Research in Science Education, 1992, 22, 149 - 156

THE HISTORICAL ANECDOTE AS A "CARICATURE": A CASE STUDY

Colin Gauld
University of New South Wales
ABSTRACT
Much discussion has recently taken place about uses which can be made
of historical material in science teaching. A great deal of advice, taking
advantage of the particular and unique contributions which the history of
science can make to science education, is available.
The encounter between Thomas Huxley and Bishop Wilberforce in 1860
is frequently referred to when teaching about the theory of evolution and
an investigation of the main characteristics of reports of this incident in
both educational and historical literature has been carried out. The
purposes of using this incident in the educational setting are identified and
the appropriateness of these purposes is discussed in the light of a
historical understanding of this encounter.
INTRODUCTION
Historical anecdotes have two major functions in science teaching (Gauld, 1977). The
disciplinary function of the anecdote is to help in the teaching of scientific concepts and the
historical dimension is simply a vehicle for conveying information about the meaning of
scientific terms, of providing evidence for the point of view being taught (such as Darwin's
theory) or against a view being rejected (such as Lamarck's). A more recent rationale for
using history in this way is based on the similarities which appear to exist between the
ideas of pupils and those now discarded ideas of early scientists (Gauld, 1991). Evidence
which brought about changes in the ideas of the scientific community in the past is used
to produce similar changes in the ideas of school pupils today. In some cases the
disciplinary function of historical anecdotes may be based not on their conceptual content
but simply on their motivational value - their appeal as "interesting stories".
The cultural function of historical anecdotes focuses attention on the more humanistic
aspects of science - on the way people do science, on the way evidence is evaluated and
how it affects the theoretical commitments of scientists, on the interactions between science
and society and so on.
The claim that a historical anecdote represents history is more important when it functions
in the second sense than for its disciplinary function. It may convey scientific concepts quite
adequately whether or not the account is historically accurate but what it conveys in its
cultural role will be severely distorted if care is not taken to ensure a certain degree of
historical integrity.
In this paper the functions and characteristics of reports, in both the educational and
historical literature, about the encounter between Samuel Wilberforce, Bishop of Oxford,
and Thomas Henry Huxley at the 1860 meeting of the British Association, are examined.
150
THE ENCOUNTER
Since the centenary, in 1959, of the publication of Darwin' s Thr Origin of Species much
information has become available about the encounter and what took place. In its report
of the meeting (Section D of the British Association conference on Saturday 30 June 1860)
at which the encounter took place The Athenaeum of 14 July 1860 reported speeches by
nine people. The "keynote" address by Professor J.W. Draper was entitled "On the
intellectual development of Europe, considered with reference t o the views of Mr. Darwin
and others, that the progression of organisms is determined by law", Wilberforce' s and
Huxley' s speeches were the fourth and fifth reported and Joseph Hooker' s the ninth.
Although the newspaper reports were brief, reconstructions of Wilberforce' s presentation,
based on newspaper reports and on his review in the Quarterly Revi ew of July 1860
(Wilberforce, 1860), are available (Gauld, to be published; Jensen, 1988; Lucas, 1979;
Phelps & Cohen, 1973; Wrangham, 1979) showing that it reflected the scientific concerns
that people of the day had with Darwin' s book. Writing to Hooker in July 1860 about
Wilberforce' s review essay of The Origin of Species Darwin admitted "It is uncommonly
clever; it picks out with skill all the most conjectural parts, and brings forward well all the
difficulties" (Darwin, 1888, Volume 2, p.324-5). Later, in a letter to Lyell, Darwin
commented that "the Bishop makes a telling case against me, by accumulating several
instances where I speak very doubtfully" (Darwin, 1888, Volume 2, p.332). During the
course of Wilberforce' s speech he asked a rhetorical question about the implications of
Darwin' s theory for Huxley' s simian ancestry and Huxley responded with references to
Wilberforce' s alleged misuse of oratorical skills and with comments on some of the
scientific issues Wilberforce had raised. The repartee caused quite a stir at the meeting but
was not reported in any of the newspapers. There is strong evidence that Huxley' s speech
was not sufficiently compelling to counteract that of the Bishop but Hooker' s, later in the
session, was much more effective in defending Darwin' s position against the Bishop' s
arguments (Gilley, 1981; Huxley, 1918, Volume 1, p.526). Indeed the report, in The.
Athenaeum, of Hooker' s speech occupied about three times the space devot ed to that of
Huxley (or of Wilberforce).
The above encounter could be used to serve a disciplinaryfunction in teaching as a source
of criticisms of Darwin' s theory and of Darwinian responses to them with a view to
providing a clearer account of the nature of the theory of evolution. Along with this is the
role of the encounter as the basis for a entertaining story. Alternatively, it could serve a
cultural function in focussing on the interaction between science and society in the
mid-nineteenth centuryover the theory of evolution and on the course of that interaction
into the early years of the 20th century.
THE REPORTS OF THE ENCOUNTER
References to the Wilberforce-Huxley encounter were found in 63 books. The earliest
report was dated 1896 (republished in 1960) while the latest was 1991. Half were
published after 1974. The list includes twelve biographies of Darwin (including one
biographical novel) and three of Huxley. Thirteen books, identified as "technical", dealt in
depth with particular aspects of Darwin' s thought, the nature of the Darwinian revolution,
or influences of Darwin' s theory on later generations. Of reports in the more educational
literature, 11 were encyclopedia entries dealing with the life of Darwin or Huxley, 17 were
in relatively popular expositions of the history of science, history of biology or of the
theory of evolution and 7 were in school or university texts.
151
The structure of the accounts
Word lengths of the 63 accounts of the Wilberforce-Huxley encount er ranged f r om 10 to
almost 3000 words. The medi an length is just over 200 words while the mean is just under
500 words. The longer accounts t end to be found in the biographies of Darwi n and Huxl ey
and technical works while the shorter accounts t end to be found in encyclopedias, texts and
the more popular works.
Seven of the accounts do not report anyt hi ng of what was said. Fi ft y-one ment i on t he
repart ee while only 15 of the 63 report anyt hi ng of what was said in the speeches (besides
the repartee). Of these 11 occur in the biographical or technical area. In 45 t here is no
ment i on at all of Hooker or his contribution while in only 10 is t here any suggestion t hat
Hooker' s might have been the more effective response to Wilberforce' s argument s.
The contexts of the anecdot e
In the literature reviewed the anecdot e is set in a variety of contexts. The most frequent
setting, occurring in 48 of the 63 accounts, is a discussion of the initial recept i on of The
Origin of Species and the opposition, bot h scientific and religious, which its publication
engendered. In 23 of the 28 biographical or technical accounts this is the mai n setting. A
further t wo are set in a discussion of Huxley' s role as Darwi n' s def ender (Darwi n' s
"bulldog"). Of the other three accounts one emerges from a discussion of Darwi n' s health
(he was at a health "resort" duri ng the British Association meet i ng in 1860), one relates to
an outline of the history of the Oxford University Museum in which the meet i ng was held,
while the third (in the biographical novel) is a gathering at Darwi n' s home t o report on the
meeting.
In 25 of the 35 more educational books (encyclopedias, popular presentations and texts)
the setting is a discussion of the opposition to Darwin' s book. The 7 references to Huxl ey
as Darwin' s defender all occur in encyclopedia entries about Huxley. The remaining 3
references relate to Huxl ey' s long running opposition to the views of Owen the anat omi st
(Wilberforce is presented as Owen' s spokesman at the meeting), to a consideration of
Huxl ey' s personal characteristics or to a discussion of the relative status of t hree theories
for present biological diversity - special creation, spontaneous generat i on and t ransmut at i on
of species (evolution). In this last ment i oned text the encount er is used t o illustrate the
thesis that
mixing science and religion is always unfort unat e, for it makes an objective
weighing of the evidence pro and con virtually impossible; the emot i onal
at t achment is simply too strong (Baker & Allen, 1979, p.459).
Comment s on the effects of the encount er
While the reports of the encount er are largely part of a wi der discussion of initial
opposition to Darwi n' s The Origin of Species, comment s on the effects of this encount er
are less uniform. Ten of the 63 aut hors make no reference ei t her to the i mmedi at e
out come of the encount er on the audience or to the longer t erm out come wi t hi n the history
of science in the second half of the 19th century. Twent y-fi ve aut hors make some reference
to bot h these outcomes and anot her 28 to either the i mmedi at e or the longer t er m out come
(but not to both). Twent y-t hree of the 43 comment s about the i mmedi at e out come refer
to Huxl ey' s triumph or to Wilberforce' s defeat (or to both), while anot her 11 ment i on the
excitement and the uproar which followed Huxl ey' s speech. Nine aut hors (all in the
152
biographical or technical area) comment that the outcome was somewhat ambiguous or
uncertain and imply that it was not clear who the audience judged to be the "winner".
Sixteen of the 35 authors who comment about the long term significance of the event
(some authors make more than one comment) state that it represented a defeat for religion
(or the Church) by .science, 12 claim that it gained a hearing for evolution when the
climate of opinion was against it, while 7 see it as the beginning of the public opposition
to Darwin's theory. For 2 it established the importance of Darwin and Huxley, for 2 it
changed no one's opinions at all and for 2 it was simply a significant episode in the history
of science.
A summary of the accounts
Thus, the major emphasis in these accounts of the incident, and especially those in the
educational literature, is not so much on scientific criticisms of The Origin of Species as
on the reactions to the book and, in particular, the response from the Church. The
anecdote serves an almost exclusively cultural function in the educational
literaturesurveyed. In fact, any possible value which might lie in the scientific substance of
the speeches is usually nullified by references to Wilberforce's alleged ignorance, to his
scientific blunders, to his need to be coached (badly it appears) by Owen, and on his use
of oratorical techniques, scoffing tone, ridicule and insolence in place of substantial
argument. On the other hand, Huxley is portrayed as sober and grave as he succinctly
explained Darwin's ideas, exposed the Bishop's errors and demolished what few arguments
he presented. Little detail is provided about what he said because the judgement has
already been made that there was no scientific substance to what Wilberforce said.
The accounts possess an internal logic oE their own in which they play down the
importance of any substantial criticism of Darwin's theory, focus on the repartee as the
significant aspect of the event and on Huxley as the victor, and overlook the apparently
more notable contribution of Hooker to the occasion.
Even a cursory glance at reports of the encounter should make clear that Huxley's clever
reply to Wilberforce's clever question, considered impartially, can have nothing worthwhile
to contribute to thedebate over the status of Darwin's theory. It is simply concerned with
etiquette and good manners. A rational judgement about the outcome can only be made
on the basis of what was said in the other parts of the speeches and about this most of the
reports are, unfortunately, silent.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ANECDOTE
It is interesting that, while there were brief newspaper reports of the content of the
speeches (especially summaries in The Athenaeum, of speeches by Wilberforce, Huxley
and Hooker) there was no mention at all of the repartee. In the almost 30 years foUowing
the event, the only public reference to the repartee seems to be that in Macmillan's
Magazine of December 1860.
The accounts which form the source for most future references to the event are those by
Huxley and Hooker recalled in 1886 for the publication, two years later, of Darwin's Life
and Letters (Darwin, 1888, Volume 2, pp.320-325; see also Huxley, 1900, Volume 1,
pp.182-188; Huxley, 1918, Volume 1, pp.525-527; Volume 2, pp.300-304).
153
The anecdote emerges, then, as very much dependent on how Huxl ey and Hooker saw the
event and the form in which it appears t oday represents their reconst ruct i on of the
occasion (Browne, 1978; Gilley, 1981). Even Hooker' s apparent l y more decisive role,
affirmed by him in a letter to Darwi n two days aft er the meet i ng (Huxley, 1918, Vol ume
1, p.526), was down-pl ayed in deference t o Huxl ey' s version.
The view that the out come of the encount er was decided on the basis of the repart ee
depends on a prior conclusion about the relative value of argument s present ed by bot h
sides at the meeting. Huxley, Hooker and those who supported Darwin, nat ural l y enough,
found Wilberforce' s argument s objectionable and t hey provide the dat a upon which t oday' s
versions of the event are based. For example, on 2 July 1860 Hooker wrot e t o Darwi n that
Sam Oxon got up and spouted for half an hour with inimitable spirit, ugliness and
emptiness and unfairness. I saw he was coached up by Owen and knew nothing,
and he said not a syllable but what was in the Reviews; he ridiculed you badl y
and Huxley savagely" (Huxley, 1918, Volume 1, p.526)
The next day J.R. Green, a pro-Darwinian undergraduat e, described the proceedings to
W.B. Dawkins in a letter, parts of which were later published in Huxl ey' s Li fe and Let t ers
(Huxley, 1900, pp.184,5). He wrot e
...up rose ' Sammivel' , and proceeded to act the smasher;.., the smasher got so
uproarious as to pitch into Darwin' s friends - Darwin being smashed - and
especially Professor Huxley... Which being ended - and let me say t hat such rot
never fell from episcopal lips before - arose Huxley, young, cool, quiet, sarcastic,
scientific in fact and t reat ment , he gave his lordship such a smashing as he may
medi t at e on with profit over his port at Cuddesdon (quoted in Gilley, 1981)
However, cont rary to the above comments, Wiiberforce' s speech, rather t han reflecting
ignorance, prejudice and religious scntiment, in fact encapsulated many of the scientific
objections people of his day had to Darwin' s book (Gauld, to be published; Lucas, 1979;
Oldroyd, 1980, p.132; Wrangham, 1979; see also Hull, 1973).
THE REPORT OF THE ENCOUNTER AS A " CARI CATURE"
On 30 June 1860 the encount er appears to have had few of the attributes and effects which
came to be associated with it at a later stage and which continue to be associated with it
in more recent times. It has become a sketch in which non-essential feat ures are eliminated
and those considered to be its essence are emphasised. In the literature it is present ed as
a dogmatic st at ement rat her as part of a case to be defended. For many aut hors this sketch
seems to have become a symbol by which the triumph of science over religious opposition
is announced.
As historically adequat e accounts, the majority of the reports of the Huxl ey-Wi l berforce
encounter are deficient in four significant ways.
Firstly, rather than at t empt i ng to give an impartial account of the occasion and its
significance, a perspective which has been based almost exclusively on t he perceptions of
Huxley, Hooker and their supporters is used. Many of the words used to descri be the roles
of Wilberforce and Huxl ey come from letters written by Darwi n' s supporters and selected
154
for publication from 1888 onwards. There is little attempt topresent a more balanced view
of the occasion such as that of Chadwick (1970, p.10-11) or of Lucas (1979).
Secondly, the reduction of the opposition which Darwin' s ideas called forth to that of a
churchman who had no arguments worth considering belie the strength of scientific
criticism of the theory which was widespread in the 1860s. Most of Wilberforce' s
objections in his revi ew of Darwin' s The Or i on of Species were scientific or philosophical
rather than religious. Even Huxley admitted that
on the whole, then, the supporters of Mr Darwin' s views in 1860 were numerically
extremely insignificant. There is not the slightest doubt that, if a general council
of the church scientific had been held at that time, we should have been
condemned by an overwhelming majority (Darwin, 1888, Volume 2, p.186)
Thirdly, the typical report is inadequate as a symbol of the response of the Church to
Darwin' s theory. The religious response was not in any way as uniform as is often
portrayed. While undoubtedly there was opposition from Christians of various types,
Moore (1979) has identified two significant groups of Christians in the years up to 1900
who had little difficulty in accepting Darwin' s views. The Christian "Darwinists", who were
largely theological liberals, interpreted Darwin' s position in a metaphysical sense, while the
Christian "Darwinians", who were more theologically orthodox or conservative, accepted
Darwin' s position with little modification (see also Livingstone, 1978).
Fourthly, it is unlikely that the encounter represented the intellectual victory often claimed
for it. However, it may have been a victory for Darwin in another sense. Huxley' s son, his
biographer and editor of his letters, wrote
The result of this encounter, though a check to the other side, cannot, of course,
be represented as an immediate and complete triumph for evolutionary doctrine.
This was precluded by the character and temper of the audience, most of whom
were less capable of being convinced by the arguments than shocked by the
boldness of the ret ort ... The importance of the Oxford meeting lay in the open
resistance that was made to authority, at a moment when even a drawn battle was
hardly less effectual than acknowledged victory. Instead of being crushed under
ridicule, the new theories secured a hearing, all the wider, indeed, for the startling
nature of their defence (Huxley, 1900, p.189)
In the light of these shortcomings or exaggerations, not only does the typical report of this
encounter appear in the literature as a sketch but this sketch possesses all the
characteristics and deficiencies of a caricature.
CONCLUSION
Using historical anecdotes to teach about the cultural context of science requires a sound
understanding of this context while making reference to history to teach about concepts
requires an understanding of the intellectual climate of the time so that arguments can be
dealt with in the setting of the historical period in which they occur.
In most reports of the above encounter the cultural context is severely misrepresented and
the opportunity which it provides for giving closer attention to the criticisms levelled
155
against Darwin' s book is overlooked because of a faulty predisposition towards the value
of these arguments.
It has been pointed out on a number of occasions (Klein, 1972; Gauld, 1977) that many
of the historical anecdotes used in science teaching are legendary (in much the same way
as accounts of the _above incident possess the characteristics of a caricature). Science
teachers do not possess the time or the resources to reconstruct historical anecdotes in a
form which upholds the integrity of the historical evidence for them as the relevant
information is scattered throughout a wide variety of books and journals. At present there
is little assistance available for teachers who wish to use historical anecdotes more
appropriately in their teaching and so there is a desperate need for reliable material which
is easily accessible to those who teach science.
REFERENCES
Baker, J.W. & Allen, G.E. (1979). A-course in biology, (3rd edn). Reading, Mass.:
Addison-Wesley.
Browne, J. (1978). The Charles Darwin-Joseph Hooker correspondence: An analysis of
manuscript sources and their use in biography. Journal of the Society for the
Bibliography of Natural History., 8, 351-366.
Chadwick, O. (1970). The Victorian church, Part II. London: Adam & Charles Black.
Darwin, F. (1888). Life and letters of Charles Darwin, Volume 2. London: John Murray.
Gauld, C.F. (1977). The role of history in the teaching of science. Australian Science_
Teachers Journal, 2___33, 3, 47-52.
Gauld, C.F. (1991). History of science, individual development and science teaching.
Research in Science Education, 21, 133-140.
Gauld, C.F. (to be published). Wilberforce, Huxley and the use of history in teaching about
evolution. The American Biology Teacher:
Gilley, S. (1981). The Huxley-Wilberforce debate: A reconsideration. In K. Robbins (ed)
Religion and humanism. Oxford: Blackwell, 325-340.
Hull, D.L. (1973). Darwin and his critics. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Huxley, L. (1900). The Life and letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, Volume 1. London:
Macmillan.
Huxley, L. (1918). The Life and letters of Sir Joseph Dalton Hooker, Volumes 1 & 2.
London: John Murray.
Jensen, J.V. (1988). Return to the Wilberforce-Huxley debate. British Journal for the
History of Science, 21, 161-t79.
Klein, M.J. (1972). The use and abuse of historical teaching in physics. In S.G. Brush &
A.L. King (eds) History in the teaching of physics. Hanover: University Press of
New England, 12-18.
Livingstone, D. (1978). Darwin' s forgotten defenders. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Lucas, J.R. (1979). Wilberforce and Huxley: A legendary encounter. The Historical
Journal, 22, 2, 313-330.
Moore, J. (1979). The post-Darwinian controversies. Cambridge, Cambridge University
Press.
Oldroyd, D. (1980). Darwinian impacts. Kensington: New South Wales University Press.
Phelps, L.A. & Cohen, E. (1973). The Wilberforce-Huxley debate. Western Speech, 37,
56-64.
156
Wilberforce, S. (1860). Review: On The Origin of Species, by Means of Natural Selection,
or the Preservation of Favoured Races on the Struggle for Life. By Charles Darwin,
M.A., F.R.S., London, 1860. The Ouarterly Review, 108, 225-264 (originally
published anonymously as was the convention).
Wrangham, R. (1979). The Bishop of Oxford: Not so soapy. New Scientist, 83, 450-451.
AUTHOR
DR. COLIN GAULD, Senior Lecturer, School of Teacher Education, University of New
South Wales, St George Campus, Oatley, NSW, 2223. Specializations: Physics
education, concept development, history and philosophy of science and science
teaching.