"Jacobin Plants": Botany as a Social Theory in the 1790s

1. Summary
     In his essay on Jacobin Plants, Bewell discusses the use and popularity of botany in the 18 century as a way to discuss social and sexual aspects human society. Bewell states his purpose " is to examine the impact that botanical ideas had upon the emergence, during the late eighteenth century, of a radical form of pastoral poetry, which deliberately employed flowers in order to address questions about society, sexuality, and class" (132). The structure of the poem begins by asserting the popularity of botany in the eighteenth century. Bewell claims that the popularity of botany was largely in part due to a change in the scientific community. He states that Carl Linnaeus' shift to using plant sexuality as the primary means of classification in 1732 spurned the social interest in the topic by expanding the popularity of botany in society, making flowers the central object of study in botany, and focusing on plant organs/ sexuality in botanical research. Then Bewell claims that from this new scientific discovery, botany became a central issue in society that shifted to a discourse on human sexuality. Bewell then briefly addresses the political controversy that arose from the new discourse on botanical and human sexuality, showing that many moralists during this time were outraged by the 'obscenity' of this discourse.
       Next, Bewell refocuses his essay on to the view of plant sexuality as an idealized version of human sexuality in the state of nature. Here he introduces Rousseau's Reveries of a Solitary Walker in  which he claims that Rousseau uses botany as an escape from human sexuality. While he claims Rousseau uses botany as a means to escape human sexuality, he argues that Darwin does the opposite. Bewell argues that Darwin draws attention to "the overt artificiality of pastoral convention... in order to bring into the foreground the artificiality of all modes of sexual behavior" (135) and claims Darwin's poem "calls into question the artificiality and restrictiveness of marriage" (135). After which Bewell shifts back to the traditional use of flowers in association with women. The next critical response Bewell moves to is that of Mary Wollstoncraft. He claims she reinforces florid language as means to understand women while she criticizes males using botany to teach women about their own sexuality. Bewell closes his essay with a brief discussion from Wollstoncraft's discourse on "luxuriants" and "wild" flowers, saying that men cultivate women to be "luxuriants" who lose their purposefulness.

2. Assumptions, blind spots, structural problems
      Bewell begins to introduce the issue of controversy with the moralists over this new botanical question and then completely abandons the topic writing, He does this multiple times stating "I do not want to argue..." and "I do not have time here to examine" (135). The inclusion of these phrases as a means to shift topics draws attention to the incompleteness or lack of circumference he is providing in his examination of "the impact that botanical ideas had upon the emergence, during the late eighteenth century" (132). Perhaps the thesis statement covers to large of a context to be sufficiently described within the page limitations of the essay. Moreover, the structure of the poem begins with the historical context and begins to shift into more specific literary references, however Bewell makes a large digression to the traditional association of woman and flowers over halfway through the poem. Since this information is part of the historical context before the eighteenth century, perhaps it would better serve its purpose at the very beginning of the essay.

3. Questions

-In Darwin's poem, is there really a criticism of contemporary sexuality or is it more of a survey of the variety of sexuality that exists in a state of nature? Is he really criticizing the artificiality of monogamy more than the other forms of sexuality? Are there places in the poem where monogamy is criticized?
-Bewell explains that Darwin has addressed his poem to women directly (137). How does this change the reader's perception and understanding of the poem, especially considering it is written from the perspective of a male? Does this fit into Wollstoncraft's criticism of the male use of botany to describe human sexuality or does Darwin's poem appear to be more of a survey of human sexuality?