Erasmus Darwin, Thomas Beddoes, Maria Edgeworth, and Jane Marcet Bridget E
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Marquette University e-Publications@Marquette Dissertations (2009 -) Dissertations, Theses, and Professional Projects Gendering Scientific Discourse from 1790-1830: Erasmus Darwin, Thomas Beddoes, Maria Edgeworth, and Jane Marcet Bridget E. Kapler Marquette University Recommended Citation Kapler, Bridget E., "Gendering Scientific Discourse from 1790-1830: Erasmus Darwin, Thomas Beddoes, Maria Edgeworth, and Jane Marcet" (2016). Dissertations (2009 -). Paper 652. http://epublications.marquette.edu/dissertations_mu/652 GENDERING SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE FROM 1790-1830: ERASMUS DARWIN, THOMAS BEDDOES, MARIA EDGEWORTH, AND JANE MARCET by Bridget E. Kapler, B.A., M.A. A Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School, Marquette University, in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Milwaukee, Wisconsin May 2016 ii ABSTRACT GENDERING SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE FROM 1790-1830: ERASMUS DARWIN, THOMAS BEDDOES, MARIA EDGEWORTH, AND JANE MARCET Bridget E. Kapler, B.A., M.A. Marquette University, 2016 This dissertation project operates on the belief that the democratic, everyday pursuits of science were at least as significant scientifically, and perhaps even more important culturally, as the elite, highly speculative work done by the gentlemen scientists of the Romantic Age (1790-1830). It focuses upon the literary works, careers, and discourse of Erasmus Darwin, Thomas Beddoes, Maria Edgeworth, and Jane Marcet, tracing the role that gender played in assigning recognition and authority in the scientific community. Operating in a public sphere that favored the scientific discoveries of male gentlemen scientists, boundary crossing had to occur decisively, but quietly through a method of subversion and containment. Women had to enter the scientific conversation through traditionally unscientific genres and anonymous or apologetic prefaces, which usually conveyed intent to share science with other women. I explore the problem they all faced, in trying to recount science to a broader audience; I document how and why they responded to each other and toward the changing public sphere’s positioning of science. For these reasons, the Romantic Age’s collaboratives of gentlemen scientists significantly influenced how their popularizing contemporaries, specifically women, responded to science and how, as a result, elitism further diversified the pursuit of science. Each author’s presentation of expertise demonstrates the role of popular writings on the sciences in redefining scientific authority. These authors are representative of the two-sided struggle to make science more elite and more popular; and regardless of their allegiance in this struggle, each attempted to make science more accessible. This dissertation explores the tenuous relationship between the professions of authorship and science, highlighting the communication of both scientific discoveries and applications through writing as another facet of scientific practice. Elite gentlemen scientists’ perceptions of others as authors reflect their own self-fashioning of the professional identity of scientific writer, and popularizers of science synthesized scientific information as they learned it themselves, thereby forging a new worldview. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Bridget E. Kapler, B.A, M.A. I wish to express my gratitude to Dr. Diane Long Hoeveler who has helped me bring this dissertation to fruition. She encouraged, questioned, and provided unique insight in her Gothic literature course, thereby guiding my Romantic interests. Throughout my first and second proposals and dissertation qualifying exam, she pushed me to write on what piqued my scholarly curiosity, encouraging me to excellence and finely wrought scholarly work. This finished product echoes true her kind words, enthusiasm, and time spent polishing my idea into a reflection of its full worth. I have benefitted greatly from her responses to my ideas; any weaknesses that remain in this dissertation are, of course, my own responsibility. This dissertation is dedicated in memory of Phyllis Hanrahan Gibson. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT . ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . iii TABLE OF CONTENTS . iv INTRODUCTION . 1 CHAPTER I. ERASMUS DARWIN’S THE TEMPLE OF NATURE AND THE GENTLEMAN-SCIENTIST . 23 Close Reading of The Temple of Nature . 35 Creativity and Discovery and Truth in Canto II; Then, the Mind of Canto III . 56 Samuel Taylor Coleridge and Materialist Ideology . 65 Canto IV and the Temple’s Significance for Future Readers of the Poem . 79 Darwin’s Legacy in Smith and Charles Darwin . 88 II. THE LUNAR SOCIETY OF BIRMINGHAM AND THE BLOSSOMING OF PRACTICAL SCIENTIFIC APPLICATIONS . 91 Geography of Birmingham . 96 Lunar Society Members . 100 Uniqueness of Birmingham . 113 III. MAPPING OUT THE ROLE OF THE PRACTICAL SCIENTIST IN THE FAMILY WITHIN MARIA EDGEWORTH’S BELINDA . 117 Maria’s Contemporaries . 120 The Uniqueness of Belinda . 123 v Belinda’s Place at the End of the Novel . 139 IV. JANE MARCET’S CONVERSATIONS ON CHEMISTRY AND THE EDUCATION OF A NEW GENERATION . 156 Marcet in Context . 161 How Marcet Educated Herself in order to Open Access to Education . 170 Marcet’s Conversational Genre . 171 Marcet’s Performative Experiment Genre . 178 Marcet’s Inclusive Form of Scientific Education . 184 Close Reading of Conversations . 186 Conclusion . 202 WORKS CITED . 205 1 INTRODUCTION This dissertation project operates on the belief that the democratic, everyday pursuits of science were at least as significant scientifically, and perhaps even more important culturally, as the elite, highly speculative work done by the gentlemen- scientists of the Romantic Age (1790-1830). It focuses upon the literary works, careers, and discourse of Erasmus Darwin, Thomas Beddoes, Maria Edgeworth, and Jane Marcet, tracing the role that gender played in assigning recognition and authority in the scientific community. Operating in a public sphere that favored the scientific discoveries of male gentlemen-scientists, boundary crossing had to occur decisively, but quietly. Women had to enter the scientific conversation through traditionally unscientific genres and anonymous or apologetic prefaces, which usually conveyed intent to share science with other women. I explore the problem both men and women faced, in trying to recount science to a broader audience; I document how and why they responded to each other and toward the changing public sphere’s positioning of science. For these reasons, the Romantic Age’s collaboratives of gentlemen-scientists significantly influenced and were influenced by how their popularizing contemporaries, specifically women, responded to science and how, as a result, elitism further diversified the pursuit of science. In these four case studies, each author’s presentation of expertise demonstrates the role of popular writings on the sciences in redefining scientific authority. These authors are representative of the two-sided struggle to make science more elite and more popular; and regardless of their allegiance in this struggle, each attempted to make science more accessible. This dissertation explores the tenuous relationship between the professions of 2 authorship and science, highlighting the communication of both scientific discoveries and applications through writing as another facet of scientific practice. Elite gentlemen- scientists’ perceptions of others as authors reflect their own self-fashioning of the professional identity of scientific writer, and popularizers of science synthesized scientific information as they learned it themselves, thereby forging a new worldview and space for scientific discussion. As Romanticist scholars of the history of science, we usually consider the years 1830-1880 as the space in British history in which the impact of the sciences produced the most profound modifications in our conceptions of the world. Yet more and more attention is being devoted to the very rich and complex situation that characterizes the Romantic Age. The time period from 1790-1830 was consumed with scientists who strongly aspired to a global, yet profound vision of knowledge. This aspiration was fueled by the understanding that scientific knowledge should not only be learned, but shared with others. This educative purpose of science drove the great thinkers of the Romantic Age to consider how to communicate best with others, who were both part of the collaboratives of elite gentlemen-scientists and the democratic work of women to include others in the conversation on science. This aspiration with purpose was supported by the firm belief that observing nature gives access to understand ourselves, too. The fundamental feature of what is scholarly defined as the eighteenth-century conception of science is the thesis that the microcosm reflects the macrocosm, and vice- versa, thereby fueling a push to connect the various known aspects of the world to each other. This activity is represented in the work of natural philosophers, who were precursors to what we recognize as modern scientists. The above thesis derives from the 3 concepts of the eighteenth century German theory of Naturphilosophie, which was very speculative and lofty in nature. This is the view of those individuals who, though convinced that science must be knowledge of nature as a whole, did not wish to assign value to mere facts and observations, unless they could represent a grander cosmic theory about the nature of the universe. These individuals were usually male, involved in one or more modern disciplines of science,