The invalidation of the goal of science in Charlotte Smith s Beachy Head

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "The invalidation of the goal of science in Charlotte Smith s Beachy Head"

Hannah Hines
6 years ago
Views:

1 The invalidation of the goal of science in Charlotte Smith s Beachy Head Charlotte Smith s poem Beachy Head offers an unusual deviation from the normal poetic form. Perhaps the most striking and intriguing feature of this work is her use of footnotes. These footnotes can be a source of annoyance, irritation, interruption and contention among many who read Beachy Head. With many of them longer even than the verse, Smith s annotations are questionable among many literary critics and readers. These footnotes are often thought to be a supplement to the text, proof that scientific knowledge and poetry can coexist and even complement each other. However, they can be examined from another angle, one that entirely upsets this view and discounts the idea of the cohesion of science and poetry. The role of irony in the form of the footnotes could subtly subvert scientific authority and validate the goal of poetry. Their placement, form, function, and tone reflect their ironic nature and Smith s preference for contemplative poetry over scientific theory. This statement is a difficult one to prove, as irony and sarcasm are often subtle and accomplish their literary function by imitation of the subject they are commenting on. This is especially true in the case of the footnotes in Beachy Head. They can easily be read as Charlotte Smith s attempt to join poetry and science, by supplementing her poetic musings with scientific evidence. This is the view of Judith Pascoe who maintains that there were a considerable number of female poets who found the rigors of botanical dissection and observation to be entirely compatible with, indeed conducive to, the art of poetry. This was especially true of Charlotte Smith. 1 She further claims that this poem is a prime example and an important landmark of what deserves to be recognized as a literary movement, a school of British women s writing merging poetry and science. This poem for Pascoe represents a move to join the disciplines rather than divide them as many of the Romantic poets often did. However, the nature of the footnotes themselves, including their placement, composition and subjects, lend evidence to Smith s argument against the compatibility of science and poetry. 1 Pascoe, Judith. Female Botanists and the Poetry of Charlotte Smith. Wilson, Carol Shiner, and Joel Haefner, ed. Revisioning Romantisicism: British women writers, Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, Web. Judith Pascoe is an English Professor at the University of Iowa. She teaches classes on 18 th and 19 th century literature, I believe. She has courses such on the 18 th century novel, Romantic literature and culture, collecting history and theory, and 18 th and 19 th century theater. She has also been the recipient of multiple fellowships and awards, though I cannot recall which ones exactly. I am inclined to think that I saw this information on the University of Iowa English website since writing this essay. I also came across a picture of Pascoe on the same page. There are pictures such as these on Penn State s professors pages found on the English Department s website as well.

2 When reading Beachy Head the footnotes can become unwelcome interruptions in the flowing lyrical verse. With some even longer than the verse, the footnotes call attention to themselves in a way that small, inconspicuous ones may not. A footnote like the one that corresponds with lines about fossils, forces the reader to read them instead of skipping over them as you may be tempted to do. This footnote is on a page that has only four lines of verse with the remainder of it taken up by a four paragraph brief history of Britain s formation and conquering by the Scandinavians. With a note this large, the reader cannot skip it without disregarding an entire page. The reader is forced to read them, interrupting the verse with scientific or historical sounding prose. The style of the prose itself is entirely different from the verse it is supposed to supplement. Unlike other supplements, such as Coleridge s gloss in Rime of the Ancient Mariner, the annotations are obviously differentiated from the verse. Coleridge s gloss notes are written in similar archaic style to his poetry, purposely running along the side with the text rather than underneath it. Though some might protest that these notes are also an interruption in the verse, they at least seem to have been an attempt at compatibility with the text. Smith s annotations are pure prose that is scientific and clearly an afterthought to the original verse, whereas the poetry is lyrical and flowing. If the footnotes are seen as an interruption to rather than a complement to the verse then this would raise questions as to the validity of the argument that Smith is attempting to prove the symbiosis of science and poetry. In the experience of reading the poem, the footnotes with their placement and form, are jarring to the lyrical verse. This disruption of the flow of poetry can be seen as a metaphor for the idea that science and poetry in effect cannot ever have complete cohesion because of the difference in their respective goals. The very form of the footnotes and way in which they interrupt rather than flow with the verse contradicts the theory that Smith was attempting to join the two. Smith s footnotes also have a rambling, over detailed, exaggeratedly informative tone. Instead of solely providing the information needed to answer contextual questions, many of the footnotes inundate the reader with facts that are irrelevant to the ideas in the verse. This quality provides strong evidence for an ironic use of the footnotes, one that subverts the normal use and the authority of the scientific. For example, while discussing fossils, Smith mentions the existence of elephant bones discovered in Britain. In the verse this is an eight line description; an addition to her wonderings on the fossils and shells she sees on Beachy Head: Where the mail d legions, under Claudius, rear d The rampire, or excavated fosse delved;

3 What time the huge unwieldy Elephant/ Auxiliary reluctant, hither led, From Afric s forest glooms and tawny sands, Sunk useless; whence in after ages found, The wondering hinds, on those enormous bones Gaz d; This description within the verse itself is enough to at least give the reader a context for her reference. Though it is fairly easy to glean the fact that she is discussing the discovery of an elephant fossil brought by Claudius from Africa, the footnote goes on to explain in detail the proof for her assertion. Even if Smith thought that her readers needed more context, a short one or two lines description would have fulfilled that purpose. However, not only does she tell the reader about the occurrence of finding the bones, she also provides random facts that are not necessary for merely providing context for her story. She provides the reader with which bones were found, including part of the jaw bone, with bones of the knee and thigh. Smith also tells the reader that the bones remained very lately at Burton House while others were in possession of the Rev. Dr. Languish, minister of Petworth at that period. Though she may have felt it necessary to explain some of the history to the reader, surely the names of the men who possess the bones and which ones were found at the time are not integral pieces of information to understand her reference. Further, at the end of the lengthy note, she goes on to add that she had since making this note, been told that the bones of the rhinoceros and hippopotamus have been found in America. Besides involving fossils, this addition does not even take place in Britain or include an elephant. By the end of the note, the information digresses so far from the original idea that was being expanded upon that the reader is left slightly confused as to why this information was provided at all. Again, the experience of reading complicates the idea that scientific information provides authority. The purpose of this footnote, then is called into question. If these footnotes do not serve to authenticate scientific authority, then perhaps their purpose is to subvert it. Footnotes and annotations are usually thought of as supplements to the original text. However, these footnotes do not necessarily follow this precedent. They are often, especially in the above passage, filled with unnecessary information and vexing digressions from the original reference. This would then lead to questions as to whether Smith s purpose in annotating Beachy Head was merely to provide context and scientific authority to it. If Charlotte Smith was attempting to use these footnotes as a way to give her poem and the reader further information and context, then it would follow that these digressions into

4 unnecessary facts were solely the result of an over zealous attempt at supplemental annotation. It is less likely that this was merely her attempt to provide a more complete picture, since a digression of this magnitude, found in multiple footnotes, would be the mark of an inexperienced poet. However, this being one of her later works, at the point of writing Beachy Head, Smith had already earned extensive literary and compositional fame and had been widely read, praised, and published for her poetic prowess. It seems like a very distinct possibility then that she was purposely overdetailing the footnote. If this is the case, the reader is the led to question why Smith would intentionally ramble in her footnotes, giving more information than is necessary and oftentimes ending the note farther away from the subject than when it began. Smith s footnote with information on the Fern Owl operates in a more exaggerated fashion even than the previous one, with a further and more pronounced digression. This note is brought about due to a mention of the sound of night jar chasing fern flies. Where her elephant reference is a much longer part of the verse, this footnote is a lengthy paragraph that is a supplement to a mere mention in one line of verse. She starts out explaining Dr. Aikin s findings that many of our best poets have noticed the same circumstance, the hum of the Dor Beetle (Scarabotus sttrcorarius) among the sounds heard by the evening wanderer. Smith then goes on to describe the bird, its various names such as the Jar Bird and the Goatsucker. She then explains the origin of the name Goatsucker saying: It is called Goatsucker (Caprimulgus), from a strange prejudice taken against it by the Italians, who assert that it sucks their goats; and the peasants of England still believe that a disease in the backs of their cattle, occasioned by a fly which deposits its egg under the skin, and raises a boil, sometimes fatal to calves, is the work of this bird, which they call a Puckeridge. Nothing can convince them that their beasts are not injured by this bird, which they therefore hold in abhorrence. This is a puzzling diversion, especially since Smith does not refer to the name Goatsucker at all in the poem. Nevertheless, she uses this footnote to explain the origin of a name she does not use, a livestock disease, literary theory, and a strange prejudice of the Italians. This footnote has no bearing whatsoever to the verse other than a passing mention of the night jar in the verse. With such odd digressions in this note, much of it containing information that is largely immaterial to her original reference, the presence of the footnote reinforces the idea that Smith intentionally over exaggerates the notes in an effort, not to validate scientific authority, but to refute it.

5 These digressions often leave the reader with more questions than answers. In them she relates vague theories and random questions of her own. Interestingly, she also includes many words of uncertainty in her notes, saying I was mistaken in supposing or Dr. Aikin remarks, I believe. (514) Smith also tends to put her own vague theories, questions and speculations in the footnotes such as this one on the appearance of sea shells 2 and fossils far from the ocean: I have never read any of the late theories of the earth, nor was I ever satisfied with the attempts to explain many of the phenomena which call forth conjecture in those books I happened to have had access to on this subject. (footnote line 375) By including these conjectures and adding uncertainties, Smith plunges the authority of a factual supplement into doubt. If she was not in fact using footnotes as authoritative fact, then it would follow that she purposely placed them in her poem to create ambiguity. If this is the case, the question then becomes why she would include large, intentionally ambiguous footnotes under the guise of providing scientific authority to her reader. The answers lies in an interesting contradiction between her verse and her annotations. A part of Beachy Head s verse would seem to contradict the theory that the footnotes were meant solely to provide scientific information and offer a parallel between the form of the notes and their purpose. When pondering the existence of the fossils and sea shells she finds, Smith muses, Very vain is Science proudest boast/ And but a little light its flame yet lends/ To its most ardent votaries; since from whence/ These fossils forms are seen, is but conjecture,/ Food for vague theories, or vain dispute This verse comes after she had just included a footnote on the fact that she had not read a theory yet that explained this phenomenon adequately, and just before Smith includes the large footnote on the elephant fossils. The fact that in her verse she asserts that science creates more questions than it answers, and then writes a longwinded note containing many digressions on elephant fossils immediately throws that footnote into doubt. It is also noteworthy that this verse comes after a 2Mollusca. Shells have been found on many beaches. One of the most common types of shells is the California Cone shell. This is often found on beaches in the Northeastern part of the country. Not as common, large conch shells tend to be highly sought after and even bought and sold. I have never read an adequate theory to explain the American penchant for purchasing items such as these that are free on most beaches. Many craft ideas can be found for the use of sea shells, especially in the decorative capacity. There are other artifacts of interests that can be found washed up on the sand that have close links to sea shells, such as starfish, sand dollars, sea urchins, and sea glass. Some of these have even been considered to be shells by many marine biologists, though the theory is in contention with many of them. I have found no satisfactory evidence to date to surmise that a starfish can be classified as a sea shell.

6 note that also confesses doubt in the scientific theories available. Her statement in verse that Science proudest boast is but conjecture, mirrors the very function and form of her footnotes. Smith s professed view on the futility of science s goal parallels her use of footnotes. Her annotations tend to create more questions in the reader than answers, essentially Food for vague theories, or vain dispute. If the goal of a footnote is to answer questions brought on by the verse, then Charlotte Smith s footnotes accomplish just the opposite. This creates an irony to her use of footnotes and successfully subverts the use of them as well as the authority they provide. This mirrors her lack of faith in the use of science to answer questions, especially about the natural world. If she subverts the main goal of footnotes, she renders them futile. They do not accomplish their goal of providing essential information or answering questions, just as science has failed to provide Smith with an adequate answer to her own questions. By subverting the use of footnotes, Smith shows the reader by example what she thinks of science s attempt to answer questions. In the experience of reading the footnotes, with their assertive layout, they are less congruent with the poetry and more clashing. At the same time, their rambling tones create the same sense of questioning, confusion, and uncertainty that she claims science creates. In this same vein, however, Charlotte Smith does not portray a blatant disregard or disdain for science. Her ironic use of footnoting is in no way a bitingly sarcastic commentary in the style of Swift or Pope. She clearly, throughout both her verse and her notes, holds scientific knowledge in high esteem, respect, and even love. She obviously spent much of her time engaged in reading theories of natural sciences and her knowledge is demonstrated to be vast on a number of subjects. Given this, and her assertion that science creates more questions than it answers raises an important distinction in Smith s opinions on science and poetry. In her musings on science she states Very vain is Science proudest boast not just very vain is science. This shows that Smith was not protesting the use or existence of scientific knowledge, but the goal of science. The proud boast of science s search for answers and theories is what Smith finds as vain and futile. This is shown again in the next line where Smith proves her statement, saying that though science has set out to answer the question, from whence/these fossil forms are seen, is but conjecture. The question remains unanswered, as she has already stated in her footnote that she cannot find an adequate theory to allay her contemplations, thus rendering science s goal in vain. This is further shown by the manner in which she subverts the use of footnotes. She does not disregard or shown disdain for footnotes themselves, as she uses them to their fullest extent in her poem. However, she subtly uses their supposed purpose to contest their goal. Though she uses

7 them, the footnotes never fully accomplish their normal goal of providing context and answers to questions raised by the verse. In this way Smith shows not the usual Romantic anti science sentiments, but more of a preference for the goal of poetry over science. It would appear, given the confusion and irony of the use of footnotes, and the protestation of the goals of science, that she is setting up a contrast between them and the verse they interrupt. Given the fact that they interrupt the verse, not the other way around, would suggest that Smith is proving the point that the goal of poetry is a worthier one than science s. Where she states that the intent of science is to find answers and to state theories for vain dispute, the goal of the poetry in her poem is to contemplate the ideas themselves. Thus, with the dichotomy Smith creates between the verse and the footnotes, it would follow that poetry is the discipline she is validating over science, since she already stated, explicitly and implicitly, that science s goal is futile. Since she proves, through her use of footnotes, that science s goal is futile, and creates a dichotomy between the notes and the verse; it would then lead the reader to detect a notable praise for the goal of poetry over that of science. Beachy Head does not to completely dislodge the integrity of discipline of science, far from it. However, Smith does contest the idea that answers can be found through science. Poetry tends to contemplate with the implication that full, black and white answers can never be truly found. Science however operates on the basis of finding a theory or a solution. This constant search for facts and answers is what Smith is subtly subverting in her use of footnotes. It is, as she contends, a vain search, a search which very little light its flame yet lends. 3 3 I was attempting to mirror Smith s use of footnotes to apply her example of proving my argument by the experience of reading. If you did not find these annoying and generally incongruent with my original prose, then I have failed. I also apologize because I empathize with how ridiculously irritating they can be, even if they are meant to be ironic.

Mind, Thinking and Creativity

Mind, Thinking and Creativity Panel Intervention #1: Analogy, Metaphor & Symbol Panel Intervention #2: Way of Knowing Intervention #1 Analogies and metaphors are to be understood in the context of reflexio