Advertisement

Journal of the History of Biology

, Volume 34, Issue 1, pp 115–147 | Cite as

Amateurs and Professionals in One County: Biology and Natural History in Late Victorian Yorkshire

  • Samuel J.M.M. Alberti
Article

Abstract

My goals in this paper are twofold: to outline there fashioning of amateur and professional roles in life science in late Victorian Yorkshire, and to provide a revised historiography of the relationship between amateurs and professionals in this era. Some historical treatments of this relationship assume that amateurs were demoralized by the advances of laboratory science, and so ceased to contribute and were left behind by the autonomous “new biology.” Despite this view, I show that many amateurs played a vital part in the construction of a professional academic community in urban Yorkshire, and then continued to collaborate with the laboratory-based biologists. The key to any analysis of the relationship between amateurs and professionals is the great variety of amateur identities and practices in Victorian Yorkshire. The amateur-professional riftfallacy arose because laboratory biologists fashioned an identity in conscious opposition to a particular type of amateur: an ideal that belied an array of co-operative relationships. As naturalists refashioned their roles and identities in light of the changes within academe and without, debates about the practice and place of life science took place as often among amateurs as between professionals and amateurs.

amateurs biology Denny England field Gatty laboratory Miall natural history nineteenth century professionalization Roebuck Sorby Yorkshire 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Allen, D. E. 1969. The Victorian Fern Craze: A History of Pteridomania. London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
  2. Allen, D. E. 1976 [1994]. The Naturalist in Britain: A Social History, 2nd edn. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Allen, D. E. 1988. “The Survival of the Amateur Tradition in the Newly Professional World of Biology.” Program, Papers, and Abstracts for the Joint BSHS-HSS Anglo-American Conference: 77–84.Google Scholar
  4. Allen, D. E. 1998. “On Parallel Lines: Natural History and Biology from the Late Victorian Period.” Archives of Natural History 25: 361–371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anonymous. 1873. “List of Scientific Societies and Field Clubs in Great Britain and Ireland.” Nature 8: 521–524.Google Scholar
  6. Anonymous. 1874. “West Riding Naturalists’ Society.” Wakefield Free Press (18th April): unpag.Google Scholar
  7. Anonymous. 1880. “With the Yorkshire Naturalists [Reprinted from the Huddersfield Weekly News, August 7th 1880].” The Naturalist 6: [facing p. 32], 1–8.Google Scholar
  8. Anonymous. Circa 1921. Biography of L.C. Miall. Manuscript: Miall Family Collection.Google Scholar
  9. Appleton, C. (ed.). 1876. Essays on the Endowment of Research. London: King.Google Scholar
  10. Argles, M. 1964. South Kensington to Robbins: An Account of English Technical and Scientific Education since 1851. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
  11. Bainbridge, J. W. 1978. “Origins of the Nature Study Movement.” Natural Science in Schools 16: 11–14.Google Scholar
  12. Baker, R. A. and Bayliss, R. A. 1982. “Louis Compton Miall, F.R.S.: Scientist and Educator 1842–1921.” Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London 37: 201–234.Google Scholar
  13. Baker, R. A. and Bayliss, R. A. 1985. “The Amateur and Professional Scientist: A Comment on Louis C. Miall (1842–1921).” The Naturalist 110: 141–145.Google Scholar
  14. Baker, R. A. and Edmonds, J. M. 1998. “Louis Compton Miall (1842–1921) – The Origins and Development of Biology at the University of Leeds.” The Linnean 14: 40–48.Google Scholar
  15. Barber, L. 1980. The Heyday of Natural History 1820–1870. London: Cape.Google Scholar
  16. Benson, K. R. 1986. “Concluding Remarks: American Natural History and Biology in the Nineteenth Century.” American Zoologist 26: 381–384.Google Scholar
  17. Berman, M. 1975. “ ‘Hegemony’ and the Amateur Tradition in British Science.” Journal of Social History 8: 30–50.Google Scholar
  18. Binfield, C. 1977. So Down to Prayers: Studies in English Nonconformity 1780–1920. London: Dent.Google Scholar
  19. Binfield, C. 1993. “Religion in Sheffield.” In:The History of the City of Sheffield 1843–1993 VolumeII: Society, ed. C. Binfield et al., pp. 364–428. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Bourne, J. M. 1986. Patronage and Society in Nineteenth-Century England. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  21. Bowler, P. J. 1992. The Fontana History of the Environmental Sciences. London: Fontana.Google Scholar
  22. Broks, P. 1990. “Science, the Press and Empire: Pearson's Publications, 1890–1914.” In: Imperialism and the Natural World, ed. J. M. Mackenzie, pp. 141–163. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Camerini, J. 1996. “Wallace in the Field.” Osiris 11: 44–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Carr-Saunders, A. M. and Wilson, P. A. 1933. The Professions. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  25. Clarke, W. E. and Roebuck, W. D. 1881. A Handbook of the Vertebrate Fauna of Yorkshire. London: Lovell Reeve.Google Scholar
  26. Cooter, R. and Pumfrey, S. 1994. “Separate Spheres and Public Places: Reflections on the History of Science Popularization and Science in Popular Culture.” History of Science 32: 237–267.Google Scholar
  27. Crossland, C. 1903. “The Distribution and Association of the Mosses and Hepatics in the Parish of Halifax.” Halifax Naturalist 8: 66–72.Google Scholar
  28. Crump, W. B. 1911. “TheWilting ofMoorland Plants.” Report of the British Association: 582.Google Scholar
  29. ——1931. “In Memoriam. Charles Edward Moss, 1870–1930.” The Naturalist: 55–59.Google Scholar
  30. Denny, A. 1929. “Resumé of the Biological Work of Dr. H.C. Sorby, F.R.S.” Proceedings of the Sorby Scientific Society 1: 1–4.Google Scholar
  31. Desmond, A. 1987. “Artisan Resistance and Evolution in Britain, 1819–1848.” Osiris 3: 77–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Drouin, J.-M. and Bensaude-Vincent, B. 1996. “Nature for the People.” In: Cultures of Natural History, ed. N. Jardine, J. A. Secord and E. C. Spary, pp. 408–425. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Engel, A. J. 1983. From Clergyman to Don: The Rise of the Academic Profession in Nineteenth-Century Oxford. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  34. Farber, P. 1982. “The Transformation of Natural History in the Nineteenth Century.” Journal of the History of Biology 15: 145–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Flower, W. H. 1893. “Museums Association.” Nature 48: 234–236, 254–257.Google Scholar
  36. Foster, M. 1898. “Integration in Science.” The Naturalist: 209–233.Google Scholar
  37. Fowler, B. 1997. Pierre Bourdieu and Cultural Theory: Critical Investigations. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  38. Fowler, W. 1877. Yorkshire Naturalists’ Union: Inaugural Address Delivered by the President. Private Circulation: Yorkshire Naturalists’ Union.Google Scholar
  39. Gates, B. T. 1998. Kindred Nature: Victorian and Edwardian Women Embrace the Living World. Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Gates, B. T. and Shteir, A. B. (eds.). 1997. Natural Eloquence: Women Reinscribe Science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  41. Gatty, M. 1870. “Microscopic Objects.”Aunt Judy's Magazine: 311–316, 359–362.Google Scholar
  42. Gieryn, T. F. 1983. “Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists.” American Sociological Review 48: 781–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Gieryn, T. F. 1999. Cultural Boundaries of Science: Credibility on the Line. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  44. Gooday, G. 1991. “ ‘Nature’ in the Laboratory: Domestication and Discipline with the Microscope in Victorian Life Science.” British Journal for the History of Science 24: 307–341.Google Scholar
  45. Grove, W. B. 1892. “The Happy Fungus-Hunter.” Midland Naturalist 15: 158–161.Google Scholar
  46. Hevly, B. 1996. “The Heroic Science of Glacier Motion.” Osiris 11: 66–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hewetson, H. B. 1880. “The Yorkshire Naturalists’ Union, its Origin, Constitution, and Modes of Working. With Remarks on the Study of Natural History.” The Naturalist 6: 129–133.Google Scholar
  48. Higham, N. 1963. A Very Scientific Gentleman: The Major Achievements of Henry Clifton Sorby. London: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  49. Jenkins, E. W. 1981. “Science, Sentimentalism or Social Control? The Nature Study Movement in England and Wales, 1899–1914.” History of Education 10: 33–43.Google Scholar
  50. Jenkins, E. W. and Swinnerton, B. J. 1996. “The School Nature Study Union 1903–1994.” History of Education 25: 181–198.Google Scholar
  51. Kargon, R. H. 1977. Science in Victorian Manchester: Enterprise and Expertise. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Keeney, E. B. 1992. The Botanizers: Amateur Scientists in Nineteenth-Century America. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
  53. Kendal, P., Smith, W. G. and Woodhead, T. W. 1904. “Committee of Suggestions for Research.” The Naturalist: 137–141.Google Scholar
  54. Kitson, C. E. 1924. The History of 100 Years of Life of the Leeds Philosophical and Literary Society. Leeds: Jowett & Sowry.Google Scholar
  55. Koditschek, T. 1990. Class Formation and Urban-Industrial Society: Bradford, 1750–1850. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Kohlstedt, S. G. 1976. “The Nineteenth-Century Amateur Tradition: The Case of the Boston Society of Natural History.” In: Science and Its Public: the Changing Relationship, ed. G. Holton and W. A. Blanpied, pp. 173–190. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
  57. Larsen, A. 1996. “Equipment for the Field.” In: Cultures of Natural History, ed. N. Jardine, J. A. Secord and E. C. Spary, pp. 358–377. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  58. Larsen-Hollerbach, A. 1996. “Of Sangfroid and the Sphinx Moths: Cruelty, Public Relations, and the Growth of Entomology in England, 1800–1840.” Osiris 11: 201–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Lightman, B. 1997. “ ‘The Voices of Nature': Popularizing Victorian Science.” In: Victorian Science in Context, ed. B. Lightman, pp. 187–211. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  60. Leopold, A. 1970. A Sand County Almanac: with Essays on Conservation from Round River. New York: Ballantine.Google Scholar
  61. Lowe, P. D. 1976. “Amateurs and Professionals: The Institutional Emergence of British Plant Ecology.” Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History 7: 517–535.Google Scholar
  62. Lowe, P. D. 1978. Locals and Cosmopolitans: A Model for the Social Organisation of Provincial Science in the Nineteenth Century. Sussex University: Unpublished MPhil Thesis.Google Scholar
  63. Lowe, P. D. 1981. “The British Association and the Provincial Public.” In: The Parliament of Science: The British Association for the Advancement of Science, ed. R. MacLeod and P. Collins, pp. 118–144. Northwood: Science Reviews, Ltd.Google Scholar
  64. Lowe, P. D. 1982. “Yorkshire Naturalists in the History of Ecology.” The Naturalist 107: 135–138.Google Scholar
  65. Lowerson, J. R. 1965. The Political Career of Sir Edward Baines (1800–1890). Leeds University: Unpublished MA Thesis.Google Scholar
  66. MacLeod, R. 1996. “The Support of Victorian Science: The Endowment of Research Movement in Great Britain, 1868–1900.” In: Public Science and Public Policy in Victorian England, ed. R. MacLeod, pp. 197–230. Aldershot: Variorum.Google Scholar
  67. Miall, L. C. 1877. “Museums.” Nature 16: 360.Google Scholar
  68. Miall, L. C. 1897a. Thirty Years of Teaching. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  69. Miall, L. C. 1897b. “The Study of Life-Histories by Local Societies.” The Halifax Naturalist and Record of the Scientific Society 2: 105–108.Google Scholar
  70. Miall, L. C. 1904. House, Garden and Field: A Collection of Short Nature Studies. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  71. Miall, L. C. and Denny, A. 1886. The Structure and Life-History of the Cockroach (Periplaneta Orientalis): An Introduction to the Study of Insects. London/Leeds:Reeve/Jackson.Google Scholar
  72. Morrell, J. 1990. “Professionalisation.” In: Companion to the History of Modern Science, ed. R. C. Olby et al., pp. 980–989. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Murray, J. A.H. (ed.). 1888–1933. A New English Dictionary: On Historical Principles. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
  74. Munson, J. 1991. The Nonconformists: In Search of a Lost Culture. London: SPCK.Google Scholar
  75. Nuttall, R. H. 1981. “The First Microscope of Henry Clifton Sorby.” Technology and Culture 22: 275–280.Google Scholar
  76. Nyhart, L. K. 1998. “Creating a ‘Public’ Nature and a ‘Professional’ Nature: The New Museum Idea in German Natural History.” Seminar Paper delivered at the Centre for the History of Science, Technology and Medicine, Manchester University, 24th February.Google Scholar
  77. Parsons, H. F. 1877. “Hints on Natural History Collecting.” The Naturalist 3: 69–74.Google Scholar
  78. Peacock, E. A.W. 1915. “W. Denison Roebuck.” Transactions of the Lincolnshire Naturalists’ Union. Reprint: 7 pp.Google Scholar
  79. Pickstone, J. V. 1993. “Ways of Knowing: Towards a Historical Sociology of Science, Technology and Medicine.” British Journal for the History of Science 26: 433–458.Google Scholar
  80. Pickstone, J. V. 1994. “Museological Science? The Place of the Analytical/Comparative in 19th-Century Science, Technology and Medicine.” History of Science 32: 111–138.Google Scholar
  81. Porter, W. S. 1922. Sheffield Literary and Philosophical Society: A Centenary Retrospect, 1822–1922. Sheffield: Northend.Google Scholar
  82. Rauch, A. 1997. “Parables and Parodies: Margaret Gatty's Audiences in the Parables from Nature.” Children's Literature 25: 137–152.Google Scholar
  83. Reader, W. J. 1966. Professional Men: The Rise of the Professional Classes in Nineteenth-Century England. London: Weidenfield and Nicholson.Google Scholar
  84. Reingold, N. 1976. “Defintions and Speculations: The Professionalization of Science in America in the Nineteenth Century.” In: The Pursuit of Knowledge in the Early American Republic: American Scientific and Learned Societies from Colonial Times to the CivilWar, ed. A. Oleson and S. C. Brown, pp. 33–69. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.Google Scholar
  85. Robbins, D. 1987. “Sport, Hegemony and the Middle Class: The Victorian Mountaineers.” Theory, Culture and Society 4: 579–601.Google Scholar
  86. Roebuck, W. D. 1867–1871. Diary. Manuscript: West Yorkshire Archives.Google Scholar
  87. Roebuck, W. D. 1871–1876. Scrapbooks. Manuscript: West Yorkshire Archives.Google Scholar
  88. Roebuck, W. D. 1904. Salient Features in the History of the Yorkshire Naturalists’ Union. London: Brown.Google Scholar
  89. Sanderson, M. 1972. The Universities and British Industry 1850–1970. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  90. Sanderson, M. 1975. The Universities in the Nineteenth Century. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Google Scholar
  91. Secord, A. 1994a. “Science in the Pub: Artisan Botanists in Early Nineteenth-Century Lancashire.” History of Science 32: 269–315.Google Scholar
  92. Secord, A. 1994b. “Corresponding Interests: Artisans and Gentlemen in Nineteenth-Century Natural History.” British Journal for the History of Science 27: 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Sheail, J. 1987. Seventy-Five Years in Ecology: The British Ecological Society. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  94. Sheffield, S. L. 1997. Beyond the Mask of Gender: Three Victorian Scientist-Naturalists. York University, Ontario: Unpublished PhD Thesis.Google Scholar
  95. Shteir, A. B. 1996. Cultivating Women, Cultivating Science: Flora's Daughters and Botany in England 1760 to 1860. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.Google Scholar
  96. Sim, J. 1872. “On the Study of Natural History.” Yorkshire Naturalists’ Recorder 2: 21–22.Google Scholar
  97. Smith, C. S. 1960. A History of Metallography: The Development of Ideas on the Structure of Metals Before 1890. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  98. Smith, W. G. 1903. “Botanical Survey for Local Naturalists’ Societies.” The Naturalist: 5–13.Google Scholar
  99. Smith, W. G. and Moss, C. E. 1903. “Geographical Distribution of Vegetation in Yorkshire.” Geographical Journal 21: 375–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Smith, W. G. and Rankin, W. M. 1903. Geographical Distribution of Vegetation in Yorkshire: Part II: Harrogate and Skipton District. Edinburgh: Bartholemew.Google Scholar
  101. Sorby, H. C. 1859–1908. Diaries. Manuscript: Sheffield University Library Special Collections.Google Scholar
  102. Sorby, H. C. 1876a. “On Microscopes.” In:Handbook of the Special Loan Collection of Scientific Apparatus, pp. 327–339. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  103. Sorby, H. C. 1876b. “Unencumbered Research: A Personal Experience.” In:Essays on the Endowment of Research, ed. C. Appleton, pp. 149–175. London: King.Google Scholar
  104. Sorby, H. C. 1897. Fifty Years of Scientific Research. Sheffield: Independent Press.Google Scholar
  105. Star, S. L. and Griesemer, J. R. 1989. “Institutional Ecology, ‘Translations’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907– 1939.” Social Studies of Science 19: 387–420.Google Scholar
  106. Tansley, A. G. 1902. “Research in British Ecology.” New Phytologist 1: 84–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. ——1931. “Obituary Notice. Charles Edward Moss.”Journal of Ecology 19: 209–214.Google Scholar
  108. ——1947. “The Early History of Modern Plant Ecology in Britain.”Journal of Ecology 35: 130–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Taylor J. W. and Roebuck, W. D. 1884. Monograph of the Land and Freshwater Mollusca of the British Isles. Leeds: Taylor.Google Scholar
  110. Wager, H. 1922. “Louis Compton Miall, 1842–1921.” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B93: x–xix.Google Scholar
  111. Witz, A. 1990. “Patriarchy and Professions: The Gendered Politics of Occupational Closure.” Sociology 24: 675–690.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Worster, D. 1977. Nature's Economy: The Roots of Ecology. San Francisco: Sierra Club.Google Scholar
  113. Yates, N. 1980. “The Religious Life of Victorian Leeds.” In:A History of Modern Leeds, ed. D. Fraser, pp. 250–269. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  114. Yorkshire Philosophical Society. 1972. Annual Report for the Year 1971: One Hundred and Fiftieth Anniversary 1822–1972. York: Morley and Sons.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • Samuel J.M.M. Alberti
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of History and Philosophy of Science, School of PhilosophyUniversity of LeedsLeedsU.K.
  2. 2.Center for Nineteenth Century Studies, School of English LiteratureUniversity of SheffieldSheffieldU.K.

Personalised recommendations