Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:44:35.474Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘A finite universe?’ Riemannian geometry and the Modernist theology of Ernest William Barnes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2005

K. G. VALENTE
K. G. VALENTE
Affiliation:
Department of Mathematics, Colgate University, Hamilton NY 13346, USA.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

As one of the most tireless advocates of Modernism in the Church of England, Ernest William Barnes (1874–1953) was the subject of both veneration and scorn. The position Barnes adopted on evolution during the inter-war years, the period during which he was installed as the Bishop of Birmingham, has been the focus of recent scholarship. In particular, his spiritual agenda departed from those of most Modernists in that it encouraged the faithful to accept the precepts of evolution and Mendelism while it repudiated Lamarckian progressivism. Indeed, his unadulterated appreciation of neo-evolutionary theories makes it easier to understand his willingness to promote eugenic principles.

Another unusual aspect of Barnes's Modernist theology, however, remains to be examined in any detail – namely its mathematical underpinnings. Before rising to his bishopric, Barnes was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society on the strength of his mathematical research. Further, his reputation as one knowledgeable in both modern mathematical and biological investigations provided an authoritative legitimacy that was meant to enhance his efforts at reconciliation, including his Gifford Lectures of 1927 to 1929. This paper examines Barnes's promotion of Riemannian geometry, especially as it relates to the consolation he found in the concept of a finite universe. Ultimately it asserts that mathematics made essential contributions to a cosmological perspective integral to his Modernism.

Type
Research Article
Information
The British Journal for the History of Science , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 197 - 217
Copyright
© 2005 British Society for the History of Science

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

A portion of the research discussed in this paper was presented at the Annual Conference of the British Society for the History of Science held at York in July 2003. I would like to thank the anonymous referees for helpful comments on an earlier version of this essay. Research for this project began while a Visiting Research Fellow in the History of Science and Technology Unit of the University of Manchester Institute of Science and Technology, and I extend special thanks to Joseph Marsh for his efforts in securing this appointment on my behalf. Finally, I would like to acknowledge the very helpful staff at the Birmingham University Library, which is home to the Bishop Barnes Archive.