Skip Navigation

The Review of English Studies 2004 55(222):727-758; doi:10.1093/res/55.222.727
© 2004 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Litvack, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Outposts of Empire: Scientific Discovery and Colonial Displacement in Gaskell's Wives and Daughters

Leon Litvack

The Queen's University of Belfast

This article offers a fresh consideration of Elizabeth Gaskell's unfinished Wives and Daughters (1864–6), in terms of what this metropolitan novelist knew about contemporary scientific debates and imperial exploration of Africa, and how her familiarity with these discourses was incorporated into her imaginative work. Her focus for these two related themes is the naturalist Roger Hamley, whose character and exploits are meant to parallel those of the young Charles Darwin. Roger's direct involvement in the historical Geoffroy–Cuvier debate allows Gaskell to offer a sophisticated examination of how discussions about evolutionary biology (about which she learned from personal acquaintances and printed sources) contributed to political and social change in the era of the first Reform Bill. Roger's subsequent journey to Abyssinia to gather specimens allows Gaskell to form a link between science and imperial exploration, which demonstrates how, when carried to its conclusion, the development of classificatory knowledge systems was never innocent; rather, it facilitated colonial exploitation and intervention, which allowed for the ‘opening up of Africa’. Gaskell's pronouncements about science in the novel are far more explicit than her brief references to empire; the article ponders why this should be so, and offers some suggestions about how her reliance on imaginative and discursive constructs concerning the ‘Dark Continent’ may be interpreted as tacit complicity with the imperial project, or at least an interest in its more imaginative aspects.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?




Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.