‘Men of Science’: Language,Identity and Professionalization in the Mid-Victorian Scientific Community

“Address by William Spottiswoode, Esq., M.A., D.C.L., LL.D., F.R.S., F.R.A.S., F.R.G.S.”, Report of the forty-eighth meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science held at Dublin in August 1878 (London, 1879) [all further references of this form will be shortened to “Address by the President”, BAAS report, 1878], 1–28, p. 1.

This dominant interpretation is shifting, see Desmond Adrian , “Redefining the X axis: ‘Professionals,’ ‘amateurs’ and the making of mid-Victorian biology”, Journal of the history of biology, xxxiv (2001), 3–50.

On Spottiswoode's election see Barton Ruth , “‘An influential set of chaps’: The X-Club and Royal Society politics 1864–85”, The British journal for the history of science, xxiii (1990), 53–81, pp. 68–69. For the historiography of the X Club see Barton Ruth , “‘Huxley, Lubbock, and half a dozen others’: Professionals and gentlemen in the formation of the X Club”, Isis, lxxxix (1998), 410–44, pp. 413–15.

[ Huxley T. H. ], “Science”, Westminster review, lxii (1854), 254–70, pp. 254–7.

Desmond Adrian , Huxley: The Devil's disciple (London, 1994), title of ch. 10.

Smith Crosbie , The science of energy: A cultural history of energy physics in Victorian Britain (London, 1998), ch. 9, “North Britain versus metropolis”; and Barton Ruth , “Scientific authority and scientific controversy in Nature: North Britain against the X Club”, in Henson Louise (eds), Culture and science in the nineteenth-century media (forthcoming, Aldershot, 2003).

On tensions between science and engineering or truth and utility see Barton Ruth , “Scientific opposition to technical education”, in Scientific and technical education in early industrial Britain, ed. by Stephens Michael D. Roderick Gordon W. (Nottingham, 1981), 13–27; Gieryn Thomas F. , “Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists”, American sociological review, xlviii (1983), 781–95; idem, Cultural boundaries of science: Credibility on the line (Chicago, 1999).

MacLeod Roy , “Resources of science in Victorian England: The endowment of science movement, 1868–1900”, in Mathias Peter (ed.), Science and society 1600–1900 (Cambridge, 1972), 111–16, pp. 111–12; Porter Roy , “Gentlemen and geology: The emergence of a scientific career, 1660–1920”, Historical journal, xxi (1978), 809–36, p. 809; Morrell Jack , “Professionalisation”, in Olby Robert (eds), Companion to the history of modern science (London, 1990), 980–9; Golinski Jan , Making natural knowledge: Constructivism and the history of science (Cambridge, 1998), see especially “The disciplinary mold”, 67–68. For recent specialist studies see ref. 22 below.

McClelland Charles E. , The German experience of professionalization: Modern learned professions and their organizations from the early nineteenth century to the Hitler era (Cambridge, 1991), emphasizes this.

Morrell , “Professionalisation” (ref. 8), 981. Morrell's model of studying professionalization as an occupational strategy is the classic study by Carr-Saunders A. M. Wilson P. A. , The professions (London, 1934).

Morrell , “Professionalisation” (ref. 8), 982–4, italics mine, 986–8 on alternatives; Golinski , Making natural knowledge (ref. 8), 68.

Golinski , Making natural knowledge (ref. 8), 68–69.

Turner Frank M. , “The Victorian conflict between science and religion: A professional dimension”, Isis, lxix (1978), 356–76.

Berman Morris , “‘Hegemony’ and the amateur tradition in British science”, Journal of social history, viii (1875), 30–50, pp. 34, 39–40.

Porter , “Gentlemen and geology” (ref. 8).

Secord James A. , “The Geological Survey of Great Britain as a research school, 1839–1855”, History of science, xxiv (1986), 223–75, esp. pp. 241–58.

Porter , “Gentlemen and geology” (ref. 8), 830. Morrell , “Professionalisation” (ref. 8), 988, gives examples of amateur associations which flourished even as professionalism increased.

For example, Shapin Steven , “History of science and its sociological reconstructions”, History of science, xx (1982), 157–211, pp. 171–2; Lindberg David C. Numbers Ronald L. , “Beyond war and peace: A reappraisal of the encounter between Christianity and science”, Church history, lv (1986), 338–54, pp. 351–2; Desmond Adrian Moore James , Darwin (London, 1991); Desmond , Huxley (ref. 5). But see Desmond's reinterpretation in “Redefining the X axis” (ref. 2).

Reingold Nathan , “Definitions and speculations: The professionalization of science in America in the nineteenth century”, in Oleson Alexandra Brown Sanborn C. (eds), The pursuit of knowledge in the early American Republic (Baltimore, 1976), 33–69, pp. 43, 50.

Outram Dorinda , Georges Cuvier: Vocation, science and authority in post-evolutionary France (Manchester, 1984) and Fox Robert , “Science, the university, and the state in nineteenth-century France”, in Geison Gerald L. (ed.), Professions and the French state, 1700–1900 (Philadelphia, 1984), 66–145.

Barton , “The X Club and Royal Society politics” (ref. 3), 65–66, 68–69; Barton , “Professionals and gentlemen” (ref. 3).

Bellon Richard , “Joseph Hooker's ideals for a professional man of science”; Waller John C. , “Gentlemanly men of science: Sir Francis Galton and the professionalization of the British life-sciences”; Alberti Samuel J. J. , “Amateurs and professionals in one county: Biology and natural history in late Victorian Yorkshire”; Desmond Adrian , “Redefining the X axis: ‘professionals,’ ‘amateurs’ and the making of mid-Victorian biology”; all in Journal of the history of biology, xxxiv (2001), 51–82, 83–114, 115–17, 3–50 (p. 4). Many of the same issues are addressed by Endersby James , “Putting plants in their place: Joseph Hooker's philosophical botany, 1838–1865” (PhD dissertation, Cambridge University, 2002), ch. 1.

For example, Porter , “Gentlemen and geologists” (ref. 8), 810.

Russell Colin A. , Chemists by profession: The origins and rise of the Royal Institute of Chemistry (Milton Keynes, 1977), ch. vii and viii, p. 123, italics mine. Other competing organizations for chemists are discussed by Bud Robert Roberts Gerrylynn K. , Science versus practice: Chemistry in Victorian Britain (Manchester, 1984), 159–63.

Moseley Russell , “Tadpoles and frogs: Some aspects of the professionalization of British physics, 1870–1939”, Social studies of science, vii (1977), 423–16, pp. 423–30; Desmond , “Redefining the X axis” (ref. 2), 27–4.

McClelland , German experience of professionalization (ref. 9), 75.

Porter , “Gentlemen and geology” (ref. 8), 810. H. Byerley Thomson's mid-Victorian advice book, The choice of a profession (London, 1857), identified only two scientific professions, the civil engineer and actuary.

Excluding the army and navy, the largest employer of scientific experts in mid-century was probably the Geological Survey of Great Britain and the associated Museum of Practical Geology. Together they had a scientific and technical staff of about twenty-five of whom about half were geologists. Working-class members stayed at working-class rates of pay; lower middle-class recruits with prior training could hope for promotion, but not to the top. See Secord , “The Geological Survey” (ref. 16), 228–9, 235–7.

Golinski , “Making natural knowledge” (ref. 8), 78.

Porter , “Gentlemen and geology” (ref. 8), 818–21, 827–31.

White Paul , Thomas Huxley: Making the “man of science” (Cambridge, 2003). This book appeared just as I was making final revisions to this article and I have therefore not been able to incorporate its insights into my analysis. White and I share two central emphases, the significance of the term ‘man of science’ and the interpretive understanding to be gained from the concept of self-fashioning. White's analysis is more explanatory in that it identifies the cultural resources from which Huxley drew his images. My more synchronic analysis offers a background against which to assess the ways in which Huxley was unique or representative.

Lord Rayleigh left the Cavendish Chair at Cambridge in 1884 to return to “private studies” in his home laboratory. See Howard John N. , “Principal scientific contributions of John William Strutt, third Baron Rayleigh”, in Aris Rutherford (eds), Springs of scientific creativity: Essays on founders of modern science (Minneapolis, 1983), 163–87, p. 175. Allen Grant , a writer of fiction and of essays on numerous topics, including scientific topics, was described in the Dictionary of national biography (vol. xxii, “Supplement”) as a “man of letters and man of science”. Gunther would probably have classed him as a ‘dabbler’.

Ross Sydney , “Scientist: The story of a word”, Annals of science, xviii (1962), 65–85, pp. 76–78. The earliest use of ‘scientist’ in the British Association presidential addresses was by Siemens William , inventor and engineer. The Association, said Siemens , “draws together scientists from all parts of the country” (“Address by the President”, BAAS report, 1882, 1–33, p. 1).

‘Gentlemen of science’ has been much used by historians of science, following Morrell Jack Thackray Arnold , Gentlemen of science: Early years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Oxford, 1981). It correctly emphasizes the gentlemanly status of the leaders of Victorian science, but it was not a common self-description. I have one example. When Mary Somerville was made an honorary member of the Bristol Philosophical and Literary Society in 1835, Conybeare W. D. wrote to her: You are now “entitled to claim a nominal connection with many of the most distinguished Scientific gentlemen of the Country” (Elizabeth Patterson, Mary Somerville and the cultivation of science, 1815–1840 (The Hague, 1983), 164). Men of science were assumed to be gentlemen, as is illustrated by the juxtaposition in Huxley's address to the Royal Society in 1883: “Gentlemen, as men of science …” (“President's address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, xxxvi (1883–84), 60–73, p. 73).

“Address by the President”, BAAS report, 1852, pp. xli–lxiii, pp. xlii, xlvii. These examples, which are a selection only, are representative of the variety of speakers and terminologies. Capitalization of ‘science’ varied, even within an individual speech.

“President's address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, vi (1850–54), 560–77, p. 569.

“Address by the President”, BAAS report, 1856, pp. xlviii–lxxii, pp. xliv, lv, lxviii.

“President's address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, viii (1856–57), 240–60, pp. 244, 249, 252.

“President's address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, ix (1857–59), 24–40, p. 30.

“Address by the President”, BAAS report, 1859, pp. lix–lxix, pp. lx, lxii.

“Obituary notices of deceased Fellows”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, x (1859–60), pp. i–xliii, p. xiv. In earlier years obituary notices were read at the Anniversary meeting, at first by the President, and later by the Secretary. They were not necessarily written by the reader.

“Address by the President”, BAAS report, 1864, pp. lx–lxxv, p. lx. In both this and the following quotation, ‘physical science’ is the complement of ‘moral science’ rather than ‘biological science’.

“Address by the President”, BAAS report, 1866, pp. liii–lxxx, pp. liv, lv.

“Address by the President”, BAAS report, 1869, pp. lxxxix–cv, pp. xci, c.

“President's address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, xxi (1872–73), 23–31, p. 30.

“President's address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, xxiv (1875–76), 72–91, pp. 76–77. Hooker went on to specify other categories of membership: “promoters of scientific research and men of signal eminence in statesmanship, art, or letters”.

“President's address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, xxv (1876–77), 339–62, p. 347.

[ Whewell William ], “On the connexion of the physical sciences. By Mrs. Somerville”, Quarterly review, li (1834), 54–68, p. 59.

Whewell , “Connexion” (ref. 48), 58; and [Anon.], “Personal recollections of Mrs Somerville. By her daughter, Martha Somerville. London, 1873”, Quarterly review, Jan. 1874, 74–103, p. 93 for Holland and p. 95 for Joanna Baillie. See also Section 4 below for references to Somerville as an ‘astronomer’.

Huxley to Lyell Charles Sir , 17 March 1860, in Huxley Leonard , Life and letters of Thomas Henry Huxley (2 vols, London, 1900), i, 211. Lyell had hoped to counter the influence of organized religion among women (see Richards Evelleen , “Huxley and woman's place in science: The ‘woman question’ and the control of Victorian anthropology”, in Moore James R. (ed.), History, humanity and evolution: Essays for John C. Greene (Cambridge, 1989), 253–84, p. 256).

For example, Sir Charles Lyell was losing his sight; Playfair Lyon , who had been in Parliament since 1868, was influential but not active in science; and Sir Edward Sabine's declining power is illustrated by his reluctant resignation of the Presidency of the Royal Society in 1871 at age 83 (see Dictionary of scientific biography for all). Sir Roderick Murchison had died in 1871.

[Anon.], “Science, politics and religion” (lead article), Quarterly journal of science, ii (1865), 187–98, p. 189. The journal is discussed in Barton Ruth , “Just before Nature: The purposes of science and the purposes of popularization in some English popular science journals of the 1860s”, Annals of science, lv (1998), 1–33.

[ Lawson Henry ], “Dean Close on science”, Scientific opinion , 29 Sept. 1869, 365. On the journal see Barton , “Just before Nature” (ref. 52).

[Anon.], “Protoplasm at the Antipodes”, Nature, 4 Nov. 1869, 13.

Houghton to Lubbock, 28 Feb. 1870, Avebury Papers, British Library, Add. MSS 49643 f. 69. The Rev. William Houghton was Rector of Preston.

Hooker to Huxley , [July 1872], Huxley Papers, College Archives, Imperial College of Science, Technology, and Medicine, London, vol. iii, f. 158.

Tait P. G. , “Scientific worthies V: G. G. Stokes”, Nature, 15 July 1875, 201–3, p. 201.

[Anon.], “Lord Derby on the endowment of scientific research” (lead article), Nature, 23 Dec. 1875, 141–2, p. 142.

“Lord Derby” (ref. 58), 142.

“Loan Collection of scientific instruments at South Kensington”, Quarterly journal of science, xiii (1876), 370–80, p. 370. William Crookes, the editor, probably wrote this unsigned article.

Smith to Huxley , 5 May 1878, Huxley Papers (ref. 56), vol. xxvi, f. 112.

Cited by MacLeod Roy , “Science and government in Victorian England: Lighthouse illumination and the Board of Trade, 1866–86”, Isis, lx (1969), 5–38, p. 32.

Derby Lord , as reported in Nature (ref. 58), did not use “scientific men”. It seems then that the newspapers chose the term, which confirms that ‘scientific men’ was in wide general use.

Wrottesley Lord , “President's address” (ref. 38), 254.

Huxley , “President's address” (ref. 34), 61.

“President's address”, Abstracts of papers communicated to the Royal Society of London, vi (1850–54), 102–15, p. 113.

“President's address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, xi (1860–62), 457–69, p. 463.

“Address by the President”, BAAS report, 1854, lv–lxxi, p. lv. Compare Spottiswoode who, in an extreme statement in his working men's lecture at the British Association in 1872, identified with his audience as “us outsiders of science” (“Mr. Spottiswoode's lecture to working men on sunlight, sea, and sky”, Nature , 22 Aug. 1872, 333–6, p. 333). I interpret this as a rhetorical strategy to establish an identification with his audience and therefore do not attempt to incorporate it in my analysis of the scientific community. In 1872 Spottiswoode had published over forty mathematical articles (see Royal Society catalogue of scientific papers).

Quoted by Berman , “Hegemony” (ref. 14), 37.

Galton Francis , English men of science: Their nature and nurture (London, 1874), 3–6.

Galton , English men of science (ref. 70), 3–6. Although the title specifies “English” men of science, and the criteria of selection disadvantaged those living at a distance from London, Galton included some Scots and Irish and claimed that his results represented Britain (p. 6).

Berman , “Hegemony” (ref. 14), 37.

[Anon.], “Professor Tyndall and the scientific movement” (lead article), Nature, 7 July 1887, 217–18, p. 217.

Galton Francis , “On the causes which operate to create scientific men”, Fortnightly review, n.s., xiii (1873), 345–51, p. 349.

Tait P. G. , “Tyndall and Forbes” (Letters to the editor), Nature, 11 Sept. 1873, 381–2, p. 382; Barton , “Controversy in Nature” (ref. 6). Richard Proctor defended Tyndall and commended popular writing as a source of income for serious science workers in Wages and wants of science-workers (London, 1876), 6–9, 30–31.

Tait P. G. , “Religion and science”, The Scots observer (1888), reprinted in Knott C. G. , The life and scientific work of Peter Guthrie Tait (Cambridge, 1911), 293–5. An early use of ‘scientists’ should be noted here: Tait used scientific men/man six times and scientists once.

“Obituary notices of Fellows deceased”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, xlviii (1891), pp. xii–xv, p. xiii. Perry's obituary was by A. A. C. On such images of heroism see Oreskes Naomi , “Objectivity or heroism? On the invisibility of women in science”, Osiris, xi (Science in the field, 1996), 87–113.

“President's address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, xiii (1863–64), 22–39, p. 35.

“Obituary notices of Fellows deceased”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, xlvii (1890), pp. ix–xii for Berkeley's obituary, which was written by Hooker J. D. ,.

Barton , “X Club and Royal Society politics” (ref. 3), 74.

[ Sedgwick Adam ], “Vestiges of the natural history of creation…”, Edinburgh review, lxxxii (1845), 1–85, pp. 2–4.

Whewell , “Connexion” (ref. 48), 59.

Bellon's close analysis of Hooker comes to a very similar conclusion. Hooker believed that his disinterested and selfless service to the nation gave him personal moral authority and imposed an obligation on the nation to support his science: Bellon , “Joseph Hooker's ideals” (ref. 22), 59, 64.

Useful references include Clarke Norma , “Strenuous idleness: Thomas Carlyle and the man of letters as hero”, in Roper Michael Tosh John (eds), Manful assertions: Masculinities in Britain since 1800 (London, 1991), 25–3; Hilton Boyd , “Manliness, masculinity and the mid-Victorian temperament”, in Goldman Lawrence (ed.), The blind Victorian: Henry Fawcett and British Liberalism (Cambridge, 1989), 60–70; Oreskes , “Objectivity or heroism?” (ref. 77); and, most recently, White , Thomas Huxley (ref. 31).

Desmond , “Redefining the X axis” (ref. 2), 4.

“President's address”, BAAS Report, 1850, pp. xxxi–xliv, p. xliii.

“Obituary notices of deceased Fellows”, Abstracts of papers delivered before the Royal Society of London, vi (1850–54), 244–66, pp. 250–1. In this period the obituary notices were read by the President as part of the presidential address, but they may have been written by the secretaries. See similar quotations below in List 3 (1864) and List 4 (1852).

“Obituary notices of deceased Fellows” (ref. 41), pp. xxxi–xxxiii.

Wrottesley Lord , “Address by the President”, BAAS report, 1860, pp. lv–lxxv, p. lx. Wrottesley was himself a private astronomer with a large private observatory. See Layton David , “Lord Wrottesley, F.R.S., pioneer statesman of science”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xxiii (1968), 230–46.

Carruthers William , “Botanical museums”, Nature, 3 Oct. 1872, 449–52, pp. 450–1. Carruthers's larger argument was that both herbaria be maintained separately.

Hooker to Huxley , [17 Apr. 1861], J. D. Hooker Correspondence, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, “Letters from J. D. Hooker: Huxley 1851–94”, f. 75. The Oxford English dictionary records the same use of ‘scientific’ as a noun by Lyell in 1830 and Augustus de Morgan in 1853.

Although Hooker seemed to deny any difference in scientific standing, in another context he differentiated his and Bentham's motives. Bentham was motivated by his love of science, whereas Hooker considered that a professional botanist should be motivated by a more public-spirited commitment to the good of science. ( Hooker to Gray Asa , 26 July 1858, discussed by Bellon , “Hooker's ideals” (ref. 22), 62.).

[ Bentham George ], “Botanical museums”, Nature, 23 July 1871, 401–2, p. 401. Authorship was identified by Carruthers (ref. 90). Carruthers disputed Bentham's claim that palaeontologists, in Bentham's second rank, needed a lesser herbarium, but that is another story.

“Professional”, adjective, meaning 4.a, Oxford English dictionary. For the restricted sense of “learned” profession, see “Profession”, 6.a and “Professional”, adjective, 3.

Reingold , “Definitions and speculations” (ref. 19), on America, and Robert Kargon, on Manchester (Science in Victorian Manchester: Enterprise and expertise (Manchester, 1977)) have proposed labels (researcher, practitioner, cultivator, devotee) which would make more useful discriminations than the blunt professional and amateur. Although these proposals are not consistently based on Victorian usage, they do point to the kind of discriminations that need to be made.

In the Oxford English dictionary this meaning is “Professional”, adjective, 4.e: “Reaching a standard or having the quality expected of a professional person or his work; competent in the manner of a professional.” The earliest quotation under this meaning is 1926.

Hooker to Huxley [4 Jan. 1861], Huxley Papers (ref. 56), vol iii, ff. 83–84.

Bellon , “Hooker's ideals” (ref. 22), 59–4. Similarly Endersby , in “Putting plants in their place” (ref. 22), shows that in the 1840s and '50s Hooker's preferred self–description was “professed botanist”, alluding not to his occupational status but to his commitment to botany as a vocation. As other people professed various religious commitments (the primary meaning of the word), Hooker professed his commitment to botany. However, although other botanists styled themselves ‘professed’, this did not always imply a high level of personal commitment. For example, in 1856 Charles Daubeny described himself as a professed botanist, by virtue of his position as Professor of Botany; but he identified chemistry as the subject with which he was most familiar, showing that ‘professed’, for him, meant public position rather than private commitment (“Address by the President” (ref. 37), pp. lxiv, xlix).

Bentham George , Handbook of the British flora; A description of the flowering plants and ferns indigenous to, or naturalized in the British Isles. For the use of beginners and amateurs (2 vols, London, 1865), i, pp. v, vii, xi.

[ Lewes G. H. ], “Literature”, The leader , 4 Jan. 1854, 40–41, p. 40. Lewes may have learned the identity of his critic through Marian Evans who was the assistant editor of the Westminster.

[ Lewes G. H. ], “Sea-side studies”, Blackwood's Edinburgh magazine, lxxx (1856), 184–97, pp. 184–5.

[ Lewes G. H. ], “Sea-side studies. Part III”, Blackwood's Edinburgh magazine, lxxx (1856), 472–85, pp. 480, 484. This critical allusion to professors and the first (but not the second) self-description as ‘amateur’ were removed from the collected essays.

[ Lewes G. H. ], “New sea-side studies. No. Ill — Jersey”, Blackwood's Edinburgh magazine, lxxxii (1857), 222–39, p. 236.

Lewes George Henry , Sea-side studies at Ilfracombe, Tenby, the Scilly Isles, & Jersey (London, 1858), p. viii. Lewes went on to appeal to recent work by Huxley on the Aphides as “striking confirmation” of his view (p. ix).

[ Lawson Henry ], “Our address”, Scientific opinion, 11 Nov. 1868, 1.

Scientific opinion was a weekly of similar format to Nature (see Barton , “Just before Nature” (ref. 52)). On Lawson's position as a defender of spontaneous generation against Huxley T. H. Tyndall John see Strick James , Sparks of life: Darwinism and the Victorian debates over spontaneous generation (Cambridge, Mass., 2000). Roy MacLeod interpreted Nature as representing professionalizing science: “Science in Grub Street”, “Macmillan and the scientists”, “Seeds of competition”, “Macmillan and the young guard”, and “The new journal”, Nature , ccxxiv, issue of 1 Nov. 1969, 423–39. For alternative emphases see Roos David A. , “The aims and intentions of Nature”, in Paradis James Postlewait Thomas (eds), Victorian science and Victorian values: Literary perspectives (New York, 1981), 159–80, and Barton , “Controversy in Nature” (ref. 6).

“Professor Tyndall and the scientific movement” (ref. 73), 218.

Pattison Mark , “Review of the situation”, in Essays on the endowment of research (London, 1876), 3–25, p. 6.

Berman , “Hegemony” (ref. 14), 39.

Hooker to Tyndall John , 19 Sept. 1888, Tyndall Papers, Royal Institution of Great Britain, London, 12/F8.91; Bramwell Frederick Sir , “Address by the President”, BAAS report, 1888, 3–23. Similarly, Porter has recorded that leading geologists did not like the authoritarianism and monopolism of the traditional learned professions (see “Gentlemen and geology” (ref. 8), 823).

A. J. Meadows describes the relaxed atmosphere and the six-hour day in the Civil Service of the 1860s (Science and controversy: A biography of Sir Norman Lockyer (Macmillan, 1972), 6–7). The young John Lubbock, beginning work in the family bank, did not expect to attend on two consecutive days (“Diary, 1853–63”, entries for Jan. 1853, Avebury Papers (ref. 55), Add. MSS 62679, ff. 2–3).

“Address by the President” (ref. 68), p. lxviii.

“President's address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, ix (1857–59), 499–521, p. 510.

“President's address”. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, xiii (1864), 497–517, p. 515.

“Address by the President”, BAAS report, 1868, pp. lviii–lxxv, p. lix.

“President's address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, xxii (1873–74), 3–12, p. 12.

Galton , English men of science (ref. 70), 105. These groups make up 40–45% of Galton's sample, leaving professors, leisured amateurs, lawyers, and Members of Parliament among the other 55–60%.

Cited in “Lord Derby”, Nature (ref. 58), 142.

The Secretaries in 1858 were William Sharpey, Professor of Anatomy and Physiology at University College, London, and Stokes G. G. , Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge. Sharpey's predecessor, Thomas Bell, held the positions of both dental surgeon at Guy's Hospital and Professor of Zoology at King's College while he was Secretary (1848–53).

“President's address”. Abstracts of papers delivered before the Royal Society of London, v (1843–50), 1003–11, pp. 1003, 1009.

“Obituary notices of deceased Fellows” (ref. 87), 250–4. This extract extends the above quotation about Dalrymple.

“President's address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, vii (1854–55), 248–63, p. 262.

“Address by the President”, BAAS report, 1858, pp. xlix–cx, p. lxxix.

“President's address” (ref. 78), 32.

“Address by the President” (ref 42), p. lx. Compare with the above quote, selected for a different emphasis.

“President's address” (ref. 46), 72. Although, by this period, obituaries were no longer read at anniversary meetings, the President often referred briefly to deceased Fellows in his address.

“Address by the President”, BAAS report, 1879, 1–30, p. 1.

“Anniversary address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, xxxvii (1884), 428–47, p. 429. In the absence of the President, Huxley T. H. , the address was given by the Treasurer. John Evans.

Cited by Sheffield Suzanne Le-May , Revealing new worlds: Three Victorian women naturalists (London and New York, 2001), 140.

Sheffield , Revealing new worlds (ref. 129), 140.

“George James Allman, 1812–1898”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, lxxv (1904–5), 25–27.

“President's address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, xxiii (1874–75), 50–73, p. 59. Hooker's wife had died only two weeks previously and the address was read by the Treasurer, Spottiswoode William , “for the President” (p. 50). I interpret this as meaning that Hooker had written the address.

The Earl of Rosse, “President's address” (ref. 122), 262. Medal citations were read by the President but were probably derived from the recommendations of the nominators.

See at refs 66 and 67.

“President's address” (ref. 46), 89.

Two examples are recorded in [Anon.], “Mary Somerville”, Atlantic monthly, v (1860), 568–71: Jeffrey Francis , first editor of the Edinburgh review and later Lord Advocate for Scotland; and an unnamed London lady. Dates are not specified but are probably c. 1830–35.

The labels come from: A local newspaper (1823), a Bristol collector (1823). and an antiquary (1847) for “fossilist”; Gideon Mantell, geologist, for “geological Lioness”; Ludwig Leichardt, explorer, for “Princess of palaeontology”. See Torrens Hugh , “Mary Anning (1799–1847) of Lyme; ‘the greatest fossilist the world ever knew’”, The British journal for the history of science, xxviii (1995), 257–84, pp. 262–3, 268–9.

Secord Anne , “Artisan botany”, in Jardine N. Secord J. A. Spary E. C. (eds), Cultures of natural history (Cambridge, 1996), 378–93, pp. 385, 387 for examples.

Sheffield , Revealing new worlds (ref. 129), 142.

Hooker to Gray Asa , 10 Dec. 1856, cited by Bellon , “Hooker's ideals” (ref. 22), 71; Huxley to Hooker , 29 Jan. 1859, Huxley Papers (ref. 56), vol. ii, f. 53. Endersby , “Putting plants in their place” (ref. 22), also discusses the status of botany in mid-century.

“Address by the President” (ref. 123), p. lxxix. When Allman chose to describe himself as “a worker in only the biological sciences” (List 4, 1879) rather than a ‘naturalist’ it may be that he was judging ‘naturalist’ to represent a lesser person. But also, he might have preferred the tone of ‘worker’, or he might have been trying not to take sides in the growing tensions between naturalists and biologists (see Allen David , “On parallel lines: Natural history and biology from the late Victorian period”, Annals of natural history, xxv (1998), 361–71).

Hooker to de la Touche J. D. , 24 Dec. 1893, Hooker Correspondence (ref. 91), “Letters from J. D. Hooker”, vol. x, f. 49.

Galton , English men of science (ref. 70), 6, italics mine.

For examples see Bartholomew M. J. , “The award of the Copley Medal to Charles Darwin”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xxx (1975), 209–17; and Rowlinson J. S. , “The theory of glaciers”, Notes and records of the Royal Society of London, xxvi (1971), 189–204, pp. 196–7.

“President's address”, Abstracts of papers delivered before the Royal Society of London, vi (1850–54), 344–57, p. 352.

“President's address” (written by Brodie but read in his absence by Sabine), Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, xi (1860–62), 8–14, pp. 8–9.

“President's address” (ref. 36), 560–1.

“President's address”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, xxvi (1877), 427–16, p. 431, italics mine.

Russell Colin , Chemists by profession (ref. 24).

Frankland Edward to Hooker J. D. , 8 Dec. [1876], Hooker Correspondence (ref. 91), “Letters to J. D. Hooker — Dinners, receptions etc; Exhibition of Scientific Instrus.; Government Grant; Greenwich Observatory; Vivisection Bill”, ff. 351–2.

“Address by the President” (ref. 86), p. xxxix.

“Lord Derby on the endowment of research” (ref. 58) reported a range of opinions.

“The endowment of research”, Nature, 26 June 1873, 157–8, p. 157, italics mine. Attributed to Norman Lockyer by Cardwell D. S. L. , The organisation of science in England, rev. edn (London, 1972), 151.

Sorby (1876), cited by Alberti , “Amateurs and professionals in one county” (ref. 22), 128.

Berman , “Hegemony” (ref. 14) demonstrates that a wide variety of leading researchers had little interest in establishing specialist education.

Sabine Edward , “Address by the President” (ref. 35), p. lviii.

Hooker to Tyndall John , 14 Nov. 1891, Tyndall Papers (ref. 110), 12/F10.104. Hooker went on to class surveyors as geographers whose work duties were “practical”, implying that geography was not a science.

For example, see Moore James R. , “Green gold: The riches of Baron Ferdinand von Mueller”, Historical records of Australian science, xi (1997), 371–88.

On the gap between rhetoric and reality and the exclusionary power of rhetoric, although in another time and place, see Oreskes , “Objectivity or heroism?” (ref. 77).