J. R. Lucas's The Historical Journal article on the Wilberforce-Huxley encounter is itself a work of historiographical correction, arguing that the famous 1860 Oxford debate, popularly remembered as a decisive rout of Bishop Wilberforce by Thomas Huxley over evolution, is substantially a later legend built up from partisan retellings rather than an accurate record of what was said. Lucas draws on contemporary letters and accounts closer to the event to argue Wilberforce's performance was more measured and Huxley's victory less clean-cut than the popular story holds. That argument was itself influential and is now part of an ongoing historiographical conversation, with later historians debating how far Lucas's own reconstruction should be trusted against the very partisan sources he is working from. Read it as a serious challenge to a popular legend, not as the final settled account of what happened that day.
Facts
Assessment
Reliability Tier1
J. R. Lucas's article in The Historical Journal, published by Cambridge University Press, is a peer reviewed historiographical study by an Oxford philosopher re-examining the primary sources behind the famous 1860 debate, treated at the top tier as peer reviewed journal scholarship. NotesPeer-reviewed historical study reassessing the 1860 Wilberforce-Huxley evolution debate, The Historical Journal, 1979.
Citation
AuthorJ. R. Lucas
PublisherCambridge University Press
Publication Year1979
Source Typepeer-reviewed article
Claims Backed By This Source (17 claims)
This source backs 17 claims across the atlas. As facts: 13 well-attested, 1 popular myth - corrected. As cited relationships: 2 holds. Plus 1 entities citing it as a general reference with no single fact or relationship attached.
Disposition By Topic
- Religious Events, 8 claims: 4 well-attested, 1 popular myth - corrected, 2 holds, 1 general references.
- Sources, 7 claims: 7 well-attested.
- Articles, 2 claims: 2 well-attested.
Popular myth - corrected
1Reader Challenges (0 open reader challenges)
No disputes yet. Spotted an error or a better source? Open the first one.
Sign in to dispute this or suggest a correction.
View At A Past Year
The atlas records no dated fact of its own for this entry, so there is no other year to choose.