James Secord has written a monumental account of Robert Chambers’ anonymously published book which in 1844 introduced the idea of evolution to the British public. The book was a publishing sensation, vilified by the Church and by most elite scientists, but gaining a wide readership and thus playing a major role in conditioning ordinary people to think in evolutionary terms long before Darwin published. Chambers succeeded in convincing people that evolution was not atheistical, as long as it was presented as a purposeful process that might be seen as the unfolding of a divine plan. He also sold the middle classes on the idea that progressive evolution was the ideal scientific underpinning for their political hopes for social reform. But precisely because he had no scientifically plausible mechanism to explain how the law of progress unfolded, his impact on working scientists was limited, even radicals like T H Huxley joining in the chorus of condemnation.

In a sense, this is two books in one. Partly it is a contribution to the history of science and to the ongoing debate over the structure and timing of the so-called “Darwinian revolution”. Secord has for some time argued (along with Adrian Desmond and others) that the idea of evolution had begun to play a role both in science, but more especially in the public consciousness, long before the great debates over the Origin of Species. This study reinforces the claim that most people were well aware of the idea before Darwin published, and that even many scientists had been forced at the very least to back away from the idea of divine creation although they were not yet ready to endorse evolution. On this model, Darwin merely engineered a palace coup within the ranks of the scientific establishment – the real revolution in people’s thinking had already taken place in response to Chambers’ book. Equally important, the model of progressive evolution created by Vestiges is now a historical curiosity. The “palace coup” was built on a new idea that turned out to have immense potential, however much its presentation and initial reception were shaped by the ideology of mid-Victorian progressionism. Despite my own misgivings about the old-fashioned image of the Darwinian revolution, I hope that we do not lose sight of the radical nature of Darwin’s insights, nor cease to take an interest in the complex process by which he was able to put those insights together.

The second function of Secord’s book is to analyse the actual process by which Vestiges was written, published, reviewed, debated and read by ordinary people. This is a substantial addition to the growing study of the book as a centrepiece of modern culture in an increasingly commercialised world. Anyone who wants to know how the publishing houses of the Victorian era functioned, how they promoted their books, how the reviewing process worked, and how ordinary people in different towns and from different backgrounds read the books (as recorded in diaries, debates in local lit. & phil. societies and the like) will learn a great deal from Secord’s work. Space forbids any more detailed comment on this side of his book here, but clearly it marks a new departure in the thoroughness with which historians of science study the practical dimension of how new ideas are disseminated. If one could venture a criticism, it is that the historical revisionism referred to above and the enormous scope of this new dimension do not always sit easily together. Those looking for an overview of the book’s impact may find themselves struggling in the sheer volume of information presented to them on particular events in the drama.

Peter J. Bowler
The Queen’s University of Belfast