With the publication of his Preface to Lyrical Ballads in 1798, WilliamWordsworth announced his break with the “gaudiness and inane phraseology” of his poetic predecessors (The Prose Works of William Wordsworth, ed. W. J. B. Owen and Jane Worthington Smyser [1974], 143) Wordsworth’s Preface is often cited as a foundational expression of what would subsequently come to be known as British romanticism. While much of Wordsworth’s Preface expresses a quasi-democratic desire to attend to the life and speech of others—specifically those living “[h]umble and rustic” lives—implicitly, and somewhat ironically, it also insists on the value of poetic originality or “genius” (Wordsworth 145). Whereas authors earlier in the eighteenth century regularly perceived themselves as standing on the shoulders of giants, Wordsworth proudly asserted his own uniqueness. (This in spite of the fact that Wordsworth’s poetic innovations were deeply indebted to key literary predecessors and collaborators—John Milton, Charlotte Smith, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and Dorothy Wordsworth, among others.) In her informative first book,Questioning Nature: British Women’s Scientific Writing and Literary Originality, 1750–1830, Melissa Bailes shows that Wordsworth’s conception of poetic genius would survive; Charlotte Smith’s would not. Questioning Nature contributes to the ongoing assessment of women writers’ relationship to British Romanticism and the various dramatic historical changes that accompanied it. According to Bailes, the romantic celebration of unique poetic genius undermined certain kinds of literary and cultural authority that women writers had previously enjoyed. Women authors had, over the course of the eighteenth century, become accustomed to using two important techniques for attaining such authority: (1) literary quotation, imitation, and adaptation; and (2) the incorporation of scientific techniques and allusion. Bailes’s study shows that, by the end of the 1830s, these two strategies had lost their power to impress. Bailes focuses her attention on a handful of notable female authors: Anna Barbauld, Maria Riddell, Anna Seward, Charlotte Smith, Helen Maria Williams, Mary Shelley, and Felicia Hemans. By conducting case studies of these authors, Bailes seeks to narrate “how [their] imaginative scientific works both shaped the literary canon and led to their exclusion from it” (1). With the exception of Mary Shelley, the authors whom Bailes addresses have only recently, over the past couple decades, been accepted into the contemporary canon in spite of having been influential in their lifetimes. Bailes’s historical analysis sheds light on the influence, both literary and scientific, these authors had within their own cultural milieus as well as on how their influence became circumscribed over time. She argues that the professionalization of science as well as of literature, which had both become well established by the end of the 1830s via scientific societies and copyright bills respectively, ultimately minimized the perceived value of women’s original contributions in both areas. Bailes arranges her book into three sections: “Gender and Nationalism: Describing and Defining Literary Naturalism”; “Poetic and Biological Forms: Plagiarism, Originality, and Hybridity”; “Revolution and Geological Sciences: Translations, Beginnings, and Endings.” Proceeding roughly chronologically, she organizes each chapter around a single author as she aims to determine the distinctive features of each author’s approach to scientific practice (specifically, natural history) and literary composition. With Questioning Nature, Bailes raises fascinating historical parallels and tensions between women’s involvement in natural history and their varying conceptions of literary originality. However, at times it is difficult for the reader to hold onto both lines of historical analysis at the same time. In some chapters, Bailes emphasizes women writers’ relationships to science and loses track of how these relationships inform or are informed by controversies Book Reviews ▪ 365

中文翻译：

---

梅丽莎·拜尔斯。质疑自然：英国女性的科学写作和文学原创性，1750-1830 年

随着 1798 年他的抒情歌谣序言的出版，威廉华兹华斯宣布他与他的诗歌前辈的“华而不实的措辞”决裂（威廉华兹华斯的散文作品，编辑。WJB欧文和简沃辛顿斯迈瑟 [1974]，143）华兹华斯的序言经常被引用为后来被称为英国浪漫主义的基本表达。虽然华兹华斯的许多前言都表达了一种准民主的愿望，即关注他人的生活和言论——特别是那些过着“[h]卑微”生活的人——含蓄地，有点讽刺的是，它也坚持诗歌原创性或“天才”（华兹华斯 145）。十八世纪早期的作家经常认为自己站在巨人的肩膀上，而华兹华斯则自豪地宣称自己的独特性。（尽管华兹华斯的诗歌创新深深地归功于重要的文学前辈和合作者——约翰·米尔顿、夏洛特·史密斯、塞缪尔·泰勒·柯勒律治和多萝西·华兹华斯等。）在她内容丰富的第一本书中，质疑自然：英国女性科学写作和文学原创性，1750-1830 年，梅丽莎·贝勒斯 (Melissa Bailes) 表明华兹华斯的诗歌天才概念将继续存在；夏洛特史密斯不会。质疑自然有助于持续评估女性作家与英国浪漫主义的关系以及随之而来的各种戏剧性的历史变化。根据贝勒斯的说法，对独特诗歌天才的浪漫庆祝破坏了女性作家以前享有的某些文学和文化权威。女作家有，在 18 世纪的过程中，习惯于使用两种重要的技巧来获得这种权威：（1）文学引用、模仿和改编；(2) 结合科学技术和典故。Bailes 的研究表明，到 1830 年代末，这两种策略已经失去了给人留下深刻印象的力量。Bailes 将她的注意力集中在少数著名的女性作家身上：安娜·巴鲍德、玛丽亚·里德尔、安娜·苏厄德、夏洛特·史密斯、海伦·玛丽亚·威廉姆斯、玛丽·雪莱和费利西亚·赫曼斯。通过对这些作者进行案例研究，拜尔斯试图讲述“[他们的] 富有想象力的科学作品如何塑造了文学经典并导致他们被排除在外”（1）。除了玛丽雪莱，拜尔斯最近才谈到的作者，在过去的几十年里，尽管在他们的一生中具有影响力，但仍被接受为当代经典。Bailes 的历史分析揭示了这些作者在文学和科学方面的影响力，以及他们的影响力如何随着时间的推移而受到限制。她认为，在 1830 年代末分别通过科学协会和版权法案确立了科学和文学的专业化，最终使女性在这两个领域的原创贡献的价值最小化。Bailes 将她的书分为三个部分：“性别与民族主义：描述和定义文学自然主义”；“诗意和生物形式：剽窃、独创性和混合性”；“革命与地质科学：翻译、开始和结束。” 大致按时间顺序进行，她围绕一位作者组织每一章，因为她旨在确定每位作者对科学实践（特别是自然历史）和文学创作的方法的独特特征。在《质疑自然》中，拜尔斯提出了女性参与自然历史与她们对文学原创性的不同概念之间迷人的历史相似之处和紧张关系。然而，有时读者很难同时掌握历史分析的两条线。在某些章节中，Bailes 强调了女性作家与科学的关系，却忽略了这些关系如何影响或被争议影响的书评 ▪ 365 她围绕一位作者组织每一章，因为她旨在确定每位作者在科学实践（特别是自然历史）和文学创作方法上的独特之处。在《质疑自然》中，拜尔斯提出了女性参与自然历史与她们对文学原创性的不同概念之间迷人的历史相似之处和紧张关系。然而，有时读者很难同时掌握历史分析的两条线。在某些章节中，Bailes 强调了女性作家与科学的关系，却忽略了这些关系如何影响或被争议影响的书评 ▪ 365 她围绕一位作者组织每一章，因为她旨在确定每位作者在科学实践（特别是自然历史）和文学创作方法上的独特之处。在《质疑自然》中，拜尔斯提出了女性参与自然历史与她们对文学原创性的不同概念之间迷人的历史相似之处和紧张关系。然而，有时读者很难同时掌握历史分析的两条线。在某些章节中，Bailes 强调了女性作家与科学的关系，却忽略了这些关系如何影响或被争议影响的书评 ▪ 365 Bailes 提出了女性对自然历史的参与与其对文学原创性的不同概念之间的迷人历史相似之处和紧张关系。然而，有时读者很难同时掌握历史分析的两条线。在某些章节中，Bailes 强调了女性作家与科学的关系，却忽略了这些关系如何影响或被争议影响的书评 ▪ 365 Bailes 提出了女性对自然历史的参与与其对文学原创性的不同概念之间的迷人历史相似之处和紧张关系。然而，有时读者很难同时掌握历史分析的两条线。在某些章节中，Bailes 强调了女性作家与科学的关系，却忽略了这些关系如何影响或被争议影响的书评 ▪ 365