Abstract

Solitary Travelers takes its place alongside other revisionary works that assess the contribution of women writers to nineteenth‐century fields of study and disciplines of learning identified as male and associated with science. Lila Harper foregrounds the role of travel narratives in her analysis, arguing that they facilitated access to a scientific vocation for women writers and, indeed, that some women gravitated to travel writing “in a common quest for the professional recognition which seemed to be promised within a territory marked ‘natural philosophy,’ ‘natural history,’ and, finally, ‘science’” . In an interesting and well‐written introduction to her subject, Harper demonstrates her sensitivity to basic historical issues of what constituted “science” in nineteenth‐century England and makes appropriate distinctions not just between the amateur and the professional but also between science as practice, hobby, vocation, and mode of observation.Harper is interested specifically in natural history travel narratives, her introduction tells us, and she chooses for her subjects Mary Wollstonecraft, Harriet Martineau, Isabella Bird Bishop, and Mary Kingsley. In separate chapters studying each of these key figures, she uses biographical data to undergird her analyses of the rhetorical strategies that each woman invoked in her travel writing. Her thorough examination of Wollstonecraft's Short Residence in Sweden adds much‐needed dimension to a writer known mainly for her Vindication of the Rights of Man and Vindication of the Rights of Woman . Locating within Wollstonecraft's text evidence of her interest in the Scandanavian landscape and wilderness, Harper stresses her close observation of the natural world and her apparent commitment to natural history. The subsequent attention in this chapter to Wollstonecraft's relationship with Gilbert Imiay, however necessary it may be to understanding her motivations for travel and need for authority, short‐circuits the analysis of Wollstonecraft's contributions to natural history at the turn of the century.Harper's chapter on Harriet Martineau examines her “ability to shape travel writing into an investigative tool for scientific observation while substantiating her influence on others and her intellectual stature” and to this end is geared also to basic issues of rhetorical strategy and authoritative voice, particularly as they surface in Society in America , Retrospect of Western Travel , and Eastern Life, Present and Past . Martineau is arguably the most written about of the women studied in Solitary Travelers, and consequently much of the material and perspective that Harper presents will be familiar to her readers.The chapter on Isabella Bird Bishop takes note of a crucial shift in the audience of this famous traveler, who began by writing for ladies' magazines but eventually addressed an audience of geographers, explorers, and members of colonial government. Harper sees Isabella Bird Bishop and Mary Kingsley, her final subject, as driven by the ambition to gain access into “the scientific community” , but her analysis is nevertheless far more focused on the content of their respective travel books than on any more tangible activity linked to professionalized science. Harper finds in Kingsley's prose, as in that of her other subjects, evidence of her manipulation of “a feminine discourse” and a corollary concern with “masculine scientific discourse” ; more provocative to my mind is her claim that Kingsley adopted the role of “martyr … both for scientific endeavors and for the future of developing colonial Africa” .This book's chief virtue is its readability. With each of her subjects, Harper provides a comprehensive and yet relatively succinct overview of the ways they used travel to undertake work construed, however loosely, as “science.” Although she claims that Kingsley's travel writing represents the culmination of a tradition of “women's naturalist travel writing,” I found myself somewhat suspicious of the term and yearning for more nuanced investigations of generalized categories such as “masculine scientific discourse.” Although each of the women Harper studies undertook travel writing and incorporated descriptions of the natural environments she encountered into her accounts, does it necessarily follow that they were working within, even helping to construct, a tradition of “naturalist travel writing”? Kingsley would probably have been the only one of these four to identify herself as a naturalist. The introduction to Solitary Travelers seems to promise a study of women using travel to work in natural history, but the book itself looks far more broadly at the rhetoric of authority and the appeal of “science” to these women