Maria Mitchell, revisited
New book takes different look at first lady of science
BY MARY LANCASTER INDEPENDENT WRITER
It took author and college instructor Renee Bergland eight years to research and write her

ROB BENCHLEY/The Independent Clockwise from above, Maria Mitchell Association Curator Jascin Leonardo Finger praises a new book on Mitchell that focuses on her as an educator. Mitchell began her career as a 19th-century astronomer. She used the pictured telescope, during her years on Nantucket.

latest book, "Maria Mitchell

and the Sexing of Science," but her diligence and enthusiasm resulted in more than a study of Mitchell herself.

The book breaks new ground, profiling Mitchell as an educator and her success in astronomy at a time when women were encouraged to explore the sciences prior to a late-19th century cultural shift when science became "men's work."

The release of the book in April accidentally but appropriately coincides with events sponsored by the Maria Mitchell Association this month and again in June and August when Bergland hopes to visit Nantucket to discuss her project.

Throughout the book, Bergland examines Mitchell's rise from 1847, when she witnessed the flash of a comet from the roof of the Pacific Bank building where her family lived; to becoming the "computer of Venus" employed by the Nautical Almanac to calculate by math the orbit of that planet; to her hiring as the first professor of astronomy at Vassar College for women; and to the close of the 1800s when women's roles in the sciences were discouraged and Mitchell lamented that she might be the last of the nation's female scientists.

Bergland notes that while the word "scientist" had no masculine association at the start of the 19th century, by 1873 a male Harvard Medical School faculty member posited that women were physiologically unable to study science and that those who pursued the subject with vigor risked becoming "thoroughly masculine in nature or hermaphroditic in mind."

As of 1875, 10 years after Mitchell was appointed to her professorship, the move toward a male scientific role model had gained societal dominance.

Maria Mitchell Association executive director Janet Schulte and Maria Mitchell House curator Jascin Leonardo Finger read Bergland's book in its unproofed format, and while generally commending the work, also challenge some facts and dates.

"The slant the author takes and emphasis on Maria as an educator is interesting. I haven't seen that focus in the past with her emphasis on [Maria's] teaching at a women's college," Schulte said.

"One of the arguments that the separation between the humanities and sciences led to women being pushed out of the sciences is a new take and a thought I would not have had before this. It is at least provocative, if not worth debating, whether [Maria] may have been the last female scientist if not the first."

Schulte views the new book as material for use in teaching the history of education or history of science, though reserves a bit of caution.

"I wouldn't put it in a lexicon of women's history, but I'm delighted there is another book out with Maria's name in its title. I think it's a good book if it makes us challenge the author and one another - if it gets us talking. That's what good scholarship is."

Bergland spent years going through documents to accomplish the most accurate information she could compile, sometimes made difficult with hand-written papers nearly impossible to read or missing dates which caused her to cross reference a period of documentation to deduce the most correct timeframe she was able to determine.

Bergland said she chose Maria Mitchell as her book's topic for a number of reasons.

"Her succeeding in spite of the obstacles is why I wanted to research it. She had so much encouragement, particularly on Nantucket. I was really impressed with the intellectual community. That is powerful because there is something we can do about it, if astronomers can become great astronomers because they get a lot of encouragement rather than because [she] was a miracle," Bergland said during a phone interview from her New Hampshire home.

"I was interested in how her peers talked about how much encouragement she had and how that changes at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century. I was really interested in that change," she continued. "I was first interested in Mitchell because I wanted to write about a 19th century woman and I noticed how many who wrote about her saw her as a visionary woman. When I began doing the research I found more of a story about science than vision, and the social and cultural change. She was right at the center of those changes."

Bergland wrote that in spite of Mitchell's remarkable accomplishments and recognition and the professional sacrifices she made for her students, the final 30 years of her life were sad because she saw the withdrawal of support for women's education and participation in the sciences. She was frustrated that future generations would face even tougher barriers. Schulte does not dispute the trials and discouragement Mitchell was party to, but wants to leave the message on a more upbeat tone based on her view of what is happening in science and education today.

"The new age of the Rennaisance of women in science has begun," she said with confidence.

Bergland, who is planning another book about 19th century women, concurs with Schulte.

"I think Mitchell's story was kind of sad, but for people reading it now, I think it is quite encouraging to realize that when people are given opportunities they can do great things," she said. "I think the book syncs well with what the MMA is doing now. It's a

great organization. I love their whole mission." I