The Philosophy of Sex and Science — Arcadia and The French Lieutenant’s Woman
Sex and science are words you don’t usually hear in the same sentence. The very nature of the two seems to make them as polar opposites. But just as the positive and negative poles of a magnet attract, the pursuit of knowledge and ‘carnal embrace’ are intrinsically bonded.
The French Lieutenant’s Woman tells the story of a man named Charles Smithson who is set to marry a well-off woman by the name of Ernestina Freeman. He is an educated man, a believer in the modern sciences. His curiosity leads to an obsession with a disgraced woman named Sarah Woodruff. Through his relationship with his subjects, friends and lovers we the audience see a unique perspective on the connection between love and the pursuit of knowledge.
The French Lieutenant’s Woman is set in the mid-1800s, the Victorian era. This was a time of great technological, scientific, mathematical and philosophical advancement; however it was also an era of prudeness, where there were stringent social norms, and romance was restricted.
Dr. Grogan is a doctor who lives in Lyme. He and Charles find mutual interests in their intellectual pursuits, particularly their dedication to Darwin’s theory of evolution. After Charles gains an interest in Sarah (one that we don’t yet see as romantic), he questions Grogan as to the nature of her being; unable to understand her melancholy behaviour. Grogan’s relationship with Sarah is solely professional — lacking any “human” interaction, unlike Charles’ personal engagements with her. He suggests that “Poor Tragedy” (as was her nickname) “had become addicted to melancholia as one becomes addicted to opium”. When asked if she is a “hopeless case”, Grogan replies that “Medicine can do nothing”. However, when asked if “she could bring herself to reveal the feelings she is hiding to some sympathetic other person — “ there is an instant reply: “She would be cured.” He expounds that “[Sarah] does not want to be cured. It is as simple as if she refused to take medicine”. We see here a major bond between medicine, an objective field of study presenting strong relationships as a cure to one’s ailments.
Grogan’s relationship with Charles is a perfect example of relationships formed by the pursuit of knowledge. In a discussion on the field of palaeontology, they discuss “this fellow Darwin”. Grogan is offended by what he sees as demeanor of the great name, stating “This book is about the living, Smithson. Not the dead,” eyeing him “sideways”. As the two realised they had the similar intellectual interests (despite working in different fields), something clicked. “Grogan then seized [Charles’] hand and gripped it”. The author continues: “They knew they were like two grains of yeast in a sea of lethargic dough — two grains of salt in a vast tureen of insipid broth.” There was certainly an additional “male” connection, a sense of brotherhood in (what was especially at the time) a masculine pursuit.
Another similarity between the men is their departure from theology. Both men do not believe in a higher power, and solely pretend to have belief in God such that those around them are satisfied. Grogan states that “Voltaire drove [him] out of Rome”, in-which case his relationship with the thoughts of another have influenced the fields in which he is interested. In that same statement the doctor states that “[Bentham took him] out of the Tory camp”. Both Grogan and Charles identify as Liberals — similar political opinions tend to contribute to stronger a relationship.
I think it inevitably follows, that as new species in the course of time are formed through natural selection, others will become rarer and rarer, and finally extinct. The forms which stand in closest competition with those undergoing modification and improvement will naturally suffer most.
— Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)
The Church is an ever-present figure in The French Lieutenant’s Woman, and it is at the crux of the themes of science and those of romance and character relationships. Throughout the text, Mrs. Poulteneye is used to represent the Victorian-era church. She is the antithesis of Dr. Grogan where he may represent science and progress. An extreme prude, Poulteneye expresses a sense of moral superiority over others at Lyme Regis. Mrs. Poulteneye exemplifies the hypocrisy of the Anglican Church, and is represented as the archetypical conservative of the time and thus the reason for the emotional suppression that characters would implement.
Mrs. Poulteneye’s supposed “secret” to life is her belief in Hell. Her personal relationship with God is her only “positive” interaction with another. And yet despite her knowledge of the Bible, and her strong beliefs she fears she will not enter Heaven as she has not given even “one tenth of her wealth” (a tithe). The hypocrisy of the Church is amplified by the actions The vicar of Lyme, who values the money which is donated to his church more than the sect of his congregation. The lady’s poor attitude towards others complements her ignorance of others’ actions and her need to control people. She is as least open-minded as can-be, and when discovering Sarah’s escapades to Ware Commons, private land in which people may be alone — she is outraged. The author jokes before this initial finding that for the attitudes expressed by Poulteneye’s group one may have “wondered what horror could be coming”, surely “Nothing less than dancing naked on the altar of the parish church would have seemed adequate.” And yet the upper-class lady’s mouth “fell open”. When confronted, Sarah asks “what is the sin in walking on Ware Commons?” And yet Mrs. Poulteneye continues, “I know very well what it is. And what goes on there. And the sort of person who frequents it.” And again to even the slightest retort, “Do you contradict me, miss! Am I not to know what I speak of?” Her use of the word “know” aims to depict her assumptions as the ultimate truth, in a similar way in which she may see the words of the Bible as ultimate truth. To further expand on the hypocrisy of the well-off lady, the narrator states that “The first simple fact was that Mrs. Poulteney had never set eyes on Ware Commons, even from a distance” and continues with “The second simple fact is that she was an opium-addict”.
After some time, Mrs. Poulteneye fires Sarah Woodruff from her position in her house. “Tragedy” goes missing, and Charles along with Grogan and Ernestina search for her whereabouts, for there is a possibility she has committed suicide. Some time passes by which we reach our first ending, the “false” happily-ever-after. Here Mrs. Poulteneye passes away soon after Charles returns to Lyme. In the afterlife, Poulteneye seemed prepared: “Suitably dressed in black, she arrived in her barouche at the Heavenly Gates.” She brought “her whole household [with her]” She had made “a mental note to inform the Creator(when she knew Him better) that His domestics should be more on the alert for important callers”. She was not welcomed, and fell to a “much more tropical abode”. We see here the punishment for engaging poorly in one’s relationships with others; and that ignorance may be a most-dangerous proclivity.
Respectability has spread its leaden mantle over the whole country . . . and the man wins the race who can worship that great goddess with the most undivided devotion.
— Leslie Stephen, Sketches from Cambridge (1865)
Originally, Charles plans to marry Ernestina. This relationship has its bumps, some surprisingly as a product of “intellectual” disputes. Charles tells his fiancée that “[her] father ventured the opinion that Mr. Darwin should be exhibited in a cage in the zoological gardens. In the monkey house.” Charles “tried to explain some of the scientific arguments behind the Darwinian position” and “was unsuccessful”. In response, she shouts “How could you — when you know Papa’s views!” Of course we see here that the pursuit of knowledge may be impeded by familial relations and conflict in a relationship. Charles keeps opinions public, which causes slight conflict. His excuse is that “[he’s] a scientist”. A small ‘threat’, he says that “if [Ernestina] [smiles concernedly] like that, [he] shall devote all [his] time to the fossils and none to [her]”. She responds; “I am not disposed to be jealous of the fossils.” for “[he’s] been walking on them now for at least a minute — and haven’t even deigned to remark them.” He replies in an instant, “Certhidium portlandicum. This stone must come from the oolite at Portland.” This argument occurs some sentences before the introduction of the French Lieutenant’s Woman herself, perhaps foreshadowing conflict in relationships in the text. Later in the text, the debate continues, Mr. Freeman speaking to Charles: “You will never get me to agree that we are all descended from monkeys. I find that notion blasphemous. But I thought much on some of the things you said during our little disagreement. I would have you repeat what you said, what was it, about the purpose of this theory of evolution. A species must change … ?” Unlike Mrs. Poulteneye, Mr. Freeman is not entirely ignorant. He has thought about the ideas which have been presented to him prior, and come to the conclusion that “[if one does not] change oneself to meet the taste of the day, then one does not survive”. He adds that “Times are changing”, that “This is a great age of progress”. The tolerance he shows allows Charles his intellectual freedom, and the acknowledgement of change too acknowledges progress — with which comes more discovery, more knowledge.
It is within the Church where, when he is at his lowest point — our protagonist finds his purpose. Charles thought: “if [those who passed] were truly dead, if there were no afterlife, what should [he] care of their view of [him]? They would not know, they could not judge.” He then “made the great leap”, stating that “They do not know, they cannot judge.” He admitted to Ernestina that he did not love her. “There pressed on Charles more than the common human instinct to preserve personal identity; there lay behind him all those years of thought, speculation, self-knowledge”. When Grogan had hears of Charles’ passion for Sarah, he states “[he] would have had [him] think twice before [he] embroiled that innocent girl in your pursuit of self-knowledge.”, continuing: “But once that knowledge is granted us, can we escape its dictates? However repugnant their consequences?” His search for knowledge of himself had only dug deeper holes for him…
The characters within John Fowles’ The French Lieutenant’s Woman undergo trials in their relationships that make them question their strongest beliefs — their religion, their studies and their moral bases. Charles’ relationships with other characters in the text sends the reader on a journey through discovery, and the way in which our partners can shape our fate.
Arcadia is a story with two periods, one in the early 19th century and the other circa present times. In the setting of the past, we engage with child-genius Thomasina Coverly and her tutor Septimus Hodge, along with others in the large estate in which they live. She is initial thirteen years of age. Septimus is caught making love with Mrs. Charity Chater (a houseguest), which angers Mr. Ezra Chater — he challenged Septimus to a duel. In the present day, Bernard Nightingale (a Romantic-era scholar) meets Hannah Jarvis, another academic — studying the garden and the “Sidley hermit” (whom she believes symbolises Romanticism).
Thomasina is a most-interesting character. Her character is in-fact based on a true story — that of Ada Lovelace, an English mathematician. From the beginning of the text, we read a link between the desire to know and the human sexual desire. As the first spoken word in the play, Thomasina ask “what is carnal embrace?” to her tutor. The twenty-two year old describes carnal embrace as “the practice of throwing one’s arms around a side of beef”. Thomasina questions, “Is that all?” She then asks if it is “a sin”, which relates to the theological underpinnings of relationships seen in The French Lieutenant’s Woman where the Church was ever-present in one’s sex life and in the intellectual beliefs one could hold. In this very conversation, Septimus mentions a poem written by Mr. Chater (an unsuccessful poetaster) named “Couch of Eros”. Among “intellectuals”, it seems that the concept of love is well-debated, as Septimus disrespects the poem in saying he [hopes Fermat’s Last theorem] it would keep [Thomasina] busy long enough for [him] to read Mr Chater’s poem in praise of love with only the distraction of its own absurdities.” In continuation, it a conflict is seen between the indulgence in “hard” science and romance. Thomasina continues to question the nature of “carnal embrace” in her naivety, as Septimus continues to ignore her. “Yes. Now, Fermat’s last theorem — ”. She notes that “If [Septimus does] not teach [her] the true meaning of things, who will?” For a tutor is present for his ability to pass knowledge unto his student. He concedes: “Carnal embrace is sexual congress, which is the insertion of the male genital organ into the female genital organ for purposes of procreation and pleasure.” In contrast, “Fermat’s last theorem, by contrast, asserts that when x,y and z are whole numbers each raised to power of n, the sum of the first two can never equal the third when n is greater than 2”.
As Thomasina continues to send barrages of questions towards Septimus, it makes one wonder how he can manage to still listen. His answers are ambiguous and disinterested, unlike the girl’s child-like interest in the nature of the world. In continuation of religious subthemes, she asks if he “[thinks] God is a Newtonian”. Septimus observes, “If everything from the furthest planet to the smallest atom of our brain acts according to Newton’s law of motion, what becomes of free will?” He professes: “God’s will”. Thomasina rejects this notion, upon which he suggests “Sin.” Their session is interrupted by Mr. Chater — business that cannot wait. He has discovered Septimus’ romance with his wife. In this case the knowledge to be gained from the lesson Septimus is to give has been interrupted by the urgency to settle sexual matters.
Chater states that Septimus has “You insulted [his] wife”. Septimus replies jokingly, that “[he is] mistaken.” “[Septimus] made love to [Chater’s] wife in the gazebo. She asked [him] to meet her there, [he has] her note somewhere”. The academic work of Septimus has been interrupted by his sexual desires, and now those of a sexually dissatisfied man. “I will not listen to this! Will you fight or not?” Clearly, even a “[poet] of the first rank” (even if said jokingly) could threaten his life over sexual gratification.
Septimus has an attraction to Lady Croom (Thomasina’s mother) with whom he flirts. “Are you in love with my mother, Septimus?” He responds, “You must not be cleverer than your elders. It is not polite.” Here social conventions of the time make for a lesson in limiting one’s curiosity such that it does not offend surrounding parties — a potential barrier to knowledge. The girl hands a note to her teacher, posing “[whether] carnal embrace [addles Septimus’] brain?” He answers, “Invariably.” In his mind, “That is enough education for
today.” Clearly, his sexual drive trumps the logical circuitry of his well-educated (as a student at Cambridge) mind. His tasks, the path God has granted — a “Newtonian” reality has been interrupted by lust.
In the present day, analogous theories on the nature of the universe and sex are discussed.
“The universe is deterministic all right, just like Newton said, I mean, it’s trying to be, but the only thing that goes wrong is people fancying people who aren’t supposed to be part of the plan” — Chloe Coverly
The nature of the universe is being discussed by Chloe, eighteen, and Valentine, her older brother. Chloe asks her brother, a graduate of mathematics, about the nature of the universe. “The future is all programmed like a computer — that’s a proper theory, isn’t it?” Valentine: “The deterministic universe, yes.” Her brother notes that a man in the 1820s pointed out that “from Newton’s laws you could predict everything to come” with a “computer as big as the universe”. He appends that “It turns out the maths is different.” That is when Chloe makes the theory that “it’s all because of sex”. Valentine jokingly responds, “Ah. The attraction that Newton left out.”
In the past, Thomasina is working on her own theories. “I, Thomasina Coverly, have found a truly wonderful method whereby all the forms of nature must give up their numerical secrets and draw themselves through number alone.” Clearly she has not considered the “element of sex” as her contemporary (Chloe) has.
Interestingly, Thomasina receives an “A-” in her textbook work from Septimus for allegedly “doing more than was asked”. When questioned, he alleges that “a fancy is not a discovery”. Angry at his words, Thomasina accuses him that “[He is] churlish with [her] because mama is paying attention to [his] friend”. She continues: “Well, let them elope, they cannot turn back the advancement of knowledge.” After a debate in which Septimus states that “[Only God] has mastery of equations which lead into infinities where we cannot follow”, he switches topic to avoid further debate “Back to Cleopatra”. Thomasina describes her hatred of Cleopatra: “Everything is turned to love with her. New love, absent love, lost love — I never knew a heroine that makes such noodles of our sex.” Clearly, Thomasina rejects the sexual passion and places priority onto the knowledge which one holds, continuing her spiel: “the Egyptian noodle made carnal embrace with the enemy who burned the great library of Alexandria without so much as a fine for all that is overdue. Oh, Septimus! — can you bear it?” Her anger is emphasised, “How can we sleep for grief?” We see a conflict between sex and knowledge. Perhaps Freud’s theory of ‘sublimation’, the conversion of sexual energy into the desire to learn — could agree with Thomasina’s opinion of a “higher cause” in erudition con sex. Perhaps a reason why an educated man such as Septimus is ignorant of a young Thomasina is due to his sexual urges, distracting him from uncovering “truth”. Unlike Septimus, Thomasina’s search for “truth” and knowledge requires derision of the carnal desire.
Perhaps Thomasina’s will is not as strong as she had previously thought. We now see her soon before her seventeenth birthday. With age, sexual maturity will often come about. She shows attraction to Septimus, with whom she asks to waltz. She later jokes that “If mama comes I will tell her we only met to kiss, not to waltz”. They dance and kiss, as music plays. Thomasina dies a tragic death on her seventeenth birthday, by which time it is revealed that Septimus is the “hermit of Sidley Park”. He could not handle the sudden heartbreak. He continues working on Thomasina’s theories after her death (despite some of his last words with her being “This is not science. This is story-telling.” to describe her diagrams of heat).
In the present, sexual themes continue to emerge. Bernard is a romanticist, Hannah Jarvis most certainly is not. She does not believe in “love”. She tells him that “Chaps sometimes wanted to marry [her], and [she didn’t] know a worse bargain. Available sex against not being allowed to fart in bed.” Hannah is sick of Bernard’s romantic theories, calling out his absurdities; “The whole Romantic sham, Bernard! It’s what happened to the Enlightenment, isn’t it? A century of intellectual rigor turned in on itself. A mind in chaos suspected of genius. In a setting of cheap thrills and false emotion… The decline from thinking to feeling, you see.” She notes that the geometries and precision of thought provided a beauty in “Arcadia” ruined by the romantic sentiments of emotional revivalists, “fools [who] could pretend they were living in God’s
countryside” (for this is a description of arcadia — an idyllic utopia).
Hannah’s cool intellectualism is similar that of Thomasina’s in her youth — Stoppard constantly works to show similarities between the past and present in his play. In this way he shows humans have not changed. Despite our technological and academic advancements we have yet to separate ourselves of our sexual desires — even Einstein had three kids and two wives (one who was his cousin). Again she dismisses Bernard: “Sex and literature. Literature and sex. Your conversation, left to itself, doesn’t have many places to go. Like two marbles rolling around a pudding basin. One of them is always sex.” On the note of Einstein, she elaborates: “No doubt. Einstein — relativity and sex. Chippendale — sex and furniture. Galileo — ‘Did the earth move?’ What the hell is it with you people?” (In discussing men). It seems like there is no worthwhile work where there is no sex, in Bernard’s eyes.
And yes, even the busy Bernard Nightingale — on an research trip at Sidley Park for what may be one of his greatest academic achievements — engages in sex, with non-other than Chloe (another resident romantic).
Stoppard aims to show that one mustn’t solely indulge in either romance or objectivity. Rather, a balance is necessary for the ultimate discovery to be made. Sex is chaotic, the matter which disrupts the order of the universe. The heat of bodies is the heat of the universe that cannot be fully contained, nor can it be fully sustained. The heat of bodies is what makes the universe run — Thomasina’s equations turned out true.
Both The French Lieutenant’s Woman and Arcadia have strong themes contrasting Romanticism and Classicism. Romanticism is “characterised by its emphasis on emotion and individualism as well as glorification of all the past and nature”, whereas Classicism emphasises on “form, simplicity, proportion, perfection, restrained emotion, as well as explicit appeal to the intellect.”
In Arcadia, Romantic idealists clash with classicists in both periods of setting. The way in which knowledge is interpreted is similar in both texts by romanticists. In The French Lieutenant’s Woman, Charles’ impulsion to act on emotion seems like the “right” choice both for the character and for the reader, however the world does not turn out a “fairy tale” like we may expect. As in Arcadia, where Bernard too is naïve in his belief that emotion must always trump reason. Bernard argues Valentine’s computer models disagreeing with his own theories are “inconclusive”. He contends that “[Byron] killed Chater”, which Hannah, Valentine and Chloe find absurd according to their hard evidence. He argues that “You can’t stick Byron’s head in your laptop! Genius isn’t like your average grouse.” He indulges in what may be labelled an “anti-scientific” rant, stating that one must not “confuse progress with perfectibility.” He argues that “A great poet is always timely. A great philosopher is an urgent need. There’s no rush for Isaac Newton.” Similar in opinion to Mr. Smithson, he states that “If knowledge isn’t self-knowledge it isn’t doing much”. Bernard is absolutely certain in his contentions, and he is prepared to ruin the relationships with those around him to prove himself. Valentine cannot handle the professor, “[he] can’t do it.”
In the search of self-knowledge so too does Charles Smithson destroy his relationships. A distinction can be made in that Charles is himself a scientist, unlike his counterpart. Over the text, he abandons his rational mind — chasing that which he is attracted to. His relationships adjust as he changes, himself. In admitting to Grogan his attraction to Tragedy, he states “[he] would have had [him] think twice before [he] embroiled that innocent girl in your pursuit of self-knowledge.” In Charles’ attempt to find himself he may end up harming another soul. Ernestina, his prior wife-to-be was prepared to sacrifice her father’s riches for her love. A relationship can scar.
“But once that knowledge is granted us, can we escape its dictates? However repugnant their consequences?”
Once we are aware of something, it is impossible to leave without its consequences. This may be analogous to receiving the results for a test in which one has partaken. The results are fact, but once you know that fact it leads a permanent imprint on your mind.
“There was a humanity in the Irishman Charles greatly respected”.
“As soon as Grogan had come into the room he had known that his previous self-assertions — that he was indifferent to the opinion of a mere bathing place doctor — were hollow.” Charles had discovered the power of a strong relationship, and realised that what he thought he knew (that he did not need Grogan) was untrue. Without the power of “brotherhood” he would not have had such confidence in his decisions. The dispositions which one has are complemented by his relationships. If it were not for his friendships and romances, Charles would not have engaged with his interests, or followed his heart in such manner.
It’s wanting to know that makes us matter
— Hannah Jarvis
Throughout much of Arcadia, Hannah Jarvis is presented as an extreme classicist. She seeks “perfection” in the gardens, and laments any changes she sees in poor taste made to the Sidley Park mansion. She additionally greatly agrees on theoretical terms with another pure Classicist, the resident mathematician — Valentine. Bernard asks Hannah to “come with [him]” for sex, stating it is “very underrated”. Despite her distaste towards Bernard’s romantic tendencies she does indulge herself as mentioned previously in her unmarried sex. Additionally, unlike Valentine she is not in a “hard” science where objective numerical truth is a constant. Perhaps she is Stoppard’s embodiment of the balance between a Romantic and Classical view he wants to instill in his text.
Throughout both texts, Arcadia and The French Lieutenant’s Woman, authors Tom Stoppard and John Fowles aim to present how relationships (especially romantic ones) can impact our attitudes to knowledge, and vice versa.
Fowles’ utilisation of marital relationships and friendship allow us to follow individuals in their expanding search for “self-knowledge” and a discovery of greater purpose.
Stoppard’s text exemplifies the need for not only purity in the sciences but a chaotic, sexual element. He shows that without strong relationships — without something to fill the emotional void — one cannot achieve their full potential.
In contrasting representations of the juxtaposed Romantic and Classical attitudes, in-which interpersonal interactions between characters may affect their pursuit of enlightenment, of greater knowledge.
When we have found all the mysteries and lost all the meaning, we will
be alone, on an empty shore.
You’ve made it dear reader, the end!
Bibliography:
19th Century Romantic Aesthetics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) (2021). Available at: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aesthetics-19th-romantic/ (Accessed: 24 November 2021).
Romanticism — Wikipedia (2021). Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanticism. (Accessed: 24 November 2021).
Classicism — Wikipedia (2021). Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classicism (Accessed: 24 November 2021).
Image Source: The French Lieutenant’s Woman (film), 1981 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_French_Lieutenant%27s_Woman_(film) (Accessed: 24 November 2021).
