Recap - What Mr Darwin Saw

Many thanks to everyone who came along to last night's meeting: there was a great turn-out to discuss all things Darwinian!

Julie Barzilay gave a fantastic introduction to the set readings, detailing her recent research into this topic, and providing some very helpful background information on Wendell Phillips Garrison, author of the original What Mr Darwin Saw. She explained how the book fitted with Garrison's other editoral work, abolitionist convictions, and writings for children, and drew attention in particular to his restructuring of Darwin's words into a natural history guide that taught children how to be observers, moving from animals to man to geography to nature. She asked us to consider what was lost, as well as gained, in this editorial process; and more generally to analyse the role of editors and their responsibility to - or exploitation of - works' original authors. In the thought-provoking and characteristically wide-ranging discussion that followed, many different aspects of this children's book were brought into question. How and by whom would the book have been read? What was its relationship with other types of children's natural history books, with encyclopaedias, with travel narratives? What kinds of scientific methods were taught through this work? How 'invisible' was its the editor, after all? What ethical considerations should we foreground when reading historical source material about racial difference, especially with juvenile audiences in mind?

In comparison with the more recent book which shares its title, we were also able to think about how the Beagle voyage has been rewritten for audiences today. Rather than Darwin the superlative 'see-er', as had been presented in the 19th century, we explored how Darwin the scientific hero was the star of this work. Published as part of the 2009 celebrations commemorating 200 years since his birth, and 150 years since the publication of the Origin of Species, a shift from teaching natural history to teaching history was, as we discussed, apparent.