On Building a Bridge between Worlds

The Beginning of a Divergence

The imagination is an amazing thing.

Our capacity to imagine is one of the things that separates humans from other animals — we have the power to imagine what does not exist, what has never existed. We have the capacity to imagine different ways of living and interacting with each other. Some people might dismiss this as providing no practical benefit to society whatsoever.

I disagree.

Poets use their Imagination to create worlds and experiences, filled with new people, feelings and ideas. Regardless of whether they are entirely fictitious or not, they are a reflection of the society in which they were composed.

However, literature is not the only outlet for this amazing feat of the human mind.

Scientists use their imagination to create possible solutions to problems that gnaw at their thoughts. The discoveries that stem from this can, and have been known to change the course of human existence.

Although Poetry and Science, macroscopically seem galaxies away, on a microscopic level they are truly more similar than the naked eye would have you believe.

So why is it seen to be so unnatural to wield these two disciplines as one?

When did it become the norm to not see them as beautifully and intrinsically combined?

Great minds huddled, the soft and mellow lamp

lighting the retort stand. Conical flask

bubbling over with opportunity,

Earth’s secrets yearning to remove the mask

That hid Her for many millennia,

covered the beauty of her poetry;

The Mountains, Rivers, the Creatures on Land.

The minute Atoms buzzing through the Tree,

Secretly woven into every branch

Like invisible veins constructing life.

Hidden from the world, out of sight and mind,

Of them little known, too scant to cause strife.

Footsteps pound on the path to wisdom,

Flowing skirts and tailored pants sweep cobble

Till enlightenment was grasped tight in hand,

time passed, poetry had become novel.

For now, people walked, eyes finally open

To the intrinsic art that hid behind,

The math, the science, the logical age,

they had discovered they were intertwined.

They yielded the parts as though they were one,

Literary powers a vivid mask,

To accentuate the beauty within,

The mystic questions Science dares to ask.

Let us now explore the reality of the ever-growing vast valley that separates these disciplines and submerge ourselves into the past. Let us rebuild the bridge that we have so carelessly torn down from our ancestor’s grasp.

The Father of Modern Science

To restore the rotting wood of the bridge between these two worlds we must first look at the ancient feet that trod along the margin of science and literature, paving the way for many future generations.

Galileo Galilei, the father of modern science, did not conform to a limited understanding of either of these disciplines. Instead, he became one of the most influential astronomers of all time.

Black ring stained on skin circling wrinkled eye,

the mark of observing the ancient stars,

Planets, comets, moons. Telescope grasped

firmly in pale hand, pointed at blood mars.

The beauty of the shadows filled your eye

But it was not naught that you could see.

Instead, bright lights became details of night

Presented to eye for mouth to decree.

From your mouth, to hand, to word on paper

The centrality of earth became known,

Through the artful flick of wrist to create

The book to tell what your eye had been shown.

Galileo’s writing—writing that emerges from his imagination; which cannot be restricted to the scientific or to the poetic- but rather to both simultaneously, is a key source for understanding the utilisation of poetry for its power: as a discourse for the production of knowledge.

As Galileo became further consumed with creating a narrative that validated the patterns of the movements he saw in the vast night sky: satellites orbiting Jupiter, comets and other celestial bodies, he turned to publishing his findings in order to reach a wider scientific community. Il Saggiatore (The Assayer), published in 1623, was a virulent discourse on physical reality and exposition on the newly emerging scientific method - pioneered by Galileo himself. Within the piece, Galileo addresses fellow scholar Orazio Grassi (1583-1654), who had long been in controversy against Galileo on the nature of Comets(publishing his many critical writings against him under the Pseudonym ‘Sarsi’). Galileo opens his body of work with this statement directed at Sarsi:

“Philosophy is written in this grand book—I mean the universe—which stands continually open to our gaze, but it cannot be understood unless one first learns to comprehend the language and interpret the characters in which it is written... without which it is humanly impossible to understand a single word of it; without these, one is wandering about in a dark labyrinth.” (Assayer, 183–84).

This proposition, whilst poetically beautiful in its construction; with its use of metaphor, rhetoric and wit, also shows the “grand” scale of the application of poetry unto the natural world. Galileo states that Science, or the natural world, cannot be understood without first utilising language and poetry to effectively bring light into this “Dark Labyrinth”. Expressing the lack of scientific knowledge gained if one is to walk, blindfolded down cobbled lanes, back turned to the power possessed by poetic rhetoric; and its ability to uncover truth and meaning.

Galileo continues his application of poetic techniques to science throughout the text. He states that “nature does not delight in poetry,” personifying nature to show how he views the use of poetic eloquence as a vehicle for scientific discovery. To say that “nature does not delight” is to say that l Science cannot contain poetry in terms of content; fiction with science seems counterintuitive. However, as Galileo continually presents throughout his work, poetry most certainly can be exploited as a kind of ‘method’.

The Scientific Method, as developed by Galileo, followed three central steps;

1.Intuition: To create a hypothesis to be tested, based on observations made about the surrounding environment, to imagine a possibility that has not yet been imagined.

2. Demonstration: To illustrate this created hypothesis in terms of other knowns; a simple expression of what can sometimes be convoluted, putting things to words to create meaning- a physical metaphor.

3. Experimentation: To test this hypothesis and reach a conclusion regarding its validity and reliability, what most would now view as science, disregarding the path taken to reach this finality.

Through a thorough understanding of these steps as exploited by Galilieo, most notably in his body of work: ‘Dialogues concerning two new sciences’, the role of poetry and poetic devices in the production of knowledge becomes further pronounced, as we are forced to understand the role they have in creating a path to discovery.

Calloused hand strokes coarse beard, eyes stalk the Vast

Labyrinth of Stars that twist and turn through night.

Metal eyeglass grasped firmly in right palm

parchment-covered desk, writing by moonlight.

As He observes the beauty of nature

A spring of science does not well, Rather

The depths of the sky overflow his thoughts,

Longing for someone, something to answer.

At this time poetry jumps into mind,

Hand lowers from beard and glass covers eye

Ink spills over pages, thoughts spill to life,

scrawled words filling parchment until blue sky.

Intuition is centred around the imagination. To hypothesise, which is essentially the first step of experimentation, is to develop an idea of possibility, to ask a question that has sprung purely from observation and imagination. Do other planets have moons? Is the moon even round? Is it flat? Is it made of cheese? These questions, however ridiculous they may at first seem, are the beginnings of all great scientific discoveries, and cannot be discredited from the poetic creativity that birthed them. Galileo, through his multitude of bodies and discourses, shows how this first step of all science is not constrained to the logical but rather dwells in the possibility of poetry.

Galileo continues his application of poetry in the representation of ‘hypothesis’ through the use of metaphor. Galileo’s goal of representing the natural world and furthermore the vast expanses of the universe on paper seemed rather unattainable to other scientists of the time; for how can words set down on paper express the natural world which is apparently quite independent of language?

Scientists, who sometimes lacked the artistry of poets (who managed this feat of expression rather beautifully), had hence discredited the idea of representing the world as such, leaving it to mathematics instead. Galileo, unlike the many scientists of his time, realised that in order to create a more diverse range of readers, and furthermore scholars, mathematics and mechanics could not be the only language in which the universe is expressed. Galileo came to understand that poetical allusions to ‘experience’ are far more effective than mathematical jargon when presenting abstract ideas about the natural world. Galileo's works are filled with such allusions, often highly colloquial to achieve this ‘public idea of science’.Constantly his readers are reminded of familiar ideas and experiences within his work. Experiences such as the odd rebound of a tennis ball when struck with a miss-angled racquet or the backspin of a ‘bocce ball’ are as much a part of Galilean science as a parabolic trajectory.

Therefore, the way to express the natural world on paper without reducing it to a ‘paper world’ was to keep the reader in the realms of experience. Poets are experts at this art. They allow ‘experience’ to flourish within a turn of phrase, or perfectly placed syllable, making lengthy prose green with envy at its beautiful abilityGalileo borrowed this technique and altered it for his own scientific methods, ascribing his own clarity and poetic artistry to enhance his work, and in turn became one of the most read scientists of his time, and at the forefront of a multitude of course-changing discoveries.

On the whole, the goal of modern science seems to have strayed quite far from Galileo's revolutionary ideals. Reverting back to mathematical jargon without the slightest tincture of poetic metaphor has seen the expanse of knowledge decline exponentially. Interludes, such as Galileo’s, between these two worlds; the interjection of poetic rhetoric into the sober realm of philosophy and science, were the backbone of the age of enlightenment. Taking these two worlds and building the solid bridge between allowed our ancestors to create new ideas, and express the inexpressible through the power of language. So again I ask why have we strayed so far from the intellectual power that poetry exudes?

----------------------------------------------------------

Truss becomes weak, now crippling with an age,

Of science and poetry torn apart,

Discovery wades on the surface, air

Not reaching the lungs nor beating at heart.

------------------------------------------------------------

Searching for a New Atlantis

Generations of scholars have seen Francis Bacon as primarily a statesman, philosopher and scientist; The pioneer of the inductive mode of reasoning and the ‘father’ of the ‘modern scientific method’. Though he is also the author of a few ‘literary’ texts, Bacon has been identified by most scholars as the one contemporary of Shakespeare who we can say with complete confidence could not have written the plays and poems traditionally attributed to the Bard of Avon. And yet to myself, and furthermore to Percy Shelley, Bacon possesses all the fundamental and morally essential powers of the poet.

Shelley pondered ideas upon a Fire-

lit night, the ignorance of human-kind

To dispose of Bacon’s work; ‘Intellect

Cannot be poetry', they would remind

us, but “Lord Bacon was a Poet!” he exclaimed,

As he stood from his desk, eyes bagged and tired.

“His language ...satisfies the sense” As “his

philosophy ...the intellect,” Inspired,

Passion lit within Shelley’s heart, a desire

To show this divide fashioned between worlds

Could be restored with the bridge, walked by many,

Bacon amongst. Here discovery burns.

Shelley reasoned Bacon’s poetic prowess within his body: ‘A Defence of Poetry’. For Shelley, it seemed that Francis Bacon's poetic qualities were more abundant within his works that were deemed ‘scientific’, rather than his aforementioned ‘literary’ texts. He states that Bacon’s ‘scientific’ works dwelt more readily in the realm of the human condition and Mankind’s place in the natural world. Shelley defines the role of the poet as those “who imagine and express this indestructible order” of nature and natural objects, he defines them not only as “the authors of language” but states that “they are the institutors of laws and the founders of civil society”.

Bacon’s ‘scientific’ texts also attribute this same assimilation of ideas with the link between man’s thoughts and actions, and the “rhythm or order” of nature. Bacon describes this fascination in his early theoretical works as “the correspondence between the architecture and the fabric of things natural and things civil”. He argues repeatedly within his bodies for a ‘scientific’ use of language, which he defines as the use of the figurative language of metaphor, simile and symbol. In Bacon’s last two texts on the Natural Sciences, he aims to accomplish what Shelley would argue was best done through imaginative literature and poetry. Sylva Sylvarum explores the workings of the agencies of the invisible world, whilst his body, New Atlantis, describes the construction of the codes, institutions and systems that define this ‘civil society’ as ascribed by Shelley.

Sylva Sylvarum or ‘woods of woods’ was Bacon’s final masterpiece, on which he worked, until the time of his passing. The natural history, which covers a multitude of scientific aspects including; biology, botany, the properties of metals and the working of the human mind and body, was compiled into 1000 paragraphs, organised into 10 ‘centuries’. Each century contains statements of ‘facts’ with a corresponding commentary that attempts to explain the observed phenomena. This collection of observations and suggested experimentation was to serve as part of the foundation of the pragmatic study of the properties of the natural world.

Found tucked between the back pages of Sylva Sylvarum, was the incomplete but radical New Atlantis. This utopian novel was published posthumously alongside the natural history and portrays a society that is ‘ruled’ by a state-funded scientific institute, where citizens perform precisely the type of experiments described in Bacon’s aforementioned work. Through the utilisation of his ascribed method, the members of this fictional community were able to achieve a mastery of the natural world, and exploit it for personal gain. This text is one of Bacon’s most studied pieces, However, the influence of Sylva Sylvarum and New Atlantis on the development of the scientific expanse is little read. Bacon through both of these texts demonstrates a clear recognition that the hope of ‘new’ science depended on its tactful use of ‘poetry’; skilful use of metaphor, rhetoric, analogy, and symbol. Furthermore, he shows how, through poetry, ‘reality’ is inserted into the enigmatic world of natural philosophy.

As his eyes roam the blank faces, blanched with

ignorance and bliss, his pupils dilate,

perpetuated in agony, for

The loss of time, mankind’s wasted debate.

‘To think where we could be now, if only

We had noticed earlier, the powers

Of poetry, of metaphor, and more.

Science would blossom, charming as flowers.’

Both of these texts were seen as the finality of Bacon’s life long mission, which he coined ‘The Great Instauration’ or renewal of scientific antiquity. This gargantuan project resulted from Bacon’s dissatisfaction with the highly logical and prosaic scientific methods of his time which allowed little room for poetic influence.

Sylva Sylvarum can be read as Bacon’s attempt to construct a scientific ‘grammar’. Developing the idea that if words correspond to ‘things’, then nature should also. Through his natural history, Bacon asks what would happen if we developed a ‘physical’ language, or rather if we managed to decipher the ‘physical’ language that is trenchant within our surroundings. Hence, the ‘Centuries’ in Sylva Sylvarum dictate Bacon explaining objects and ideologies, in terms of other objects and ideologies; evaluating matter in symbiosis with other forms of matter. Through this, Bacon uncovers hidden meanings and ‘truth’, a powerful example of this power that language obtains. Whilst Bacon struggles in parts to construct this figurative language, the piece on the most elemental level sees him consider how objects are affected in simple juxtaposition to each other. Or. How metaphorically they can be perceived. What we see throughout the body is Bacon establishing a ‘synecdoche for science; a way to represent the scientific method, as established by him and his predecessor Galileo, through the use of poetical rhetoric to represent ‘the real world’’. This way of understanding through metaphor and simile is defined by Bacon in the following passage from Sylva Sylvarum:

“The eye of the understanding is like the eye of the sense; for as you may see great objects through small crannies or levels, so you may see great axioms of nature through small and contemptible instances” (Sylva Sylvarum, 286)

Bacon manifests this ideology in New Atlantis, which as a whole serves as one extended metaphor. The text portrays a society which is a physical embodiment of the two discourses; science and poetry, in which both are indispensable and indistinguishable. Hence, it can be seen that Sylva Sylvarum is Bacon's attempt to develop this language, devoid of subjectivity and seeking to focus on physical ideologies. New Atlantis, however, is an extension of these ideals and represents the language of ‘poetry’ as crucial in the development of, and furthermore, the communication of knowledge, especially scientific discourses that seem almost ‘alien’ to the majority.

Hence, through Bacon’s research and prolific writings, science blossomed. His tactful use of poetic discipline led to the foundational aspects of today’s scientific method; becoming the founder of the inductive mode of reasoning, a method that relies purely on the poetic ability of imagination and observational expression. Despite Francis Bacon’s instauration we still stigmatise the intertwining of these two discourses and discredit the progress it allows and furthermore, demands.

So again I ask where would we be now if we didn’t?

--------------------------------------------------

The wood hitches breath, oxygen dancing

on grain. Slowly. It suffocates. Under

The growing tides of ignorance, little hope

of a new bridge to science and wonder.

----------------------------------------------------

Fashioning a Blazing World

When Margaret Cavendish became the first person to visit London’s Royal society; a hub of scientific research and debate, it caused something of a stir. Cavendish was, at the time, a notoriously ostentatious playwright, poet, and author. Whilst Cavendish was primarily a literary writer, her works in natural philosophy, whilst eclectic and uncustomary, offer a great insight into the intrinsic poetic nature of science, and the straying from this path that has recently emerged.

Enter the new world, a drab, dull building

enclosing great minds in lab coats. Whitened

sleeves hanging over the flasks of modern

reason. A woman stands, brave and frightened

Slowly pondering the blazing flames of

Ingenuity and invention that

start from sparks of science and combust in

the breath of poetry. ‘Burn Fat’

She whispers, huffing pale air over the

Flames, eyes glowing and yellowed at the sight.

Pen scrawls on paper, poetry pours from

The nib, yearning for science to ignite.

Margaret Cavendish long stood between these two discourses and was ostracised by many within the royal society due to her firm belief in the intrinsic connection between poetry and science.

From the beginning of her controversial career, Cavendish was interested in the use of ‘poetical’ writings when coincided with other forms. Philosophical fancies and Poems and Fancies, published in 1653, both explore Science through Poetry. The bodies explore scientific phenomena such as atoms and the nature of matter through poems. A later work of 1664; Philosophical Letters: or, Modest Reflections upon Some Opinions In Natural Philosophy, is composed of ‘letters’ to an imaginary persona, in which she argues around the leading scientific research of her day; from Descarte to Bacon, to Henry More.

However, it was not until the 1666 publication of A Blazing World that Cavendish’s formulated theory about the relationship between poetry and science was truly established. In the preface to what can be read as the first work of science fiction by a woman, Cavendish states:

“If you wonder, that I join a work of fancy to my serious philosophical contemplations; think not that it is out of a disparagement to philosophy... as if this noble study were but a fiction of the mind... this doth not prove, that the ground of philosophy is merely fiction, but the error proceeds from the different motions of reason, which cause different opinions in different parts, and in some are more irregular than in others."

In this passage, Cavendish contemplates the nature of the relationship between the two works, the discourse and the attached Utopian fiction. She states throughout, that fiction cannot be likened to falsity or error, and hence creates the idea of fiction as something more than a product of the imagination. She continues her development of this divide, or lack thereof, and states;

“...The end of reason, is truth; the end of fancy, is fiction; but mistake me not: when I distinguish fancy from reason, I mean not as if fancy were not made by the rational parts of matter; but by reason I understand a rational search and inquiry into the causes of natural effects; and by fancy a voluntary creation or production of the mind, both being effects, or rather actions of the rational parts of matter.”

Here Cavendish explores the Idea, that whilst ‘reason’ and ‘fancy’ can be read as different ‘methods’, they can be ‘bridged’ through the underlying ‘rationality’ that grounds them both. Hence, her theory begins to take hold; Not only are ‘Reason’ and ‘Fancy’ separate but equal, they are grounded in rationality. Cavendish through this shows that ‘Fiction’ or Poetry, similarly to Science, is an act of rationality.

In her early work, Cavendish stresses her lack of knowledge; stemming from the fact that she had acquired no formal training in Natural Philosophy, but rather gained her genuine understanding through autodidactism. This growth in knowledge through utilising the poetic form as a tool for discovery is evident within her works from 1660 onwards in which she reconsiders these boundaries between science and poetry stating; “I added this piece of fancy to my philosophical observations, and joined them as two worlds at the ends of their poles.”

Whilst the grounds to her own ‘instauration’ began with the publication of Observations and A Blazing World, the culmination of her knowledge of these discourses is fully pronounced within her 1668 publication The Grounds of Natural Philosophy. The Grounds of Natural Philosophy explores the intrinsic connection between Science and Poetry through the concept of the ‘Creature’. Cavendish defines the ‘Creature’, not as a living being as one might expect, but rather as a “Composed figure,” made through “The consent of associating parts.” In The Blazing World, she applies her metaphor to the concept of Salt. Salt she claims is a creature, not because it is alive and can move, but rather because it is a “composite body”, composed of “self-associating parts”; (Sodium and Chloride ions in the case of the generic table form). Cavendish utilises the idea of a ‘Creature’ to understand compositions and associations on the most fundamental level.

The creature; a body of arms, legs, Head,

separate yet conjoined like copper wheels

In machine. Together pointed cogs lock,

flowing like water and crafting ideals

on the cusp of poetry and Science.

On this cusp Cavendish delicately

treads, pointed heels balancing along this line.

Here Invention blossoms elegantly.

For Cavendish, the application of this ‘Creature Manifesto’ extends beyond figuratively describing complex molecules to answering the metaphysical question of how different pieces of knowledge intersect and how they can be used to strengthen each other.

On extending Cavendishes metaphor we can view Science and Poetry as these two ‘pieces of knowledge’, intersected to create the ‘creature’ of ‘discovery’. Whilst individually, they are able to ‘reproduce’ to a lesser extent and in a less efficient way, together the two discourses create a body, whom’s existence in itself almost demands the development of knowledge. Hence from her discourse we are able to gain a deeper insight into this connection between Poetry and Science and through the application of her ‘Creature Manifesto’ we are able to view how when used together these dichotomised principles allow for exponential growth in discovery.

Cavendish herself, through the use of her creature metaphor unknowingly predicted the beginnings of a now fundamental scientific principle; The Law of Conservation of Mass. Developed by Antoine Lavoisier, the Law was not developed until 1789, over 100 years after Cavendish’s statement; “Creatures must be produced by Creatures,”. Cavendish here, through the use of poetic rhetoric, predicted the idea that ‘matter cannot be created nor destroyed,’ and instead must be produced from something already existent. ’.Hence we are further able to see how through the use of poetry; figurative language and metaphor, scientific advancement and discovery becomes something that comes almost naturally. Therefore, why is it still seen as ‘unnatural’ to embrace the two disciplines as one?

-----------------------------------------------

A glimmer of hope perches on the edge

of reason. Poetry pulls tight at wood

Keeping science afloat. Discovery

swallowing oxygen from where it could.

------------------------------------------------

Fascinations of a Fever

Robert Boyle, based on his external image, would not appear to be an ideal candidate for a Scientific Revolution. His numerous ailments and fragile health rendered him physically disadvantaged, and the Civil War had disrupted his formal education. Furthermore, although he had a wide range of scholarly interests, his early passions were in that of the literary and theological realms. So how did he become the first Modern Chemist and one of the pioneers of modern science?

Bent and crooked, eyeglass hangs limp in hand

like a timepiece, keeping track of years that

pass without ingenuity. Back-and

Forth, until the brass pendulum falls flat.

The steady swing comes to a halter as

The Book of Nature beacons Boyle forward.

Intricate binding and age-worn pages;

Poetry and science scrawled in border.

Just as Francis Bacon had signed his era-defining ‘Great Instauration’ as a renewal of preceding scientific approaches- Boyle would write an epoch-defining discourse intended to revoke all prior ways of knowing. ‘About The Excellency and Grounds of the Mechanical Hypothesis’ (1674) presents its paradigm not only within itself but furthermore in direct contrast to the literary style of the Natural Philosophers that preceded him. He states that a new way of scientific thinking was a necessity, as the purely figurative thinking of his predecessors had tarnished their interpretations. He states;

“Even in some of the more ingenious and subtle of the Peripatetic discourses upon their superficial and narrow theories, methinks the authors have better played the part of painters than philosophers, and have only had the skill, like drawers of landscapes, to make men fancy they see castles and towns...when the whole piece is superficial, and made up of colours and art, and comprised within a frame.“

Here Boyle criticises the over-elaborate nature of some Aristotelian philosophers, criticising what he deemed an over-use of figurative techniques; the ‘flowering’ of words which seemed to conceal their roots. He describes this act as “superficial,” viewing it as a limiter of scientific truth and discovery; as it shrouds the true message, making it convoluted. It can hence be seen that Boyle defends the mechanistic theory of motion not only because he believes it to be true, but rather because he believes that the discourse is logical and comprehensive, not a ‘facade’ or a ‘painted image’. Boyle consequently observes that earlier works and theories can’t have been true, precisely due to the fact that in Boyle’s eyes; the realm of the ‘Painter’ is antithetical to that of the scientist. ‘The Natural Philosopher transcribes the Natural World faithfully, whilst the ‘Painter’ embellishes’.

Although this can be inferred as Boyle disregarding the value of poetic technique in scientific investigation, this is not the case. In fact, the entirety of the discourse can be read as a proclamation of a theory of scientific language, written in a self-conscious narrative. Boyle, throughout the text, distinctly categorises components, stating that Scientific explanations should not merely be ‘obvious and ready’ but more importantly, ‘fundamental and satisfactory’ and furthermore ‘comprehensive’. He states that science ought to question an original cause in order to explain function (the basis of the modern method), and in turn, achieve falsifiability. Science is therefore syntactically and rhetorically bound, rooted in its use of language. Boyle believes that ‘substance’ can only be proven through certain rhetoric; a grammar of Natural Philosophy, which he aims to found.

To write with reason is to write with choice.

Words cannot be sprung, in any order,

From anywhere. To uncover truth a

Substance is key, Science a Marauder

For the secrets of Poetry. Yet a

Metaphor has time and place, concise yet

Descriptive, not elaborate - for that’s

A waste. A clear analogy is met

With synchronised nodding and audible

Sighs; an understanding of the outside

World soon to magnify. Scientific

Grammar demanding the heavy fog subside.

Throughout his work, Boyle often seems more concerned with the tactical use of language rather than with experiment or deduction. A Free Enquiry into the Vulgarly Received Notion of Nature (1686) sees Boyle express his various anxieties regarding ambiguity and linguistic multiplicity. Throughout the discourse he detangles the multitude of figurative uses of the word ‘Nature’, ascribing a hierarchical order to these, and beckoning the scientific community to adopt alternate words for these secondary meanings which do not satisfy his sense. He pleads that if philosophers must use the word ‘nature’ in any sense but the way he nominates, they at least ‘add a word or two to declare in what clear and determinate sense they use it.’ By using precise and consistent language, he argues that one could approach truth and discovery in ultimate transparency: one-to-one correspondence between words and things would hence clarify rather than over-simplify.

While Boyle’s linguistic aspirations regarding literalism are not ‘alien’ to today's modern conceptualisation of science, these Essays were a part of the groundwork defining experimental science as a ‘set of steps’ grounded not only by a certain ‘method’ but also by certain rhetoric. Through Boyle’s prolific writings we are reminded that the linguistics of Natural Philosophy, and later Science, were not an inevitable conclusion, but rather had to be ‘invented’ and developed by people such as Boyle, who nitpicked at poetry, extracting the essence of the figurative world and inserting it directly into the veins of science. So naturally, does Boyle write with a stylistic injunction that few could imagine today’s science as ‘divorced’ from these qualities of literalism, transparency and falsifiability that Boyle fought to express within his works. Yet, through his affiliation with non-figurative language but furthermore, his stylistic injunction which was essentially grounded in this poetic rhetoric, we are forced to see the stylistic effort and rhetoric groundwork that was still felt to be necessary for the late seventeenth century.

And hence a new style was formed. Poetic

Prowess became sciences heart and core

And Boyle saw ingenuity flourish.

From his hand modern chemistry did soar

to the great heights of enlightenment and

Falling landed amongst the whitened cloud.

Here it has rested, grown comfortable

And weak, lazing with head held high and proud.

Yet little has been achieved since poets

Were disregarded. Their intellect and

Rhetoric ignored as futile compared

To the sharp-witted words that leave them stunned.

Yet Boyle saw the power to walk between

These worlds. To take a metaphor and run

Freely into discovery and growth;

Where science and poets are two-in-one.

Hence, through Boyles writings, we can come to understand how he didactically takes poetry and utilises it to enhance his longing for discovery. Utilising but not over-using the powers of metaphor, rhetoric and wit in order to become one of the most known scientists and founders of modern-day knowledge. His work, whilst influential, furthermore serves as a guide for how to use science as a practical extension of poetry rather than as a competitive discipline. Hence, through his tactful and selective use of figurative language, he was able to advance his scientific discoveries and become a part of the scientific revolution; the most rapid growth of ingenuity and emergence of new styles, which dramatically transformed the views of society and science as we now know it. So again I ask why do we now view poetry as an inferior discourse, or with an inability to expose absolute truth?

---------------------------------------------------------

The Bridge made out of words slowly crumbling

As the letters fade and the poetry

Drowns beneath the weight of societies

ignorantly composed dichotomy

----------------------------------------------------------

From Then to Now

Through exploring the great minds that came before us, the development of science through the powers of poetry is evident. The use of metaphor, rhetoric and wit has been utilised by scientists such as Galileo, Bacon, Cavendish, Boyle and many more throughout history, however, this intertwining is today little seen. The trenchant poetics of science during this time can be seen as the key to the Age of Enlightenment.

Through an understanding of how literary prowess contributed to this great expanse of knowledge, perhaps science can blossom, such as it did in the 17th century. However, the divide today remains strong and little choose to walk between, much less than before. Richard Dawkins is one of the few who have chosen to ‘unweave the rainbow’ and explore knowledge for all its counterparts.

The epigraph to this piece; “Science is the poetry of reality,” is the embodiment of all that has been discussed. Dawkins, similarly to the other scientists explored throughout this work, understands that nature cannot be limited to mathematics and mechanics. Nature is poetry, science is nature; poetry and science are two in the same.

Whilst I hope the reader is now aware of the intrinsic poetry that shrouds science, I cannot help but pity our current state. I urge for a reconnection between these discourses, which whilst long divided, still remain limbs of a whole. To think how the great expanse of science we see today could be enhanced with the slightest tincture of poetic rhetoric is baffling. Perhaps new forms of life could be discovered, ‘aliens’ may become less alien, or perhaps, we could answer one of science's greatest questions; what makes us human?

Till this acceptance is reached, great scientific minds are divided between two worlds; an urge to return to the creativity of the past, or the other, submergence into prose and logic.

Whilst logic has its place, and science is its home, let us view poetry as the door; a welcome mat, a pleasant invitation into the realms of imagination and discovery. Whilst this door is currently bolted shut, it can be opened again, with the strength of the great minds who dare to walk between two worlds.

----------------------------------------------------------------

As truss lay lifeless, drowning down below

And people wade, carless over submerged

Wood. Shoes soak through, damp to the core. Rebuild

The bridge and walk. Let poetry be forged.

In the flames of science, enlightenment

Is reached, the fuel is language; metaphor

And wit. Science burns knowledge on the tip

of the tongue, the mouth of the creator…

------------------------------------------------------------------

Refrences

Hall C. (2017) Crafting Early Modern Readers: Galileo and His Interlocutors. In: Marchitello H., Tribble E. (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of Early Modern Literature and Science. Palgrave Handbooks of Literature and Science. Palgrave Macmillan, London

Shelley, P. A Defence of Poetry, The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Indianapolis 1904 p.12 All quotations from Shelley are from this edition

The Palgrave Handbook of Early Modern Literature and Science. Marchitello, H. (Ed), Tribble, E. (Ed) (2017)

“The Grounds of Literature and Science: Margaret Cavendish’s Creature Manifesto.” In Palgrave Handbook of Early Modern Literature, Science, and Culture. Ed. Evelyn Tribble and Howard Marchitello. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017. 3–26.

The Grounds of Literature and Science: Margaret Cavendish’s Creature Manifesto.” In Palgrave Handbook of Early Modern Literature, Science, and Culture. Ed. Evelyn Tribble and Howard Marchitello. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017

Spiller, Elizabeth. 2004. Science, reading, and Renaissance literature: The art of making knowledge, 1580–1670. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

The Poetics of Scientific Investigation in Seventeenth-Century England. Claire Preston. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Keats, J., 1988. John Keats Selected Poetry. London: The Penguin Poetry Society.

Galileo Galilei, The Assayer, as translated by Stillman Drake (1957), Discoveries and Opinions of Galileo

Royal Society of Chemistry. (n.d.). Accredited Degree Programmes. [online] Available at: https://www.rsc.org/images/Historical%20Profile%20-%20Doubts%20Of%20%20Paradoxes_tcm18-200182.pdf.

‌DiMeo, Michelle. (2017). Communicating Medical Recipes: Robert Boyle’s Genre and Rhetorical Strategies for Print. 10.1057/978-1-137-46361-6_10.

Preston, Claire. (2017). Robert Boyle’s ‘Accidents of an Ague’ and Its Precursors. 10.1057/978-1-137-46361-6_15.

O’Hare, P.A.G (2014) ‘Robert Boyle: Pioneer of Experimental Chemistry’ Available at: https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1149&context=bai

Wilkins, Emma (2014) Margaret Cavendish and the Royal SocietyNotes Rec.68245–260 http://doi.org/10.1098/rsnr.2014.0015

Clody, Michael C. "Deciphering the Language of Nature: Cryptography, Secrecy, and Alterity in Francis Bacon." Configurations, vol. 19 no. 1, 2011, p. 117-142. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/con.2011.0000.

Wilson, F. (2002) ‘Such words in His things: the poetry in Bacon’s new science’, Language and Literature, 11(3), pp. 195–215. doi: 10.1177/096394700201100301.

Nola Taylor Redd 2017, Galileo Galilei: Biography, Inventions & Other Facts, Space.com, Space, <https://www.space.com/15589-galileo-galilei.html>.

‌Galileo - Galileo’s Copernicanism | Britannica 2020, Encyclopædia Britannica,<https://www.britannica.com/biography/Galileo-Galilei/Galileos-Copernicanism#ref576755>

The Galileo Project | Science | On Motion 2020, Rice.edu, viewed 20 August 2020, <http://galileo.rice.edu/sci/theories/on_motion.html>.

Bolander, Alisa Curtis, "Margaret Cavendish and Scientific Discourse in Seventeenth-Century England" (2004). All Theses and Dissertations. 29. https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/etd/29

‌Lewis, E 2001, ‘The Legacy of Margaret Cavendish’, Perspectives on Science, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 341–365.‌

Mann, R.(2019). Women’s Writing and the Poetics of Scientific Knowledge, 1620-1740. (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/etd/5148

Margaret Cavendish, Duchess of Newcastle, The Blazing World and Other Writings, ed. Kate Lilley (London: Penguin Books,1994)176.

Cavendish, Blazing World 123-124

Bacon, Francis. The Works of Francis Bacon. Ed. James Spedding, Robert Leslie Ellis, and Douglas Heath. 14 vols. New York,1862-74

A Union of Reason and Fancy: Margaret Cavendish’s Aesthetic for the New Science 2008, <https://english.biu.ac.il/files/english/shared/proposal_marilyn_shnider.pdf>.

Bacon, Francis, and G W. Kitchin. The Advancement of Learning. London: Dent, 1973. Print.

Dawkins, Richard. Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion, and the Appetite for Wonder. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1998. Print.

Bacon, Francis. New Atlantis. Kila, MT: Kessinger, 1992. Print.

Bacon, Francis, and William Rawley. Sylva Sylvarum: Or, a Natural History, in Ten Centuries. Whereunto Is Newly Added the History Natural and Experimental of Life and Death, or of the Prolongation of Life. London: Printed by J.R. for William Lee, and are to be sold by the Booksellers of London, 1670. Print.