's College, Cambridge.

14. On St. Petersburg, see Cannon, Walter F., “John Herschel and the Idea of Science,” J.H.I., XXII (1961), 217-19, 230Google Scholar. On Harvard, see G. P. Bond to Herschel, 24 June, 1851, John Herschel Papers, Royal Society. [These papers are hereafter cited as Herschel Papers, Royal Society. They include a number of copies, which are cited without distinction from originals.]

15. Mullett, Charles F., “Charles Babbage, a Scientific Gadfly,” Scientific Monthly, LXVII (1948), 361–71Google Scholar; Morrison, Philip and Morrison, Emily (eds.), Charles Babbage and his Calculating Engines (New York, 1961)Google Scholar. The relations of government to scientists and scholars were of considerably greater magnitude and complexity in this period than is usually recognized. They deserve a full study in themselves.

16. Peacock, George, A Treatise on Algebra (Cambridge, 1830)Google Scholar, and A Treatise on Algebra (Cambridge, 1842–1845)Google Scholar [Peacock denied that the second book was a new edition of the first]; Peacock, , “Report on the recent progress and present State of certain branches of Analysis,” British Association Report, III (1833), pp. 185–288Google Scholar; Cambridge History of English Literature (Cambridge, 1916), XIV, 555Google Scholar.

17. Boole, George, An Investigation of the Laws of Thought (New York, 1854), pp. 239, 299, 403, 416n, 420Google Scholar (sec. 9); see also Boole to Whewell, 7 Feb., 1854, Whewell Papers, Trinity College, Cambridge; Boole's “Sonnet to the Number Three” quoted in Kneale, William, “Boole and the Revival of Logic,” Mind, LVII (1948), 157CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kneale, William and Kneale, Martha, The Development of Logic (Oxford, 1962), pp. 398, 404Google Scholar.

18. Airy, George, Autobiography, ed. Airy, Wilfred (Cambridge, 1896), p. 48Google Scholar.

19. Herschel to Francis Beaufort, 5 Mar., 1831, Beaufort to Herschel, 7 Mar., 1831. Herschel Papers, Royal Society. The Government had rather hoped to get Herschel himself.

20. For a good account of the affair, see Grosser, Morton, The Discovery of Neptune (Cambridge, Mass., 1962)Google Scholar, which is not completely exhaustive as regards the English scene. Grant, Robert, History of Physical Astronomy (London, 1852), pp. 198–200Google Scholar, contains a spirited defense of Airy's conduct. At all events, it seems clear that contemporary Cambridge opinion was based as much on chagrin that one of the University's own men had been forestalled as it was on judicious consideration of the duties of the Astronomer Royal.

21. Trevelyan, , Life and Letters of Macaulay, p. 480Google Scholar. Carlyle, of course, was not an Englishman.

22. Whewell, William, An Essay on Mineralogical Classification (Cambridge, 1828)Google Scholar; Deas, Herbert, “Crystallography and Crystallographers in England in the Nineteenth Century,” Centaurus, VI (1959), 129–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23. See Cannon, Walter F., “Uniformitarian-Catastrophist Debate,” Isis, LI (1960), 44-46, 53–55Google Scholar.

24. Evans, Joan, John Ruskin (New York, 1954), pp. 141, 146, 165nGoogle Scholar; Ruskin's letters to Whewell, Whewell Papers, Trinity College, Cambridge.

25. Clark, J. W., “The Founding and Early History of the Society,” Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc., VII (1891), ii–viiGoogle Scholar.

26. “Testimonials in favor of James D. Forbes … for the Chair of Natural Philosophy in the University of Edinburgh,” Roderick Murchison Pamphlet Collection, Geological Survey Library, IV; Forbes to Herschel, 1 Dec, 13 Dec., 1832, Herschel Papers, Royal Society.

27. Herschel to Sedgwick, 7 May, 1856. Herschel Papers, Royal Society; on Forbes's own work, see Sharp, J. C., Tait, P. G., and Reilly, A. Adams, Life and Letters of James David Forbes (London, 1873)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, chs. xiv-xv; on his relation to Clerk Maxwell, see Campbell, Lewis and Garnett, William, Life of James Clerk Maxwell (London, 1884), esp. p. 57Google Scholar.

28. de Morgan, Sophie, Memoir of Augustus de Morgan (London, 1882), pp. 46–48Google Scholar; Dreyer, J. L. E. and Turner, H. H. (eds.), History of the Royal Astronomical Society (London, 1923), pp. 3, 20, 26Google Scholar.

29. B. Edwards, Secretary of the African Association, to Baily, 28 May, 1799. De Morgan Papers, Royal Astronomical Society.

30. Airy, , Autobiography, p. 134Google Scholar.

31. Dreyer, and Turner, , Astronomical Society, p. 118Google Scholar.

32. Kirwan, L. P., A History of Polar Exploration (London, 1959), p. 159Google Scholar, which also discusses the role of Captain Washington.

33. The work of the conspirators is made clear in their correspondences in the John Herschel and Edward Sabine Papers at the Royal Society. For the threat of Peel, see Sabine to Herschel, 1 Apr., 4 Sep., 1839. Herschel Papers, Royal Society.

34. Herschel to Fitton, 18 Oct., 1830, Herschel to Babbage, 26 Nov., 1830, Herschel to Beaufort, 26 Nov., 1830. Herschel Papers, Royal Society; Williams, L. Pearce, “The Royal Society and the Founding of the British Association for the Advancement of Science,” Notes and Records of the Royal Society, XVI (1961), 221–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35. A general account of the reform is given by Lyons, Henry, The Royal Society, 1660-1940 (Cambridge, 1944)Google Scholar, ch. vii.

36. Faraday to Herschel, 21 Aug., 1827, 10 Nov., 1832. Herschel Papers, Royal Society.

37. Herschel to Vernon Harcourt, 5 Sep., 1831, Herschel to Whewell, 20 Sep., 1831. Herschel Papers, Royal Society.

38. Lithographed Signatures of the Members of the British Association for the Advancement of Science … with a Report of the Proceedings at the Public Meetings (Cambridge, 1833), pp. 82, 90–92Google Scholar; Babbage, Charles, Passages from the Life of a Philosopher (London, 1864), pp. 433–34Google Scholar; Bonar, James and Macrosty, H. W., Annals of the Royal Statistical Society (London, 1934), pp. 4–10Google Scholar.

39. Whewell, William, “Mathematical Exposition of some Doctrines of Political Economy,” Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc., III (1830), 191–230Google Scholar, and “Mathematical Exposition of some of the Leading Doctrines in Mr. Ricardo's ‘Principles of Political Economy and Taxation,’” Trans. Camb. Phil. Soc., IV (1833), 155–98Google Scholar; Babbage, Charles, Economy of Machinery and Manufactures (London, 1832)Google Scholar, and cf. his “Travelling Scribbling Book,” pp. 17-87, Babbage Manuscripts, Science Museum. A discussion of Johnes's work in economics is given in Roll, Eric, A History of Economic Thought (rev. ed.; London, 1961), pp. 311–18Google Scholar.

40. Herschel to S. P. Rigaud, 8 Apr., 15 Aug., 1831. Herschel Papers, Royal Society.

41. The expansion of this interest is very nicely illustrated by the following sequence: Broderip, W. J., Hints for Collecting Animals and Their Products (London, 1832)Google Scholar, a twelve-page pamphlet; the Royal Society's Reports of Committees Requested by the Admiralty for Ross's Antarctic expedition, described in Report of the Committee of Physics (London, 1840), pp. iii–ivGoogle Scholar; and Herschel, John (ed.), A Manual of Scientific Enquiry; Prepared for the Use of Her Majesty's Navy (London, 1849)Google Scholar, a 488-page book published by John Murray, with chapters by Herschel, Airy, Sabine, Whewell, Darwin, Owen, Hooker, Prichard, Beechey, De la Beche, and others.

42. Hare, Augustus J. C., Memorials of a Quiet Life (12th ed.; London, 1874–1876), I, 149Google Scholar.

43. See his Course of Lectures Containing a Description and Systematic Arrangement of the Several Branches of Divinity (Cambridge, 1809)Google Scholar.

44. Tuell, A. K., John Sterling (New York, 1941), p. 162Google Scholar; Bunsen, Frances, Memoir of Baron Bunsen (London, 1868), I, 396Google Scholar.

45. Symons, Julian, Thomas Carlyle (New York, 1952), p. 105Google Scholar.

46. Tuell, , John Sterling, pp. 162–63Google Scholar.

47. Bamford, T. W., Thomas Arnold (London, 1960), p. 195Google Scholar.

48. Quoted in Martin, Kingsley, The Crown and the Establishment (London, 1963), p. 36Google Scholar.

49. Brookfield, , Cambridge Apostles, p. 8Google Scholar.

50. See Cannon, Walter F., “Problem of Miracles in the 1830's,” Victorian Studies, IV (1960), 5–32Google Scholar, esp. notes 15, 17, and 21; Todhunter, Isaac, William Whewell (London, 1876), I, 349Google Scholar.

51. Packe, Michael, The Life of John Stuart Mill (London, 1954), p. 83Google Scholar.

52. Wordsworth, William and Wordsworth, Dorothy, The Letters of William and Dorothy Wordsworth: The Later Years, ed. de Selincourt, Ernest (Oxford, 1939), II, 934–36Google Scholar, #1260.

53. Clark, J. W. and Hughes, T. M., The Life and Letters of the Reverend Adam Sedgwick (Cambridge, 1890), I, 246–49Google Scholar; II, 41; Wordsworth to Whewell, 4 Dec., 1828, 12 Mar., 1829. Whewell Papers, Trinity College, Cambridge; Wordsworth, , Letters of … Wordsworth, II, 556-57, 679-80, #973, 1065Google Scholar. The especially relevant section of the Excursion is Bk. II, lines 173-89.

54. Beatty, Frederika, William Wordsworth of Rydal Mount (London, 1939), pp. 230–33Google Scholar.

55. Hare, , Memorials of a Quiet Life, II, 273Google Scholar; III, 224. Hare, Augustus J. C., The Years with Mother (London, n. d.), pp. 40, 51Google Scholar; Bamford, , Thomas Arnold, p. 56Google Scholar; Prothero, , Life and Correspondence of Stanley, I, 100Google Scholar; Clark, and Hughes, , Life and Letters of Sedgwick, I, 431Google Scholar; Wordsworth, , Letters of … Wordsworth, I, 508-10, #941, II, 627-28, #1025, III, 1204–05Google Scholar, #1527.

56. Hare, , Memorials of a Quiet Life, II, 332Google Scholar; III, 235. Hare, , Years with Mother, p. xiGoogle Scholar.

57. Prothero, , Life and Correspondence of Stanley, I, 3;Google Scholar II, 415. Clark, and Hughes, , Life and Letters of Sedgwick, IIGoogle Scholar, ch. ix.

58. Hare, , Years with Mother, p. 66Google Scholar.

59. Thirlwall, John Connop Jr., Connop Thirlwall (London, 1936), pp. 179, 245Google Scholar.

60. Trevelyan, , Life and Letters of Macaulay, p. 142Google Scholar; “Early Roman History,” Quarterly Review, XXXII (1825), 67–92Google Scholar.

61. Trevelyan, , Life and Letters of Macaulay, pp. 312, 316-17, 319Google Scholar.

62. Clark, and Hughes, , Life and Letters of Sedgwick, II, 292–93Google Scholar.

63. Herschel's Diary, 20-26 Jan., 1858. Herschel Papers, Royal Society.

64. Prothero, , Life and Correspondence of Stanley, II, 317;Google ScholarHerschel, , Preliminary Discourse, p. 10Google Scholar.

65. See Cannon, Walter F., “Impact of Uniformitarianism,” Proc. Amer. Philos. Soc., CV (1961), 301–02Google Scholar.

66. Darwin, , Life and Letters, I, 191–93Google Scholar; Fitzroy to Lady Herschel, 29 June, 1836, Fitzroy to Herschel, 21 Feb., 1841, 8 Apr., 1858. Herschel Papers, Royal Society.

67. Hare, , Memorials of a Quiet Life, I, 132.Google Scholar

68. Sanders, , Coleridge and the Broad Church Movement, p. 138Google Scholar; Hare, , Memorids of a Quiet Life, I, 195.Google Scholar

69. Bunsen, , Memoir of Baron Bunsen, I, 140.Google Scholar

70. Hetschel, , Preliminary Discourse, p. 259Google Scholar.

71. Faraday to Herschel, 10 Nov., 1832, and (reporting Faraday's remarks to Andrews) Thomas Andrews to Herschel, 11 Feb., 1871. Herschel Papers, Royal Society.

72. Airy to Herschel, 20 Mar., 1857. Herschel Papers, Royal Society; cf. Williams, L. Pearce, “Boscovich and the British Chemists,” Roger Joseph Boscovich, ed. Whyte, L. L. (London, 1961), pp. 153–63Google Scholar; and Williams, L. Pearce, “The Physical Science in the First Half of the Nineteenth Centuary,” History of Science, I (1962), 7, 10Google Scholar.

73. Hare, , Memorials of a Quiet Life, II, 186;Google ScholarBunsen, , Memoir of Baron Bunsen, I, 427.Google Scholar

74. Sedgwick, Adam, A Discourse on the Studies of the University (Cambridge, 1833)Google Scholar; Mill, John S., “Professor Sedgwick's Discourse,” Dissertations and Discussions (Boston, 1864), I, 121–85Google Scholar.

75. Herschel-Mill Correspondence. Herschel Papers, Royal Society.

76. Todhunter, , William Whewell, I, 129–30Google Scholar; II, 187, 298.

77. Ellegärd, Alvar, Darwin and the General Reader (Göteborg, 1958), pp. 220ff.Google Scholar

78. Lyell, Charles, Life Letters and Journals, ed. Lyell, K. (London, 1881), I, 270, 312, 351, 355, 359Google Scholar; Todhunter, , Whewell, I, 57Google Scholar; II, 108-09. [Whewell, William], “Lyell — Principles of Geology,” British Critic, IX (1831), 195Google Scholar; Sedgwick, Adam, “Address of the President (1831),” Proc. Geol. Soc. London, I (1826–1833), 302–03Google Scholar.

79. Stephen-Whewell Correspondence. Whewell Papers, Trinity College, Cambridge.

80. Crowther, J. G., British Scientists of the Nineteenth Century (London, 1962), p. 213Google Scholar.

81. De Morgan, , Augustus de Morgan, pp. 235–55Google Scholar.

82. Herschel's Diary, 17 May, 17 Aug., 18 Nov., 1853; 19 Feb., 16 Dec., 1854; 5 Feb., 1855. Herschel Papers, Royal Society.

83. Packe, , Life of John Stuart Mill, p. 86Google Scholar.

84. As scientists have traditionally recognized the existence of a “Cambridge School of Physics” in the mid-nineteenth century, so theologians from the time of James Martineau have recognized a “Cambridge School of Theology” in the second half of the century. See Thirlwall, , Thirlwall, p. 188Google Scholar; Ramsay, Arthur, F. D. Maurice and the Conflicts of Modern Theology (Cambridge, 1951), p. 105Google Scholar. However I have not investigated Lightfoot, Hort, Westcott, etc., so as to be able to make any assertions of my own.