Do y'all remember the book that I lugged all over South America in 2016? This book?
Well, I'm finally reading it, a full decade later, and I have Thoughts.
Not fully formed thoughts (and I'm only just over 100 pages in), but I'll try to articulate some of them. Take this with a grain of salt and keep in mind that I'm an early modernist who specialises on the Spanish Empire and has a special interest in history of science.
Much as I like a) the Guy In Question and b) the subject matter, I absolutely hate the subtitle. Idk if it's the fact that I'm a historian, or German, or both, but this title? Anglocentric as hell. Believe me, South Americans know who Humboldt is (he has statues all over the place and tons of species named after him), and so do Germans. I mean, the capital has a whole university and a museum named after the guy (and his brother).
Like I said, I like the guy, but Wulf is veering dangerously close to overinterpreting her sources/writing a hagiography at times. She has A Point she wants to make - roughly: Humboldt was the first (European) (scientist) to think of nature as a connection of environments and species that has to be experienced both through scientific measurement and emotion and the first to describe man-made environmental change, which makes him sort of the father of modern environmentalism and also nature writing, Romantic experience of the sublime, and possibly all manner of other things - and she makes it forcefully. It's not a point I entirely disagree with, but I'm not a fan of how she flattens some of his contemporaries' theories to make that point, and how she ends up with a one-man-genius story in the process. Just one example, from the chapter on Chimborazo: 'By now Humboldt had climbed so many volcanoes that he was the most experienced mountaineer in the world but Chimborazo was a daunting prospect even to him.' European mountaineer, you mean, because countless Indigenous people had in fact crossed the Andes regularly before him, and I suspect the Sherpa of Nepal would also like a word.
(Historian rant ahead:) Wulf is also clearly not up to date with the research on the contributions of Indigenous people to European early modern and 19th century knowledge-making and scientific discovery because her analyses of Humboldt's interactions never go beyond the descriptive surface-level. Madam, I *know* he had Indigenous guides because all Europeans in the region needed them. I'm not surprised by that discovery. It would have been nice if Wulf elaborated how Indigenous world-views that conceive of the cosmos as interconnected and reciprocal might have influenced Humboldt's thinking, though. (Kudos to her for pointing out his stance on slavery and his valuing Indigenous people's cultural achievements, which did set him apart from his contemporaries.)
Lots of quotations from letters and publications with not enough contextualisation of the development of Humboldt's ideas/theories (beyond mentioning important stations in his travels and meetings in his contacts), or, god beware, the scientific theories he was engaging with. She does mention said theories occasionally but somehow doesn't quote his writings on them, which I find odd.
Did we just skip over Humboldt's entire stay in Mexico and his interest in (Indigenous) mining technologies to focus on his meeting with Thomas Jefferson?!?!
Related: Her descriptions of the state of the Spanish South American colonies at the time of Humboldt's travels (1799-1804), that is just before most of them got independent, are superficial at best. Especially for someone who repeatedly mentions how interested (and convinced by) republican ideals Humboldt was. (Maybe the BolÃvar chapter will go into more detail on that, but I'm not convinced yet.)
Anachronistic use of terminology without making clear that is her interpretation and not expressions Humboldt himself actually used: Sure, the man did observe the impact of deforestation on water levels and soil erosion, and sure, those descriptions influenced how later scientists thought about these issues, but somehow I doubt he used the term human-induced climate change.
On the upside, this has endnotes and a bibliography. However, that apparently does not include contextualising any of the images used in the book, with the result that we get a wild mix of contemporary portraits, prints and drawings, undated views of Quito and illustrations from his travel narrative that might be from any time between 1805 and god-knows-when in the 20th century. Images are also sources and publication context matters.
Further, minor upside: She does in fact mention how Humboldt was likely queer (exact shade to be determined) and how even his contemporaries commented on it.
Whoops. Alright, we're doing the liveblog, apparently.
On the upside, the book is immensely readable and caters right to my interests. But also, maybe I've spent too much of my academic career in the company of Latin American early modernists. XD
