09/07 Introduction:

“Sonnet-- To Science”

Poe’s portrayal of science seems somewhat unforgiving here. Science destroys nature for writers by essentially taking the mystery and beauty out of life. At the very least, those scientific “peering eyes” (maybe an allusion to telescopes or microscopes) alters a poet’s perception of the world and makes life too realistic or dull (4). The poem repeatedly emphasizes how acquiring scientific knowledge is potentially dangerous for writers of literature. Literature /Poetry needs a muse, and science as muse seems only to urge writers to regurgitate the facts of modern life.

As is the case of “Sonnet--To Science,” Diana, who is known in Roman mythology as the Goddess of the Hunt, the Moon, and Chastity, no longer carries the same importance or reverence in nature when the myth of her existence is dispelled by scientific thought. When science attempts to disprove religion or defines itself as in a state of continual progress, the world must be taken literally. Poe addresses (and personifies) science by asking “hast thou not dragged Diana from her car . . . / Hast thou not torn, from me, the summer dream beneath the tamarind tree? (8,13-14).” Again, Poe is associating dreams (and imagination) with literature. The tamarind reference seems like an obscure one--- after further research, it’s a tree native to Africa and Eastern Asia. It’s then cultivated in Mexico and South America and also in Hawaii. These places are often categorized as exotic, tropical, far-off destinations that would reside somewhere in our dreams. They become fantasy destinations, places where people go to escape the banality of everyday life. (Fascinating that “reality” is usually portrayed as bland and the dream space is depicted as intriguing and something to be desired)

Yet, it is worth noting that the narrator has to ask, rather than assert, that science has stolen the beauty and mystery from modern life. The question marks invoke uncertainty: can there be beauty and mystery in this world but also “ever-progressing” scientific knowledge? By posing his thoughts as questions, it is as if the narrator needs Science to respond to and answer his inquiries. The two should be in dialogue with one another. If Science has not in fact, taken the mystery out of life, then how are “we” to account for the knowledge it generates? Does science always have to be precise and accurate? Must we prescribe only to a positivist way of thinking and repeatedly test our knowledge? Can the two co-exist without having to continually argue which is “better”?

Whew. I didn’t think it would take me that long to talk about only that portion of the poem. (Also, I hope that these blog posts can be somewhat informal). As a matter of choice, it is interesting that Otis chose to open the anthology with Poe’s Sonnet. Dedicating poems to science seems to be somewhat of a trend among nineteenth-century writers. Sarah Helen Whitman writes a poem entitled “Science,” and fireside poet James Russell Lowell entitled one of his “Science and Poetry” as well.

Like the questions Poe raises in “Sonnet -–To Science” on how scientific thought affects literature and vice versa, Huxley (unlike Tyndall or even Arnold to a lesser extent) propose that these two fields are mutually exclusive. For Tyndall, science does not have to divorce itself from literature. Both fields do not have to become alienated, isolated, or separate spheres (4).

Similarly, Arnold asserts that we must know not only a nation by its belle lettres but also by its scientists such as Copernicus, Darwin, Galileo etc (8). Arnold uses the umbrella term literature to refer to both fiction and scientific writing.

Huxley (a biologist/supporter of Darwin) seems to assert that literary knowledge is not absolutely necessary to a scientific-minded individual but that the reverse does not hold true. For instance, a man who only knows Greek, Roman and Eastern antiquity is not necessarily cultured (even if the education system thinks differently) and that he must know something of science to "really" advance (4,6). Here, Huxley’s writing style resembles Dreisser’s in Sister Carrie. Huxley even describes citizens as shoppers of knowledge, and one is a bad consumer if they do not have an article of scientific clothing attached somewhere on their wardrobe (6).

Lindsey