Handmaid to Divinity: Natural Philosophy, Poetry, and Gender in Seventeenth–Century England by Hellegers, Desiree

Abstract

Reviews 141 theanalysesofother chapters.Thismaybe less theauthor's fault thana demonstration ofthesuccessofthevery process she is trying todescribe.Thetradition's construction ofthe author as soleowner andpresiding genius ofthetext - as someonewhohas risenabovethepetty squabblesofhisday(which Chaucer most certainly hadnot)tosaysomething universal for alltime - issopowerful for anauthor likeChaucer (who isafter allcredited with being theprogenitor ofthat very tradition) that itismuch more difficult todisperse himintothefreeplay ofthe author-function than itisfor "minor" figures likeMargery Kempe orevena George Puttenham. However, thereader whopushesthrough this chapter will be amply rewarded bythefollowing three, which bring together solid archival research with insightful readings andimportant, intricate ,andoften surprising historical connections among texts, institutions, practices, andliterary tradition. Lost Property opens up newavenuesofinvestigation on therelationships between gender and canonformation. It explains howwomen writers endedupgetting lostandwhy their statusas lostenabledthe formation ofa patriarchal English literary tradition. Itsuggests why gynocriticism cannot be content simply toaddwomen to thecanonofEnglish "authors" without examining bothauthorshipandthecanonfirst andforemost as historical processes. Hellegers, Desiree. Handmaid toDivinity: Natural Philosophy, Poetry, andGender inSeventeenth-Century England.Norman: University ofOklahoma Press,2000. xiv+ 218pp. $32.95. Reviewed byAndrew Tumminia InHandmaid toDivinity: Natural Philosophy, Poetry, andGenderinSeventeenth -Century England, Desiree Hellegers attempts todelineate theresistance toscientifically justified patterns of environmental exploitation sheseesinselected poemsofJohn Donne, John Milton, andAnneFinch.Bydeciphering their resistance , Hellegers hopestoinspire herreaders toquestion "the claims ofcorporate-sponsored andcorporate-influenced studies thatcallallindoubtfor theexpress purpose ofmystifying the material effects oftechno-science ontheecosystem andonthe minds andbodiesofthose ofuswhodepend uponit"(172).Two related assumptions underlie thisaim. First, Hellegers's larger argument hinges onananalogy between scientific discourse such 142 TheJournal forEarlyModernCultured Studies as itmight (with someadmitted anachronism) besaidtoexist in seventeenth-century England, andas itprevails inthecontemporary United States: justas corporate-endorsed scientific discourse inourtime supports thegoalsofthecorporate elite, seventeenth -century discourses onnatural philosophy, astronomy, andmedicine were controlled bythepatriarchal elite inorder to advancetheinterests ofthepatriarchy. Second,although she rightly admits that"Natural philosophy, astronomy, andmedicinearefar from seamlessandmonolithic discourses inseventeenth -century England" (7),herlarger project presupposes a monolithic scientific visionin seventeenth-century England, unified byitsservice tothepatriarchy ifnot byunwavering agreementamongindividual theorists on theworkings ofnature. Thus,Hellegers distorts theseventeenth-century discourses of natural philosophy, astronomy, andmedicine by,ineffect, consolidating them - ultimately, ifnotconsistently throughout Handmaid toDivinity - under a single aimofsupporting anelite, patriarchal hegemony. Shedoesso,presumably, tounderscore theanalogy between early modern andcontemporary science and so tosuggest thatthesepoetsspeakclearly toourenvironmentalcrisis .However, precisely what makes Hellegers's analysis of theindividual poemsso interesting is thatthey do notspeak clearly atall. According toHellegers, Donne, Milton, andFinch arethrust totheideological margins, forcing them toveiltheir critiques ofearly modern natural philosophy, astronomy, and medicine inambiguity. Hernavigation ofthisambiguity producesintriguing possibilities for reading thepoems sheselects. Still, ifHellegers mustlookbetween thelinesoftheir poetry to decipher Donne's,Milton's, and Finch'sresistance, we must wonder howeffective these critiques areas callstosocialaction. Hellegers dedicates theearliest sections ofHandmaid toDivinity toFrancis Bacon, who, sheproposes, advanced a misogynistperspective onnature that notonly inspired theexclusively male, elitist Royal Society butalsoreflected thegeneral, foundationalinfluence ofBaconiannatural philosophy oncontemporaryAmerican techno-science.Bacon's aim,according to Hellegers, wasto"promote andmystify anideology that seeksto monopolize interpretation andpolitical power" (38). Baconand hisfollowers performed a priest-like exegetical function, forming andcontrolling readings oftheBookofNature.Theseexegetes served their head,themonarch: "the natural philosopher . . . [is] thenewapostle whoseauthorized readings oftheBookofNature , andwhosetechnological miracles, willprovide anantidote toskepticism and,implicitly, totheologically basedchallenges Reviews 143 to the authority ofthe king"(10-11). According to Hellegers, Bacon'snaturalphilosophy perpetuates thepatriarchy bypromisingthemonarch themeanstounderstand and control nature. This projectis foundedon therecovery ofa prelapsarianlanguagethatguaranteescertainty and precludes"idiosyncratic interpretation ," which,Hellegersasserts, Bacon sees as simply anotherformofpoliticaldissent(45). For Hellegers,Bacon's aimsaremanipulative andabsolute:"Bacon'sinductive philosophywouldenablethenaturalphilosopher toaccurately observe and penetrateto, and ultimately manipulateand control,the 'true'natureand underlying 'forms' ofthingspresently deemed 'toosubtile'tobe viewedaccurately bythesenses" (40). At the attemptedrecoveryofAdamic language, at "the Baconian quest fora static,self-evident systemofrepresentation "(70),Donne,thefirst poetHellegers considers, strikes hardest . Beginning withherdiscussionlate in Chapter1 ofa sermonDonnedelivered atWhitehall in 1622- oneofthefiner, more forceful, and moreoriginal sectionsofthebook - Hellegers demonstrates howDonnerevealstheimpossibility ofBacon'sproject torehabilitate language,showing thattoDonne"Adamic clarity is finally unobtainable. Perfect clarity is theprovinceofGod" (62). Donne counterstheunivocalwiththemetaphorical, the equivocal,and theambiguous,emblematized bytheambiguous "she"oftheAnniversaries, theprincipaltextHellegerstreatsin thesecondchapter.Whilethefallenstateoflanguageis limitingtoBacon ,Hellegers arguesthatfallenlanguageis liberating in Donne'spoetry, freeing theindividual from thecorruption of courtcultureand offering a "positive skepticism thataffirms the politicaland interpretive freedom oftheindividual" (68). In Chapter3, Hellegers turnsherattention toMilton and to Bacon's immediate intellectual heirs,themembers oftheRoyal Society.Merging a proto-ecotheologian Milton withthealreadydebatablenotionofa proto-feminist Milton, she arguesthatin Book 8 ofParadise Lost Miltonengages...