The CBB :: View topic - Jo and evolutionary theory

through

#1: Jo and evolutionary theory Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:01 pm
—
This is an exchange between Lavender Leigh and Joey, and the first time we see Stephen 'Green' Maynard as a small baby in 'Lavender':

“Oh, how tightly he grips!” cried Lavender, who had slipped a finger into one little fist.
“All babies do that. I say it's a remnant of the monkey ancestry with which we are supposed to be saddled. What d'you think of him, Lavender?”

What I want to know is - what is the status of that 'supposed to be saddled with'? Is Joey, wife of a medic, simply cracking a wry science joke? Is she a proto-creationist? Is the fact that she's only just scrubbed off the last of the dye that turned her entire head emerald green symbolic of the emergence of all life forms from primeval algae? What would Catholic doctrine of the 1940s have taught in relation to the literal truth of Genesis? I have a vague sense that either she or Miss Annersley chats in Problem about Adam and Eve (to Rosamund Lilley, who is worrying about her humble origins) as though they were actual people, but I may be mixing that up with references to Mary and Joseph also being humble people.

PS I couldn't resist that subject line, which may be one of the more unlikely to grace the CBB.

ETA: Just to add what I said somewhere down the thread - I have no desire to stir up a debate on people's personal opinions on evolution here! It was uncontroversial enough in the 1940s for EBD to have her favourite character make a joky reference to 'monkey ancestry' in a children's book. Presumably it's a familiar enough reference for her to assume her young readers would know roughly what she meant. But I can't tell from the casualness of what Joey says - especially the 'being saddled with' phrase - whether the casualness indicates her acceptance of a commonly-accepted fact of her day, or something along the lines of 'these lunatic scientists with their odd notions - what will they tell us next?'

Last edited by Sunglass on Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:09 pm; edited 1 time in total

#2: Author: Katya, Location: Lost in translation

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:16 pm
—
Not really qualified to enter into the details here, and am quite certain that I'd end up offending someone whatever I said, but had to pop on to say I love the subject line! Laughing

#3: Author: Travellers Joy, Location: Middle of Nowhere

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:26 pm
—
I'm not Catholic, so can't comment on attitudes prevalent at the time of EBD writing; but my [protestant] church in the 70s was very anti-evolution. These days I'm a little more flexible ... (oh, if only that were literally true!! Shocked

)

(Also loved the subject line!! Laughing

)

#4: Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 1:39 pm
—

Katya wrote:

Not really qualified to enter into the details here, and am quite certain that I'd end up offending someone whatever I said, but had to pop on to say I love the subject line! Laughing

Gosh, I have no scientific qualifications or indeed anything more than an entirely casual interest in what EBD might have meant us to understand Joey to have meant by this off the cuff remark, and no interest whatsoever in stirring up a debate on contemporary dinosaur museum displays, or what have you! If someone knew what might have been the default position for a middle-/upper-middle-class English woman, without more than a school science education, but married to a medic AND a Catholic convert in the 40s, I'd be quite interested, though. Seems to me a historical point of interest someone might have some insight into. I am a Catholic myself, but don't ever remember addressing such things with the nuns.

Other than that, feel free to debate the symbolism of Joey and the green dye and algal soup...

Also, the real reason I posted this, as you guessed, is that I'm being unreasonably amused by getting comment notifications marked 'Jo and Evolutionary Theory' into my in-box. I plan another at some point which will be called 'Jo and the Communist Manifesto'.

#5: Author: Katya, Location: Lost in translation

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:18 pm
—

Sunglass wrote:

Also, the real reason I posted this, as you guessed, is that I'm being unreasonably amused by getting comment notifications marked 'Jo and Evolutionary Theory' into my in-box. I plan another at some point which will be called 'Jo and the Communist Manifesto'.

Now that one I will almost definitely join in - I'd probably still offend people, but I'd feel on much safer ground doing it! Wink

Am very tickled by the idea of Joey covered in primaeval soup. She could be some kind of fertility goddess, I suppose, holding a 'mother-of-thousands' plant in one hand...

*wonders if this is in any way relevant* Rolling Eyes

#6: Author: patmac, Location: Yorkshire England

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 2:55 pm
—

Katya wrote:

Am very tickled by the idea of Joey covered in primaeval soup. She could be some kind of fertility goddess, I suppose, holding a 'mother-of-thousands' plant in one hand...

The original lime green woman?

I'm another one chuckling at the subject line Razz

As I'm at home today, I couldn't resist googling this subject and it appears that the Roman Catholic Church has been less than strident in condemning evolution, even in the late 19th C. If any one wants to know more, there are over 45,000 hits on the subject. We were taught it in a Convent School in the 50's.

As for Joey's era :

" . . . Catholic schools, where evolution has been taught since the 1950s. Indeed, reading the entire Bible literally has not been a dominant practice among Catholics through much of the 20th century. Asked about the Pope's statement, Father Peter Stravinskas, editor of the 1991 Catholic Encyclopedia, said, "It's essentially what Augustine was writing. He tells us that we should not interpret Genesis literally, and that it is poetic and theological language."
Source here

#7: Author: Saffronya, Location: Oxford, England but hail from Glasgow, Scotland

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:13 pm
—
From what I remember from my 'Geography of Knowledge' course at University, where we used Darwinism as a case study, the acceptance of evolution hasn't been so much based on class/education, but on culture/location/current events. I think an example was used of how it was much more readily accepted in Belfast than southern USA, however I may have misremembered that.

#8: Author: Fi, Location: Somerset

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:36 pm
—
I am not a catholic (brought up as a baptist) and I always had trouble equating the ideas of creation taught at church with the ideas of evolution taught at school. One of my RE teachers made a very interesting point in order to help me with this.

My teacher said, although the bible says the world was created in 7 days, we have no idea how long one of God's days is. Therefore it could be said that the process of evolution could have occured over several million years but the principle of the creation of different creatures over time (7 days) is still sound. It is just our ideas on the duration of a day that is wrong.

I hope this makes sense. I think I have waffled a bit.

#9: Re: Jo and evolutionary theory Author: Catherine, Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 3:36 pm
—

Sunglass wrote:

I have a vague sense that either she or Miss Annersley chats in Problem about Adam and Eve (to Rosamund Lilley, who is worrying about her humble origins) as though they were actual people, but I may be mixing that up with references to Mary and Joseph also being humble people.

It was Joey who was talking to Rosamund ... and I'm not Catholic but I've always believed that Adam and Eve were real people. Confused

#10: Author: Saffronya, Location: Oxford, England but hail from Glasgow, Scotland

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 4:49 pm
—
Hmm, I've always thought of the Adam and Eve thing as allegorical, if thats the right word. Representing humanity in general.

However, maybe CBB isn't the right place to get into the debate Embarassed

. People have their own beliefs and I don't want to offend anyone. Hope I haven't already Confused

#11: Author: Kate, Location: Ireland

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 5:01 pm
—
I've had lectures in Catholic theology as part of my teaching course (don't ask... this is Ireland) and they very definitely stated that in the eyes of the Church the vast majority of the Genesis and much of the Old Testament is allegorical and should be regarded as metaphors that tell us about the nature of God, rather than literal truth. I don't know how things would have been in Joey's time, but nowadays the Church is pro-evolution - as the belief is that evolution and the story of God's creation are not mutually exclusive; i.e. that God caused evolution to occur.

^ Not getting into a debate either, but this is "mainline Roman Catholic thought" according to my lecturers who are priests and theologians. I think it's one of the things that individual Catholics can disagree with - i.e. it's not an article of faith.

#12: Author: CBW, Location: Kent

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:00 pm
—
I'd been thinking about this and, as far as I can remember from my convent school days, these stories were considered allegorical.

I don't really remember them being that big on bible studying generally. I remember more about studying Saints lives, though that might be my memory playing tricks on me

In as much as I'd given the idea any thought at all I'd got the impression that the taking Genesis as literal truth idea came from the US. I certainly can't remember hearing that point of view until relatively recently though, as I said before, that might just be selective amnesia

#13: Author: Fleury, Location: Epsom

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:22 pm
—
i believe in evolution and am no more nutty than the next person but i also believe that Adam and Eve were real, probably not exactly as the Bible describes them, maybe they were monkeys, i don't really know.

there was a girl at my secondary school (only about 8 years ago) who refused to believe that dinosaurs had ever existed, not because she was religious but beacuase she thought it was a hoax perpetrated by the victorians.... then again she refused to believe that 'eskimos' existed (this was before we knew we are supposed to called them inuits Smile

)

#14: Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:28 pm
—
My friend did some Theology at Uni and one of the things she learned was that that word we see as ‘day’ meant something closer to ‘period’ in the original (Hebrew? Aramaic?) Hence ‘seven days’ might not mean what we think it does. It all makes sense when you consider that the Bible has been translated through Greek and Latin (I think that’s right) that meanings can get subtly changed. You can see that in the fact that there are lots of versions.
As for the ‘saddled with’ I believe that at the time of Darwin and co people had trouble reconciling themselves to the idea we were ‘descended from apes’ (or at least have a common ancestor) but I’d be interested to know if anything lay behind Joey’s comment or if it was just an off-the-cuff remark.

#15: Re: Jo and evolutionary theory Author: Lisa, Location: South Coast of England

Posted: Tue Feb 19, 2008 8:01 pm
—

Sunglass wrote:

Is the fact that she's only just scrubbed off the last of the dye that turned her entire head emerald green symbolic of the emergence of all life forms from primeval algae?

*mops eyes* Just wonderful! Laughing

#16: Author: Kathy_S, Location: midwestern US

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:43 am
—
I agree that, in general, Catholicism has no problem accepting evolution, whether defined as changes in gene frequencies over time (microevolution), or as an accumulation of heritable changes that can lead to formation of new species (macroevolution). It's not that Genesis isn't read -- it's a book that pops up frequently in the lectionary -- but, as others have said, the creation story is to some extent taken allegorically, so that it is usual to describe evolution as a means by which God creates. References to "A day in the house of the Lord is as a thousand elsewhere" are indeed common. Joey would have used the Douay translation, in which Genesis 2: 4-5 reads.

Quote:

These are the generations of the heaven and the earth, when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the heaven and the earth: And every plant of the field before it sprung up in the earth, and every herb of the ground before it grew: for the Lord God had not rained upon the earth; and there was not a man to till the earth.

This idea that creation and the fruition of that creation may be separated by significant time remains popular.

In the 50s (and possibly now), the most important line not to cross would have been anything interpreted as advocating "modernism," a class of heresy that seems to have been a catch-all for a whole range of ideas. One thing to remember is that the Adam & Eve story has provided a lot of the imagery that underpins broad areas of Catholic doctrine, e.g. original sin and Christ as redeemer. So, there is sort of a slippery slope. If you take things as far as "Evolution is real; therefore Adam and Eve never existed; ergo Adam's fall never happened, so who needs redemption anyhow?" there's a problem. However, theologies that reconcile the biblical sources, Catholic tradition, and modern understanding of the origins of human life continue to develop.

All in all, scientists would have probably jumped on Joey more enthusiastically than theologians. Suggesting that humans derive from monkeys, rather than that humans and monkeys share common ancestors, has been a red flag for quite some time. (Go, Katherine, for noticing. Smile

)

#17: Author: Fiona Mc, Location: Bendigo, Australia

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 1:26 pm
—
My brother in law loves watching the history channel and get this for a quirky fact of what has just recently been discovered; there was a tenth planent that colapsed/exploded millions of years ago and it had been called E-den. Spooky as there was a Garden of Eden for all the biblical afficondo's. I have absolutely no idea how accurate it, but thought it apt for this thread!

#18: Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:15 pm
—

Kathy_S wrote:

I agree that, in general, Catholicism has no problem accepting evolution, whether defined as changes in gene frequencies over time (microevolution), or as an accumulation of heritable changes that can lead to formation of new species (macroevolution).
...
In the 50s (and possibly now), the most important line not to cross would have been anything interpreted as advocating "modernism," ... One thing to remember is that the Adam & Eve story has provided a lot of the imagery that underpins broad areas of Catholic doctrine, e.g. original sin and Christ as redeemer. So, there is sort of a slippery slope. If you take things as far as "Evolution is real; therefore Adam and Eve never existed; ergo Adam's fall never happened, so who needs redemption anyhow?" there's a problem. ...

All in all, scientists would have probably jumped on Joey more enthusiastically than theologians. Suggesting that humans derive from monkeys, rather than that humans and monkeys share common ancestors, has been a red flag for quite some time. (Go, Katherine, for noticing. Smile

)

I'm quite enjoying the idea of Joey being well and truly jumped on by scientists insisting she gets her facts straight. Given that the San appears to diversify at times from TB to offering general surgery, a maternity unit and specialism in whatever form of rheumatism Phoebe Wychcote has, maybe it could do an evolutionary science conference.

I agree that EBD would seem likely to have toed the 'anti-modernism' line, though I suppose she's also unusually ecumenical for her day, also - though it would be unfair of me to suggest that if Joey couldn't handle Len's ponytail, she'd be unlikely to buy modernist heresy wholesale.

More seriously - to do with your point about original sin - it occurs to me that EBD does draw jokily and casually on the notion of original sin and just plain sin a lot, when she's talking about unruly Middles or troublesome small fry - it's just a label she uses as shorthand for CS girls behaving badly, but it's interesting that she expresses it as 'sin'. Also, girls are continually shown as in need of redemption (IN CS rather than theological terms, but the two are sometimes related. as when Ted/Naomi/Ruey start to pray/enjoy sermons etc. ) She's very invested in sin and redemption as plot points, and they seem very much part of her moral outlook - one feels she'd miss them if Vatican II, say, had sent them the way of limbo while she was still writing. And don't get me started on Margot's devil, which seems to be a child's logical deduction from the notion of the Guardian Angel. If you have a GA, why not a personal devil also?

#19: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 9:49 pm
—
The San does indeed seem to be more of a general hospital than a TB sanatorium ... it's particularly impressive the way that a group of TB specialists manage to cure Naomi Elton's back problems when the orthopaedic specialists she'd seen previously couldn't.

I always had the impression that most present-day "creationists"/people who didn't believe in evolution were actually Protestant rather than Catholic, but I'm not into religion so I may well be totally wrong.

Joey does make random comments on unexpected subjects from time to time, like when she talks to Mike about suicide Shocked

. I don't know why EBD threw comments like that and the evolution one in in Confused

#20: Author: Tor, Location: London

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:00 pm
—
just wondering when lavender was written/published.. and wondering if it could possibly have coincided with an anniversary of the publication of On the Origin of Species or Voyage of the Beagle, and so might have been in the news a lot... hence was playing on EBDs mind whilst writing.

I often get the impression that we get a certain amount of stream of consciousness-style access to EBDs mind by the idle, non-plot development conversations that occur... what ever was kind of in her brain at the time...

and some of that stuff is often surprising!!!

#21: Author: Joan the Dwarf, Location: Er, where am I?

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:16 am
—

Alison H wrote:

I always had the impression that most present-day "creationists"/people who didn't believe in evolution were actually Protestant rather than Catholic, but I'm not into religion so I may well be totally wrong.

It's really nice to hear this from someone who isn't into religion! One of the things that really annoys me about the rich US protestant creationists is that they've started making people over here think Christian = Creationist Rolling Eyes

I do sometimes get funny looks when I point out that the vast majority of Christians who've ever lived, and who are alive today, would look at Creationists with bemusement at best and hostility at worst!

I see Joey's remarks more as the sort of thing an educated lay-person (er, lay as in not a scientist there) would say referring to a scientific theory that was beginning to impinge itself on popular culture. Maybe an analogue today might be "perhaps the keys got dropped into one of those black holes there supposedly are" - ie not denying the existence of black holes, but adding the "supposedly" to show that one is not an expert.

My 2 schillings Very Happy

#22: Author: Travellers Joy, Location: Middle of Nowhere

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:22 am
—

Alison H wrote:

Joey does make random comments on unexpected subjects from time to time, like when she talks to Mike about suicide Shocked

. I don't know why EBD threw comments like that and the evolution one in in Confused

As a writer I can vouch for the fact that sometimes the characters do or say what they want to - sometimes taking the story in a totally different direction from the one I'd envisaged. Shocked

And I don't always agree with them! Rolling Eyes

#23: Author: Mia, Location: London

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:38 am
—

Joan the Dwarf wrote:

I see Joey's remarks more as the sort of thing an educated lay-person (er, lay as in not a scientist there) would say referring to a scientific theory that was beginning to impinge itself on popular culture. Maybe an analogue today might be "perhaps the keys got dropped into one of those black holes there supposedly are" - ie not denying the existence of black holes, but adding the "supposedly" to show that one is not an expert.

IAWTC.

#24: Author: Squirrel, Location: St-Andrews or Dunfermline

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:52 am
—

Mia wrote:

IAWTC.

Um... I'm afraid I've not come across that one before Mia. What on earth do you mean?

#25: Author: Lolly, Location: Back in London

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:46 am
—
I've been puzzling over that one too...is it...I agree with that completely??

A new game!

#26: Author: Carys, Location: London

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:54 am
—
Is it "I agree with that completely" maybe?

#27: Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 11:55 am
—

Joan the Dwarf wrote:

I see Joey's remarks more as the sort of thing an educated lay-person (er, lay as in not a scientist there)

Glad you specificied 'lay person' as non-scientist - because clearly Joey is not a 'lay-person' in religious terms, being High Priestess of the CS! Why is it absolutely necessary for her to follow the CS about everywhere, and preferably live within spitting distance? Why is she the first thing every new girl is told about (after 'We're trilingual!' and 'no talking in the corridors') and the first person every new girl is brought to meet in the crucial ceremony of New Girls' Tea? Why is she referred to as the Spirit of the School? Joey = Sacred to School.

I believe IAWTC means 'I agree with this comment'. Although I suppose it could mean I Am Washing The Cabbage.

#28: Author: Mia, Location: London

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:46 pm
—
Sorry! I thought it was in the list of common internet acronyms. I Agree With This/That Comment.

My cabbages are already clean....

Sunglass wrote:

Why is it absolutely necessary for her to follow the CS about everywhere, and preferably live within spitting distance? Why is she the first thing every new girl is told about (after 'We're trilingual!' and 'no talking in the corridors') and the first person every new girl is brought to meet in the crucial ceremony of New Girls' Tea? Why is she referred to as the Spirit of the School? Joey = Sacred to School.

I imagine with one purpose only: to provide consistency to the (child) reader.

#29: Author: Katherine, Location: London, UK

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 12:53 pm
—

Mia wrote:

I imagine with one purpose only: to provide consistency to the (child) reader.

And also because EBD couldn't do without her.

#30: Author: Mia, Location: London

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:01 pm
—
Actually I've just had a Thort. I know some people are not over-fond of our Joey, but if you read the Newsletters, she (and OOAO) really are very popular. Mary-Lou's return in Challenge is a direct response to reader's requests. So possibly EBD didn't want to answer sackloads of woe-mail from Joey-fans at the time?

A side note: Some unkind soul has asked if I receive commission from the Newsletters, but I don't. I just have a fetish.

#31: Author: Lesley, Location: Allhallows, Kent

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:29 pm
—
Within the story the reason Joey is close to the School is because of the San and Jack Maynard having to be close to it. It made sense at Plas Howells and even in Switzerland, it made absolutely no sense when the School was on the Island (any idea how Jack Maynard was supposed to get to and from work at the San when they moved to be close to the School?) - which then brings us on to...

The second reason why - because she gave EBD the link outside the School and allowed EBD to continue writing about her favourite character. She did attempt to move Joey away from the School when she sent her off to Canada for a year - but she hardly disappeared, did she? Not only did she produce twins but she was back again at the end of Shocks and although not physically there for Bride and Changes she was hardly gone and forgotten.

I wonder if that was EBD's attempt to move Joey away? But so many girls complained that she brought her back for the Swiss ones? I know that, as a child, I accepted and loved Joey - as we are all supposed to - it's only as an adult that I realised that actually she was a very annoying character in her later years.

#32: Author: Sunglass, Location: Usually London

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:18 pm
—
In fact, the CS evolved so as not to be able to do without Joey... Smile

Oh, I know there are all kinds of reader-related reasons for EBD to have gone to any lengths to keep Joey in the series, even when it involves frankly unlikely house moves and such. (Did it not occur to Joey or Jack to try to rent a house somewhere within the vicinity of the San when Plas Gwyn's foundations go funny, rather than pack up and move across the country to Cartref, which we're specifically told several times is too small and lacking in storage, but which, of course, brings Jo back into the vicinity of the School?)

I tend to think of EBD and Joey in terms of Conan Doyle and Sherlock Holmes - even after he decided to kill him off so he could write other things, his readers protested so much he had to resurrect him. Or LM Montgomery, who regarded Anne Shirley in something of the same light - she writes somewhere about being 'dragged at the cartwheels of the detestable Anne' - and much preferred her less popular other creation Emily Byrd Starr...

#33: Author: Catherine, Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:22 pm
—
As Travellers Joy commented, characters can take on a life of their own and sometimes you have no choice but to go with it, so I imagine that EBD would have found it very hard to try to write Joey out of the series or distance her from the School. Joey's a strong character, who I daresay, would keep popping up no matter how much EBD tried to write her out - and the same applies to Mary-Lou. Equally, I imagine that she wouldn't have been able to write scenes to show, say someone else helping a new girl, because they simply wouldn't have worked. I doubt the series would be the series we know and love if she had succeeded in writing them out.

#34: Author: Alison H, Location: Manchester

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:59 pm
—
But why did she have to write Madge and Robin out Sad

#35: Author: Catherine, Location: Newcastle upon Tyne

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:17 pm
—
No idea ... you'd have to ask her that - if she wasn't dead!! Laughing

#36: Author: Squirrel, Location: St-Andrews or Dunfermline

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:40 pm
—
My guess is that she found it difficult to keep in more than a few non-school adults through the whole series, and as Joey refused to go, one way or another, the others became more important and were then scuttled to a place where they wouldn't need to interfere much...

#37: Author: Róisín, Location: Ireland

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:41 pm
—
From Daddy-Long-Legs, written in 1912...

(on learning new things at college)

Quote:

I didn't know that people used to be monkeys and that the Garden of Eden was a beautiful myth...

(on being ignored by people of higher social status)

Quote:

Her mother was a Rutherford. The family came over in the ark, and were connected by marriage with Henry the Eighth. On her fahter's side they date back further than Adam. On the topmost branches of the family tree there's a superior breed of monkeys, with very fine silky hair and extra long tails.

#38: Author: macyrose, Location: Great White North (Canada)

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:46 pm
—
Alison H wrote:

Quote:

But why did she have to write Madge and Robin out ?

I seem to remember reading in EBD's biography that she had intense friendships and would be really keen on someone for awhile but would then drop them when she was no longer interested. Perhaps that was also how she was with her characters. She was really interested in Madge at the beginning but once her interest shifted to Jo (and stayed there for the rest of the series) Madge and Robin were sidelined.

The CBB -> Anything Else

output generated using printer-friendly topic mod. All times are GMT + 1 Hour

Page 1 of 1