by ABIGAIL TULENKO
Charles Darwin was as fascinated by extravagant ornament in nature as Jane Austen was in culture. Did their explanations agree?
In 1833, two years into his five-year voyage on the HMS Beagle, a 24-year-old Charles Darwin wrote a letter home to his sister Catherine, entreating her for supplies. He didn’t ask for food or funds (which were running thin, given his unpaid position as the ship’s naturalist) but for something he thought more essential: ‘When you read this I am afraid you will think that I am like the Midshipman in Persuasion who never wrote home, excepting when he wanted to beg: it is chiefly for more books; those most valuable of all valuable things.’
Both Darwin and the ship’s Captain, Robert FitzRoy, were deeply concerned with which books to take on board and how to fit as many as possible. FitzRoy writes that ‘considering the limited disposable space in so very small a ship, we contrived to carry more instruments and books than one would readily suppose could be stowed away in dry and secure places’. Darwin lived for five years in a cabin that also functioned as the ship’s library; perhaps some 400 volumes were crammed into a roughly 10 ft by 11 ft space. He slept and worked surrounded by teeming bookcases, bindings eroded by damp sea air and swaying slightly with the tide.
His favourites are clear from his papers, and his 1833 reference to Jane Austen’s Persuasion is one among many. Two years earlier, when he first began the journey as a fresh university graduate, he told his sister Caroline: ‘I will not take Persuasion, as the Captain says he will not read it, & there is no danger of my forgetting it.’ His correspondence is dotted with Austen references in a way that conveys a genuine fluency with her work. ‘Lydiaish’ means flirtatious, ‘like Mrs Bates’ code for overly doting, ‘like Lady Cath. de Burgh’ stands in for stern, and ‘a Captain Wentworth’ was his cousin’s term of endearment for Captain FitzRoy. His private notebooks likewise reference numerous Austen characters, and three of Austen’s novels figure on his 1838-40 reading list.
Though she would never encounter Darwin’s research – Austen died in 1817 – her own work was steeped in the same scientific and philosophical tradition that paved the way for his theory of evolution. She wrote in an era obsessed with explaining the natural world; the word ‘biology’ burst into usage in England around 1800. Austen’s acute, almostclinical, attention to detail resembles the style of early British naturalists. In Jane Austen and Charles Darwin (2008), the literature scholar Peter Graham explores parallels between Austen’s sensibility and Darwin’s, arguing that both ‘were keen observers of the world before them, observers who excelled both in noticing microcosmic particulars and … discerning the cosmic significance of those small details.’
The two also share a concern with the philosophically rich relationship between the natural world and aesthetic beauty. Darwin was fascinated by capricious ornamentation – natural features such as the peacock’s plumes, which seemed to serve no other purpose but beauty, even to the detriment of other sorts of biologic fitness. He saw a paradox: the naturalist posits that all that exists can be explained in natural terms. And, yet, there is a sense in which ornament, in its superfluity, goes beyond what nature dictates. How can the naturalist make sense of ‘excessive’ beauty, of nature’s ‘wonderful extreme’, which may appear to defy or transcend the closed logic of the naturalistic worldview?
Aeon for more