In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

c h a p t e r e i g h t Scientists and the Monkey Trial It was no coincidence that William Jennings Bryan’s denunciation of the family tree diagram at the Scopes trial came up during a dispute over the relevance of scientific testimony. Bryan’s was one of three passionate speeches adding drama to the discussion of expert testimony. The other two were by Dudley Field Malone for the defense and by the chief prosecutor, Tom Stewart, who until that moment had been widely lauded for his reserve, focus, and dignity. That these addresses were three of the four most impassioned speeches at the trial was also no coincidence . The defense aimed to build a case around the arguments of “reconciler” scientists that evolution was not incompatible with the Bible. This argument had been prominent in newspaper coverage of the evolution controversy, and the eloquent speeches on this issue were widely reported in the press, even excerpted at length in some major papers. The statements of scientists arguing for the harmony of evolution and Christianity also received a good deal of newspaper attention . Yet other aspects of the trial ultimately eclipsed most serious discussion. Among other things, the momentum of the story got out of hand. And the casting of the event as the “monkey trial” ultimately precluded clear vision of the issues. The Scopes Trial: Chronology John Thomas Scopes was the perfect defendant. He was probably the only person at his trial not accused of being a “publicity seeker,” and for this simple thing he was widely admired. One of the reasons Scopes made such a satisfactory defendant in the case was that he resolutely refused o¤ers for movie contracts and book deals capitalizing on his notoriety. Headlines praised his modesty and his reluctance to claim celebrity, and scientists, in rallying to Scopes’s support, vouched for his sincerity, as evidenced by the fact that he turned away from easy fame. The entertainment newspaper Variety, among many others, marveled at considerable length on Scopes’s refusal to profit by his celebrity. According to the paper, he had received numerous o¤ers: The paper was especially impressed that he had “politely declined a brilliant o¤er from William Morris for a world lecture tour under most dignified auspices and conditions.” William Jennings Bryan, who had joined the prosecution in the case, had arranged for a lucrative post-trial lecture tour, the paper claimed. Scopes, in contrast, expressed interest only in returning to his studies, even though he had become, as Variety’s sub-headline put it, “the Biggest Current ‘Name’ for Any Kind of Show Business.”1 Newspaper editors found him remarkable because so many of the people involved in the trial seemed to be publicity hungry. Many of the ubiquitous Scopes trial cartoons in the summer of 1925 singled out publicity seekers—including the town of Dayton itself— as objects of jokes and derision. Skepticism about publicity was a common refrain in a society preoccupied with, and ambivalent about, fame and money making. There was a growing awareness—some said an obsession—in the twenties about the new professions of public relations expert and publicity agent, about the work of people like Edward Bernays and “Poison” Ivy Lee who did so much to publicize publicity. The word propaganda came up often, but it was used in an interestingly di¤erent way than it would be later in the century—in many cases, as if it were a synonym for publicity. The word propaganda sometimes, but not always , carried vaguely disapproving connotations, but so did the word publicity.2 Complaining that “Greenwich Village is on its way to Rhea County,” an editorial in the June 11, 1925, New York Evening Post predicted: “There will shortly descend upon Dayton, Tenn., the greatest aggregation of assorted cranks, including agnostics, atheists, Communists, Syndicalists and New Dawners, ever known in a single procession.” The serious issues raised by the Tennessee trial of John Thomas Scopes for teaching evolution were in danger of being obscured by such “limelight lizards.” According to the Post, “Teachers, research workers, biologists and other men of science are being smothered in the rush of long-haired men, short-haired women, feminists, neurotics, free-thinkers and free-lovers who are determined to shine in reflected glory.”3 Like so many writers commenting on the Scopes trial in 1925, the editor at the Post o¤ered in capsule form a litany of the...

Share