The Birthmark

In examining the struggle of science vs. nature, we must first analyze each story by itself, and recognize its relationship. First, in looking at “The Birthmark”, we can see that science and nature/love are intertwined through the correctional habits that Aylmer possesses, the way that the birthmark could actually be seen through as more personal light, where Hawthorne is commenting on the way that society wants to advance, as well as the way that society as well as he perceives the process of menstruation and childbirth for women.
The first aspect in the correlation between science and nature is within the realm of the woman, specifically the woman’s natural occurrences. These are the processes of menstruation and childbirth (Zenger 368).
When analyzing the actual birthmark, it is challenging not to connect the color of red of the mark, to the color red relating to blood. This can be seen as menstruation. It was said that the blood goes to her cheeks “when she blushes or gets mad” (Zenger 368). The aspect of getting mad can relate directly to menstruation because of the common conception that while in the cycle, it can make the woman moody, and mad. Another way that we can see this as menstruation is because, like the birthmark, this cycle would only be recognized after marriage, due to the stigma against premarital sex. Also, what this bodily process was and what it did was virtually unknown at the time, and led to many superstitions (Zenger 368). It is evident to see how this superstition could lead a husband to do away with one aspect of their wife that makes her imperfect, this small blemish only recognized after marriage. The second natural occurrence that relates to the birthmark hand is the act of childbirth and the value of her sexuality. When Eckstein mentions that the loss of the hand could cause her to lose her sexuality, I believe that he is stating that this is the mark that defines her, that makes her a woman.
Now that Aylmer wants to take this away, it will end her sexual nature, possibly her life, and leave Aylmer “the only member with creative powers” (Eckstein 515). At the end of the story, Georgina takes a vial, that kills her. A common fear at this time was of childbirth, as death for mothers, because of this, was very common. With the knowledge that childbirth could be deadly, Aylmer wanted to limit this chance, by taking away the birthmark along with her sexuality. "Science is not unequivocally evil; it is, however, dangerous in isolation from human society's other influences, including sexuality, work of all kinds, and familial relations. It is dangerous in the speed with which it progresses, an incredible pace far outrunning the cumbersome gait of social and moral change." (Eckstein 517). This is the main point of the science versus nature debate. Is it possible to “perfect” nature? Can we expand our scientific findings to all fields to make living better? In the case of the Birthmark, the answer is no. On page 7, it says, “"Aylmer appeared to believe that, by the plainest scientific logic, it was altogether within the limits of possibility to discover this long-sought
medium." This shows the ignorance and false hope of Aylmer in beliving that he could change the course of nature with his primitive scientific knowledge. In this, Hawthorne is critiquing society, and especially the Industrial and Scientific Revolutions. The laboratory of Aylmer embodies the dirtiness and griminess of the scientific world. On page 57, it states that “The atmosphere felt oppressively close, and was tainted with gaseous odors which had been tormented forth by the processes of science.” Hawthorne gives us this look of the lab, especially speaking about all of the negative aspects of it, as a way to put down science and show nature’s dominance. An example of a scientific invention that could be the subject of critiqued Hawthorne’s critiques is the invention and use of sulphuric ether anesthesia. At the time, this was a very dangerous experiment. He used an ether-soaked towel to knock the patient out in order to take out a tumor. As stated by Madden, “Others believed that he was disturbing the natural order of things and that pain was God's way of cleansing the soul.” While this is most likely not the exact advancement that Hawthorne is commenting on, the 1830s and 1840s were a time of advancement. In today’s day and age, this message can still be relayed and recognized by people against scientific experiments that push boundaries, such as cloning. While originally beginning with Dolly the Sheep in 1996, this process has now been placed upon humans. An experiment headed by Shoukhrat Mitalipov ended with the discovery that it is possible to clone skin cells. While they believe that this will not lead to the cloning of humans, many experiments have been attempted on monkeys, where the monkeys died before they could become adults. With the failures of this being numerous, many people, as the Romantic authors would have, are arguing that nature is more powerful than nature and there are aspects that cannot be changed, and changing them should not be attempted. As William Wordsworth expresses in his poem, “The Tables Turned”, “Our meddling intellect/Mis-shapes the beauteous forms of things:--/ We murder to dissect.” This relates perfectly to the notion of nature over science. Throughout this whole poem, Wordsworth wants the reader to realize that the best teacher and most important aspect of the world is nature, and we must not meddle with it, as it will leave it miss formed and without it’s original beauty. A third aspect of the birthmark is in it’s connection to the marriage and personal life of Hawthorne. As said by Zenger, Hawthorne had just been married, and this could be showing how he felt at the time, not very optimistic about the prospects of spending the rest of his life with her. He could be thinking about how his marriage is not perfect and how he may want to change parts of it to make it more perfect, as Aylmer did. The novel, “Rappaccini’s Daughter” is another story that emphasizes what could happen if and when nature is manipulated too much.
Obviously, this manipulating of science is within the garden of Rappaccini, but there is a concrete difference between the science of Aylmer from “THe Birthmark” and the science of Rappaccini from “Rappaccini’s Daughter”. Aylmer uses science in an attempt to perfect his wife, while Rappaccini uses his science in a way that seems like he has gone insane, using his daughter as his test subject. So while Aylmer and Rappaccini are alike in the way that “he cares indefinitely more for science than for mankind. His patients ae interesting to him only as subjects… he would sacrifice human life.” (Male 105). Rapaccini falls under the category of intellectual pride, it is his only goal to provide a end to the lonliness of Beatrice. In the short story, Baglioni is the opposite of Rappaccini, as he is a scientist who respects science. Baglioni is much more outgoing, and can also be seen as the “normal conscience”, because he did not fall for the beauty of Beatrice, as he provides an “antidote against her poisonious nature.” (Male
100). Two of the other themes in “Rappaccini’s Daughter” are the prevalence of Christian references and especially the representation of evil within the garden. This whole story is one elaborate Christian parallel. This is an example of an Eden story, based off of the one from Genesis in the Bible. In the story, Giovanni can be seen as a Christian who is facing the tests just as Adam and Eve did in the Garden of Eden (Garden), and the failure to do the right thing even though God (in this case Baglioni) told them too, and Satan (Beatrice) was their downfall (102). The story ends with the death of Beatrice, which then leaves Giovanni to live a life that is miserable, much like life after Eve sinned and ate the fruit. Although it appears to be an Eden story, there are some odd points to be made. In Rappaccini’s garden, all is bad except for the one good, who is Giovanni, and it is looked after by someone who is very bad, Rappaccini. This is the opposite of the Garden of Eden, where all is good except for the forbidden tree, and God looks over instead of Satan. Beatrice can have many roles in this parallel. She is the fruit, when Giovanni was constantly told to stay away from her, she is Eve throughout the story when she speaks to Giovanni, making that connection. This relation to Chistianity is an example of the power of nature as well as science. In “Rappaccini’s Daughter”, we see how powerful nature can be in tandem with science, when Rappaccini uses science to create the deadly fowers and atmosphere in his garden, which can be seen as an example where science is actually more powerful than nature. These plants were described by Male as “The unnatural plants that creep ’serpent like along the ground clearly symbolize evil and the same observation would seem to hold true for the magnificent purple shrub…’” (99). On page 2 of the text of “Rappaccini’s Daughter”, this shrub was described to be “set in a marble vase in the midst of the pool, that bore a profusion of purple blossoms, each of which had the lustre and richness of a gem; and the whole together made a show so resplendent that it seemed enough to illuminate the garden, even had there been no sunshine.” This plant was the most important of the garden, and also the most poisonous. Later, when Giovanni is watching Beatrice, she touches a plant, and water falls off and kills a lizard. This shows the poison that lays inside the plant because of Rappaccini. Another time an insect was around Beatrice and it was killed due to her presence near it. Once again, the manipulation of nature through science shows it’s power over nature that has not been tampered with. Through the powerful, evil nature of the flowers in the garden, the reader can see how science can be more powerful than nature, when the powers of nature have been tampered with to create a deadly force.