Eighteen forty-four would prove to be a significant year in the development of evolutionary thinking. That summer, a thirty-five year old geologist by the name of Charles Darwin completed an unpublished essay which would, in 230 pages, outline his theory of evolution by natural selection. Unbeknownst to the Victorian public, an intellectual revolution was about to be unleashed, albeit fifteen years into the future. Instead, the middle-class public and the guardians of their intellectual development were all abuzz with discussion of an anonymously published work entitled ''Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation''. The story of this work, its author, and its reception remains one of the most intriguing tales in the history of science. In it we can see foreshadows of many debates that still occur to this day - among scientists and public alike - including those about the validity of evolutionary theories, the demarcation of science from pseudoscience, and the effect of popularization upon scientific ideas. The publication of the first edition would see the birth of one of the greatest controversies of the nineteenth century, one that would result in the sale of over 23,000 copies over a sixteen year period and the publication of a further eleven editions (Secord 1994, xxvi). To understand the controversy, we must first examine the author, the Edinburgh publisher Robert Chambers, and his other major attempt to bring scientific knowledge to the reading classes, ''Chambers's Edinburgh Journal'' (henceforth CEJ).

Chambers' life was one of early hardship overcome by dedicated work.1 Primary among his works was the publication of the CEJ with his brother, William, an endeavor which began in 1832. The Journal, an eight-page weekly costing three halfpence, reached a circulation of approximately 60,000 during its first ten years and proved to be one of the most popular British weeklies. As a definite exemplar of the middle classes writing for the lower, it had the simple aim of providing 'a meal of healthful, useful and agreeable mental instruction' for even the 'poorest labourer in the country' (Chambers 1832). Robert's influence began primarily with his scientific articles, summarizing as they did the latest findings, allowing the reading public access to ideas previously only available to the emerging scientific profession, often at the same time presenting 'exalted views of Creative Wisdom and Providential Care' and thus clearly reflecting the tenets of the Rev William Paley and natural theology (CEJ 1847). Chambers could seemingly maneuver almost any scientific topic into a testimonial for design. For example, in an observation that would be supported by many modern opponents to Darwinism, he believed that ciliary motion 'exhibits the exquisite handiwork of the creator' (CEJ 1846).

The editorial policy of CEJ seems to have been one of opposition to transmutation. Discussions of the theories of Lamarck and others left it clear that these 'most absurd notions' were not to be countenanced (Secord 1989, 178). After 1838, the Journal made no mention of evolutionism again until its 1860 review of ''Origin of Species''. It was during this period that Chambers was at work writing and revising his (now) most infamous work. Deploring the increased specialization among scientists and their lack of enthusiasm for grand, unifying theories, Chambers set out to provide an all-encompassing theory which would unify divergent fields under the banner of universal development which, although divinely decreed and determined, was not under ongoing divine guidance. This vision of a 'universal gestation of nature' (Chambers 1845, 72) was so sweeping that he originally wanted his work to be called ''The Natural History of Creation'' - a move that his editor, Alexander Ireland, felt would have been ill-advised (Secord 1989, xxv). Indeed, as we shall see, it was the sweeping nature of his theory that would lead to problems for Chambers.

The first edition of ''Vestiges'' (reprinted in Secord 1994) appeared in mid-October 1844, with a print run of 150 copies. Candidates for the authorship of the anonymous work were legion. Ada Lovelace, Harriet Martineau, Charles Lyell, Darwin, George Combe, Richard Owen, Charles Babbage, and even Prince Albert - supporter of science that he was - were all posited to be the 'Vestigenarian', and many others could be added to the list. Darwin felt that he 'ought to be much flattered & unflattered' at such an attribution (Burkhardt III, 181). As Secord has pointed out, anyone familiar with the content of ''Chambers' Edinburgh Journal'' could clearly have guessed the authorship of Vestiges (1989, 175). In fact, the scientific articles in CEJ contained 'the same type of scientific errors and flawed reasoning found later in Vestiges' (Schwartz 357). Based on a December 1845 discussion with Edward Forbes, Darwin felt that 'Chambers must be the author of the Vestiges' (letter to Hooker, Feb 1846; Burkhardt III, 289). By April 1847 he was 'perfectly convinced he is the Author', primarily because of his recent acquaintance with Chambers and almost immediate reception of a presentation copy of the sixth edition (letter to Hooker; Burkhardt IV, 36).

Chambers' authorship was officially revealed in the posthumous twelfth edition of 1884. But the cat was out of the bag long before that. While Chambers became a clear suspect very early on in the controversy, initially only four people beyond Chambers, his wife, brother and Ireland knew that he was the author. One of these was David Page, his editorial assistant. In 1854 Page, annoyed with pronouncements in the autobiographical preface to the tenth edition, admitted his complicity in a lecture reported in the ''Dundee, Perth and Cupar Advertiser'' of the 24th of November, which was subsequently reported in the ''Athenaeum'' (2nd December) in which 'Mr Page fixes authorship on a gentleman who has been generally credited with the work'. As Secord (1989, xliii) recounts, due to Page's status as an embittered employee, his finger-pointing was not accepted by all, and the controversy continued into the 1870's.

Vestiges' initial approval in the more radical journals by likes of Edward Forbes (''Lancet'')and William Carpenter (''British and Foreign Medical Review'') soon gave way to less positive responses by extreme evangelicals and establishment quarterlies. The ''Athenaeum'' published the first adverse review (in January 1845) and began an attack that was to peak with Adam Sedgwick's infamous review in the ''Edinburgh Review'' of July 1845.

Above all else, the speculative nature of the work left many reviewers cold. William Henry Smith felt it to be 'an assemblage of all that is most venturous and most fanciful in modern speculation' (449). To Edward Newman it had an almost mythological character, and this in a negative sense - 'as a work of science the Vestiges of Creation is on a par with the ''Metamorphosis of Ovid''. It is equally absurd, unnatural, and illogical' (963). One sees the words 'unnatural' and 'absurd' quite often in these reviews. Yet criticisms were also leveled at the scientific content of the work, most famously by Sedgwick and Brewster.

In truth, Chambers had not expected scientific criticism, and subsequent editions were revised with the aid of George Fownes, Edwin Lankester and William Carpenter. These revisions were in direct response to his critics, and lead to a number of fairly significant changes in his argument by the time the tenth edition appeared in 1853.2 Chambers' initial reaction to his critics was contained in ''Explanations'', a work which appeared in December 1845, and sought to (among other things) rebut Sedgwick's remarks of the previous July. Explanations went through two editions, the second (June 1846) offering an attack on Whewell's Indications of the Creator. In this work, Chambers attempted to show how the likes of Sedgwick, Whewell and Herschel amended their pre-1844 statements on natural law in attempts to distance themselves from his position; in short, they were not being consistent in their beliefs nor fair to Chambers and his theory.

Discussions of the reception of ''Vestiges'' by Whewell, Sedgwick and Hugh Miller|Miller are given in the companion volumes within this set, while Thomas Henry Huxley's view of the work can be quickly ascertained from reading his review (reprinted herein) of the tenth edition for ''The British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review''. For Huxley, the 'once attractive and still notorious work of fiction' had been 'shown to be a mass of pretentious nonsense' yet survived due to the 'utter ignorance of the public mind as to the methods of science and the criterion of truth', ignorance shared by the Vestigenarian (Huxley 425). At this time, Huxley had not yet acquired the name and prestige he would have in later life, and he would later say that this was 'the only review that I ever have qualms of conscience about, on the ground of needless savagery'. I leave it up to the reader to plumb the depths of Huxley's polemic.

At this stage it is, however, worthwhile outlining the influence that the publication had one of the few Victorian notables who did not directly reply to Chambers, namely Charles Darwin, whose reaction is known to us through his extensive correspondence. The botanist Joseph Dalton Hooker wrote on the subject of Vestiges to Darwin late in 1844. He felt that 'the books look more like a 9 day wonder than a lasting work', and by July of the next year the work was 'already defunct' (Burkhardt III, 103 & 211). Darwin would appear to have had a slightly more ambiguous relationship with the work. He was clearly unimpressed with the early editions ('his geology strikes me as bad, & his zoology far worse'; Burkhardt III, 108), yet felt that the tenth edition was 'much improved' (Darwin xvii). The 'strangely unphilosophical, but capitally written book' (Burkhardt III, 181) received mention from Darwin in private letters well after the initial reaction to the work had mellowed somewhat. In 1856 he was still referring to the 'Vestiges theory' in numerous letters to Hooker, yet throughout in a negative manner. He clearly believed that the work had, in many senses done more harm that good: 'Mr Vestiges,' like Lamarck had 'in his absurd though clever work ... done the subject [of mutability of species] harm' (Burkhardt III, 253). In his annotations to his copy of the sixth edition, Darwin decried Chambers' sketching of genealogies and stress on progress - 'I will not specify any genealogies - much too little known at present. Never use the word higher & lower - use more complicated'. While parts were deemed to be 'Rubbish', others required Darwin to 'allude to all' of them at a later stage (Di Gregorio 164-5).

It was Sedgwick's reaction to ''Vestiges'' that probably left the greatest impact on Darwin. In a letter to Charles Lyell|Lyell of October 8th 1845, he declared Sedwick's savaging in the ''Edinburgh Review'' to be 'a grand piece of argument against mutability of species, and I read it with fear and trembling, but was well pleased to find that I had not overlooked any of the arguments, though I had put them to myself as feebly as milk and water'. In short, Sedgwick's best shot against transmutation left Darwin's views still standing, though in need of a little strengthening. Keenly, Darwin noticed that 'some few passages savor of the dogmatism of the pulpit, rather than of the philosophy of the Professor chair' (Burkhardt III, 258).

While Sedgwick's attack may have left Darwin feeling confident in aspects of his theory, he was worried about the fate of his work if it should be used by a popularizer such as the Vestigenarian. In the letter which would be later used by Lyell and Hooker to establish his precedence over Wallace as discoverer of natural selection, he asked Asa Gray 'not to mention my doctrine; the reason is, if anyone like the Author of the Vestiges, were to hear of them, he might easily work them in, & then I [should] have to quote from a work perhaps despised by naturalists & this would greatly injure any chances of my views being received by those alone whose opinions I value' (Burkhardt VI, 446). This too was the fear of many of the early 'Darwinists' such as Huxley - that their developing ideas would be taken by a popularizer and brought into disrepute.

In his ''Historical Sketch'', which was prepended to later editions of ''Origin'', Darwin would note that despite 'displaying in earlier editions little accurate knowledge and a great want of scientific caution', ''Vestiges'' had done 'excellent service [in] calling attention to the subject, in removing prejudice, and in thus preparing the ground for the reception of analogous views'. Whatever the effect of the publication on the general public, for Darwin, it was largely one of forcing him to reconsider his initial adoption of the Quinary system3 - 'After the [Vestiges] I see it will be necessary to advert to [sic] Quinary System, because he brings it in to show that Lamarck's willing (& consequently my selection) must be erroneous .. few English, sound anatomical naturalists support it and hardly any foreign'(Burkhardt III, 109). Chambers himself soon abandoned the system. By the sixth edition (1847), the forty page initial discussion, where the system was accepted as a 'powerful additional proof of the hypothesis of organic progress by virtue of law' (Chambers 1844, 250), had been whittled down to four pages. By the tenth edition only two pages remained, and the system had been abandoned for one consisting of parallel relationships.

Chambers' mechanism for change between species was simple. Slight delays in gestation could allow a lower type to give birth to a higher one. In his view, a divine programmer (analogous to Charles Babbage) could build change into the underlying law and thus like need not reproduce like. From the sixth edition onwards he proposed a system of 'stirpes' - 'a plurality of lines, in which there have either been some comparatively wide leaps, or else intermediate species which have been lost to observation' (Chambers 1853, 140-141). Development along a given stirpe occurred simply as a predetermined process of maturation of an initial 'infusorial globule', which amounted to an embryonic mammal (Hodge 145). Within this framework change in the fossil record was understood to have often occurred in a saltational manner (contra the gradualist Darwinian interpretation). It is worth stressing that ''Vestiges'' lacks any notion of common descent and rests on the theme of parallel lines each stretching towards the human apex: 'This view suggests that development has not proceeded, as is usually assumed, upon a single line which would require all the orders of animals to be placed one after another, but in a plurality of lines in which the orders, and even minuter sub-divisions, of each class, are ranged side by side' (Chambers 1845, 69). It is also worth pointing out that Chambers' theories included both the origin of life and the origin of species, whereas Darwin refused to discuss the former. Thus, though Chambers' ideas were clearly transmutationalist, they in no way formed a logical precursor (or even comfortable bedfellow) to Darwin's.

Much of the professional criticism of Vestiges was paleontological. Many argued that the fossil record did not show the overall progress that Chambers claimed and his theory of universal development demanded. For the likes of Sedgwick (and indeed Hugh Miller), the fossil record was not obviously one of increased complexity; simple and complex forms occurred together, while early forms were often complex. This argument formed the central aim of Miller's ''Footprints of the Creator'', a work specifically aimed against Vestiges. (See Lynch for a more complete discussion of paleontological arguments against Chambers.) Darwin, perhaps learning from Chambers' experiences, spent a good portion of Origin dealing with the nature of the fossil record and what we can expect to see of past events, and effectively disarmed many of these attacks. Another objection revolved around the stability of species, not only in the fossil record, but also in the world today. Underlying this objection was always a belief in the original creation being perfect, a logic that assumed a perfect creation could not be improved and thus could not change. Chambers, along with Lyell and Darwin, was in the forefront of those who fought against this static view of nature, and it has been often claimed that Victorian opposition to evolutionary thinking stemmed from the cultures' reticence towards change, particularly change which was uncontrolled by any providential force. Chambers' mechanism of rapid saltational (almost revolutional) change no doubt directly confronted this viewpoint, despite his belief in distant divine control.

Critics, however reserved much of their venom for two particular strategies that Chambers used. While Chambers often warned readers of unproven conjectural theories, he felt that, while one should be wary of novel findings, the truth often comes from such (CEJ 1856). Therefore, he adopted two 'novel findings' that, more than anything else contained in Vestiges, opened the door for criticism. These were the Nebular Hypothesis and Andrew Crosse's apparent spontaneous generation of life using electricity, and they will now be briefly considered.

Whewell coined the term 'Nebular Hypothesis' to describe the theory, attributed to Emmanuel Swedenburg, Immanuel Kant, Pierre Simone LaPlace and later William Herschel, that the solar system was formed from a molten mass of matter (a nebula), out of which planets condensed as the mass rotated and cooled. The production of the universe from a primordial cloud was, in fact, a Pre-Socratic idea and the idea of a developmental cosmology had become associated with French revolutionaries, working-class atheists, and various naturalists such as Lamarck, St Hilaire and the 'philosophical anatomists' in the radical London medical schools. This was enough to bring the idea into some disrepute with the establishment. Why then did Chambers adopt the theory? Firstly, nebular material was observable, and up until the appearance of ''Vestiges'', many of the works most notable critics (for example, Brewster and Whewell) had tentatively supported the idea. Secondly, the adoption of the hypothesis allowed Chambers' to infer that, since developmental models had been considered at the cosmological level, such models should then be applicable at a lower level. It should be stressed that in no way did Chambers' theory depend on the veracity of the Nebular Hypothesis. He solely felt that it showed the universality of development. Yet this rhetorical strategy backfired as critics felt that dismissal of the Nebular Hypothesis would effectively dismiss all of his theories. The attention paid to the hypothesis by his critics far outweighed its importance to his whole argument, and much of what he said had been previously stated by other (often more eminent) scientists. Unfortunately for Chambers, as he was writing, the Earl of Rosse resolved certain nebulae into their component stars, though he warned that all nebulae may not necessarily be resolvable. In 1845 and '46, the Irish astronomer Thomas Robinson resolved further nebulae thus casting further doubt on the hypothesis, and removing a plank from underneath Chambers' argument.4 Chambers attempted to defend his belief in the second edition of Explanations, while also developing a second analogy between the micro- and macrocosms, one which lead him to state that the hypothesis had been demonstrated 'by experiment to a point at which we may almost be said to see it passing into the region of ascertained truths' (5th edition of ''Vestiges''; Ogilvie 62). This support came from the experiments of Belgian physicist Joseph-Antoine-Ferdinand Plateau (see Chambers 1845, 13-17), and Chambers used them to counter what he saw as the mere rhetoric of his opponents. J.H. Allen objected to this analogy, and by the sixth edition of Vestiges Chambers was less sure of its worth. From here on, Chambers presented the hypothesis solely within an historical discussion, thus allowing him to include the concept without fully committing himself to it (Ogilvie 77).

Probably the 'fact' that received the greatest amount of ridicule from the critics was Chambers' adoption of the experiments of Crosse to demonstrate spontaneous generation of life from non-life. Chambers first mentioned Crosse's work in a report in 1837 (CEJ 1837), and put briefly, Crosse believed that he had generated a new species of mite by allowing electricity to pass through a solution. To Chambers, this proved that life could come from non-living matters, providing another plank for his developmental scheme. But as with the Nebular Hypothesis, his support soon disappeared. The mite was shown to be, not a new species, but a common ''Acarus horridus'', and few believed it appeared by a process of spontaneous generation. As W.H. Smith pointed out, 'we have no recoil against this generation of an animalcule by the wonderful chemistry of God; our objection to this doctrine is, that it is not proved' (454).

After the fifth edition, Chambers wisely no longer claimed that Crosse had produced a new species of mite. By 1853 he would state, 'we do not present the Crossian experiment as undoubted facts, or as indispensable parts of the present hypothesis ... we do not reject the alleged examples ... we do not attach to them a high degree of consequence" (138). As with the Nebular Hypothesis, he was unwilling to totally remove a possibly useful observation that appeared to support his hypothesis. Although spontaneous generation was one of the areas where Vestiges was most criticized, and Chambers removed many of his other examples, the mites remained throughout. He refused to address the observation that even if spontaneous generation were true, why were all the examples of complex organisms, not the simple organisms demanded of his developmental hypothesis?5

The long battle with reviewers came to a culmination in 1853's tenth edition (reprinted herein), with its large appendix in which Chambers replied to many of his critics by demonstrating that many of the authorities he used were also the authorities of contemporary science (Yeo 2). In attacking Sedgwick, he not only pointed out that the geologist had once held the general position that he himself advocated, but also that, being 'neither an anatomist or naturalist' Sedgwick could not be accepted as an expert in such areas (Chambers 1853, xlix). Thus, central to his defense were his views on authority and professionalism. Chambers was a talented amateur in a period which was still largely the age of the amateur with few professional scientists (Davy, Faraday, and Lyell perhaps being the exceptions). There was no clear distinction between 'science' and 'non-science' in this period, and those who considered themselves professional scientists often disagreed on the distinction between the two spheres (Hutchinson 77). As ''Vestiges'' went through successive revisions, movements within the 'scientific community' were leading to increased calls for professionalization, and by the tenth edition the negative reaction of the likes of Huxley was, as Hodge notes, largely in response to Chambers' status as an anonymous amateur who was attempting to bring scientific issues directly to the public without the mediation of the professionals who existed at that time (133). It was Chambers' perceived lack of experience that lead many critics to reject him. David Brewster wrote that had the author 'performed one single chemical experiment, and endeavoured to understand its import ... he would never have presumed to write this book' (Brewster 507). Ironically, Chambers was quite accomplished as an amateur geologist, and as author of fourteen geological works between 1843 and 1864, he was well known enough for Darwin to have a correspondence with him on geological issues (particularly the raised beaches at GlenRoy; see Burkhardt IV). He was, in short, 'a minor but not negligible scientist' (Millhauser 168).

Chambers saw himself as a natural philosopher rather than as a scientist. Throughout his writings in the CEJ he refused to use the term 'scientist' and seldom used 'science', preferring 'natural philosophy' (Hutchinson 79), thus cloaking himself in an older, more inclusive tradition. This allowed him, as an amateur (as were most natural philosophers), to believe that he could synthesize the writings of the professionals in a manner that was not only novel but in a form that would educate the masses. Like his critics Miller and Huxley, Chambers functioned as a popularizer.6 Yet, while Chambers was castigated for his efforts, Miller was accepted due to his obviously more pious attitude to nature and its lessons, while Huxley as part of the emerging scientific elite could effectively delineate boundaries and thus maintain his status as respected scientist and trusted popularizer. As Hutchinson notes, an important part of popularizing science for the layman depends on having significant ideas and possessing the literary ability to describe them (18). Chambers clearly possessed the latter, and as Yeo points out, it is the synthetic nature of Vestiges that made it difficult to completely dismiss. While particular sections of the work could be taken as being wrongs, it was 'difficult to represent the entire work as unscientific, because it deployed a large amount of recognized scientific thinking and data' (8). This kind of theory often offers problems for scientists as the scope of data to be evaluated is so great given the specialization within scientific fields. Some such syntheses prove correct (e.g. Wegener's theory of continental drift) while others do not. Chambers' theory is in the latter category.

Chambers was clearly somewhat confused on his stance on the status of the amateur or popularizer within Victorian science. While accepting his own ability to popularize ideas, and deploring the limited vision of specialists, he still believed that specialists were the sole authorities within their sphere (in this matter he distrusted Sedgwick), and felt that popularizers were not necessarily to be trusted. This is wonderfully illustrated by his reaction to Miller, who had been 'officially patronized and applauded' despite the fact that 'twenty chapters from a mere working geologist and litterateur like Mr. Miller could not stand against' any of the ideas of Louis Agassiz (Chambers 1853, xxxix). Needless to say, in this instance, Chambers felt that Agassiz's observations supported his theories - despite the fact that Agassiz himself had little time for Vestiges being 'supported only by antiquated assertions' (Agassiz 25).

Chambers was obviously a natural theologian in the Paley mold, yet there were differences. Vestiges emphasized development over design. For Paley, design implied a designer who would justify our attention to his words as presented in Scripture. Chambers was more interested in how this design came about and thus proposed a theory of development. However, Chambers was clearly influenced by Paley, as examination of articles in ''Chambers's Edinburgh Journal'' clearly shows (Hutchinson 100-148).

Between 1832 and 1859, the journal published 374 articles on biological themes compared to a mere 84 on geology. Considering geology's popularity and Chambers' relative expertise in the field, why was geology relatively ignored? Hutchinson (90 & 120) suggests that it was due to an editorial policy of avoiding controversy (in this case, catastrophism). However, this cannot be the sole reason, as topics such as animal magnetism, spiritualism, phrenology, spontaneous generation and other controversial topics within biology accounted for nearly 15% of the articles (Hutchinson 85). What is more likely is that, to Chambers at least, biology better illustrated design and thus better served his agenda of presenting 'exalted views of Creative Wisdom and Providential Care'. Indeed, the Creator features strongly in many articles, being mentioned in sixty of the biological articles but only six geological (Hutchinson 91-92). Thus, Chambers saw the biological world as evidence for the action of a divine hand, and like Whewell, Sedgwick and others, he felt that it was his place to uncover the laws by observing nature (albeit in his case, in a largely second hand fashion).

Above all else, Chambers was attempting to formulate a theodicy and to understand the mind of God. Vestiges, far from refulecting atheistic ideology, clear assumes that a unitary divine being was responsible for the natural laws that brought everything into being, and to modern readers it reads with a certain charming piety. In so doing, he projects an image of a world governed by a beneficent and wise Creator, an image in accordance with the accepted viewpoint of many nineteenth century natural philosophers - and indeed Newton - to whom natural law exalted rather than diminished God. Yet there was a tension with more traditional views. In the first edition Chambers noted that 'the ordinary conceptions of Christian nations on this subject are directly derived from Scripture, or, at least, are in conformity with it' yet 'there is not the least appearance of an intention in that book to give philosophically exact views of nature' (154). Chambers believed that universal law was simpler (and had greater beauty) than the exceptions demanded by those geologists who clung to literal belief in Scripture. For him, the Creation 'flow[ed] from commands and expressions of will, not from direct acts' (156). While few naturalists of the time were Biblical literalists, Chambers' words would still have proved discomforting, if only because of their directness and he eventually removed any discussions of the scriptural implications of creation by natural law from the sixth edition and onwards.

Chambers adopted more than Paley's belief in design and divine action. As far as moral philosophy was concerned, his admiration for Bentham puts him strongly in the Utilitarian camp, which was very much declining and which was strongly opposed by liberals such as Sedgwick and the dons at Cambridge (Garland). Natural theology, natural philosophy, and Benthamite utilitarianism all declined together. Faced with the decline of natural philosophy and the increasing specialization of science with its search for law, Chambers desired a mechanism by which he could reconcile his beliefs with scientific observations. Far from being atheistic, he was merely a relic of a past time, and was in a sense trying to nomotize natural theology and rationalize his late-seventeenth century beliefs.

Perhaps affected by the reception of Vestiges, he became less enamored with natural theology in the 1850's and shifted somewhat to spiritualism, leaving a large unpubliched manuscript on the subject. Hutchinson has noted that after 1853 (and thus the tenth edition of ''Vestiges''), there was a marked drop in references to any epithet for Creator in the CEJ (117), and Chambers felt that spiritualism only required 'some careful investigation to form a respectable addition to our stock of knowledge' (Chambers 1872 288). One must wonder, therefore, what he thought spiritualism offered? Was it that purely mechanistic science under the influence of the likes of Huxley and John Tyndall, having shed natural theology and natural philosophy, was too sterile? As his brother William pointed out, 'in his anxiety for fairplay, he perhaps leant to the side of credulity' (Chambers 1872 288). For Chambers, credulity had its virtues.

''Notes''
1. There is little space here to provide an outline of Chambers' life. Millhauser's work is somewhat outdated. Secord (1989 & 1994) provides more background. Chambers (1872) is not as useful as could be hoped.

2. Secord (1994, 217-219) provides a summary of the revisions to the work. Ogilvie gives a more detailed list of changes.

3. William Sharp Macleay's 'Quinary System' was a somewhat Idealistic system of classification that posited that organisms could be arranged into five groups which themselves contained five sub-groups, and so on. Chambers supported the system because he felt that it demonstrated that Lamarck's system was untenable in that it was 'totally irreconcilable with the idea of form going on to form merely as needs and wishes in the animals themselves dictated' (Chambers 1844, 232).

4. The history of the controversy over the Nebular Hypothesis is nicely summarized in Schaffer.

5. Secord (1989b) details the history of Crosse's experiment and its relationship to Vestiges.

6. See Schwartz for a useful comparison of this shared aspect of Huxley and Chambers.

''Works Cited''

Agassiz, Louis, Introduction to the Study of Natural History, (New York: Greeley & McGrath, 1847).

A[llen], J.H., Christian Examiner and Religious Miscellany 40(1845): 333-349.

[Brewster, David], 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' North British Review 4(1846): 487-504. (Reprinted herein).

Burkhardt, Frederick and Sydney Smith (eds.), The Correspondence of Charles Darwin. (Cambridge University Press, 1985-)

[Carpenter, William B.], "Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' British and Foreign Medical Review 19(1845): 155-181. (Reprinted herein).

[Chambers's Edinburgh Journal], 'Extraordinary electrical phenomena' Chambers's Edinburgh Journal (20th May 1837): 130.

--- 'Popular information on science: Ciliary motion' Chambers's Edinburgh Journal (13th January 1846): 382.

--- Chambers's Edinburgh Journal (2nd January 1847).

--- 'The Magnetoscope' Chambers's Edinburgh Journal (13th December 1851): 376-378.

--- 'Mesmeric treatment of the insane' Chambers's Edinburgh 6(1856): 199.

[Chambers, Robert], Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. 1st edition. (London: John Churchill, 1844). 10th edition. (London: John Churchill, 1853).

--- Explanations: A Sequel. 1st edition. (London: John Churchill, 1845).

Chambers, William, 'The editor's address to his readers' Chambers' Edinburgh Journal (4th February 1832):1

--- Memoir of Robert Chambers with autobiographic reminiscences of William Chambers. (New York: Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1872).

Darwin, Charles, On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection. 4th edition, (London: John Murray, 1866).

Di Gregorio, Mario A., Charles Darwin's Marginalia. (New York: Garland, 1990).

[Forbes, Edward], 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' The Lancet 23rd November(1844): 265-266. (Reprinted herein).

Garland, Martha McMackin, Cambridge before Darwin: the ideal of a liberal education, 1800-1860. (Cambridge University Press, 1980).

Hodge, M.J.S., 'The universal gestation of nature: Chambers Vestiges and Explanations.' Journal of the History of Biology 5(1972): 127-151.

Hutchinson, Gov, Robert Chambers's Vision of Science: The Diffusion of Scientific Ideas to the General Reader in Early-Victorian Britain. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis, (Temple University, 1980).

[Huxley, Thomas Henry], 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' British and Foreign Medico-Chirurgical Review 26(1854): 425-439. (Reprinted herein).

Lynch, John M., 'The Battle of the Evidences: the fossil record speaks' in H. Miller Foot-Prints of the Creator; or, the Asterolepis of Stromness. (Bristol: Thoemmes Press, 2000).

Millhauser, Milton, Just Before Darwin: Robert Chambers and Vestiges. (Middletown, Conn.: Wesleyan University Press, 1959)

Ogilvie, Marilyn Bailey, Robert Chambers and the Successive Revisions of the Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation. Unpublished Ph.D thesis, (University of Oklahoma, 1973).

[Newman, Edward], 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' The Zoologist 3(1845): 954-963.

Schaffer, Simon, 'The nebular hypothesis and the science of progress' in J.R. Moore (ed.), History, Humanity and Evolution, (Cambridge University Press, 1989).

Schwartz, Joel S., 'Robert Chambers and Thomas Henry Huxley, science correspondents: The popularization and dissemination of nineteenth century natural science' Journal of the History of Biology 32(1999): 343-383.

Secord, James A. 'Behind the veil: Robert Chambers and Vestiges' in J.R. Moore (ed.), History, Humanity and Evolution, (Cambridge University Press, 1989).

--- 'Extraordinary experiment: Electricity and the creation of life in Victorian England' in D. Gooding, T. Pinch & S. Schaffer, The Uses of Experiment, (Cambridge University Press, 1989b).

--- (ed.), Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation and Other Evolutionary Writings. (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1994).

[Smith, William Henry], 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' Blackwood's Edinburgh Magazine 57(April 1845): 448-460.

Yeo, Richard, 'Science and intellectual authority in mid-nineteenth-century Britain: Robert Chambers and Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation' Victorian Studies 28(1984): 5-31.