Naturalists' Practices and Nature's Empire: Paris and the Platypus, 1815-18331
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Naturalists' Practices and Nature's Empire: Paris and the Platypus, 1815-1833 1 Richard W Burkhardt Jr. 2 Abstract: Among the multiple interactions between governments and museums that were so important for the growth of natural history in the nineteenth cen tury, perhaps none looked more promising at its inception than did the special "school for naturalist voyagers" that was instituted at the Museum of Natural History in Paris in 1819. Proposed initially by the French Minister of the Inte rior, who also promised to fund the operation, the idea ofthe school was to train young naturalists who could then be sent off to the far corners of the globe in search of plants, animals, and minerals useful to France and interesting to science. The professors of the Museum were enthusiastic about the Minister's idea. However, aligning the interests ofthe naturalists at the Museum with those of the French government and a collection of young, aspiring naturalist voyagers was not an entirely straightforward matter. This paper considers the school for naturalist voyagers in the light of France's prior experiences with naturalist voyages (most notably the Baudin expedition to Australia), her most pressing colonial needs in the early years of the Restoration, and the practices of the naturalists of the Paris Museum. The platypus makes an appearance here amidst a contest over the control of specimens. Finally, we consider notions of "the empire of nature" and what resonance such notions might have had at the Paris Museum at the time the school for naturalists was promoted. NAPOLEON'S FALL FROM power in 1814, re With the Napoleonic wars over and the free confirmed by his final defeat in 1815, had dom of the seas restored, the Museum would multiple and diverse implications for the nat be able to send naturalist voyagers once again uralists of the Museum d'Histoire Naturelle to the far corners of the globe. in Paris. One of these was that the naturalists All these prospects had an obvious bearing would need to establish productive relations on the continued quality of the Museum's with a new French government. A second was collections and the work of the naturalists lo that there would soon be representatives of cated there. In this paper, I focus on the first other governments on the Museum's door and third of these stories, leaving aside the step, calling for the restoration of natural matter of the negotiations that took place history treasures that France had confiscated over the possible repatriation of previously from their countries over the previous two confiscated specimens. I address the specific decades. A third was that the Museum would ways in which, in the early years of the Res have the opportunity to do something it had toration, the National Museum of Natural not been able to do for more than a decade. History in Paris and the French government sought to promote the activities of naturalist voyagers for the benefit ofscience and France I The research for this paper was supported in part by alike. National Science Foundation Grant No. SBR-9601390. Manuscript accepted 1 February 200l. 2 University of illinois, Urbana-Champaign, illinois NATURALISTS, EMPIRE, AND THE EMPIRE 61820. OF NATURE Scholars in recent years have called attention Pacific Science (2001), vol. 55, no. 4:327-341 to the ways in which science has functioned as © 2001 by University of Hawai'i Press a tool of empire (Brockway 1979, McKay All rights reserved 1985, Reingold and Rothenberg 1987, Mac- 327 328 PACIFIC SCIENCE· October 2001 Leod and Lewis 1988, MacLeod and Reh Museum contributed to France's efforts in bock 1988, 1994, McClellan 1992, MacLeod this regard. As for the circumstances that 1993, 2000, Osborne 1994, Miller and Reill might have stimulated naturalists to think in 1996, Drayton 2000). They have examined, terms of nature's empire, I suggest that no among other things, how metropolitan "cen tions of nature's empire were more likely to ters of accumulation" figured in these impe crop up in colonial settings than back in Paris. rial enterprises (Latour 1987). But they have Colonists attempting to reshape local ecolo also noted occasions when, as Marie-Noelle gies inevitably had more of an appreciation of Bourguet has put it, "the interests of science nature's resistances to human intervention and the interests of the empire did not go ... than did the naturalists of the metropole at the same pace" (Bourguet 1997:193). And whose chief concerns were with the control they have likewise found that scientific activ and classification of specimens. ities on the periphery at times generated im portant new insights and practices and were FRENCH NATURALIST VOYAGERS AND THE not simply derivative ofthe theories and plans LESSONS OF THE PACIFIC generated at imperial centers (Grove 1995, and others cited above). Does the Pacific have a role to play in this In this paper I consider France's efforts story? It does, albeit more as recurrent bit during the Restoration to use natural histori part than as a dominant role. Understand cal knowledge for the development of her ing the natural history of the Pacific was colonies. I also look at the Paris Museum of not the top priority of either the French Natural History as a center of accumulation. government or the Paris Museum in the years One of my main points will be the heteroge immediately after 1815. When it came to neity of interests in play here. The interests promoting overseas natural history activities of the French government and the Paris Mu between 1815 and 1820, the French govern seum intersected in ways that were advanta ment was above all concerned with activities geous to both parties, but these interests were that would benefit France's colonies, and at not entirely identical. For that matter, as we that time France had no colonies in the shall see, the interests of the naturalists of the Pacific. As for the Museum's naturalists in Museum were not themselves completely ho that period, they were very interested in the mogeneous. As a window on the respective Pacific as a source of specimens, but they aspirations of the government and the Mu were more concerned with the specimens seum in this period, I examine a number of themselves than they were with understand overtures that the government made to the ing in detail the places from which the speci Museum between 1817 and 1819, together mens came. with the Museum's responses. The highlight Historians of the Pacific will be quick to ofthese was the establishment at the Museum recognize that France had a long tradition of in 1819 of a special school for the training of voyages of exploration in the Pacific before naturalist voyagers. The story of the school the Revolution, and that under the Restora for naturalist voyagers remains largely unex tion she launched a new series of Pacific voy plored in the history of science and even in ages, specifically those of Louis de Freycinet the more specialized history of French natu on the Uranie (1817-1820), Louis-Isidore ralist voyages (but see Thesee 1989, Collini Duperrey on the Coquille (1822-:-1825), and and Vannoni 1997, and, most recently, Cham Jules Dumont d'Urville on the Astrolabe bord 1998). (1826-1829) (Dunmore 1969). In these In keeping with the title of the conference voyages, however, and particularly in that session for which this paper was prepared, I of Freycinet, naturalists of the Museum also offer some brief remarks on the concept thought their interests were given little pri of nature's empire. There is no doubt that the ority. The reason for this is worth our Museum profited from France's efforts to ex attention. tend France's empire. It is also clear that the In the years after Napoleon's fall from Paris and the Platypus . Burkhardt 329 power, French thinking about future voyages provided France with a handful of experi of exploration was inevitably influenced by enced naturalist voyagers. In the early years experiences from the recent past. The pri of the Restoration, three veterans of the mary example to ponder was thus the expedi Baudin voyage proved especially valuable tion of Captain Nicolas Baudin to Australia when it came to sending the Museum new (1800-1804). specimens from abroad. One was the botanist Significantly for our story, opinions on the J.-B. Leschenault de la Tour. The other two success of the Baudin voyage were quite were the artist-naturalists Charles-Alexandre mixed by the time the second of the ex Lesueur and Jacques Milbert. Former partic pedition's two main ships, Ie Giowaphe, re ipants in the Baudin expedition did more than turned to France in 1804. From an imperial send specimens back to Paris, however. They point of view, the voyage was of limited also sent-or in Leschenault's case, delivered success. It returned important intelligence -plants and animals from one colonial set on British fortifications and naval deploy ting to another. Likewise active in this regard ments, but although it affixed the name was Baron Pierre-Bernard Milius, the naval "Terre Napoleon" to French maps of a huge commander in charge of bringing Ie Gio area now forming part of South Australia, it waphe back to France after Baudin's death. failed to establish any clear claims for France In 1818 Milius was named commandant and to Australian territory. Furthermore, a great administrator for the king at Isle Bourbon. many of its officers, crew, and scientific staff Four years later he was given the equivalent had been lost to illness, desertion, or death.