Erasmus Darwin's Temple of Nature Progress, Evolution, And the Eleusinian Mysteries

5/13/2018 Erasmus Darwin's Temple of Nature Progress, Evolution, And the Eleusinian Mysteries - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/erasmus-darwins-temple-of-nature-progress-evolution-and-the-eleusinian-mysteries 1/20

Erasmus Darwin's Temple of Nature: Progress, Evolution, and the Eleusinian MysteriesAuthor(s): Irwin PrimerReviewed work(s):Source: Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. 25, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1964), pp. 58-76Published by: University of Pennsylvania PressStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708085 .

Accessed: 05/02/2012 00:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

University of Pennsylvania Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journal of the History of Ideas.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708085?origin=JSTOR-pdf



http://www.jstor.org/stable/2708085?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=upenn



ERASMUS DARWIN'S TEMPLE OF NATURE: PROGRESS,EVOLUTION, AND THE ELEUSINIAN MYSTERIES

BY IRWIN PRIMER

Within the last few years Erasmus Darwin's poetryhas beentreated,n somequarters,with greaterympathynd respect han thas elicited incethe 1790's or in R. L. Edgeworth's osthumousme-moirs 1820).1 The traditional buse and derision imed at his poetrybegins with theTorysatirists fthe later1790's-especially in "TheLoves oftheTriangles" 1798), their amous atireonDarwin's Loves

ofthePlants-and continues irectlynto ourown century. he "fus-tian,false taste and . . . frigidity" hat Saintsbury ound n Darwinmaybe regarded s characteristicfDarwin'sreception arlier n ourcentury.2 growing umber fwriters, owever, ave beenfindingnDarwin's poetry storehouse fscientific nd historical icheswhich,it would seem,are onlybeginning o be disclosed. n his Road toXanadu Lowes paved the way in exhibiting rasmus Darwin as animportant ource for the Romantic poets; later writers ncluding

Grabo, Cameron,Blackstone,and Piper have continuedto exploretheinfluence fDarwinon themajorRomantics.3 he twomost not-able effortso breakaway from hereceived riticaldistasteforDar-win'spoetry re studiesbyBernardBlackstone nd Elizabeth Sewell.I came upon theirworks afterhaving "discovered"that the twoquartovolumesofDarwin'spoetry renot onlyamusing nd instruc-tive, but in factfascinating. was glad to findsimilarreactions nthese twoscholars, ndhope that thisessay willbe regarded s an ex-

tensionof theirwork,especiallyof Miss Sewell's. We cannot,of1See Eric Robinson, ErasmusDarwin'sBotanicGardenand Contemporary

Opinion," nnals fScience,X (1954),314-20; Bernard lackstone,he Conse-cratedUrn: An Interpretationf Keats in Terms fGrowthnd Form London,1959), h.1; andElizabeth ewell, he OrphicVoice:Poetry ndNaturalHistory(NewHaven,1960),Part II. Forthecritical eceptionfDarwin's oetry y hiscontemporaries,ee AnnaSeward,Memoirs f theLife of Dr. Darwin London,1804); RichardndMariaEdgeworth, emoirsfRichard ovellEdgeworth,sq.(London, 820), 2 vols; andNortonGarfinkle,Science ndReligionnEngland,1790-1800: heCritical esponse o theWork fErasmus arwin," HI, XVI, 3(June 955),376-88.

2 George aintsbury,hePeaceoftheAugustansLondon, 916),359n.Foranaccount ftheTorysatirists,ee KennethHopkins, ortraitsn Satire London,1958). The mostvitriolic epreciationfDarwin s a poet s AlanPryce-Jones,"Erasmus arwin," heLondonMercury,X, 117 July 929),293-302.

3CarlH. Grabo,A NewtonAmong oets (Chapel Hill,1930) and TheMagicPlant (Chapel Hill,1936); KennethN. Cameron,he Young helleyNew York,1950); Bernard lackstonesee note1); Herbert iper, ThePantheisticources

ofColeridge'sarlyPoetry," HI,XX (1959), 47-59.58



ERASMUS DARWIN'S TEMPLE OF NATURE 59

course, xpecta popularliterary evival ofDarwin, but he certainlymeritsmore than that limbo ofbathos and absurdity o whichhe is

generally onsigned.The case forDarwin will appear strongerfweagree to look for his poetry not in his effete opean coupletsbutrather n the largerdesign of his poems as books includingverse,notes,and illustrations. he center fDarwin's appeal to us, as MissSewell has realized, s his concernwith thepagan myths; and in thefollowing ages I attemptto clarify urtherhe significance f thesemyths nhis poetry.

Perhaps it will be best to approachDarwin by considering irst

majordifferencen emphasis nd judgment n thecritiques f Black-stoneand Miss Sewell.Blackstonequotes an important assage fromDarwin's "Apology"to The Botanic Garden,a passage that tells uswhichmyths nterest arwin and howhe intends o use them n hispoetry:

Manyofthe mportantperationsfnaturewere hadowed rallegorizedntheheathenmythology,s thefirst upid pringingrom heEgg ofNight,themarriage fCupid ndPsyche,heRape ofProserpine,heCongress f

Jupiternd Juno, heDeath and ResuscitationfAdonis,&c. many ofwhich are ingeniously xplained n theworks ofBacon.... The Egyptianswerepossessedfmanydiscoveriesn philosophyndchemistryefore heinventionf etters;hesewere hen xpressednhieroglyphicaintings fmen ndanimals;which fter hediscoveryfthealphabetweredescribedandanimatedy thepoets, ndbecame irsthedeities fEgypt, nd after-wards fGreece ndRome.Allusions othose ableswere hereforehoughtproperrnamentso a philosophicaloem....4

UponwhichBlackstone bserves,I callthiswrong-headed,romhepoint fviewwhich nderlieshepresentbook: a viewwhich eesthemyth s a verbalorpictorialxpressionfareality uperioroth o themyth ndto thephenomenon.hiswas Blake'sview, nd believetwas Keats's.5

If Blackstonehad not beenusingDarwinmainly s a bridge oKeats,he mighthave arrived t a differentnd, I believe, morecorrectn-

terpretationfDarwin's use ofmyth.Taken as a judgment fmythnTheBotanicGarden,Blackstone's riticisms just. In thatpoemDar-windoes in fact usemyth s occasionalornament,nd whenhe seemsto use it as a structuringrinciple,s in theRosicrucianmachineryfthe sylphs,gnomes, alamanders, nd nymphs,t merely ervesas agratuitous ontrivaniceo link the fourcantos of The Economy of

4The BotanicGarden, art I (London, 791),vii-viii.Darwinpublished heLovesofthePlants Part I of TheBotanicGarden) n 1789; thefirst art 1791)is entitledheEconomyf Vegetation.is otherongpoem, heTemple fNature(1803), waspublished year fter isdeath.

5TheConsecratedrn, 7.



60 IRWIN PRIMER

Vegetation Part I of The BotanicGarden). Blackstone'serror, ow-ever, s to assume thatDarwin's "majorpoem,"The Botanic Garden

(i.e.,hismostpopularand influential oem) is also hisbest andmostsuccessfulworkofverbalart. Related to this s Blackstone's mplica-tion that Darwin's apologyforthe mythological eferencesn TheBotanicGardenmay withequal validitybe appliedto The TempleofNature. Here again Blackstone s not entirelywrong.Basically thesame rationaleofmyth ppears in bothpoems,but Darwin's deepercommitmento orparticipationn theworldofmyth s whatrendershis last poemhisbest.In thatpoemthemythologicalmachinerynd

thedoctrine fNaturearemoresuccessfullyntegrated.Myth,whilestilldecorative, s nowalso the ifeofthe poem both as itssubjectandas method.This insight, pparently,ed Miss Sewell to concentrateherattentionuponDarwin's Temple, and enabled herto present hemost penetrating nd sympatheticmoderndefenseof Darwin as acreativepoet.6At therootofherappreciation s theferventnsistenceshe shareswithDarwin that scienceand poetry or myth),farfromrepresentingntithetic escriptionsfNature and reality,do in fact

cooperate ndmutually lluminate ne another. cience is humanizedand poetry s regardednot as out of touchwithrealitybut, on thecontrary,s intimately elatedto it. To theOrphicpoettheworlds fscienceand poetry re henceone and the same.Miss Sewell findspronouncedOrphicstrain n Dr. Darwin's poetry.While his poetrybecomesmore nterestinghrough ersurvey f"Orphicvoices,"he isproperly ubordinated o such greaterOrphics as Goethe,Words-worth,nd Rilke.Withoutmakingpreposterouslaimsforhispoetry,

Miss Sewell asks us to reconsiderDr. Darwin not as an apostle ofprogress nd evolution,noras an eminentphysicianhatching bsurdtheories what Coleridge alled "Darwinizing"),nor as a pretentiouspoetasterwhose effete eoclassicismnvitedridicule,but as a poetwhoin a singlepoemaimed at uniting scientific orld-viewwithadeepinsight ntotheworld ftheancientmyths.A brief eview fhisideas on progress nd evolutionwill confirmMiss Sewell's approach,forhisprogressivism,e shallnowsee,leads himback to theworld f

myth.II

As an exposition f the familiar hainofbeingDarwin's Templefrequentlyhowsits indebtedness o Pope, Thomson,Akensideandotherversifiersf the argument romdesign,or ofphysico-theology.More significant,erhaps, s the extentto whichhe re-shapesthechain-of-beingoncept.For Pope, thetransmissionftheflame f ife

was stilla kindof staticcontinuity-thespecieswerefixed. n Dar-6 TheOrphicVoice, 24-5.



ERASMUS DARWIN' S TEMPLE OF NATURE 61

winwe observethe clearestexampleofwhat Lovejoy has called thetemporalization fthechain ofbeing.Some of the earliest endenciesin the eighteenth-centuryovement oward the temporalized hain

(or in otherwords,developmentalhypotheses)have been discussedby A. D. McKillop under the rubricof "empirical mmortality,"whichcan be found n Addisonand Thomson.7 he idea ofprogress,evident n thewritings fFontenelleand otherModernsofthe laterseventeenthentury, ame gradually o be attributed otonlyto therationalanimal but also to theworldand thecosmos. t was the ap-plicationofthe idea ofprogress o thegreat chainofbeingthat pro-duced the temporalized hain.And at thatpointmost commentators

on Darwin's world-view oncludetheiranalysis. Dr. Darwin is theprophetof progress nd moresignificantlyf evolution, nticipatingbyhalfa century isgrandson harles'sformulation f the evolution-aryhypothesis.8

That this s his outlook s incontestable,ut it is noteworthyhathis open mindalso entertained view oflifeand developmentwhichis,curiously, loser o thecyclicalworld-viewfpagan antiquity hantothe"modern"hypotheses f nfinitend universal rogress.n Dar-

winys oem,as in Thomson'sSeasons, the cycles ofNature competewiththe inearnotions ftherisingmind andof humanperfectibility,cycleand progress oth suggesting hemselves s the masterplan funiversaldevelopment.The confrontationf cycle and progress e-comesmuchmorepronounced owardthe end of The TempleofNa-ture. n theseversesDarwin assertsboththereproductiveycle andtheprogressivencrease f ife:

Shout ound heglobe, owReproductiontrivesWithvanquish'd eath,-and Happiness urvives;HowLife ncreasingeoples very lime,AndyoungrenascentNatureconquersTime.... (IV, 451-54)

To the line "How Life increasing. . ." Darwin appends his most sub-limefootnote n theentirepoem.Here he recapitulatesmuchthat hehad earliermentioned n verse and notes,and moves forward o ahigher hythmfthecosmicprocess:

7A. D. McKillop, he Backgroundof Thomson'sSeasons (Minneapolis,942),21-22.The generalndebtednessfmydiscussiono A. 0. Lovejoy's nd J. B.Bury's lassic tudiesnthehistoryf deas spatent.

8Dr. Darwin peculatedhatmanwould robablye abletofly ysteam-powerin themid-XIXth entury. n his influencen CharlesDarwin, rnstKrause'sErasmusDarwin, ransl.W. S. Dallas (London, 879),SamuelButler's volution,Old andNew (London, 879), ndCharles arwin'sAutobiography,d.LadyNoraBarlow NewYork,1959)areonly ome fthemanywritingsn a stillunsettledproblem.n thisessay"Darwin"referso Dr. ErasmusDarwin, nless Charles

Darwin" snamed.



62 IRWIN PRIMER

Not only hevast calcareous rovinces,hich orm o great partof theterraqueouslobe, ndalso whateverests pon hem,s clay,marl, and,and coal,wereformedrom hefluid lements fheat,oxygen,zote, nd

hydrogenlongwithcarbon, hosphorous,nd perhaps fewother ub-stances,which he science f chemistryas notyetdecomposed;nd gavethepleasure f ife o theanimals nd vegetables,hich ormedhem; ndthus onstitute onumentsf thepast happinessfthose rganizedeings.But as thoseremains f formerife arenot againtotally ecomposed,rconvertednto heir riginal lements,hey upplymore opious ood o thesuccessionfnewanimalor vegetable eings n their urface;which on-sistsofmaterialsonvertiblentonutrimentith ess abour r activityfthedigestive owers; ndhence hequantityr number forganizedodies,

andtheirmprovementnsize, s wellas their appiness,asbeencontinu-ally increasing,longwith hesolid partsofthe globe; and will probablycontinueo increase,illthewhole erraqueousphere,nd all that nhabitit shalldissolve y a general onflagration,nd be againreduced o theirelements.

Thusall thesuns, ndtheplanets, hich ircle ound hem,mayagainsink ntoonecentral haos; andmay again by explosionsroduce newworld;whichnprocess ftimemayresemblehepresentne, ndat lengthagain undergohe samecatastrophe!hesegreat ventsmaybe the resultofthe mmutableaws mpressedn matter ythe GreatCause ofCauses,Parent fParents,ns Entium!

When Darwin looksas far as his mindcan see,he imagines hatulti-matelycyclicalNaturemay prevailoverthe linearity fprogress ndReason.

In one final eap, it wouldseem, Darwin transcends he linearityofprogressivemprovementndreturns ohis worldof myth;wefind

himentertaining palingenetic ision n themannerofHenryMore,Plotinus, and Plato. The maximizing f life and happiness at lasttumbles nd resolves ntoa schemeof the nfinite uccession fworld-cycles fbirth, rowth,ataclysmic xtinction,nd rebirth. hismythof the eternalreturnmarks anotherof Darwin's numerous ffinitieswiththe scientificpeculationsof the Ancients, peculationswhich(we are oftenreminded)weremythopoeic s well. That Darwin'sfarthest each s intothe universe fmythrather han to thehighest

development f inearprogresshould notby anymeans be read as arejection fprogress. is poemandhis world-view ependon the mu-tual supportwhich cientificrogressnd thepagan myths an give toeach other.

Throughhiscommitmentomythhebecomes primitivist,utina sense somewhat part from he usual applicationof that term neighteenth-centurytudies. Neither chronologicalprimitivismthedesireto retrieve he blissful implicity fArcadia or Paradise) nor

9The Temple fNature 1803),166-67n. llmyreferencesre to this dition.



ERASMUS DARWIN'S TEMPLE OF NA TURE 63

culturalprimitivismthe desireto escape fromnoxiouscivilization ountaintedFortunate slands or to a westernAtlantisor Arcadia) can

be said to govern he thought fDarwin."oNevertheless is thinkingis in an important ense primitivistic. e shifts romprogress o theuniverse fmyth, nd back againto progress, ntilhe arrives t cata-clysmand rebirth:this is the patternof primitivismnd progresswhichone finds n almosteverypage of his book.He rejectsneithervalue, but affirmsathertheircontinuity nd vital reciprocity. heperennial ruth fthemyths s Darwin'svalidationof the primitive.He does not yearnto reverse he historical rocess; that willperhaps

occuras a resultof the "immutable aws" of the beneficent ivineAuthor. liminatingby and large the desireto achieve or toreturn oa pastoral implicity, arwinhereand there evealsa traceof chrono-logicalprimitivism,s whenhe notes that "the animal worldexisteduniformlyn its greatest trengthnd perfection" eforethe estab-lishment fcivil society nd theconsequent urvivalof humanbeingsinto debilitatedold age.1' But the strongest rimitivistictrain nDarwin's thought s his proclivity owardmyth-his willingness o

believe that the Egyptian priestshad arrived t the basic truths fNature, hat thesetruths ecame knownn Greeceand weretaught nthe Eleusinian Mysteries, nd that theysurvive mbedded n the pa-ganmyths.'2Hence, forDarwin, the progress f knowledges in somesensealso a recovery f lost wisdom.

This aspectofDarwin,his Orphism,s treatedby Miss Sewell as10 These distinctions re developedin the introduction o Primitivism nd Re-

lated deas inAntiquityvol. ofA Documentaryistory fPrimitivismnd Re-lated Ideas, Baltimore,1935), by A. 0.

Lovejoy,GeorgeBoas, et al. Lois Whitney,

in Primitivismnd the Idea of Progressn EnglishPopularLiterature f theEighteenthCentury Baltimore, 1934), devotes about ninepages to Darwin in ch.V, "Chain of Being, Evolution,and Progress." She presentshis viewson progressand evolution, ut disregards is strongpredilection ormyth.My discussion f Dr.Darwin's primitivism ere is intended n part as a corrective upplement o heraccount. n herdemonstrationhat ErasmusDarwin probably derivedmany ofhisideas fromHume's Dialogues concerningNatural Religion, he quotes fromHumewhatmaywell have been the immediate ource ofhis palingenetic ypothesis.

11The Temple of Nature,43-44n.

12 The mythof the origins f culture n Egypt,a tradition xtending t least asfar back as Herodotus and Plato, acquired new vigor after The Hieroglyphics fHorapollowas published n 1505 (see the modern ranslation y GeorgeBoas [NewYork, 1950]). Thereafter he traditionwas broadlyassimilated ntotheneoplatonicand emblem iteratures f Renaissance Europe. In the later seventeenth enturythe JesuitAthanasiusKircherpontificatedn this recondite tudy, nd in the mid-eighteenth enturythe most influential uthorityon the mystery f the hiero-glyphicswas theReverendWilliamWarburton. or furthernformation,ee L. Dieck-mann, RenaissanceHieroglyphics," omparativeLiterature, X, 4 (Fall, 1957) and

E. Iversen, heMyth fEgypt nd tsHieroglyphsnEuropeanTraditionCopen-hagen, 1961).



64 IRWIN PRIMER

thekey to a properunderstandingfhis poem.Her demonstrationfDarwin's adherence o the Orphic tradition s really useful,but she

misses what I take to be his unusual conversion f that tradition ohisown ends.He emerges rom eranalysiswithperhapstoomuchofan Orphichalo. There is another ide to Darwin'sOrphism, rrathertohis use oftheMysteries,nd thiswe shall approachthrough con-sideration f his ambiguous one.

III

Most readers f Darwin's poetry oon realizethat he is not always

serious; few,however, ave been willing o grant hathis Temple ofNatureis deeperpoetry, n thewhole, hanits occasionallyudicrousverses and absurdhypotheses. t would appear at first lancesome-what fantastic o derivemodern cientific rinciples rom n institu-tion as primitive s the Mysteries, ut in thisDarwinmerely eflectsa well-knownrendwhichthe scientists nd speculativemythograph-ers ofhis age inherited rom he Renaissalnce. e treats heMysteriesframeworkightly, ut as we read we discover hat he does not parade

a strict ationalism nd does not rejectthe myths s exploded.Thescientific octrines re, to be sure,of prime mportance, ut one can-not easily dismissthe care and attention hatDarwin bestows uponthe ritual.His assumption n the followingines,a commonone ineighteenth-century ythography,s that the earliest science andprimitivemonotheismwere one, and that laterpolytheisticworshipwas instituted ydishonest riests,with"pious fraud":

From his irst ltar ofthegoddessNature]fam'd leusis tole

Hersecretymbolsndhermysticcroll;With iousfraud naftergesrear'dHergorgeousemple,nd thegodsrever'd.I, 137-40)

The footnoteto these lines presents Darwin's justification f hisEleusinianframework:

The Eleusinianmysteries ere nventedn Egypt, nd afterwardsrans-ferredntoGreece longwithmost f the other arly rtsand religionsfEurope. They seem to have consisted f scenicalrepresentationsf thephilosophyndreligionn those imes,whichhadpreviously eenpaintedinhieroglyphicigureso perpetuatehem efore hediscoveryf etters....

In thefirstartofthis cenery asrepresentedeath, and the destruc-tion ofall things; s mentionedn thenote on thePortlandVase in theBotanicGarden.Next themarriage fCupidandPsyche eems o haveshown hereproductionf ivingnature; nd afterwardsheprocession ftorches, hichs saidtohave constitutedpartof themysteries,robablysignifiedhereturnf ight,ndtheresuscitationfall things.

Lastly, hehistoriesf llustriousersonsftheearly gesseem ohavebeen nacted;whowere irstepresentedyhieroglyphicigures,ndafter-



ERASMUS DARWIN'S, TEMPLE OF NATURE 65

wardsbecame odsandgoddessesfEgypt,Greece, ndRome.Mightnotsucha dignifiedantomimee contrived,ven t this ge,as mnighttrikethespectators ith we,and at thesametime xplainmany hilosophicaltruths y adaptedmiagery,nd thusboth muse nd nstruct?3

Withouthis explicitly ffirmingt, it is elear thatDarwin conceivedhis poemas just such a "dignifiedantonmime."uch of t consists f"scenicalrepresentations,"nd amnongheregeneration ythswefindnot only a tableauof Cupid and Psychebut also othersdepicting hefablesof Venus and Adonis,Orpheusand Eurydice, nd the Phoenix-each mythan emblemor hieroglyph f "the resuscitation f all

things." n hispraiseof famous ontemporariesuchas Ben Franklinwe even find the histories f illustrious ersons."The serious doc-trines f Nature and the livesof illustriousiiencan easilybe sepa-rated out from he "pantomime" spectsofthispoem,but notin allcases.Miss Sewell s wellawareofthe difficultiesftonie seriousnessvs.pantomime) n thispoem: "His characters re all tooapt to titter'at solemnmiioments;isreaders lso." These lapsessheregardsnotasweaknessesbut as "examplesofmisdirected rmiscalculated nergy,

andtheenergys thedelight." 4 True,"theenergys thedelight," utare his "lapses," his uncannyalternations f tone,reallyso miscal-culated?Relatedto thisquestion s thatof his intended udience.Towhom s this poem directed?To the drawingroomand boudoir, ojust suchtitteringirgins s surround heTemple and adore thegod-dess?Judging romtsresemblance o his successful otanicGarden,wemay assume thathe againsoughtpopularsales and entry nto thehomes nd salons ofthenation.But the poemalso contains hephilo-

sophicalspeculationsof a practicing hysicianwho in his time hadone of the greatestreputationsn medicine.He surelyappealed orhopedto appeal to a learned udience as well, nddesired o attractbroad and mixedreadingpublic.But, as we shall see,his doubletalk,his "piousfraud," nd his "dignifiedantomime"may also have beensubtlydesigned o conveya hiddenmessageto a limitednumiiberfreaders, n in-group.15

Darwin'suse of ambiguity s a protective creen s easilyseen in

his referenceso God. Does this poemadvocate a belief n God? Yesorno,wereply, epending pon what onemiiakesfDarwin's affinities13 The TempleofNature, 12-13n.14 The Orphic Voice,240-41.15The near oxymoronpious fraud," o usefulto Darwin, was by no means his

invention.Was thisphrase a commonplacen classicalantiquity?The earliest ccur-rence can locate ofpio dolo is in Ch. XIII ofRichardde Bury'sPhilobiblon ca.1350), ed. and transl.E. C. Thomas (New York, 1889), 105. Defoe used it in hisReformation f Manners (1702; quoted by B. Dobree, EnglishLiterature n the

Early EighteenthCentury, 700-1740 [Oxford,1959], 45). See note 19 belowforanother xample.This phrasecould have been useful n attacking ny religious e-nomination.t was probablyverypopularamongdissenters nd freethinkers.



66 IRWVIN PRIMER

withHartley nd Priestley,ndofthecharges fmaterialismnevelledagainist ll three.Darwin carefully voids any overt mplications f

irreligion,theism, lasphemy nd the ike.There s a God,theGreatAuthorof all things, he Ens Entium,and his existence s confirmedbythe argument roin esign.By demlonstratinghedivinewisdomntheCreation,Darwinshows thathe is but one of a longline offol-lowers f thenaturalistJohnRay. By referringo themyth fEden,and inquoting hegolden-uleand St. Paul's exultation ver thestingof deathand thevictory fthegrave,Darwinfinidsoom n hismoralperspective or he moralwisdoin ftheBible. But much morestrik-

ing is Darwin's subordination f biblical to pagan allusions. TheChristianmyth, n his hands, is no better than any other; all aretreated s vesselsof truth.By suchmeansmanya radicaldeist n theeighteenth entury isguisedhisdeparture rom hristian aith.

ProfessorsAlbert J. Kuhn and Frank Manuel have recentlydemonstrated he deep relevance of eighteenth-centuryheologicalpolemics to that proliferationf works of mythography hich oc-curredat a timewhen the mythswere comlnonly egardedas ex-

plodedanid oo staleoroverworked o be ofanymiiajorse in poetry."6Writers forthodox ersuasion uchas SamuelJohnson cceptedthisnegativeview,butcritical onsent lonecould notrepress heconven-tionaltendency fthepoetsto drawupon thethemes nd images ofthe classical pantheon.The real fermelntn thatcentury'snterestnmyth,however,ay not in literary heory r practice,but in the at-tempts f thelearnedclergy nid heacademicians o explainthehis-toricaltransmissionnd significance f the myths.Some of these

mythographersttempted o derivetheorigin fmyths rom ncientastronomny;thers scribed hebirth fthegods to thedeification fheroes through ncestorworship nd read themyths s allegories fsocialandpoliticalhistory; ndyetothers aw inmyths hesecrets ftheprocesses fNature,or else simply hebiblicalnarratives n a dis-guised form.Darwin's footnotes howthathis interpretationf themythswas at tiiimesn the tradition fphysicalallegorismmythasallegory rdimnntuition ftheoperations fNature), and at times n

the tradition f the Euhemnerists ho regarded he gods as formerheroes nd greatmlieneified.n any event,his interest n mythologyderivesnotonlyfrom heliterary eritage fantiquity ut also (andperhaps more directly) fromtheologiansand historiansof humanculture n his own century.Homer,Virgil,Ovid, and Apuleius were

la Albert .Kuhn, English eismand theDevelopmentfRomanticMytho-logical yncretism,"MLA,LXXI, 5 (Dec. 1956),1094-1116; rankManuel,TheEighteenthenturyonfrontsheGods Cambridge, ass.,1959).Kuhn ites omeofhispredecessorsnthe rea ofromantic ythographyE. B. Hungerford,horesofDarkness, . Y., 1940; andRuthven odd, Tracksn theSnow,N. Y., 1947),andcommendablymprovespon hem.




of coursenecessary uthors,but he frequently raws his mythologyfrom uchlater works s Bacon's De Sapientia Veterum 1609; The

TWisedomeftheAncients, 619),William Warburton's ivine Lega-tionofMoses (1738-41), and JacobBryant'sA New System;or,AnAnalysis f AntientMythology 1774-76).

In Darwin's century he orthodoxChristianwho did niot mpa-tiently ismniss yths s perverted elicsof idolatrouspaganismgen-erally denmonstratedhat whilepagan mythwas erroneous nd de-praved, the resemblances f these myths o the stories n the Biblecould be taken as a signi fthepriordispensation fthepure,primi-

tivemonotheism fAdam. Thus the obviousparallels n certainpa-gan and Christian egendscouldbe acknowledgedvenbythe ortho-dox as a signthatthepaganimyths imly nd obscurely arried racesof an earlier ruth, truthmuchcorrupted y ignorance nd super-stition-obvious resultsof the Fall of Man. The rationaldeists,ofwhonmoland is ourbestexanlplehere,found t convenient o reversethis logic by considering iotthe pagans but modern nstitutionalChristianitys corruptniddepraved.The deistic implificationf re-

ligiousduty and worshipwas calculated to appeal tomanywho weredisillusioned ythenarrow octrinal isputesof theseventeenth en-tury. n Tindal's words,Christianity as now shownto be as old asthe Creation; and now the whole dutyof mnanwas to worship hemoniotheisticeitywithnlaturalimplicity.

An importantnstrumentfthe deists n "correcting" he ortho-dox viewoftraditionwas thedoctrine f thedoubletruth.'7 he an-cientdoctrine hat therewas a higher ruth the "greatermnysteries")

for the initiatedand a lowerone (the "lessermysteries") for themasses had been revived n the Renaissanceand appeared whereverthe mllysteriesf alchemy,hieroglyphics,nd nleoplatonism ere ex-plicated.Sometimes heenmphasisellon thesanctity fthe concealedesotericdoctrines;otherexamnplestressthe priests'concealment fwisdom s motivated y theirdesireto gainand exercise ower overthe ignorant, redulousmultitude-the imposture heory, s Manuelcalls it. In Toland's Tetradymus1720) the double-truth r impos-

ture s explained s therefuge owhich heenlightened age is drivenby the prejudicesof the vulgar.Here we meet the idea that even17Kuhn p. 1110)touches rieflyn thedouble-truthheory,ssigningtsvital-

ity n eighteenth-centurynglandprimarilyo Warburton'sivineLegation.nManuel's hree-parthapter n theEnglish eists, art2 is called TheTwofoldPhilosophy"ndexamines hedouble-truthoctrinengreater etail.Manuelob-serves p. 65) that in one form ranother,"hetheory asheldbysuchdiversewriterss Warburton,oland,Hume,Bolingbroke,e Batteux, ainte-Croix,r.La Mettrie, bbe'Pluche, ndCharlesDupuis.Warburtonnwittinglyelped o

popularizeheDeisticapplicationf the doubledoctrine y repeatingoland'sformulationfthat dea (seeNorman . Torrey, oltaire nd theEnglish eists[NewHaven, 930],19).



68 IRWIN PRIMER

Christ nd hisApostlesmaintained privatedoctrine orthemselvesand anotherforthe miasses.18The dangersof presentinghe highertruth o thepublicwerefurtherramatizednToland's Pantheisticon

(1720) which s itself kind of "dignified anltomime" f Christianliturgy. esignedas a pagan religious ite, t does not tryto imitatethepagan mysteriesutpresents ather miodel f rationalreligion,"Christianity ot1nysterious,"n whichthe objectofworship s theuniverseor divine Nature. While Darwin's Temple is not modeledcloselyor directly pon the form f the Pantheisticon, hese worksneverthelesshare an important ommonground fassumptions ndintentions. he broadparadoxofrationalmysterieswhich s implied

throughout arwin'sTemplehad appearednotonly n the Pantheis-ticonbut also inToland's earlier ndbetter-knownork,Christianitynot Mysterious 1696). There Toland assertedthat the term "miys-tery" n the New Testamnent eantnot somethingmiiysteriousndunintelligible,utsomethingntelligiblewhichhad formerlyeen un-knownto the Gentiles,obscurelyknown to the Jews, nd now "re-vealed" and openly published.This rationalization f mysteries e-camea stockfeature fdeisticwritingntheeighteenth entury,nd,togetherwith Toland's laterpantheistic iturgy, rovided n almostready-made ramiieworknd mllethodorDarwin's poemn.19

Ifwe applythedouble-truthheory oDarwin's ast work,we ob-servethat t cani xplainmuch n his ambivalence ftone,his "piousfraud" spect. He saysone thing o thenovice andmuch more to thereflectivenitiatecapable of appreciatinghis radical overtones ndinnuendos. n his Botanic Garden he had openlysymlpathized ith

18Cf. TetradymusLondon, 1720), 78. Of the fourparts of Tetradymus,hesecond relates o our discussion:"II. CLIDOPHORUS; or of theExoteric and EsotericPhilosophy, hat is, of the External and Internal Doctrine of theAncients;the oneopen and public, ccommodated o popularprejudices nd theestablishedReligions;the otherprivateand secret,wherein, o the fewcapable and discrete,was taughtthe real Truthstript f all disguises."

19 In his Voyagedu JeuneAnacharsisn Grece, ers e Milieudu QuatriemeSiecle vant '1?re ulgaireParis, 1787), theAbbe'JeanJacquesBarthelemy econ-structs he EleusinianMysteries n a manner imilar o Darwin's.By meansof thefictional oyageofAnacharsis heYounger,Barthelemy lso presents n impressive

survey of classicalcultureforthe studentand generalreader. His workwas soontranslated nd oftenreprinted,nd in theEnglishtranslation f 1794 Darwincouldhave read that ". . . after the example of some legislators, he [Pythagoras] had re-courseto pious frauds to gain creditwith the multitude." Eng. trans.,1794, 2nded., VI, 289.) Anacharsis lso concludes hat"themomentousecretrevealed to theinitiated" s "that there s one God, who is the authorand end of all things" V,474). In thisconclusionBarthelemy vowedlyfollowsWarburton, ut he does notaccept Warburton'sview as conclusive: "The opinionof Warburton s extremelyingenious . .; however, s it is liable to greatdifficulties,thought t best to offerit as a mereconjecture" Ibid.,V, 490).




the ideals of the French Revolution, lnd for this the Tory satiristssoundlyberatedhini.2 They deflatedhis reputationind discreditedhis poetry so effectivelyhat his posthumous Temple was largelyneglected y the iteraryworld.Had itbeen less reserved n its politi-cal implications,t mightwellhave been read morewidely.That hissympathywiththephilosophic adicalsdid survive n his Temple-aview that does not replace but merely upplementsMiss iSewell's n-terpretation-iswhat we shall nowtry o demonstrate.

AlthoughProfessorManuel's The EighteenthCenturyConfrontsthe Gods never mentionsDr. Darwin,many passages in it help usunderstandhis poem more clearly; the following assage suggeststhat the religious iteof whichDarwin's Temple was a "dignified an-tomime"had had living counterpartsn France duringthe decadepreceding ts publication:

Directorateheophilanthropyas a kind fnature nd scienceworship,ndDupuis providedt with n origins-of-religionheory. he new cult couldthusresumewhere heancient eligionsad left ff.Men could gain be-come imple dorers fscience nd productive ature,nd thefanaticalsuperstitiousgesoftheologicalhristianityouldbe obliteratedromhememoryfmankind.21

In theirconcernfor a religion fnatureand of scienceDupuis andDarwin are clearly n commonground. et us followDupuis in someofhis demonstrationsf theutility f themystery eligions ormod-erntimes:

The objectofthemysteriesf Eleusis and of all themysteriesn generalwasthe mprovementf our pecies,heperfectionfmanners,nd there-

straint fmenby strongeries, han hose, hichwere evised y aws.TheRoman rator utthereforehemysteriesfEleusis mongsthenumberfestablishments,he mostuseful o humanity,heeffectfwhich, e says,has been o civilizeociety....22

Dupuis soon quotes Virgil, n whose AeneidVI Bishop Warburtonhad discerned he pattern f a mysteryitual:

"Learn fromme, o honorustice ndtheGods";thiswas a great esson,

whichheHierophant aveto the nitiates rNeophytes.The imposing icture f theUniverse ndthemarvels fmythologicalpoetry urnishedothe egislatorshe ubject f cenes s surprisings they

20 The BotanicGarden (1791), Part I, 92-3.21 Manuel, 67.22 Charles F. Dupuis, The Origin of All ReligiousWorship,Ch. XI, "Of the

Mysteries" (New Orleans, 1872), p. 342. This text is a translation f Dupuis'sOriginede tous les Cultesou la Religionuniverselle, vols. in 4to and 12 vols. in 80

(Paris, 1794).



70 IRWIN PRIMER

werevaried,ndthe pectacle f whichwasgivennthetemplesfEgypt,ofAsia,andofGreece. . . [All sources f llusion,fmechanism,ndofmagic]whichweremerelyhe ecret nowledgefthe ffectsfNature nd

the rtto mitatehem . . everythingasemployedn order o allure ndattract hepeopleto the celebrationf thesemysteries.nder he allure-ment fpleasure,f oyandfestivities,hereayoftenoncealedhedesignofgiving sefulessons,nd thepeoplewas treated ike a child,whichsnever etternstructed,hanwhenpeoplehave the airof notthinkingfanythinglseto amuset.23

Dupuis's view ofthe moral nd didacticvalue of themysterieslearlyforeshadowsarwin'suse oftheserites. f Darwinhad niot eenfamni-

liarwithDupuis's text,he certainly oundhis materials n the verytraditions pon whichDupuis had drawn.Among hevariousparallelsin their ccountsoftheritual, hefollowing escriptionfthe veil ofNature (whichwe shallexplorefurther) resents nother nstanceofthedouble-truthoctrine:

Theycovered he acred ody fnaturewith heveil ofallegory hich iditfromheprofane, hich nly llowed ttobe seenbythewisemanwhohad believed atureworthy f hiis esearchesndhiis

tudy.Natureonlyshowed erselfo thosewho ovedher rulyndrepulsedulpablendiffer-ence;this heabandoned o the errors ndprej dicesofthe gnorant.othese heonlypresentederself nder monstrousxteriorndunder i-zarre ormsmore ppropriateoterrifyhan oplease.24

Darwin's entire oem, s an initiationn1tohe"mysteries"fNature,is designed o lead the readerfrom earto faith, rom hemonstrousand bizarre o thebeautiful, nd fromnert ndifferenceo an active

pursuitof the knowledge fNature. For the slothful nld gnorant,Naturereserves nly hermonstrousspect,anidhencethereligion ffear;for herational eeker fenlightenmenlt,hereligion f ove.

The lifting fthe veil at theendoftheceremony,fter heexpli-cation ofthe systemi fNature,has in particular vertones fphilo-sophicradicalismn hichwouldhave appearedcommonplace o thosewho werefamiliarwiththe issues of the FrenchRevolution.Con-servativeopinion n England regardedFrance's new state religions,herreligious

estivals fReason or oftheSupremeBeing, s notoriousconcomitan-tsfRevolutionary loodletting. astigators f theRevo-lutionpointedoften o the lewdritualofunveilingwhichtookplacein theCathedralofNotreDame in 1793.JohnRobison,whoseProofsofa Conspiracy.. (1797-98) provides nmanyways an interestingglosson1 arwin'spoemn, lentionshisveryevent n hisdiscussion fhowtheRevolutiondebased thestatusofwomen n society:Wasnot heir bominablearce nthechurch fNotreDame a baitofthe

23 Ibid., 42-43.24 Dupuis, as translated nd quotedbyManuel (p. 268), fromOrigine e tous es

Cultes (Paris,An III [1795], I, part 2, 412).




samekind n the rue pirit fWeishaupt'sroterion?We do not," aid thehigh riest, callyou to the worship f nanimatedols.Behold master-piece fnature lifting p theveilwhich oncealed henaked harms fthebeautifulMadms.Barbier): This sacred mage houldnflamell hearts."And t did so; thepeople houted ut, No more ltars, o more riests, oGod buttheGodofNature."5

The unveiling f the goddessNaturewhich ppears nFuseli's frontis-piece to The Temple ofNature (fig.1) thusacquirespolitical ssocia-

FIG. 125 JohnRobison, roofs fa Conspiracygainst ll theReligionsnd Govern-

ments f Europe . ., 4thed. with orrectionsLondon, 798),252. The titlepage

reports hatRobisonwas a Professorf NaturalPhilosophyat Edinburgh] ndSecretaryo theRoyalSociety fEdinburgh.he exhibitionftheGoddess fRea-son n NotreDame tookplaceonNov.10,1793.



72 IRWIN PRIMER

tions when set in the contextbothofRevolutionary nti-clericalismand Nature-worship,nd of the British eaction o these nnovations.Further omparison f Fuseli's frontispiece ith (fig. 2) the frontis-

piece to Peyrard'sLucretian nd atheistic ssay,De La Natureet deses Lois (Paris, 1793), reinforcesheassociation f thenaked goddesswith heRevolution.26

FIG. 226Thecopy fPeyrardt theCornell ibrary,heonly ne have nspected,s

boundwith ylvainMarechal's ictionnaireesAtheesAncienst ModernesAn

VIII [1799-1800]).Peyrards listed s one of these theists n pp. 338-9 oftheDictionnaire,nd s furtherescribeds mathe6maticienndbibliothe'cairee l'e'colepolytechnique.ortionsf the cientificoctrinenDe la Nature esemblearwin's




There s more nRobison's book whichmay suggest hattheradi-cal coloring fDarwin's poemwas not accidentalbut shrewdly on-

trived. believethatDarwindesignedhispoem, npart, s a guardedreply oRobison'sharassmenetf theMasons andother ecret ocieties-the McCarthyism f thelater1790's.AccordingoRobison,he andtheAbbe Barruelhad independently rrived t their onviction hattheRevolution, arfrom eing thespontaneous eaction fthedown-troddenmasses, was actuallya concerted ffort hichhad been longpreparedby the disciplesofVoltaire,Rousseau, the Encyclopedists,and all oftheirpersuasionn the secret odges oftheMasons and the

Illuminati.Robisonconcentrated is fire specially n theIlluminati,a society naugurated yDr. AdamWeishaupt n Bavaria in 1775or1776 and whichspread to othercountries.n France the Illumineeshad theirstrongest oncenitrationn Avignon.Robison,himself nEnglishMason, found n his European travels that the continentalbranches fMasonryhad been corrupted otonlyby themultiplica-tionofhigherMasonicdegrees nd conflictinigituals, ut,more igni-ficantly,y the secretmiachinationsf radical atheistsor Illuminati

who had infiltratedhe Masonic lodgesand oftengainedcontrol fthem.What theradicals darednot utter n publictheywere able toventat the secretmeetings f the lodges. As Robison notesearly nhisbook,

I haveobservedhesedoctrinesradually iffusingndnmixingith ll thedifferentystemsf FreeMasonry; ill, t last,AN ASSOCIATIONHASBEEN FORMED for heexpress urpose fROOTING OUT ALL THERELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENTS, AND OVERTURNING ALL THE

EXISTING GOVERNMENTS OF EUROPE.... themost ctive eadersin theFrench evolution eremembersfthisAssociation....27

In sketching he history f the Order of Illuminati,Robison brieflydescribes oland's Pantheisticon s an Englishantecedent f theper-niciousdoctrines fthe lluminati. t suppliedfuelto radicalthinkerssuchas Holbach, who madeit available in French; and theBavarianIlluminati ead t in a German ranslation.28

views losely, nd thestrong ucretiannfluencen bothfurthernderlinesheirkinship.Marechal n 1798published Lucrecefranaisl, collection f verses"destinea rendre a vertu aimable. . ." The profoundnfluence f Lucretius oneighteenth-centuryoetry as received elativelyight ttention romcholars fliteraturend thehistoryf deas.

27 Robison, 1.Forfurthernformationnthe lluminati,eeG. P. Gooch,Ger-many nd theFrench evolutionLondon, 920),29-33, 4-68, ndpassim.

28Robison ives hefollowingnaccurateubtitle o Toland'swork: eu Cele-bratio odalitiiocratii; tactually eads, iveFormula elebrandaeodalitis ocra-ticae.Toland'sbook,he explains,is an account ftheprinciplesfa Fraternity

which ecalled ocratica,ndtheBrothersantheistae.hey resupposed oholda Lodge, ndtheauthor ives ritual ftheproceduren thisLodge; the cere-



74 IRWIN PRIMER

In yet moreways,we find, he political olors fDarwin and Robi-sonarediametricallypposed.At the endofhisbookRobisonpounces

upon JosephPriestley's evolutionarynthusiasm lndquicklyasso-ciateshimwiththe "detestabledoctriniesf Illuminatism."9Such achargewould woundDarwinpersonally, orhe and JosiahWedgwoodanldothermembers f the Lunar Societyof Birmingham ad sub-scribed he fundswhichpermitted riestley odevoteall ofhis timetoscience.Darwinwould havehad,however, deeperreason forresent-ing this attack on Priestley, ornot only were Priestley'spoliticalsympathiesn questionl,uthis tlheoryfmindwas also ridiculed nd

crushed.To theiralertcontemiiporarieshis ridiculewould certainlyhave been understood o includeDarwini's ystem s well, inceRobi-sonhad attacked neofthemost miiportantoundations fPriestley'sanld Darwin's explaniationsf the m-inid,amely,the associationistpsychologyfDavid Hartley.

WhereasPriestleyn such cases wouldoften ngage n publishinga polemicalreply,Darwin seemsto have avoidedpublic rejoinders-perhapsbecause adversepublic opinionmighthave affected is medi-

cal practice. n any event,he did not publiclydefendhis Zoonomiaagainstthecriticisms f theyoungDr. ThomasBrown.30n conversa-tion,on the otherhand,he couldbecolmieeryacid and devastating,and appearstohave beennotoriouslynitolerantf ntellectual pposi-tion. f,as I think, is Temple ofNature s indeeda reply oRobisonand theTorysatirists ncludingCanning,Ellis, Frere,and Mathias,then it ought also to be conlsidered masterly xercise n guardedirony nd understatement. furtherassage nRobison,whenread n

conjunctionwithhis tirade gainst Priestley nd Hartley, empts neto believe that Darwin'spoemwas certainlyntended s just such asubtle retort. quote at lengthbecause so miiuchf thispassage is di-rectly pposed to the general pirit nd to particulardetailsof Dar-win'sTemple:

Ingenious rdesigning en f etters ave attemptedo show hat ome fthe ncientmysteriesereusefulomankind,ontainingational octrinesofnatural eligion. hiswas thestrong oldof Weishaupt,ndhe quotes

theEleusinian,hePythagorean,ndothermysteries.ut surelyheir x-ternal igns ndtokenswere very hing hat s shockingo decency ndcivilorder.t is uncommonresumptionor he earned fthe 18th entury

monies fopening nd shutting ftheLodge, theadmission fMembers nto ts dif-ferent egrees,&c. Reason is the Sun that illuminates he whole, nd LibertyandEquality are theobjects of theiroccupations" 48-49). Manuel refers o an Englishtranslation f1751.

29 Robison,481; thisattack continues o p. 487.30ThomasBrown,Observationsn the Zoonomia f Erasmus

Darwin,M.D.

(Edinburgh, 798); Brown,then a student t Edinburgh nd notyetpast twenty,was perhapsregarded y Darwin as unworthyfmassiveretaliation.




to pretendo knowmore bout hemhan heir ontemporaries,hephilos-ophers,.he awgivers f antiquity.hesegiveno suchaccount f them.would desire nypersonwho admires he ingenious issertationsf Dr.Warburtono read a dull German ook, alledCaracteristiker Mysteriender Altern, ublishedt Frankfortn 1787. The author ontents imselfwith patient ollection f every crap of every ncient uthorwhohassaid anythingbout hem. f thereader ansee anythingnthem utthemost bsurd nd immoral olytheismndfable,he must ake wordsn asensethat s useless n readingnyother ieceof ancient omposition.have a notion hat heDionysiacs f oniahadsome cientificecrets,iz.all theknowledgefpracticalmechanicshichwasemployedytheirrchi-

tects nd engineers,ndthattheywerereally MasonicFraternity.ut,like the lluminati,theytagged o the secrets fMasonry he secret fdrunkeinnessnd debauchery. . . Perhaps thePythagoreans ad also somescientificecrets: utthey oo were lluminators,ndthoughtt their utytooverset heS-tate,nd were hemselvesverset.31

Though I am not aware of any documentaryvidenceof Darwin'shavingreadRobison'sbook, believethat wemay reasonably ssumethathe had read t,orat leasthad been informedf tsgeneral enor.

It was somewhat ensational n itsday,and Darwinwould have beenunusually nterestedn thepoliticalpronouncementsf a contempo-rary man of sciencewho had traveled widely.Robison'sbook wentthrough iveeditionswithin yearor two of its appearance, nd itsinfluencewas felteven across the Atlantic, specially n New Eng-land.32Finally,Robison's attackon Priestley nd Hartleymay befurtheregarded s one of a seriesof salvos aimed by various mem-bers of Edinburgh University gainst the errorsof the Hartley-

Priestley-Darwin chool.33Iv

WhileDarwinat first lanceseemsmerely o have beenversifyingscience, t is clearthathis interestn the myths nd Mysterieswasgenuine nd deeplyserious-all, in fact, hatMiss Sewell has shownit tobe. But herdiscussion ypasses mportantnd interesting oliti-cal insinuations, nd the poembecomes moreenergeticnd complex

tissue of associations nd intentionswhen nterpreteds a veiled po-liticalrepartee.f it is polemic s well as didactic, t comesthatmuchcloser o satisfying he modern raving or multidimensionaloetryofconcentratedtatement. ut this s not to suggest hat t succeedsin satisfyinghe standards fmodern ormalistriticism.

Darwin's numerousfaultsstill glare at us from he pages of his131Robison,67-68.32 V. Stauffer,ewEnglandnd theBavarianlluminatiN. Y., 1918).

33Dugald Stewart's hilosophicalssays (Edinburgh,810),for xample,t-tacked heSchool fHartley.



76 IRWIN PRIMER

handsomely rinted uartos.As versethepoemis one of the last sig-nificant ttempts o emulatethe rhetorical rilliance fPope. Darwin

apparently esired o produce notherEssay onMan, in an age thathad long sinceoutlived he characteristiciterary itality f theschoolofPope. His misguided heory hatthelanguageofpoetry hould en-deavor to appeal to themind'seye through isual imagery ccountsformuch of the artificialitynd frigidityn his lines,and hencealsofor iswell-earnediche nthegalleryfTheStuffedw1.34 Whilehisversefails n its obsessiveattempt o convey strikinguccession fvisual images,yet,as an imaginativebook, The Temple ofNature

appeals to iusprecisely n its attemptto envisionthe marriageofpoetry nd science.Darwin foreshadows ut cannotbe groupedwith the Romantic

giants.We can better ee his meritby askingwhether nyother us-taineddidactic-philosophicaloetry fter ope's Essay on Man gath-ersup so muchofthethought fits age and takes us so often o theintellectual rontiersf tstime. n order o explainhow it is thatwecan see so much thatis bad in his verse and so muchthat is goodin

his imaginative onception fthe entirepoem,we may simply ssertthat in the firstnstancehe lagged deplorablybehindthe early Ro-manticsbyrefusing o surrenderhe neoclassical tandards mbodiedin the poetry fPope; and that n the second nstancehe was well nadvance of the scientific urviewof the poets.As a scientific orld-view,hispoemaboundspropheticallynd forebodingly iththe diffi-cultiesof reconcilingraditional aith n a rationalcosmoswith theempirical videnceof an expanding nd evolvingorganicNature, a

Nature that aims at plenitude nd seemsremarkably arelessof in-dividuals.His farsighted uesses n sciencewouldhavebeensufficientto save this poem fromoblivion,but its particular nterest or ourtime extendsbeyond ts effortso popularizethe studyof science. treveals the manof science triving o reconcile nd harmonize nto awholethe knowledge f both the humanistic nd the scientific ul-tures at a timewhen these disciplinesweremoving steadily awayfrom ne another.The grand hemesofthis poemare the continuity,

the renewal, nd the improvementf life. It is at least as much apoemofaspiration nd vision as it is a didacticversificationf scien-tificdeas.Darwin'svisionembraces faith n thelimitless xpansionandfreedom fthehuman pirit,nthevitality fthepriimiitiveorldofmyth, nd in thevalue of thescientific ethod npursuing nd un-veiling he wisdoin f Nature. n ourworld fthe"twocultures" ucha visioncertainly ughttobe betterknown.

NewarkCollegeofRutgersUniversity.

34 D. B. Wyndhamewis ndCharles ee, eds.,TheStuffedwl:AnAnthologyofBad VerseN. Y., 1930;Capricornd.,1962),105-108.

Documents

Erasmus Darwin's Temple of Nature Progress, Evolution, And the Eleusinian Mysteries