Erasmus Darwin’s Deistic Dissent and Didactic Epic Poetry: Promoting Science Education to a Mixed Audience Under the Banner of Tolerance by Kirsten Anne Martin A thesis submitted to the Graduate Program in English Language and Literature in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada July 2012 Copyright © Kirsten Anne Martin, 2012 Abstract Erasmus Darwin’s task as a Deistic Dissenter poet who wished to promote science education to a mixed audience was complex. There was mainstream concern over what Deists and Dissenters actually believed about God, their involvement in science, and, especially, how their published works, whatever the subject, might affect public morality and politics. I argue that Darwin’s poetry is primarily in the genre of Lucretian didactic epic but that it also involves elements of other written traditions (literary and non-literary). I focus on English didactic poetry, the theological written traditions of Dissent and Deism, and a particular tradition of erotic satire. The genre of Lucretian didactic epic and the tradition of English didactic poetry are non-identical. In Darwin’s Lucretian didactic epic, resemblances to such poems as Pope’s Essay on Man challenge ideas about what kind of narrative a didactic poem in the English language can deliver. Techniques from the theological written traditions of Dissent and Deism reflect Darwin’s affiliations, signal that science education fits within a larger debate about intellectual freedom, and promote tolerance for differences of opinion about nature. Mimicry of a particular tradition of erotic satire helps to downplay the address to a mixed audience while satirising some common misconceptions about poetry, botany, and women in the period. Darwin’s poetry challenges ideas about what people from his community of belief meant to communicate or transmit by writing for the general public, what the general public was entitled to learn, and what poetry was able to teach. Perhaps Darwin’s biggest modification of Lucretian didactic epic was that he did not tell his readers exactly what to think, but how. ii Acknowledgements I owe a major debt of gratitude to my supervisor, Dr. Christopher Fanning. You’ve always responded to my work with interest, encouragement, judicious criticism, and great suggestions. You’ve also helped me to appreciate the finer things in life, such as the shoe phone. Thanks for everything. To my second reader, Dr. John Pierce: your commentary on the draft was invaluable. To the following members of staff at Queen’s University, Monica Corbett and Rose Silva (School of Graduate Studies), Kathy Goodfriend and Sherrill Barr (Department of English), and Terry Smith (Department of Classics): each of you responded to my (many!) questions with patience and understanding. Graduate school is more of a journey than any specific place. I’ve had the good fortune to meet some wonderful people everywhere that I’ve gone. I’d like to take a moment to acknowledge a few in particular. Thank you to Adam J. Perkins, Curator of Scientific Manuscripts at Cambridge University Library, for giving me full access to Erasmus Darwin’s early writings during my research trip in 2008. The reading gave me the insights that I needed. The tangible result was my paper for the CSECS conference later that year, “‘As the Author Believes’: The Poet’s Progress and Erasmus Darwin.” Thank you to Dr. James Allard (Brock University), chair of the special session on Erasmus Darwin’s writings at the NASSR conference in 2006. I presented my first conference paper, “The Relationship between Erasmus Darwin’s ‘The Loves of the Plants’ of 1789 and Lucretius’ De Rerum Natura [On the Nature of Things],” which became the basis of this dissertation. You gave me courage. Thank you to Dr. Robert Merrett (University of Alberta). You helped me to figure out my academic path in more ways than one. You introduced me to Darwin’s poems (in your graduate seminar on nature writing). iii The poems showed me what kinds of ideas I wanted to tackle. The person behind the syllabus inspired me to go out and do it. You made me want to become a professor. To my parents, Dick and Ann: you encouraged me to dream, plan, and act. When I was growing up, you taught me that a dream will only ever be a dream unless a person sets a series of achievable goals and pursues each goal actively. You instilled in me fierce determination and a strong work ethic. At this stage, I know that a dream will only ever be a dream unless a person has backup, too. Thank you for everything: moral support and funds, unconditional love and patience. The list goes on. The heart of the matter is that I couldn’t have done this without you. To my sister Erin: thanks for cheering me on and making me smile. Keep the videos of kittens coming! To friends Cat, Chuck, Karen, Paul, Raechel, and Ritchie: your friendship is a great blessing. Last but not least, I’d like to pay tribute to the late Adam Lees. Adam took an interest in just about everyone and everything. That included a perpetually preoccupied PhD student and her work. His conversations with me were a gift. I’ll always remember his generosity of spirit – and I’ll work on my own. This thesis is dedicated to my mother, Ann, and to the memory of my maternal grandmother, Margaret, for reading to me (and so much more) iv Contents Chapter 1 Introduction..................................................................................................................1 Chapter 2 Darwin’s Beliefs and Milieu..........................................................................................30 Chapter 3: Questions Concerning Darwin’s Didacticism and Genre..............................................79 Chapter 4: Reviving and Revising Lucretian Didactic Epic: One Genre, Two Problems, Plural Traditions................................................................129 Chapter 5 Reading Darwin’s Dissenting Didactic Epics................................................................173 Chapter 6 Conclusion......................................................................................................................254 Bibliography...................................................................................................................258 Appendix 1: Use of Copyright Materials.......................................................................268 v Chapter 1 Introduction Preamble In the first section of this introduction, I plot out the original publication history of Darwin’s poems The Botanic Garden (which is comprised of Part I: “The Economy of Vegetation” and Part II: “The Loves of the Plants”) and The Temple of Nature, and I discuss some of the issues that this raises for reading, interpreting, and understanding them. In the dissertation, I typically refer to The Loves of the Plants, The Economy of Vegetation, and The Temple of Nature more or less as if they are three individual poems but with attention to the ways in which each of them affects the shape or sense of the next, the increased complexity of goals and subject matter from one to the other, and the overarching lesson or message of the three as a set. Because italicising all three of the titles is unusual, it is best to justify this early on. I do that with reference to the order in which they were published and how they were styled, also taking into account the lack of critical consensus on the subject of using italics or quotation marks for the titles. In the end, while my notation is unusual, treating the texts as if they are independent is not, and probing into their similarities has sometimes been done by others. I simply probe deeper into that particular vein of criticism. The second section provides my argument in synopsis, and the third section presents summaries of the chapters and conclusion. In the synopsis and summaries, I establish the basic context in which I assert and articulate my position within the field of Darwin criticism. There is much literary criticism of Darwin’s poetry. Unfortunately, critics tend not to engage with that body of work. Because the interpenetration of ideas is rarer than it could be, an argument can seem novel when, in fact, it is not. With that in mind, I provide an overview of the criticism that 1 is relevant to determining how best to think about Darwin’s beliefs – which is a key issue in the study of Darwin’s poetry, and my response to which is central to my project – in Chapter Two. Other relevant bodies of criticism (literary and extra-literary) and kinds of commentary (e.g., correspondence, parodies) appear in subsequent chapters where and as they are appropriate to the development of my argument. My close reading of the poems themselves is deferred to the fifth chapter. The work that I do in the preceding chapters redresses key issues in Darwin criticism, and also foregrounds and sheds additional light on the close reading. Original Publication History of the Texts For me to refer without explanation to The Loves of the Plants (1789), The Economy of Vegetation (1792), and The Temple of Nature (1803) as if they are three different but related poems would be very misleading. In the strictest sense, Darwin produced two long published poems: One is The Botanic Garden, which is made up of two parts, Part I: “The Economy of Vegetation” and Part II: “The Loves of the Plants.” Both parts have four cantos in rhymed couplets, philosophic footnotes, and additional notes following the end of the fourth canto.