Natural History and British Women Writers, 1730-1830 By
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
NATURAL HISTORY AND BRITISH WOMEN WRITERS, 1730-1830 BY MELISSA R. BAILES DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in English in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2012 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Ted Underwood, Chair Professor Robert Markley Professor Gillen Wood Assistant Professor Justine Murison ii Abstract The late eighteenth-century poet, Maria Riddell, used zoological hybridity as a racial metaphor for West Indian colonies’ potential to foster “British” national identity, with its mixed heritage and allegiances. This is the subject of my dissertation’s second chapter, and what it shows is that, at a time when women writers did not possess political power, some, such as Riddell, exerted cultural authority through the natural sciences. Natural history (comprising the fields of botany, zoology, and geology) dramatically rose in popularity in the latter half of the eighteenth century. During this time, naturalists drew analogies between natural and social orders, arranging “classes” and “kingdoms” in ways that naturalized cultural and national hierarchies. My manuscript, Natural History and British Women Writers, 1730-1830, argues that women, including Eliza Haywood, Charlotte Smith, and Mary Shelley, often claimed scientific superiority to naturalists to destabilize seemingly fixed identities and revise not only biological but also social and literary taxonomies. For example, my third chapter explores Anna Seward’s development of a literary taxonomy that interrelates biological and poetic forms. Through this attention to women’s scientific literature, my study also casts new light on the period’s debates about literary originality, with important consequences for our understanding of writers such as Alexander Pope, Oliver Goldsmith, William Wordsworth, and Lord Byron. iii Acknowledgments While completing this dissertation, I received encouragement and financial support in the form of an American Dissertation Fellowship from the American Association of University Women (AAUW) in 2010-11. This award provided time and funds at a crucial juncture of my writing and research. In December 2010, I also received an Ernestine Richter Avery Fellowship from the Huntington Library in San Marino, CA, enabling me to trade an Illinois winter for the Huntington’s sunny gardens and rich archives. I would like to thank my committee members, including Robert Markley, Justine Murison, Gillen Wood, and particularly my director, Ted Underwood, for their belief in the value of my work and for their willingness to read, and help me revise, countless drafts of this manuscript. It was during a directed reading with Jennifer Keith that I first had the idea for this project, and her influence as a friend and mentor has been steadfast throughout my graduate career. Allison Davis and Kristen Pond “reckoned” with me through many conversations, scholarly and otherwise, helping me to keep everything in perspective. I owe an enormous debt of gratitude to my family, and especially to my brother, Eric, my uncle, Alan, and my grandmother, Virginia Bailes. For their unceasing love, sacrifices, and support in helping me attain my goals, I dedicate this work to my mother, Sue Ellen, and to the memory of my father, Richard Hilton Bailes. iv Table of Contents Questioning Nature: An Introduction……..………………………………………………1 Chapter 1: To Think and to Please: Anna Barbauld’s Poetry and Educational Prose of Natural History………………………………………………………………...…20 Chapter 2: Hybrid Britons: West Indian Colonial Identity and Maria Riddell’s Natural History……………………………………………………………………………57 Chapter 3: The Evolution of the Plagiarist: Natural History in Anna Seward’s Order of Poetics……………………………………………………………………………85 Chapter 4: Charlotte Smith and the Poet-Naturalist’s Collective Originality…………..115 Chapter 5: Revolutionary Cosmopolitanisms: Helen Maria Williams’s Politico- Geological Nature……………………………………………………………....159 Chapter 6: The Privatization of Geological Catastrophe in Mary Shelley’s The Last Man…………………………………………….……………………..209 Epilogue: Laughter and Lava: Felicia Hemans, Feminine Propriety, and Romantic Geology…………………………………………………………………………250 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………....283 1 Questioning Nature: An Introduction In 1761, the famous naturalist and director of the Académie Française, Georges- Louis Leclerc (comte de Buffon), gave a speech celebrating the exploration of Peru by the Académie’s newly-elected member, Charles Marie de la Condamine. He enthralled the audience, illuminating the voyager’s daring descent down the Amazon over dangerous rapids and foaming falls in a dugout canoe. Before closing his lively account, Buffon paused to add with emphatic wonder, “Nature, accustomed to the deepest silence, must have been astonished to hear herself questioned for the first time.”1 The immense applause meeting this statement evinced naturalists’ pervasive feeling that it was not only in the deepest recesses of South America that nature found “herself” being “questioned for the first time” during this era of unprecedented interest and progress in the natural sciences. Feminizing nature for masculine exploration, Buffon’s declaration embodies a commonplace rhetorical gesture of the new science, as when Francis Bacon earlier urged fellow naturalists to “penetrate from Nature’s antechamber to her inner closet” to “conquer and subdue her.”2 Yet, in the midst of this androcentrism and the eighteenth century’s mania for natural history grew a literary phenomenon in which women entered the scientific arena and posed difficult questions – both to nature and to (male) naturalists themselves. Natural history (comprising the fields of botany, zoology, and geology) dramatically rose in popularity in the mid eighteenth century and succeeding decades.3 1 Jacques Roger, Buffon: A Life in Natural History. Trans. Sarah Bonnefoi (Cornell UP, 1997) 214. 2 Quoted in Anne Mellor’s “A Feminist Critique of Science.” Carolyn Merchant, Evelyn Fox Keller, and Brian Easlea have delineated the “negative consequences of this identification of nature as the passive female.” 3 During this period, “natural history sold ‘the best of any books’ in England,” see Jacqueline Pearson, Women’s Reading in Britain, 1750-1835: A Dangerous Recreation (Cambridge UP, 1999), 67. 2 At this time, an ascending, internationally collaborative and competitive generation of naturalists, prominently including Carl Linnaeus of Sweden, Buffon of France, and Thomas Pennant of Britain, strove to configure taxonomies of the natural order. Long eighteenth-century inquiries in the natural sciences analyzed constructions of personhood, of the self, through taxonomic categories. Investigating, for example, the extent to which biological organisms shape and are shaped by their environment, as well as ways in which nature models society. In determining the answers to such questions, naturalists constructed categories defining not only natural objects, but also human subjects, formulating concepts of gender, race, and nation through interpretations of nature and its influence. Through social analogies, naturalists’ taxonomies granted them a sense of understanding and even controlling nature’s relationship to individuals and nations, and of providing insight into virtually every level of existence. In their authoritative knowledge of nature, and goals to find or create order, naturalists pervasively reinforced gender and racial hierarchies. Yet, despite the frequency of such prejudices, their individual observations, classifications, and conclusions regarding the natural order were subject to incessant attack and revision by fellow naturalists. In their publications, Linnaeus and Buffon, for instance, ruthlessly besieged one another’s methods and taxonomic theories throughout their careers. Naturalists also corrected their own published taxonomies in successive editions as new information or discoveries became available. Projecting this paradox of a simultaneously unquestionable authority and the uncertainty indicative of natural history’s openness to inquiry, taxonomic power structures subjugating various forms of the “other” could be exploited to achieve disparate aims, ranging from upholding the status quo to exposing classificatory failings, 3 and thus threatening these constructed orders or systems and their social implications. As my study will show, some women writers seized natural history’s analogical opportunities to reconfigure social, national, and even literary orders and identities. Indeed, this contemporary sense of scientific uncertainty put the line between fact and fiction in doubt, blurring the division between literature and science. In the eighteenth century, the sciences were still in development and would not become disciplines until the early nineteenth century; although I use the word “science” in its modern connotation, previous to science’s professionalization the term could constitute any branch of knowledge, including literature. Capitalizing on this potential fluidity, imaginative writers could debate, disseminate, and contribute scientific knowledge through their literary works. Tim Fulford, Debbie Lee, and Peter Kitson explain that it was not customary formally to divide fictional from factual writing until De Quincey in 1848 made fiction a defining characteristic of the ‘literature of power’ and claimed it was distinct from the ‘literature of knowledge’. By this distinction