Collapsing Roles

I agree with Adam that the notes read like quick explanations of phenomena. However, I would add that as the notes put forth information on the human investigators of these plants, they also serve to collapse the roles of scientist and poet/writer. Darwin refers to himself as both poet and scientist in the text and this breakdown is also applied to people that he chooses to cite. For example, on page 11 Darwin begins: “an Italian writer in a discourse on the irritability of flowers asserts.” From this first part of the note, I assumed that “writer” referred to a poet, or at least a critic, who had referenced or even composed a work dedicated to the Chondrilla flower.

This obviously is not the case as Darwin goes on to describe “experiments” that includes touching and peeling back the florets so as to provoke a reaction and view the filaments underneath. This “writer” does not stop with the Chondrilla, but uses his observations as foundations for hypotheses about and further experimentation on other plants: Centaurea Calcitrapoides, artichokes, and globe-thistles. This observation-based experimentation is not unlike Darwin’s own processes of scientific discovery for his own work. And for Darwin, the role (or at least the designation) of poet/writer and scientist seem interchangeable. However, does using the designation of poet/writer and scientist interchangeably, thereby intentionally collapsing both of these roles, as Darwin seems to do, only serve to empty both out of meaning?