I was brought up in Torbay and enjoyed walking along the
(then) quiet lanes of South Devon, often venturing up on to Dartmoor. Holne,
near Buckfastleigh, was on one of my routes and I didn't know at the time that
Charles Kingsley had lived there for the first few weeks of his life.
Charles Kingsley's father, also called Charles, inherited
money as a young man and set himself up as a country gentleman in Hampshire, spending
his time hunting and shooting. Unfortunately, the money didn't last long and
Kingsley Senior then had to find a job, choosing to become a curate in the
Church of England. It was while he held a position at Holne that Charles was
born and the child was destined to develop an interest in Natural History, especially
under the influence of his mother. Susan Chitty describes her love of the
countryside [1]:
..So great was Mrs Kingsley's
passion for the Devonshire landscape, that she walked about it constantly
during her pregnancy, hoping to communicate her love to her unborn child.
Charles did not have strong religious beliefs as a
youth and, while an undergraduate at Cambridge, enjoyed rowing, smoking, and
all aspects of what he referred to as "manliness"; including shooting
and riding to hounds, passions that were so important to his father. This
liking for the macho stayed with him and he was openly passionate for most of
his life, both in public and private.
While visiting his father at the Rectory in Checkenden,
Oxfordshire, Charles met Frances Grenfell, one of four daughters of the late
Pascoe Grenfell, who lived in a large house nearby. Frances, known as Fanny,
was to become the love of his life, although members of her family were not impressed
with him. It was through Fanny that he developed his religious faith and, with
her support, he determined to become a priest. After they married, Charles was
appointed the Rector of Eversley in Hampshire, a living that he held for
decades.
Throughout their lives, Charles and Fanny suffered various
illnesses that required periods of convalescence, this being especially so for
Fanny who, in 1854, stayed in Torquay for months. Charles joined her there, leaving
Eversley in the hands of others, and it was while on this visit that he collected
the marine specimens described in his book Glaucus
[2] that also contains his views on Natural Historians:
..there are those who regard it
[Natural History] as a mere amusement, and that as a somewhat effeminate one;
and think that it can at best help to while away a leisure hour harmlessly, and
perhaps usefully, as a substitute for coarser sports, or for the reading of
novels. Those, however, who have followed it out, especially on the sea-shore,
know better. They can tell from experience, that over and above its accessory
charms of pure sea-breezes, and wild rambles by cliff and loch, the study
itself has had a weighty effect upon their hearts and spirits..
..Let no one think that.. ..Natural
History is a pursuit fitted only for effeminate and pedantic men. I should say,
rather, that the qualifications required for a perfect naturalist are as many
and as lofty as were required.. ..for the perfect knight-errant of the Middle
Ages: for (to sketch an ideal, of which I am happy to say our race now affords
many a fair realization) our perfect naturalist should be strong in body; able
to haul a dredge, climb a rock, turn a boulder, walk all day, uncertain where
he shall eat or rest; ready to face sun and rain, wind and frost, and to eat or
drink thankfully anything, however coarse or meagre; he should know how to swim
for his life, to pull an oar, sail a boat, and ride the first horse which comes
to hand; and, finally, he should be a thoroughly good shot, and a skilful
fisherman; and if he go far abroad, be able on occasion to fight for his life..
..he must be of a reverent turn of
mind also; not rashly discrediting any reports, however vague and fragmentary;
giving man credit always for some germ of truth, and giving Nature credit for
an inexhaustible fertility and variety; which will keep him his life long
always reverent, yet never superstitious; wondering at the commonest, but not
surprised by the most strange; free from the idols of size and sensuous
loveliness; able to see grandeur in the minutest objects, beauty, in the most
ungainly; estimating each thing not carnally, as the vulgar do, by its size or
its pleasantness to the senses, but spiritually, by the amount of Divine
thought revealed to Man therein..
..And last, but not least, the
perfect naturalist should have in him the very essence of true chivalry,
namely, self-devotion; the desire to advance, not himself and his own fame or
wealth, but knowledge and mankind. He should have this great virtue; and in
spite of many shortcomings (for what man is there who liveth and sinneth not?),
naturalists as a class have it to a degree which makes them stand out most
honourably in the midst of a self-seeking and mammonite generation, inclined to
value everything by its money price, its private utility..
..men for the most part of manful
heads, and yet of childlike hearts..
As a contemporary Natural Historian, how do I match up to Kingsley's
ideal? I cannot agree with his view that "manliness" is
required and, interestingly, collecting on the shore (his main
focus in Glaucus) was a hobby shared
by both men and women in the Nineteenth Century [3]. His macho approach
extended to the "Muscular Christianity" that he espoused during his
early adult years, raising awareness of the suffering of those in poor areas of
cities, and his vigorous campaigning for the less fortunate tailed off after he
became an Establishment figure [1]. Maybe his interest in Natural History
became more reflective as he grew older? Perhaps he favoured the macho stance
when younger, as he felt he had to prove himself, not least to members of the Grenfell
family? Or was it to overcome feelings of inadequacy brought on by his
pronounced stutter?
What else of the description in Glaucus? Certainly, Natural History inspires awe and I join
Kingsley in that, although his explanations of the wonders of the natural world
centred on God's design, whereas mine are based on the combination
of time and mutation. We know that Kingsley supported Darwin's ideas
[4], but he still believed the evolution of species to be part of God's plan,
rather than the result of an extraordinary number of chance events.
Of the rest, there is no doubt that Natural History brings an awareness that there is so much that we do
not understand. This results in a childlike curiosity, and critical questioning
of everything around us, that counters the "mammonite" approach that
dominates many people's thinking today, just as it did in the Nineteenth Century.
Natural Historians are likely to take a less anthropocentric, and less materialistic,
view than most and this informs their decisions. Were he alive today, the young
Kingsley would have been a campaigner on environmental matters and I'm
sure that he would be a force for good; as long as he constrained his macho approach
and didn't again become absorbed by the Establishment.
[1] Susan
Chitty (1974) The Beast and the Monk: A
Life of Charles Kingsley. London, Hodder and Stoughton.
[2] Charles
Kingsley (1855) Glaucus; or, The Wonders
Of The Shore. Cambridge, Macmillan & Co.
No comments:
Post a Comment