Although Bronte’s Wuthering Heights preceded Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, many comparisons can be made between the texts. Darwin was an English naturalist during the Victorian era who is known for his theories on human evolution. His observations and publications were presented in a scientific lens, as he tried to explain to the public the relationship between humans. Bronte, on the other hand, shows the complex structure of society and its effect on interpersonal relationships.

Darwin understood animal species as having shared traits that distinguish them from other species. All humans have two legs, while all dogs have four legs. However, he claims that any given species can be further divided by, “groups subordinate to groups.” This is where Darwin’s theories become problematic for modern readers. He uses education and science at the time to justify that any species, including humans, can be subject to a hierarchy based on perceived values of superiority. In Wuthering Heights, this hierarchy exists among the families. Characters view each other based on who they associate with. Those who live at Wuthering Heights are presented as unsettling or victimized. Inhabitants at Thrushcross Grange are depicted as civilized and stable. Heathcliff and Joseph are given an unflattering view by the narrator, Nelly, constantly reminding us of their social inferiority. Darwin’s idea of “well-marked varieties” fits the differences that Bronte provides between the social classes in her novel.
Charles Darwin gives his scientific explanation for why humans can be set in a hierarchy. To further his claims, he also provides a hypothesis for the fate of humans as a species. Darwin states, “ it will be the common and widely spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups within each class, which will  prevail and procreate new and dominant species.” This seems to be the attitude that the Linton family takes on. Even though the book goes through generations, there is always the assumption that the offspring will be a part of the dominant people in society.

Desmond, Adrian J. “Charles Darwin.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 13 Sept. 2019, www.britannica.com/biography/Charles-Darwin.

One connection that stood out to me when reading this weekends assigned works was the familiar application of reason and scientific process to religion, seen earlier with Carlyle and again with Huxley. The difference is that Huxley uses these devices to come to the conclusion that the teachings of Christianity are in no way an irrefutable certainty, where as Carlyle uses these devices to work in tandem with the teachings of Christianity in order to come up with his own worldview.

As I was reading the excerpts from Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, and considering what I already knew about Darwin, my mind kept going back to the second generation featured in Wuthering Heights. Something that initially struck me about young Cathy and Hareton was that they both exemplified the qualities of their parents and/or, in the case of Hareton, those who raised them. However, they were undeniably improved versions of their predecessors. Cathy had the strong will and determination of her mother, but was complemented with the gentleness and refinement of her father. She was not hot-headed and impulsive like Catherine, nor was she weak of will as Edgar sometimes was. This was similarly true for Hareton. Though Heathcliff was not his dad, he was in many ways more of a father to him than Hindley. Hareton exemplified Heathcliff’s strength, and a sort of stoicism that could also sometimes be found in his mentor. And yet, there was also a gentleness to Hareton that could not be found in Heathcliff. Perhaps it came from his mother, or more likely from Nelly, who cared for him while he was still a boy. Both Cathy and Hareton inherited the most favorable traits, and were the best versions of their parents and caregivers. As such, the two succeeded where their forebearers could not. The opposite of Cathy and Hareton, however, would be Linton. Unlike the others, Linton displayed all of the worst qualities of both of his parents. He inherited the unfavorable traits, and therefore, it fits that he was unsuccessful. This does reflect the idea that Darwin discusses: what Herbert Spencer coined “survival of the fittest.” In many ways, Cathy and Hareton were the “fit,” and therefore survived while Linton, on the other hand, was far too weak, and was naturally, to put it harshly, eliminated.

Edmunde Gosse’s Father and Son shows readers how intellectuals, scientists and the general public felt about these new scientific discoveries in the Victorian Era. This passage reveals the extreme faith and dependency on traditional religion that people experienced were before these revolutionary scientific discoveries. Readers get a strong sense of two very defined and unmoving perspectives developed as a result of these discoveries: one being the secular theory of evolution vs. religious belief in Genesis.

Based on what we’ve learned about Brontë’s life, it is clear that Brontë is writing from a perspective that is not based in the same kind of religious faith that so many Victorian people had. One could argue that Emily Bronte’s experience growing up with no real connection to religion is expressed in her writing through the Earnshaw family; the Earnshaw’s represent Bronte’s rejection of traditional religious practices. One reading of Wuthering Heights could be that the Lintons represent traditional religious practices while the Earnshaws represent passion, connection to nature, and an alternative approach to faith/spirituality. Additionally, Brontë often portrays the Lintons as weak, vain, and sickly.Thus, the novel can be interpreted as a claim by Bronte that the proper way to live is to reject religion and the traditional. 

As you see in Father and Son, people felt very strongly about their religious views. This is why I find it intriguing that Wuthering Heights was accepted by many during the time. Based on people’s extreme reactions to scientific discoveries as shown in Father and Son, I would expect the religious majority of Victorian England to disprove of the sacreligious elements of Wuthering Heights. One possible explanation for the novel’s popularity/acceptance is that people might have accepted the book because while the Earnshaws/Bronte represents a different type of life–a more elemental life. Iit’s tolerable because it is ‘other.’ Bronte and her writing are ‘safe’ because it comes from this ‘other’ place up north

In The Origins of Species by Natural Selection, Darwin argues that the growing population is kept in check by features such as geography and natural resources. Together, the two will never allow for an infinite number of people, animals, or other species to survive. In turn, there is a struggle of the fittest competition that requires species to fight and adapt to survive. This reminds me of Wuthering Heights, because Heathcliff starts out as a weak orphan in the cycle of survival of the fittest. Orphaned and alone, he is then adopted by the Earnshaw’s. He goes from orphan to rich and defies the odds with his revengeful power struggle to reach the top. In order to survive in the power hungry and materialistic world, Heathcliff was required to adapt and fight. Darwin also suggests that “all organisms start from a common origin”, but is this true in the case of racism? In Wuthering Heights we see that class and race create a major divide giving some power to some and creating a “kingdom” which Hindley was not warmly welcomed into.

At the time of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, and other scientific revelations, there was a general distrust of science, seeing as it refuted most things that religion taught. New ideas and theories were received poorly and often ridiculed. For going against normative and comfortable beliefs at the time. In Huxley’s “Agnosticism and Christianity” he wrote, “It has been insinuated that they have adopted a new name in order to escape the unpleasantness which attaches to their proper denomination.” This line illuminates the sentiment held by many people about people who were agnostic, in that it shows how negatively they were seen since it insinuates that Agnostics were merely “infidels” under a different name. This relates to the excerpt from Edmond Gusse’s Father and Son, in the way that Gusse wrote about the rejection and ridicule his father received for postulating new scientific theories. Huxley’s analysis of popular sentiment helps to give historical context to Gusse’s writings.

Something I noticed when reading Darwin’s and particularly Gosse’s piece is just how violently they frame the ideological “war” of the Victorian period. Gosse claims that in the academic landscape of the era, “It was becoming necessary to stand emphatically in one *army* or the other,” ( ¶ 2). He labels Lyell as a “great mover of men” and searching for a “bodyguard of sound and experienced naturalists”, and the reactionaries are described almost as rivals searching for an ideological bullet to fire back ( ¶ 3 – ¶ 4 ). Could this just be creatively constructed language used to make the debate between ideologies sound more dynamic? Perhaps, but it reminds me greatly of what Carlyle’s clothes arguments in Sartor Resartus warned about. To Carlyle, ideology is like a suit; it must repeatedly be changed in order for the society to remain clean and orderly. People cannot just patch up old suits because that would lead to a stagnant society, nor can they forgo suits altogether, as that would lead to the destruction of social order. Informed by the French Revolution, I do not doubt that Carlyle was very afraid that the same type of bloody ideological warfare that broke out in France was capable of repeating itself in Britain. I wonder then how he would react to the type of of scientific debates that Gosse describes. Would he have seen the lively debate as the process of merely replacing the suit, or would he have seen it as possible evidence of the same type of anarchy he worried so strongly about?

While reading Robert Chambers’ Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation, I was surprised to see the name of Charles Babbage embedded within the text and was even more surprised to see Chambers quote and employ Babbage’s work in order to support his own ideas of natural creation through transmutation. While grappling with exactly how and why one species developed from another, Chambers invites his readers to consider “an illustration of natural law… brought forward by [Babbage] in his Ninth Bridgewater Treatise” (7) that is exemplified through Babbage’s calculating machine. Babbage’s calculating machine, moved by a weight, displays a sequence of natural numbers “each of which exceeds its immediate antecedent by unity.” (Chambers, 7) Babbage, as reported by Chambers, asks his own readers whether or not they think that the sequence will continue in the same way and if they believe themselves to be acquainted with the law of Babbage’s machine. Babbage claims that many of his readers will respond in the affirmative to his two questions. However, at a certain point, the law of the machine will shift and the numbers will increase by greater unity and follow the series of triangular numbers, a pattern that will, in turn, be replaced by yet another series.

Furthermore, Chambers believed that Babbage’s calculating machine was an excellent model for his own thinking regarding the transmutation of species, as is shown through his concluding remarks. He states that “Mr. Babbage’s illustration powerfully suggests that this ordinary procedure (transmutation) may be subordinate to a higher law which only permits it for a time, and in proper season interrupts and changes it.” (Chambers 7) It is through such logic that Chambers not only models his own thinking regarding the creation of species through transmutation but also accounts for the lack of intuition and accessibility that surrounded the idea of evolution for many individuals at the time.

Additionally, Chambers’ mention of Babbage immediately made me think back to one of Babbage’s most esteemed contemporaries, Ada Lovelace. Much like Chambers, Lovelace also displayed a fondness for and dependency on models. Many letters exist between Lovelace and her tutors wherein Lovelace asks about the existence and availability of certain models through which she might come to better understand corresponding mathematical principles. While Lovelace was mocked in certain biographies for her need for models, her use of models allowed her to reach dazzling and beautiful conclusions regarding mathematical concepts. Perhaps it was Lovelace’s love of models that led her to not only develop the precursors to modern-day computer science but to write about math and science in a poetically spiritual, yet tangible manner, as well. Indeed, Lovelace, by transforming what some may refer to as “unfeeling” subjects into warm and ethereal poetic entities, was arguably able to better the understanding of math and science for many individuals who perhaps once found such topics inaccessible.

Finally, Chambers and Lovelace both demonstrate the importance of models when it comes to producing understanding. Just as Lovelace’s view of math and science was able to at once mystify, explain, and “soften” said subjects for others, Chambers’ use of Babbage’s model is arguably responsible for the popularity and praise that Chambers’ book received within Victorian England. For while his ideas were radical, his use of a model certainly provided readers with a solid base to which they could cling while being confronted with new ideas, thereby “softening” the idea of evolution for many.