The Public Sphere After Darwin: Popular Science Periodicals and the New Space for Debate
Bernard Lightman
York University
On October 2nd, 1870, Thomas Henry Huxley, biologist and Darwin’s Bulldog, complained to his good friend, the physicist John Tyndall, that he felt as though he was being closely watched by his enemies. Every lecture, every book, every journal article was being subjected to close scrutiny for evidence that he held to unorthodox religious views. “Those confounded parsons,” he wrote to Tyndall, “seem to me to let you say anything while they bully me for a word or a phrase.”(1) But four years later it was Tyndall who was put under the microscope. His “Belfast Address” (1874) given as president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science, led to accusations of materialism. In the Irish Monthly, Reverend Michael O’Ferrall lashed out at Tyndall for believing that he was “accredited” under “the name of Science” to deliver a “message of death” at Belfast.(2) Almost immediately after Tyndall’s “Belfast Address” a London merchant named C. W. Stokes wrote a letter to the British Home Secretary suggesting that an enquiry should be held to ascertain whether or not Tyndall should be charged under the law with blasphemy.(3) After Belfast, Tyndall, like Huxley, was under intense scrutiny.
Darwin himself faced similar challenges. As Gowan Dawson has demonstrated in his book Darwin, Literature, and Victorian Respectability, those who opposed Darwin and Darwinism strategically associated it with materialism, which had a long association with moral corruption and debauchery. According to conservative Christians, overly naturalistic science threatened to unleash a torrent of immorality that would surpass the scandalous vices of even the pagan world. From the later 1860’s to the mid-1890s scientific naturalism was linked to the supposed immorality of avant-garde art and literature, in particular aestheticism. In their arguments that Darwin’s Descent of Man had transgressed Victorian standards of respectability, his critics connected him to Algernon Swinburne, for them a notorious poet of the Aesthetic Movement. Those who opposed Huxley, Tyndall, and Darwin’s efforts to freely discuss the validity of new scientific theories like evolution had a variety of strategies for closing down public debate.
The key to understanding the response of liberal intellectuals to the constraints that faced them in the post-Origin of Species era lies, I will argue, in an examination of the world of Victorian periodicals. Macmillan’s Magazine was one of several new monthlies that, beginning in the 1860’s, altered the dynamics of the public space for debating the issue of the relationship between science and religion. These journals were founded just as the evolution issue sparked discussions about this relationship. In effect, journals like Macmillan’s Magazine sought to expand the bounds of permissibility through the creation of a new format that encouraged the toleration of unorthodox views. They provided an outlet for Darwinians who sought to establish themselves as respectable, cultural authorities while challenging the conventions of polite debate.(4) Macmillan’s Magazine was an experiment in publishing that demonstrated that there was a significant audience ready to tolerate a more open discussion of controversial issues that included the voices of liberal thinkers. It helped to create a public space that had previously not existed. Monthlies established later on, such as the Fortnightly Review (f.1865) the Contemporary Review (1866), and Nineteenth Century (f.1877) adopted a similar agenda and the policy of signed articles. Expanding a public space for the discussion of heterodox opinion did not happen by accident. There had to be a concerted effort by liberal intellectuals and publishers who were in control of the means of communication.
The period after the publication of Darwin’s Origin was also characterized by the founding of new popular science journals. My chief question in this piece is: how did popular science journals treat the topic of the relationship between science and religion from the 1860’s to the early 1880’s in light of the creation of new spaces for debate in the general periodical press? An analysis of eight of the new popular science journals founded in this period reveals the adoption of four different strategies for maintaining open debate on controversial scientific theories. In each case, these periodicals rejected or avoided the idea that science and religion were in conflict.
I Defending the Darwinians
In 1864, the first year of its publication, the Quarterly Review of Science reviewed a new edition of Ludwig Buchner’s Force and Matter in an article titled “Atheism and Science.” Since Buchner was notorious for his materialism the anonymous author admitted that reading the book had been “a most painful task” even though he “ever ready to listen to the theories of scientific sceptics, and to allow them a large share of liberty in their speculations.” But the reviewer believed that in discussing Buchner’s book he was encouraging teachers of religion to learn more about science and to seek the cooperation of scientists instead of antagonizing them. For when Buchner’s materialistic theories were examined rigorously, the reviewer argued, it turned out that they were not based on the “revelations of modern science.” The reviewer was therefore critical of the “bigotry of narrow theologians” as they prevented eminent scientists “who hold temperate philosophical views, from openly expressing their opinions.” By closing off debate, these theologians actually contributed to the growth of materialism and atheism for both were “silently forming beneath the visible surface of intelligent society” and Buchner’s work, as well as “others of a less offensive character, are the unhealthy eruptions whereby the disease is made manifest.”(5) The Quarterly Review of Science, like Macmillan’s Magazine, argued for more open debate while insisting that it would lead to a recognition that science led towards, rather than away from, religion. It was one of three new popular science journals that took this tack. The other two were the Popular Science Review and the Midland Naturalist. All three offered spirited defences of Darwin and the Darwinians as part of their case for more openness in the public discussion on the relationship between science and religion.
Initially edited by James Samuelson, a Liverpool man with manufacturing interests, the Popular Science Review began its twenty-year run in 1862. It was a quarterly. Like Macmillan’s Magazine the majority of the articles were signed. Darwinians such as Huxley and Hooker were contributors. Darwin was lauded as a naturalist who had “inaugurated a revolution in thought, which is gradually spreading through the whole scientific world.”(6) But anti-Darwinian, though still pro-evolutionary, views were also invited, for example from St. George Mivart.(7) The Quarterly Journal of Science, published from 1864 to 1885, was edited at first by James Samuelson and the physicist William Crookes. Although it started off as a quarterly it became a monthly in 1879. The journal defended Tyndall from criticism after the “Belfast Address” when few journals would dare to try. It protested against the “bulk of its critics.” Though acknowledging that Tyndall should have confined himself to facts as befits the role of the president of the British Association, the real target behind the attacks was nothing less than “the scientific spirit in its legitimate manifestations, and with its growing influence in the world.”(8) The Midland Naturalist, a consortium journal that formed around a group of midlands natural history societies, was edited initially by E. W. Badger and W. J. Harrison starting in 1878. Here too Darwin and the Darwinians were praised for their accomplishments. Darwin’s discoveries were judged to have “vastly advanced our knowledge of the laws of nature”; Tyndall’s lecturing abilities were applauded; and Huxley’s book Physiology was judged to be so excellent that it should “be in the hands of every scientific student.”(9) It is an indication of how well respected Darwin was among the readers of the Midland Naturalist, that in 1880 the Midland Union of Natural History Societies, the organization to which the journal was affiliated, announced the establishment of a Darwin Prize given annually for an original research paper in natural history.(10)
The praise for Darwin, Huxley, and Tyndall was coupled in these journals with a plea to readers to keep an open mind towards controversial scientific theories. In 1863 the Popular Science Review carried an article on Lyell’s Antiquity of Man. Acknowledging that the “public at large” will shrink from Lyell’s conclusions about the age of the earth, the writer insisted that like any scientific theory Lyell’s had to be judged according to the “appropriate evidence.” If that evidence was convincing then the “preconceived chronology must give way.” “We must not ridicule and cast aspersions upon the opinions of men of high geological eminence,” the writer declared, “whose interest in the matter is not personal but simply scientific, and who have for some years devoted their best powers to the elucidations of the topic.”(11) Similarly, the Midland Naturalist tackled the sensitive topic “On the Real Character of Early Records of Genesis,” when a book reviewer praised a Christian reverend for boldly accepting the established truths of science. This had allowed him to shake himself free “from the fetters which usually dog the well-meant but futile efforts” of others who sought to reconcile geology with scripture. “Many teachers of the Faith” opposed new scientific theories in the hopes that “scientific opinion may change in the direction they desire.”(12)
The Quarterly Journal of Science stated its policy on open discussion in the leading article of the first issue. In the case of subjects bearing upon theology, the editors maintained that it would “ill serve the ends of truth in any form, if we were to interfere with the free discussion of scientific topics on the ground that the views enunciated might give offence to the believers in some particular theological doctrine.”(13) Later in volume thirteen an article on “Biological Controversy and its Laws,” the author strenuously objected to Mivart’s insinuation that Darwin was an atheist. This charge violated the laws of biological controversy. Anyone raising the cry of atheism was to be considered an outlaw. They were no longer entitled “to the treatment of a gentleman and a scholar.”(14)
Strikingly, each of these journals maintained that new theories had led to a greater appreciation of the harmony between Christianity and modern science. Writing in the Popular Science Review issue for 1874 the Reverend T. R. R. Stebbing asserted that the advance of science had shown that nature is “teeming with marvellous work, with the stamp and impress of purpose, with the signs of an omnipresent intelligence.” Stebbing supported theistic evolution and claimed that many men of science agreed. “They think this conception of Nature quite as worthy of an Artist supremely wise and good,” he asserted, “as that which imputes to Him a fixed design, beginning well and in the sequel going bad.”(15) In another Popular Science Review piece—this time on Darwin’s theories about orchids published in 1865—the author marvelled at the perfect and beautiful fertilization mechanisms that Darwin had brought to light. Darwin’s account “reads like a fairy tale, or rather, like a new Bridgewater Treatise, in which great theological truths are demonstrated without the aid of Theology.”(16)
According to the Midland Naturalist many Christians who were members of the public recognized that opposition to science was no longer necessary. “Christians, happily, no longer oppose Science,” one journalist announced. “It is freely admitted that God reveals himself in the Book of Nature as truly as in the Book of Revelation, and any apparent conflict between the two records is owing to misinterpretation.” Nevertheless, the writer complained that “many teachers of the Faith” remained unaware that the “conclusions of science” were “well-founded”, and they risked the intellectual integrity of the church by opposing new scientific theories.(17) Similarly, the Quarterly Journal of Science held theologians responsible for perpetuating the false impression that a conflict existed between science and religion. Writing on “Darwin and His Teachings” in 1866, one contributor objected to how “many professors of theology conceive it to be their duty to foster misgivings” about scientific investigations into evolution. Darwin had the “right of free speech” and opposition to his theories “on theological grounds cannot hold its place.” Moreover, and Darwin himself failed to see this, the “wonderful array of facts collected in his great work” constituted “’one long argument’ in favour of a constant, ever-watchful, ever-designing, and ever-active Providence.”(18) Whatever Darwin and his allies thought were the religious significance of their theories, the Quarterly Journal of Science, the Popular Science Review, and Midland Naturalist did not see them as leading away from the essential doctrines of traditional Christian theology. That is why they welcomed open discussion of their views and disparaged attempts to restrict debates on new scientific discoveries for religious reasons.
II Separating Science and Religion
In the second volume of the Intellectual Observer, published in 1863, an article titled “Organization and Life” pointed to how “physical science reveals a wondrous order and harmony of forces and arrangements, extending through all the time and all the space” with which we are acquainted. When such facts were recognized, “we are irresistibly led to the contemplation of an Intelligent First Cause.” But, since the “Great Cause” lay beyond the physical sciences, the author sought to determine where these sciences ended, and “metaphysical science” began. The author concluded that the physical sciences should “give up the search for the why and tell us how the universe proceeds.” This did not mean religious concepts and language were to be banished from the pages of the journal. The author maintained that a religious framework for science was still necessary. For “we start, and we conclude, with the conviction that an Intelligent and Benevolent Will is in all and over all, and in tracing the wonderful operation of what we call secondary causes, and we exalt our conceptions of the only real Cause that animates and guide the mighty whole.”(19) Treating science and religion as separate spheres of influence, while occasionally using religious language and exploring where science impinged on religious issues, was a second strategy adopted by popular science journals during the sixties and seventies. This approach to opening up discussion of controversial issues was used by Scientific Opinion, Science Gossip, and Recreative Science and its subsequent incarnations, the Intellectual Observer and the Reader. Unlike the journals discussed in the previous section these three publications did not position themselves as defenders of Darwin, Huxley, or Tyndall.
Of the three, Recreative Science, a monthly which published two volumes per year, appeared first, in 1859. Edited by journalist and horticultural writer Shirley Hibberd, it lasted until 1871, though it changed its title twice. In 1862 it became the Intellectual Observer and then in 1868 the Student and Intellectual Observer, both edited by Henry Slack, a journalist and amateur microscopist. After declaring that physical science should limit itself to the how of things in 1863, the Intellectual Observer virtually ignored all scientific subjects involving religious controversy, especially evolution, up until 1867. But in the tenth issue George S. Brady, secretary of the Tyneside Naturalists’ Field Club, raised the issue of the debates on Darwin’s evolutionary theory, and condemned those who had rejected it on religious grounds. “Darwin’s theory of the origin of species,” he asserted, “has outlived the virulent abuse of an extreme school of scientific, or one might more correctly say, of unscientific opinion, and has entered upon a second phase of existence,” the “ordeal of a searching comparison with the phenomena of nature.” He looked forward to a time when “educated men will be willing to receive new truths of biological science, however much these may conflict with preconceived ideas, in a temper as calm as that with which they now contemplate those revelations of geology and astronomy which a past generation counted no better than damnable heresies.”(20) The same volume contained a review of the fourth edition of the Origin, in which the reviewer argued that the “religious questions which have been mixed up” with this innovation must be “subordinated to the love of truth.”(21) After the journal had been renamed the Student, more articles appeared that insisted on the separation of science and religion as a means to avoid destructive intellectual intolerance. An article on “Darwin and Design” announced that from “many portions” of the topic of “the influence which modern scientific ideas exert upon religious belief” … “the plan of THE STUDENT would compel us to abstain. A scientific magazine ought, in our opinion, to be adapted to all seekers of scientific knowledge, without reference to their creeds.” However, although the author was “determined not to deviate from this impartial position,” many “aspects of Darwinism affecting the argument of design in Creation” could be discussed in the pages of the journal “in the hope of clearing away logical misconception.”(22)
Science Gossip, a monthly published from 1865 to 1910, was initially edited by mycologist and artist Mordecai Cubitt Cooke. Like Recreative Science and its successors, Science Gossip attempted to separate science and religion as a means of keeping open the debates on controversial scientific theories. In W. F. Kirby’s article “What is Darwinism?” in the 1869 volume objected to how Darwin’s opponents had characterized Darwinism as a form of modern scientific infidelity. “In answer to the theological objection,” he believed, “it need only be said that it would be easy to show that Darwinism by no means affects the doctrine of a special Providence.” That meant that Darwinism could be discussed with little reference to religion. Since Kirby’s aim was to explain to his readers “some idea of its leading principles,” and not to defend it, he believed it “will not be necessary to notice further any general objections which may have been urged against it.” After outlining these “leading principles” Kirby declared that “the whole subject is worthy of far more serious attention from the general public than it has hitherto received.” If the short article had “the effect of calling the attention of one unprejudiced thinker to the subject” then Kirby had attained his chief goal.(23)
Scientific Opinion, a short-lived weekly published between 1868 and 1870 was edited by Henry Lawson, a lecturer in histology at St. Mary’s Hospital in London. It also took the line that scientific issues could be discussed independently of theological considerations. In a review of Other Worlds Than Ours (1870), a book written by the popularizer of astronomy Richard Proctor, the reviewer praised it as an “admirable work.” But he took exception to the final chapter where “he has introduced matters that are decidedly irrelevant.” “Such questions as those of miracles,” the reviewer asserted, “and the efficacy of prayer, have nothing to do with physical astronomy; they are more matters of faith; and we do not think that Mr. Proctor’s well-intentioned defence of both prayer and miracles will satisfy even the mildest sceptic.”(24) Scientific Opinion favored toleration and open debate on controversial issues. In an article on the Sunday Lecture Society in the same volume, Scientific Opinion defended the Society from the charge that it was spreading atheism and materialism. Although “certain well-known men of science, whose religious ideas are not regarded as orthodox, were selected to give the earlier lectures,” the journalist declared, it was “perfectly clear” that the object of the Society was to provide members of the public “who may not care to spend the Sabbath evening in a house of worship, an opportunity of learning the great truths of science.” Moreover, the Society was to be applauded for selecting lecturers that represented different points of view, including “Spiritualists and Materialists” among the speakers.(25) Scientific Opinion objected when institutions of the Anglican Church refused to recognize the accomplishments of eminent men of science. It was a form of intolerance. In 1870 it was reported that Oxford University, which had initially refused Darwin an honorary degree, now “felt ashamed of itself, and, repentant, consented to give the D.C.L. to Mr. Darwin.” The lesson to be learned from the entire fiasco was that “Priestcraft is still too rife in England.”(26)
Separating science and religion did not rule out the occasional discussion of how the two were not in conflict. Natural science, Science Gossip insisted, should be considered as an essential component of “juvenile education” because it “is God’s own exposition (revealed to us through the researches of the human mind) of the power and agencies by which He regulates His providence in this world.”(27) Studied properly, natural history never led to conflict between Christians. This pursuit “is so truly Catholic that Churchman and Dissenter, Papist and Protestant, can alike join in it without fear of treading upon one another’s (mental) corns.” Since all “true naturalists” possessed an “instinctive good-feeling,” they were able to “avoid topics which are likely to be in any way distasteful.”(28) Although Scientific Opinion was critical of attempts to harmonize “Scripture as it is literally interpreted and the current doctrines of geology,” since that reconciliation was bound to fail, the journal praised William Temple, a liberal Anglican minister and future Archbishop of Canterbury, for his way of handling the relation between science and religion. In an address delivered at the Mechanics’ Institute at Plymouth, which was enthusiastically received, Temple had “argued that there was perfect harmony between science and revelation. Teachers, he said, should pervade scientific teaching with a religious tone.”(29) Similarly, in the Intellectual Observer articles tended to emphasize that advances in knowledge pointed to a harmonious relationship between science and religion. In a review of the fourth edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, the reviewer argued that it contained “many beautiful and amazing instances of the interdependence of objects.” For those “in whom the religious spirit is active” would “rise from a perusal of his pages without higher conceptions of the evidence which Natural Theology offers to the mind.”(30) Scientific Opinion, Science Gossip, and Recreative Science all aimed to separate science and religion in order to ensure that debate on the validity of new theories, such as evolution, was open and based on scientific considerations. But in cases where it was relevant to discuss the relationship between the two, contributors to these journals did not hesitate to reject the notion that modern science and religion stood in opposition to each other.
III Nature and Knowledge Go Their Separate Ways
In 1870 the journal Nature carried an article on Alfred Russel Wallace’s conception of natural selection. The author objected that Wallace inappropriately brought in theological and metaphysical considerations when dealing with natural phenomena. The aim of science, the writer insisted, was “to discover their secondary causes.” Wallace had to explain how natural selection operated without recourse to a First Cause. “To fall back for explanation upon the primary efficient cause of their existence and the design with which they were framed,” the journalist exclaimed, “is only to confuse two distinct branches of inquiry.”(31) This discussion of the relationship between science and religion was one of the few instances when the topic was broached in the pages of Nature. By contrast, the very first issue of Knowledge in 1881 included two articles on science and religion. In “Science and Religion,” the editor remarked how “strange” it was that “many seem to imagine that the tendency of Science, especially in its more recent developments, is irreligious.”(32) This became a major theme in the early volumes of the journal. Whereas Nature studiously avoided the topic of science and religion, characterizing such discussion as outside the remit of a scientific periodical, Knowledge invited debate on this issue, and made it a feature because the editor believed that it would attract more readers. Neither Nature nor Knowledge depicted the relationship between science and religion as one of conflict. Nature offered no opinion; Knowledge endorsed harmony. Their approach to the topic couldn’t have been more different, except that both maintained that a space for open debate of controversial had to be maintained.
A weekly, Nature began publication in 1869. Edited by the astronomer and civil servant Norman Lockyer, over time it became one of the most important and enduring modern scientific journals. It is one of the few science journals existing today that was born in the nineteenth century. Originally, Lockyer saw Nature’s audience as including both scientists and member of the general public. During the 1870’s and 1880’s, however, it became more and more like a journal for professional scientists. A study of the contents of the first five years of the journal reveals that very few articles dealt with the theme of the relationship between science and religion. Religion was purposely avoided in most cases. In a review of Proctor’s book Other Worlds Than Ours, for example, the controversial final chapter discussed in the review in Scientific Opinion is totally ignored.(33)
In one of the few pieces that did raise the issue of science and religion, it is made clear that the topic was normally off limits in a scientific journal. In a review of John Liefchild’s Higher Ministry of Nature: Viewed in the Light of Modern Science, and as an Aid to Advanced Christian Philosophy, the reviewer admitted that “works of this kind, endeavouring to reconcile in detail the conflicting theories of theologians and men of science, are little to our taste,” though they “may have their public.” Only a portion of the work came within the “scope” of the reviewer, “for the greater part does not.” In the end, the book was not a work of science but rather one of speculation. “Those who delight in speculation on the border-land between the natural and the supernatural will find much to interest them in the volume,” the reviewer asserted, “and to such we commend it.”(34) Such works, and the topics they dealt with, were not in the purview of a scientific periodical. Nature, it should be remembered, was published by Macmillan, who also published Macmillan’s Magazine. It was in Macmillan’s Magazine that controversial issues concerning science and religion could be taken up, since it was not a scientific journal. For Lockyer, the way to maintain Nature’s reputation was to facilitate discussion about controversial issues on scientific grounds alone. Throughout the sixties, Macmillan’s Magazine and other general periodicals had created the public space that provided Lockyer and his contributors with the freedom to conceive of science as independent from religion.
If Lockyer tended to avoid discussion on the relationship between science and religion in the pages of his journal, Richard Proctor, a popularizer of astronomy, made this topic one of the central themes in his journal Knowledge. A weekly that began publishing in 1881, though it became a monthly in 1885, Knowledge was designed by Proctor as a competitor to Nature. There had been bad blood between Proctor and Lockyer since the early 1870’s, when they disagreed about various astronomical theories and argued in the Council of the Royal Astronomical Society about the establishment of a new solar physics observatory. Whereas Lockyer endeavored to establish his journal as space for calm and dispassionate discussion, Proctor was always stirring the pot, criticizing established scientific societies and elite scientists. But he was a passionate defender of Tyndall, Huxley and Darwin against the attacks of religious zealots. Responding to a piece in the journal the Christian Commonwealth, he rejected the notion that they undermined religion. “Tyndall’s views about matter and life,” he replied indignantly, “Huxley’s about automatism, Darwin’s about evolution, are twisted into attacks on religion, with which, in fact, they have nothing whatever to do.”(35) He quoted from Spencer, Huxley and Thomas Carlyle on how teachings derived from science were beneficial to religion. To those who saw science in general as leading to unbelief, he declared that “the study of science implies the surest belief that God’s works are worth study, the fullest recognition that the author of those works is worthy of our reverence.”(36)
Proctor did not hesitate to use religious language when discussing issues bearing on the relationship between science and religion. Powerful telescopes led to contemplation “of the mysteries of infinite space, infinite power, infinite wisdom.”(37) Universal evolution constituted a revelation of a divine plan, so Darwin’s theory of evolution indicated a “process which seems to many far more consistent with just ideas of a wise Creator’s plan than the ordinary view.”(38) Responding to a letter Proctor made it clear that he was not averse to references to a divine being in his journal. He wrote, “if you or any other readers of KNOWLEDGE suppose my refusal to admit religious discussions into these pages involves the rejection of all reference to a Power outside the known, and working (unknowably by us) in and through all things, then you labour under a considerable delusion.”(39) A month later Proctor clarified his policy on religious issues. Everything relating to religious dogmas was to be excluded, but “those thoughts associated with science which bear on what has been called natural religion” were not off limits.(40)
IV Conclusion: The Black Death of Liberal Periodicals
The controversy touched off by John Tyndall’s 1874 Belfast Address as president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science led to discussion of the crucial issues concerning the nature of the public sphere. It raised the issue of whether or not scientists had complete autonomy to decide on the validity of scientific theories without interference from theologians; it led to the question of whether scientific naturalism led to materialism; and it brought to the fore the topic of the relationship between science and religion. This all happened just near the end of the period we have been examining. In 1877, in the wake of Tyndall’s Belfast Address, the Catholic journal the Dublin Review ran an article calling attention to the crucial role the periodical press had played in undermining the religious fiber of British culture. Periodicals were part of an explosion of cheap publications which propagated “an intellectual Black Death” in the name of “the diffusion of general enlightenment.” Due to the pernicious influence of the public press, people believed that it was their right to think whatever they pleased. Why look to the old when “I can get any new creed inserted in the magazines and reviews,” the journalist complained. Due to the “growth of undigested knowledge, the profuse chatter of a thousand journals, … the ancient lines of thought have been unable to resist pressure.” The author was particularly hard on the liberal journals, who catered to an audience that loved to read about science, literature, and politics “in the columns of the Fortnightly Review, the Westminster, and the Contemporary.” These journals were the new sacred texts, “which, with many have the place of Bible and preacher,” even though the truth is hardly to be looked for there.”(41)
The Dublin Review author was certainly right about one thing. It was in the Fortnightly Review that the scientific naturalists published some of their most provocative work, such as Huxley’s “On the Physical Basis of Life” (1868), Tyndall’s “’Materialism’ and Its Opponents” (1875), and Clifford’s “The Ethics of Religion” (1877). But the popular science journals also played a role in the creation of a more open public space where tolerance reigned. Whether it was Nature’s insistence on sticking to an objective discussion with little reference to religious issues, or the strategy of dividing science and religion into separate realms of discourse, or the tactic of defending Darwin and his allies while insisting that consideration of scientific issues led towards rather than away from religion, or even the strategy pursued by Knowledge of drawing attention to controversial issues, many popular science journals worked to contribute to the goal of expanding the public space for discussion of contentious issues.
1. Leonard Huxley, Life and Letters of Thomas Henry Huxley, 2 vols (New York: D. Appleton, 1901), vol. 1, p. 361.
2. Rev. Michael O’Ferrall, “The New Koran,” Irish Monthly 2 (1874), p. 659.
3. A. S. Eve and C. H. Creasey, Life and Work of John Tyndall (London: Macmillan, 1945), p. 187.
4. Bernard Lightman, “Creating a New Space for Debate: The Monthlies, Science, and Religion,” in Rethinking History, Science, and Religion: An Exploration of Conflict and the Complexity Principle, ed. Bernard Lightman (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2019), 85-109.
5. “Atheism and Science,” Quarterly Journal of Science 1 (1864), 545, 546, 548.
6. M. C. Cooke, “Darwin’s Observations on the Physiology of the Process of Fertilization in Plants,” Popular Science Review 4 (1865), 424.
7. St. George Mivart, “Man and Apes,” Popular Science Review 12 (1873), 257.
8. “Science, Her Claim, Positions, and Duties,” Quarterly Journal of Science 12 (1875), 75-76.
9.E. J. Lowe, “Abnormal Ferns,” Midland Naturalist 1 (1878), 8; W. J. S., “Correspondence. A Few London Notes,” Midland Naturalist 1 (1878), 22; W. R. Hughes, “Reviews. The Fairyland of Science,” 2 (1879), 46.
10. “Encouragement of Original Research: The Darwin Prize,” Midland Naturalist 3 (1880), 181-182.
11. J. R. Leifchild, “The Antiquity of Man,” Popular Science Review 2 (1863), 456.
12. S.S.R., “On the Real Character of the Early Records of Genesis,” Midland Naturalist 2 (1879), 71-2.
13. “Introduction,” Quarterly Journal of Science 1 (1864), 22.
14. “Biological Controversy and Its Laws,” Quarterly Journal of Science 13 (1876), 206-7.
15. Rev. T. R. R. Stebbing, “What to Believe in Science: Teleology or Evolution,” Popular Science Review 13 (1874), 13, 23.
16. M. C. Cooke, “Darwin’s Observations on the Physiology of the Process of Fertilization in Plants,” 4 Popular Science Review 4 (1865), 428.
17. S. S. R., “On the Real Character of the Early Records of Genesis,” Midland Naturalist 2 (1879), 72.
18. “Darwin and His Teachings,” Quarterly Journal of Science 3 (1866), 151, 153-4, 176.
19. “Organization of Life,” Intellectual Observer 2 (1863), 183-184, 187.
20. George S. Brady, “On the Variations of Certain Crustacea, in Relation to the Theory of the Origin of Species by Natural Modification,” Intellectual Observer 10 (1867), 327.
21. “Literary Notices. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,” Intellectual Observer 10 (1867), 478.
22. “Darwin and Design,” The Student and Intellectual Observer 3 (1869) 268.
23. W. F. Kirby, “What is Darwinism?” Science Gossip 4 (1869), 241, 244.
24. “Review of Books,” Scientific Opinion 3 (1870), 488.
25. “The Sunday Lecture Society,” Scientific Opinion 3 (1870), 437.
26. “The Week,” Scientific Opinion 3 (1870), 559.
27. “The Teachings of Natural Science,” Science Gossip 2 (1867), 251.
28. B., “Winter Walk,” Science Gossip 3 (1868), 2.
29. “Review of Books,” Scientific Opinion 3 (1870), 70; “The Week,” Scientific Opinion 3 (1870), 31.
30. “Literary Notices. The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection,” Intellectual Observer 10 (1867), 478.
31. P.S., “Wallace on Natural Selection,” Nature 2, No. 50 (Oct. 13, 1870), 472.
32. [Richard Proctor], “Science and Religion,” Knowledge 1 (Nov. 4, 1881), 3.
33. C. Pritchard, “Other Worlds Than Ours,” Nature 2, No. 35 (June 30 1870), 161-2.
34. “The Higher Ministry of Nature,” Nature 5, No. 130 (April 25, 1872), 499.
35. [Richard Proctor], “Science and Art Gossip,” Knowledge 2 (Oct. 27, 1882), 349.
36. [Richard Proctor], “Science and Religion,” Knowledge 1 (Nov. 4, 1881), 4.
37. R. A. Proctor, “The Glories of the Star-Lit Heavens,” Knowledge 1 (April 14, 1882), 507.
38. [Richard Proctor], “Science and Art Gossip,” Knowledge 2 (Oct. 27, 1882), 349.
39. [Richard Proctor], “Letters Received and Short Answers,” Knowledge 4 (Nov. 2, 1883), 279.
40. [Richard Proctor], “Editorial Gossip,” Knowledge 4 (Dec. 7, 1883) 349.
41. [William Francis Berry], “Mr. Tyndall and Contemporary Thought,” Dublin Review 27 (1877), 434, 436, 440-441, 444.
