View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by ASU Digital Repository The Emerging Scientist: Collectives of Influence in the Science Network of Nineteenth-Century Britain by Kaitlin Southerly A Dissertation Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy Approved March 2016 by the Graduate Supervisory Committee: Mark Lussier, Chair Ronald Broglio Daniel Bivona ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY May 2016 ABSTRACT: At the beginning of the nineteenth century, there was no universal term to describe a person who practiced science. In 1833, the term “scientist” was proposed to recognize these individuals, but exactly who was represented by this term was still ambiguous. Supported by Bruno Latour’s theory of networks and hybridity, The Emerging Scientist takes a historical approach to analyze the different collectives of individuals who influenced the cultural perception of science and therefore aided in defining the role of the emerging scientist during the nineteenth century. Each chapter focuses on a collective in the science network that influenced the development of the scientist across the changing scientific landscape of the nineteenth century. Through a study of William Small and Herbert Spencer, the first chapter investigates the informal clubs that prove to be highly influential due, in part, to the freedom individuals gain by being outside of formal institutions. Through an investigation of the lives and works of professional astronomer, Caroline Herschel, and physicist and mathematician, James Clerk Maxwell, chapter two analyzes the collective of professional practitioners of science to unveil the way in which scientific advancement actually occurred. Chapter three argues for the role of women in democratizing science and expanding the pool from which future scientists would come through a close analysis of Jane Marcet and Agnes Clerke, members of the collective of female popularizers of science. The final chapter examines how the collective of fictional depictions of science and the scientist ultimately are part of the cultural perception of the scientist through a close reading of Shelley’s Alastor; or, the Spirit of Solitude and Wilde’s The Picture of Dorian Gray. Ultimately, The Emerging Scientist aims to recreate the way science is i studied in order to generate a more comprehensive understanding of the influences on developing science and the scientist during the nineteenth century. ii For my husband, Adam, your constant love, support, and understanding made it possible to complete this daunting task. ~ For my parents, you instilled in me a passion for learning and knowledge that led to this point. Thank you for reading to me every night as a child and teaching me that the path to everything can be found in a book. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ……………………………………………………………1 Overview and Framework…………………………………………………1 Background……………………………………………………………….12 Organization………………………………………………………………20 2 THE COLLECTIVE OF INFORMAL SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY BRITAIN: THE LUNAR SOCIETY OF BIRMINGHAM AND THE X CLUB……………………………………….27 The Lunar Society of Birmingham………………………………………..30 William Small, Founding Member of the Lunar Society…………………39 The X Club and Victorian England……………………………………….54 Herbert Spencer, X Club Member………………………………………...64 3 THE COLLECTIVE OF PROFESSIONALS OF SCIENCE IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY BRITAIN: ASTRONOMER CAROLINE HERSCHEL AND MATHEMATICIAN AND PHYSICIST JAMES CLERK MAXWELL………………………………………………………………….80 Romantic Professionals of Science……………………………………….80 Caroline Herschel, Professional Astronomer……………………………..89 Victorian Professionals of Science………………………………………108 James Clerk Maxwell, Professional Mathematician and Physicist……...119 iv CHAPTER Page 4 THE COLLECTIVE OF FEMALE POPULARIZERS OF SCIENCE IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY BRITAIN: JANE HALDIMAND MARCET AND AGNES MARY CLERKE…………………………………………...138 Romantic Female Popularizers of Science………………………………143 Jane Haldimand Marcet, A Romantic Popularizer of Science…………..145 Victorian Female Popularizers of Science………………………………166 Agnes Mary Clerk, A Victorian Popularizer of Science………………...167 5 THE COLLECTIVE OF FICTIONAL LITERARY DEPICTIONS OF SCIENCE AND THE SCIENTIST IN NINETEENTH-CENTURY BRITAIN: FRANKENSTEIN AND ALASTOR; OR, THE SPIRIT OF SOLITUDE TO THE PICTURE OF DORIAN GRAY AND THE ISLAND OF DR. MOREAU……………………………………………………………………189 Romantic Fictional Depictions…………………………………………..190 Close Readings of Frankenstein and Alastor; or, the Spirit of Solitude...194 Victorian Fictional Depictions ………………………………………….214 Close Readings of The Picture of Dorian Gray and The Island of Dr. Moreau…………………………………………………………………………...217 6 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………..239 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………248 v INTRODUCTION Overview and Framework A study focused on Victorian science is no longer, or really, never was, sufficient to understand the advancement of science and the development of the scientist in the nineteenth century. Traditionally, the Romantic period is recognized for its emphasis on the imagination and creativity, and therefore, not on its contributions to the development of science. Douglas Bush encompasses this traditional Romantic ideal when he writes, “one main impulse in Romanticism is the conscious and subconscious revolt against the Newtonian universe and the spirit of science” (Goellnicht 3). Yet, in fact, Romantic writers and practitioners of science are inherently linked to the writers and scientists of the Victorian period; and together, they help understand the development of science, which, during this period, created a space for individuals outside of the traditional role of natural philosophers as practitioners of science became more professionalized. These individuals would come to be called scientists by the late nineteenth century. The purpose of this investigation is to better establish the role of both the Romantic and Victorian periods in the emerging identity and construction of the scientist. Today’s culture seems to assume that a great divide between science and literature has always existed and that science and the humanities are not linked. Given this errant view, literature and the humanities have no role in the development of new technologies or new strains of thought in science. However, such assumptions about science and 1 literature are short sighted and miss a history of interconnectedness where men and women who practiced science and the men and women who commented on society and politics in writing were one in the same. This shortsightedness is what makes this study so necessary. We have, as a collective society, constructed a hard divide, one which never existed at the time, between Romanticism and science, especially between Romantic literature and science. This study aims to show how vital multiple collectives of differing individuals with different purposes were in contributing to the development and advancement of science and the construction of the scientist; and more importantly perhaps, how vital the Romantic and Victorian period were in developing a cultural perception of the scientist that continues to influence our understandings today. One can see this process of constructing a divide between science and the humanities unfolding in the Victorian period through the debates regarding education between Matthew Arnold and Thomas Huxley. The discursive divide between the humanities and science starts in the late nineteenth century and is crystallized in the twentieth. In 1959, C.P. Snow attempted to dissuade society from continuing down a road that divided and isolated science and the humanities into two separate fields. Snow, a trained scientist and novelist, gave a lecture in 1959, The Two Cultures and The Scientific Revolution, which was later published in book form. Through observations of his own interactions in the differing fields, Snow claimed that the intellectual life of the whole of western society is increasingly being split into two polar groups…Literary intellectuals at one pole—at the other scientists…Between the two a gulf of incomprehension—sometimes (particularly among the young) hostility and dislike, but most of all lack of understanding. (3-5) 2 Snow argues that this has replaced interactions common during the earlier phase of cultural formation. Snow’s commentary is problematic in that although he may highlight the negative outcomes associated with a separation, he actually helps solidify such a divide by calling science and literature “two cultures”. Even with Snow’s attempts, however problematic, to show why it is important to engage the so-called opposition, or other culture, over 50 years later, society is still dominated by the need to separate science and literature rather than unite them. However, the real issue for this study is not society’s current views of science and literature, but rather the need to articulate more accurate historical view of these cultural processes of production. We have failed to understand the actual development of science by not recognizing the constant interconnection that existed between practitioners of science and discovery and writers and literary scholars. Acknowledging the continuous interconnections between science and literature during the nineteenth century allows for an investigation into the development of the scientist that takes into consideration more than just the people practicing science at the time. Focusing on a more inclusive nineteenth