James Burkinshaw pays a 300th birthday tribute to pioneering ecologist (and Hampshire hero), Gilbert White (born on 18th July 1720).
American
poet, James Russell Lowell described Gilbert White’s Natural History and
Antiquities of Selborne as “the journal of Adam in Paradise”. It is a
wonderful image: the gentle, eighteenth-century parson wandering the woods and
downs of his quiet corner of rural Hampshire, a natural landscape that he observed in such intricate detail and
with such a sense of wonder.
Adam’s
expulsion from Paradise, in the Book of Genesis, represents our species’
agonising alienation from the rest of nature. The instrument of our Fall is
Knowledge: human self-consciousness. However, 2,000 years after the Genesis narrative
was written, philosopher Francis Bacon claimed that it was knowledge that held
the key to human power over nature ("ipsa scientia potestas est": knowledge is power). Whereas Bacon helped shape a scientific revolution predicated on human mastery of nature, Gilbert White pioneered an ecological revolution based on respect for the natural world.
White was was suspicious of science's reliance on
reason and abstraction: “Bare descriptions and a few synonyms . . . all that
may be done at home in a man’s study but the investigation of the life and
conversation of animals is a concern of much more trouble and difficulty and it
is not to be attained but by the active and inquisitive.” He was aware of the limitations of
terminology ("synonyms") to truly characterise the complexities of nature; for White, “trouble and difficulty” were part of the point:
knowledge had to be experienced, had to be earned.
Gilbert White and Timothy the tortoise (image: Eric Ravilious) |
I also
find the word “conversation” fascinating here. White was no anthropomorphist
(except, perhaps, when it came to Timothy, his pet tortoise), but he was extraordinarily
alive to the subtleties of animal behaviour and the complexities of the
relationships between species and environments: “The language of birds is very
ancient and, like other ancient modes of speech, very elliptical; little is
said but much is meant and understood.” White saw animals as having an inner
existence independent of humans. They were not Cartesian machines there to be controlled
and exploited (“ipsa scientia potestas est”); they were creatures as complex
and, ultimately, unknowable as we were.
Indeed,
when White is paying attention to detail, he is paying respect. That is why it
is so important to him to find the right words - not just “a few synonyms”. His
biographer Richard Mabey notes that he “never openly appropriated (animals’)
lives as evidence for any moral or theological theory; they are respected for
themselves.” For that very reason, White is conscious that he must be
objective, not romanticise what he is seeing: “It is the hardest thing in the
world to shake off superstitious prejudices; they are sucked in as it were with
our mother’s milk . . . become so interwoven into our very constitutions that
the strongest good sense is required to disengage ourselves from them.”
White was
sensitive to the intricacy of the natural world, the essential role played by
its most apparently humble denizens: “The most insignificant insects and
reptiles are of much more consequence and have much more influence in the
economy of nature than the incurious are aware of . . . Earth worms, though in
appearance a small and despicable link in the chain of nature, yet, if lost,
would make a lamentable chasm . . . a good monography of worms would afford
much entertainment and information at the same time.” It is passages such as
this marvellous encomium to the earth worm that have led to White’s recognition
in our own century as the godfather of ecology.
At the
heart of his ecological world view was his sense of sympathy. White would go
out of his way to avoid harming the creatures he observed; he describes coaxing
crickets out of their hiding places without harming them: “a pliant stalk of
grass, gently insinuated into the caverns will probe their windings to the
bottom and quickly bring out the inhabitants; and thus the humane enquirer may
gratify his curiosity without injuring the object of it.” Key words here are
“gently” and “humane”: to treat other species with respect and care is to be
worthy of our humanity. The “object” is never objectified by White.
The Reverend White’s Natural History is
notable for its lack of scriptural references. The Selborne landscape is his
sacred text. In his introduction, he seeks to “induce any of his readers to pay
a more ready attention to the wonders of the Creation, too often overlooked as
common occurrences.” The sense of finding wonder in “common” things – earth
worms, and crickets – reminds the reader of William Blake. Like Blake, White is
more a man of the seventeenth century than the eighteenth (they shared a love
of Milton’s poetry); a key influence was John Ray’s Wisdom of God (1691), a
classic of “physico-theology” (or natural theology) that sought to “illustrate
the glory of God in the knowledge of the works of nature or creation”. White
himself often combines scientific diction with poetic imagery to resonant
effect: “December 10th being bright sunshine, the air was full of
icy spiculae (crystals) floating in all directions like atoms in a sun-beam let
into a dark room” Some have compared White to the Romantic poets of the next
generation, but the sharpness and clarity of his observation and the precision
of his imagery are more akin to the Modernist poets of the early twentieth
century; his description of the way in which “white butter flies gather in
flocks on the mud of the puddles” anticipates the “luminous details” of Ezra
Pound’s Imagist masterpiece (“The apparition of these faces in the
crowd:/Petals on a wet, black bough”) by a century and a half.
This creative tension between scientific precision
and poetic vision, empirical detachment and empathetic connection, is what gives
White’s writing its resonance, as in this description of baby swifts: “while we
contemplated their naked bodies, their unwieldy disproportioned abdominal and
their heads too heavy for their necks to support we could not but wonder when
we reflected that these shiftless beings in a little more than a fortnight
would be able to dash through the air almost with the inconceivable swiftness
of a meteor; and perhaps in their emigration must traverse vast continents and
oceans as distant as the equator.” It is the mystery of the birds’ “strong
impulse towards migration” that fascinates Gilbert White more than anything
else in the world, “imprinted on their minds by their great Creator . . . I
reflected that, after all our pains and inquiries, we are yet not quite certain
to what regions they do migrate”. In the face of the unknown and perhaps
unknowable, it was often poetry to which White turned (in which “little is said
but much is meant and understood”).
In his poem, ‘The Naturalist’s Summer-Evening Walk’, he implores the swallow
“say where your hid retreat/When the frost rages and the tempests beat/Whence
your return, by such nice instinct led/When spring, soft season, lifts her
bloomy head?/Such baffled searches mock man’s prying pride,/The God of Nature
is your secret guide!” Who, indeed, was Gilbert White’s “God of Nature” and why
was he “secret”? In such lines, it is possible to understand how White could
have been such an influence on two men as seemingly opposite as the pantheistic
mystic Samuel Taylor Coleridge and the evolutionary biologist Charles Darwin.
Although
so much of White’s preoccupation was with small, “common” things such as birds
and insects, he loved the dramatic sweep of the South Downs: “Though I have now
travelled the Sussex downs upwards of thirty years, yet I still investigate
that chain of majestic mountains with fresh admiration year by year and I think
I see new beauties every time I traverse it . . . a noble view of the wild or
weald on the one hand and the broad downs and sea on the other.” Three hundred
feet above the vicarage loomed the densely wooded slope, Selborne Hangar, which
to this day retains its sense of sublimity; White describes how “the hanging beech-woods begin to be beautifully
tinged and to afford most lovely scapes, very engaging to the eye and
imagination. They afford sweet lights and shades. These scenes are worthy the
pencil of Reubens.” With his reference to “scapes”, “eye”, “imagination” and
“shade”, he sounds more like an artist than a man of science. Indeed, like
physico-theological forerunners such as John Ray, White saw no boundary between
science and art, fact or feeling. In the Natural History, he will
frequently shift without warning from impeccably precise Latin taxonomy to
colloquial names that, read aloud, create an almost incantatory quality: “stinking
hellebore, creeping bilberries, round-leaved sundew, perfoliated yellow-wort,
true-love or one-berry, golden saxifrage, fellwort, tooth-wort, wild lathyrus,
ladies traces, spurge laurel, dwarf elder, danewort.” White brings a similarly
vertiginous quality to his vivid evocation of rooks that “rendezvous by
thousands over Selborne – down, where they wheel round in the air and sport and
dive in a playful manner . .. very
engaging to the imagination and not unlike . ..
echoing woods or the rushing of wind in tall trees or the tumbling of
the tide upon a pebbly shore . . . they retire for the night to the
deep-beechen woods.”
The epic quality of such writing owes much to White’s own literary tastes; when he lyrically describes “the sun at noon . . . shed(ding) a rust-coloured, ferruginous light” he compares it to “Milton’s noble simile of the sun in his first book of Paradise Lost”. However, White can also be an artfully self-deprecating writer; soon after publication of A Natural History, he wrote ‘Poem to Myself, Commencing Author’ which includes the lines: ‘Who now reads Cowley? The sad doom await/Since such as these are now may be thy fate.” In a line worthy of Dr Johnson, he describes compiling the index for his Natural History as “an occupation full as entertaining as that of darning stockings, though by no means so advantageous to society.” As with Johnson, we often get the sense that White’s humour masks a deep-seated sadness; in his poem, ‘The Naturalist’s Summer-Evening Walk’, he discovers that “These, Nature’s works, the curious mind employ/Inspire a soothing melancholy joy” the image of a joy that is both melancholy and soothing suggests an extraordinarily complex response to the natural world on the part of the poet. The joy and the melancholy are indistinguishable from each other; both are essential to the writer’s sense of self and to his sense of empathy with the birds, insects and earth worms he observes.
The epic quality of such writing owes much to White’s own literary tastes; when he lyrically describes “the sun at noon . . . shed(ding) a rust-coloured, ferruginous light” he compares it to “Milton’s noble simile of the sun in his first book of Paradise Lost”. However, White can also be an artfully self-deprecating writer; soon after publication of A Natural History, he wrote ‘Poem to Myself, Commencing Author’ which includes the lines: ‘Who now reads Cowley? The sad doom await/Since such as these are now may be thy fate.” In a line worthy of Dr Johnson, he describes compiling the index for his Natural History as “an occupation full as entertaining as that of darning stockings, though by no means so advantageous to society.” As with Johnson, we often get the sense that White’s humour masks a deep-seated sadness; in his poem, ‘The Naturalist’s Summer-Evening Walk’, he discovers that “These, Nature’s works, the curious mind employ/Inspire a soothing melancholy joy” the image of a joy that is both melancholy and soothing suggests an extraordinarily complex response to the natural world on the part of the poet. The joy and the melancholy are indistinguishable from each other; both are essential to the writer’s sense of self and to his sense of empathy with the birds, insects and earth worms he observes.
We began
this article with Lowell’s description of White’s Natural History text
as “the journal of Adam in Paradise”. It is possible to read this as a critique
as well as a tribute. Was White trying to evade history, tucked away in his
self-enclosed world of Selborne village? Is The Natural History a work of
escapism? Certainly, there are few references to the wider world in the book,
other than concern expressed for a young local man press-ganged to fight the
French (“he was bred a carter and never had any connection with sea affairs”)
and a single perplexed comment on the political earthquake of the French Revolution
(“these strange commotions”). The great nineteenth century nature writer,
Richard Jefferies (an admirer of White’s) regretted that “he did not leave a
natural history of the people of his day. We would then have had a picture of
England just before the beginning of our present era and a wonderful difference
it would have shown.” However, locals remembered fondly a friendly, caring,
somewhat eccentric parson, his “animated conversations with villagers . . .
with his peculiar way of shrugging his shoulders”; most of all, they recalled
with gratitude his energetic efforts on their behalf to fight the enclosure of
the common land.
300
years after Gilbert White’s birth, there seems nothing
escapist about ecology. Although he ended his Natural History with the
words “I shall here take a respectful leave of you and natural history
together”, we have not taken our leave of him. We recognise more than ever the quiet
urgency of his message that, if we are to save ourselves and the planet we live
on, we have to find a more respectful and empathetic way of living among our
fellow creatures.
Comments
Post a Comment
Comments with names are more likely to be published.