December 19, 2007
Is a Whale a Fish?
Science, Religion, & Natural Order in 19th Century America
Graham Burnett
Associate Professor Of History, Princeton University
Minutes of the 13th Meeting of the 66th Year
President Giordmaine gaveled the 13th meeting of the 66th year of the Old Guard of Princeton to order promptly at 10:15 AM at the Friend Center of Princeton University. There were 89 members present. George Hansen led those assembled in the singing of “Our Father’s God to Thee.” Barney Barnhart described the preceding week’s lecture on the great plague of London, given by the husband and wife team of Lloyd and Dorothy Moote. Charles Stenard introduced his guest, Dr. Charles E. Bush. Scott McVay introduced his wife Hella who was a visitor. Gordon Spencer introduced visitor Paul Learner, Ed Koda his daughter Debbie and Dick Armstrong 3 gentlemen from South Africa, Prof. Malan Nel, Dr. Johannes van der Walt and Pastor Philip Dungulu. President Giordmaine indicated that Edward Albee would very likely be a speaker in May (14 or 21) through the efforts of Scott McVay. He cautioned the members to look carefully at the coats they donned after the meetings, as there has been a rash of permutations recently, resulting in great inconvenience. The next meeting was announced as taking place next year on January 9.
Bob Varrin introduced the speaker, Professor D. Graham Burnett from the History Department of Princeton University. Professor Burnett was the Salutatorian of the Princeton class of ’93 and winner of the Pyne prize. He was a Marshall Scholar and received his PhD from Trinity College, Cambridge. His specialty is the History of Science and he has written 4 books and many essays for publications both academic (Yale, Columbia and Princeton University presses) popular (The Atlantic and The New Yorker) and in between (The American Scholar).
Before beginning his presentation, Professor Burnett engaged the audience in a very brief discussion of the nature of the History of Science, its goals and methods. He then proceeded enthusiastically to his topic, which was the content of his most recent book, “Trying Leviathan.”
While the book’s basis is an 1818 New York City trial, the case serves as a window on far more general matters. The case itself concerned the plaintiff, Maurice, an oil inspector who charged the defendant, Judd, a chandler, $75 for the tax on 3 casks of what Maurice called “fish oil,” in accordance with a state ordinance taxing such oil. Judd refused to pay, claiming the oil was “whale oil,” not “fish oil,” thus raising what turned out to be a consequential question as to whether a whale is a fish.
The answer to this simple question seemed to turn on matters scientific, linguistic, philosophical, cultural, religious, economic and even political! For starters; who in fact shall decide whether a whale is a fish? The taxonomy contributed by scientists of the time was itself controversial and in transition. It was changing from division by external characteristics (as in the bible, depending on the environment in which the creature operated, land, sea or air—and putting man in a special category) to division by internal structure-skeletal, glandular etc. As the latter did not particularly distinguish man from other mammals, this case brought that issue, with its religious, cultural and political ramifications, to the fore.
The book’s organization reflects 4 types of witnesses. There were: men of learning, ordinary men, men of affairs and fishermen (no women seemed to have participated). Their views reflected vast differences in perspective. For example, for men of affairs, the important factor was the huge difference in the prices of fish oil and whale oil, while for the men of learning what mattered were such things as skeletal structure and the method of reproduction. On the other hand, for the ordinary man, the whale was a “curiosity”, and for the fisherman, the whale’s anatomy was dominated by what he saw as he cut the whale to pieces.
While the whole country was engaged in the trial, the jury (the common man) was the initial arbiter. However, as we learned in the question period, the 13 minutes spent by the jury in deciding that a whale is a fish was later neutralized by an appeal and a change in the law exempting whale oil from the tax.
The question period also revealed to us the winning strategy of Maurice’s lawyer who emphasized that the defense’s witnesses were all from out of town! In the end this clever tactic carried the day, rather than any recondite philosophical or scientific argument!
The question period was followed by the sale and signing of the speaker’s book in the rear of the auditorium.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lee Neuwirth
Bob Varrin introduced the speaker, Professor D. Graham Burnett from the History Department of Princeton University. Professor Burnett was the Salutatorian of the Princeton class of ’93 and winner of the Pyne prize. He was a Marshall Scholar and received his PhD from Trinity College, Cambridge. His specialty is the History of Science and he has written 4 books and many essays for publications both academic (Yale, Columbia and Princeton University presses) popular (The Atlantic and The New Yorker) and in between (The American Scholar).
Before beginning his presentation, Professor Burnett engaged the audience in a very brief discussion of the nature of the History of Science, its goals and methods. He then proceeded enthusiastically to his topic, which was the content of his most recent book, “Trying Leviathan.”
While the book’s basis is an 1818 New York City trial, the case serves as a window on far more general matters. The case itself concerned the plaintiff, Maurice, an oil inspector who charged the defendant, Judd, a chandler, $75 for the tax on 3 casks of what Maurice called “fish oil,” in accordance with a state ordinance taxing such oil. Judd refused to pay, claiming the oil was “whale oil,” not “fish oil,” thus raising what turned out to be a consequential question as to whether a whale is a fish.
The answer to this simple question seemed to turn on matters scientific, linguistic, philosophical, cultural, religious, economic and even political! For starters; who in fact shall decide whether a whale is a fish? The taxonomy contributed by scientists of the time was itself controversial and in transition. It was changing from division by external characteristics (as in the bible, depending on the environment in which the creature operated, land, sea or air—and putting man in a special category) to division by internal structure-skeletal, glandular etc. As the latter did not particularly distinguish man from other mammals, this case brought that issue, with its religious, cultural and political ramifications, to the fore.
The book’s organization reflects 4 types of witnesses. There were: men of learning, ordinary men, men of affairs and fishermen (no women seemed to have participated). Their views reflected vast differences in perspective. For example, for men of affairs, the important factor was the huge difference in the prices of fish oil and whale oil, while for the men of learning what mattered were such things as skeletal structure and the method of reproduction. On the other hand, for the ordinary man, the whale was a “curiosity”, and for the fisherman, the whale’s anatomy was dominated by what he saw as he cut the whale to pieces.
While the whole country was engaged in the trial, the jury (the common man) was the initial arbiter. However, as we learned in the question period, the 13 minutes spent by the jury in deciding that a whale is a fish was later neutralized by an appeal and a change in the law exempting whale oil from the tax.
The question period also revealed to us the winning strategy of Maurice’s lawyer who emphasized that the defense’s witnesses were all from out of town! In the end this clever tactic carried the day, rather than any recondite philosophical or scientific argument!
The question period was followed by the sale and signing of the speaker’s book in the rear of the auditorium.
Respectfully Submitted,
Lee Neuwirth