![\"\"](\"https:\/\/depts.washington.edu\/hortlib\/wordpress\/wp-content\/uploads\/naturalmagic.jpg\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Emily Dickinson and Charles Darwin shared a passion for the natural world that included close scientific observation and an awe at what they saw that made nature magical. This was true even though neither of them could commit themselves to belief in God or any other supernatural being.<\/p>\n
In Natural Magic, Ren\u00e9e Bergland makes the case that Darwin\u2019s writings showed his enchantment with nature, contrary to a public that often read his works as destroying such awe.<\/p>\n
Dickinson showed similar enthusiasm for the plants she wrote about. Her work also shows how carefully she examined and described those plants.<\/p>\n
In alternating chapters, Bergland has put together parallel biographies. She combines her argument that Darwin included emotional response and Dickinson a scientific one with a history of the changing ideas about the relationship between the sciences and arts in the nineteenth century. In 1780 science and art were all part of one \u201cphilosophy.\u201d By 1880 they were separate and at odds with each other.<\/p>\n
It is a pleasure to enter into the challenges and relationships of these two towering figures. Regret that the book must come to an end is rare enough for fiction; for this reader it was a first for nonfiction. The book is easy to read \u2013 not always true for works built around intellectual history \u2013 and full of memorable details.<\/p>\n
Darwin, who was enthralled by geology, plants, and animals from childhood, could not find much formal training in science. He suffered from a classical English education which excluded nearly all science, and he hated school. Dickinson, on the other hand, happened to live in a short period of time in America when science was considered essential to girls\u2019 education, and she loved her classes at her Amherst school and her year at Mount Holyoke. She had more formal training in science than he did. He learned it all on his own.<\/p>\n
During the nineteenth century science and art were separating. The term \u201cscientist\u201d was first used in the 1830s, replacing \u201cmen of science,\u201d since women were excluded. No one, male or female, could earn a living as a scientist. It\u2019s worth noting that both Darwin and Dickinson came from wealthy families, or in Dickinson\u2019s case, wealthy enough, so neither of them needed to work for a salary. Darwin eventually earned handsomely from his books. Dickinson published only a few poems, for no pay.<\/p>\n
Sometimes Bergland\u2019s efforts to show parallels in these two lives seem a bit stretched. Still, she is convincing about the connections between their two worlds, and she brings her two subjects very much to life in a time of exciting change.<\/p>\n
Review by Priscilla Grundy published in The Leaflet,<\/em> Volume 12, Issue 1, January 2025.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Emily Dickinson and Charles Darwin shared a passion for the natural world that included close scientific observation and an awe at what they saw that made nature magical. This was true even though neither of them could commit themselves to belief in God or any other supernatural being. In Natural Magic, Ren\u00e9e Bergland makes the case that Darwin\u2019s writings showed his enchantment with nature, contrary to a public that often read his works as destroying such awe. Dickinson showed similar…<\/p>\n