Critical readings tend to be focused on Aylmer’s attempts to overcome God’s hand, as well as the boundaries between science-nature. The story’s racial undercurrent is not well covered in the extensive scholarship. Hawthorne writes in an era in American history where racial biology was a dominant topic in scientific research. His story is obsessed by the notions whiteness, purity, physical appearance. I will show that Aylmer’s desire to remove Georgiana’s birthmark was nineteenth-century white anxiety regarding miscegenation. This is also a desire to make a better, more superior race.

My purpose will be served better if I examine the popular theories of racial biological origins at the time the story was published. Shawn Michelle Smith and Samuel Otter’s Melville’s Anatomies are two works that will prove to be very helpful. Otter points out many of these studies in racial distinctions, while Smith refers to these studies to the preservation or the visual culture of nineteenth-century America and the role that it played in the development of American visual culture. Otter claims that Petrus camper, a Dutch surgeon, ordered skulls according to ascending orders, using cranial measurements. His study, From Ape-to Apollo Belvedere found that the geometric equations which increased the angle on the face was directly related to “the civilized attributes of its wearer.” (Otter 34). Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, German physiologist, concluded after comparing the heads of various races that the Caucasian’s cranium was visually superior and must therefore have been God’s original creation (24). Study in craniology and phrenology and other science branches concluded that the Caucasian was superior in mind and body to all other races. Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, German physiologist, concluded that “the Caucasian cranium was aesthetically superior” (24). The superiority of the Caucasian body was not only based on its blood, but also the fact that miscegenation could threaten this superiority. Interbreeding by whites was discouraged, since blood from other races could weaken or contaminate the “pure” Caucasian. Mid-nineteenth-century legislation mandated sterilization for prisoners and mental patients, underscoring the widespread fear about miscegenation. Smith notes that the superiority and advisability of Caucasian blood played a significant role in the psychology behind lynching. She says that “the white lynch-mob’s cry for rape was meant to provoke outrage not just at the violation ‘innocent white womanhood, but also at the contamination’ the white bloodline.” (147). Many times, black males were castrated by whites before being lynched. This was to take away the “threats” of interracial mix and feminize their bodies to assert white male superiority. Smith and Otter both agree that scientific evidence of racial inequalities was established by 1850s.

Aylmer informs Georgiana (at the beginning of “The Birth-Mark”) that her “defect” is the “visible mark earthly imperfection” (qtd.). Lauter, 2225. His remark implied that Georgiana’s whiteness is compromised by her birthmark. The narrator refers to the birthmark’s appearance as “a red crimson stain upon snow” (2226). This is particularly interesting. The use of the word “stain”, which is often used to refer to white racism, is particularly revealing. Georgiana’s future whiteness will be threatened by her birthmark. Smith states that the nineteenth-century “locus of biologic inheritance” was a middle-class white woman. This is the vehicle by which a superior, whiter generation could be developed. Georgiana is therefore a hindrance to Aylmer’s conception of a white child.

Smith’s historical accounts are helpful here, especially her view of the family album as a social record and a way to preserve the white middle classes. She argues in “Baby’s Picture is Always Treasured” that white middle-class members kept track of their existence in family albums to preserve their social status. Francis Galton was a student of eugenics. He brought science into his family album. To prove white superiority scientifically, Galton encouraged white middle class families to record their babies’ bodily growth. White middle-class white families could prove scientists’ superiority by comparing their children’s growth to established standards. They would also be able to ensure their children continue their legacy. Smith states that “we are able to begin to understand the growing interest for ‘baby’s photograph’ as more than a commercial fad. In this context, “baby’s picture” signifies more than a nostalgic memento. It also serves as scientific evidence about the family’s race relations (132).

Smith’s argument makes a crucial comparison between middle-class white women and the camera. She wrote, “The nineteenth-century science and technology of eugenics converged the role of the middle class white woman as both a mechanical reproducer of “baby’s picture” (124). The image of a baby white became the symbol of racial reproduction. However, the biological superiority and survival of the white middle-class was preserved and perpetuated by the mother through physical and photographic reproduction.

Smith’s readings of family photographs and baby portraits sheds light on Hawthorne’s photography story. Critics often overlook the crucial moment in the story when Aylmer makes Georgiana a daguerreotype. Aylmer and Georgiana are identified as middle-class members by the daguerreotype. Smith writes, “Daguerreotypy open up the elite realm of portraiture members ofthe emerging middle classes…In one way…the daguerreotype Portrait functioned in a middleclass appropriationofaristocraticselfrepresentation, as an indicator of emerging cultural power middle-class” (13). Aylmer’s middle-class status is further confirmed by the description of Georgiana’s Boudoir by Smith (13). Aylmer, based on the story’s description and placement of the daguerreotype, is considered to be a representative of nineteenth century white males who wished to preserve their legacy.

Aylmer has the opportunity to “test” Georgiana’s reproductive potential by using her daguerreotype. Georgiana’s daguerreotype of Georgiana serves the same purpose as nineteenth-century baby images. It is evidence of her ability to reproduce offspring. The narrator explains that Georgiana is confused by the features of Aylmer’s daguerreotype and finds the hand figure “where the cheek should be” (2230). Georgiana’s portrait shows a birthmark that suggests her offspring will have the same “stain,” or mark, as her. Aylmer responds to the threat by grabbing the metal plate and throwing it in a jar with corrosive acids.

One criticism I have received from my reading so far is worthy of a brief pause. The evidence I used to support my claims about family albums is not current in “The Birth-Mark.” This is because the introduction of flexible film by Kodak and the advent of mechanized printing facilities in 1888 were both factors that made family albums more common (Hales, 260-261). But, I believe that photography is still a way to preserve the white middle class. Smith points out that “from the moment it was created in 1839 by daguerreotypy as the first photographic process,” (116). The theme of visual culture and preservation of the white middle-class is also discussed in Hawthorne’s The House of The Seven Gables. Smith states, “The correspondence of Holgrave’s physical attributes and his personal characteristics resonates powerfully avec the racialized connect linking body and mind that Francis Galton would proclaim, and that Josiah Nott envisaged decades earlier” (43). Smith’s interpretations from family documents are a good tool to read Hawthorne. It’s not unreasonable to assume Hawthorne considered the significance of daguerreotypes in relation to race, racial biology, and other issues when he wrote The Birth-Mark.

In fact, the narration gives many clues about Hawthorne’s concern with race and biological biology. Aylmer utters “Georgiana”, which could refer to Hawthorne’s racial science of the day. Aylmer says that his attempts at removing her birthmark have made him “deeper then ever” in science. Similar to Hawthorne’s time, scientists from Hawthorne were led “into science’s heart” by their efforts to justify white supremacy in physiognomy, phrenology and other sciences. A little later on, the narrator says that Aylmer’s youthful discoveries “had roused a great deal of admiration from all European learned societies” (2228). This identifies Aylmer with AngloSaxon European whites, and is the one considered the most noble and fittest of all human beings. In the next sentence, the narrator refers to him as the “pale philosopher”, bringing more attention to his whiteness. Aylmer, among other scientific pursuits was also mentioned by the narrator (2228). It’s highly indicative of reproduction that the use of the words “bright water” to describe the water that is erupting from the earth’s “dark bosom”, suggests a lot. Aylmer’s concerns about Georgiana, who has a racial’stain”, conceiving a white child from a dark-colored body, can be seen in the image. The narration also tells us Aylmer was interested in the “wonders of the human framework” (2228). Aylmer is clearly referring to nineteenth-century studies about the human body like Camper’s From Ape, Apollo Belvedere.

Aylmer is very interested in science and the Elixir Vitae, which suggests that he wants to proliferate and preserve the white race. But his dependence on science to prolong life is problematic. The narration tells us that Aylmer was more than just intimating that he had the ability to make a liquid that could prolong life for years. However, it would have a negative effect on nature and cause all of humanity, especially the quaffers of the immortal formulam, to curse it (2230). Aylmer realizes that science is not enough to bring him eternal life, so he looks for a white woman capable of reproducing his image. The story opens with Aylmer telling us that he “left his laboratory under the care of an assistant. He cleared his fine countenance of the furnace-smoke. He washed his fingers of acid stains and persuaded beautiful women to be his wife.” (2225). We don’t really know the reason for Aylmer giving up science in order to marry a beautiful lady. We only learn the real reason he left science after he abandoned his studies in Alchemy and specifically his interest in Elixir Vitae. This would have a negative impact on his plans to live a long, white, middle-class lifestyle. Shakespeare’s Sonnet #1’s speaker says that “from fairest creatures we want increase/ That beauty’s rose might not die” and he suggests procreation as an alternative to Time. Aylmer is similarly reliant on Georgiana in times of science failure to save his own image. It is, however, white.

The narrator also tells us more about Aylmer and his scientific journals. He said:

Georgiana thought that the most captivating volume was the one her husband made. He had filled it with every experiment and was meticulous about recording them. (2232)

Georgiana observed that his successes were almost always failures, which is a reflection of the limitations in science. He was aiming for the prolongation of life. Despite the comment of the narrator that the book was “the story and emblem of his…life”, it will never last forever, just like his scientific attempts in the future to prolong his life indefinitely. Aylmer thus turns to Georgiana for help, as she can reproduce his image via her offspring.

Aylmer sees Georgiana’s birthmark only “very soon after their wedding” (2225). Aylmer describes it as a defect and a sign of earthly inequalities. It affects Georgiana and his future children’s whiteness. In an effort to get rid of his wife’s mark, he returns to science.

Aylmer, who represents whiteness, scientists of racial biological biology, is Aminadab, his servant. The first thing we learn about him is his “low stature, bulky frame, and shaggy haircut…which was grimed from the vapors at the furnace” (2228). The narrator adds, “With his immense strength, his shaggy haircut, and the indescribable Earthiness that incrusted his face, he seemed like man’s physical nature.” (2229) Aminadab’s descriptions highlight several points. His “low stature” is in direct contrast to Apollo Belvedere’s white male standard of civilisation. His “smoky face” implies that his skin is darker than Aylmer’s, and makes him an racialized actor in the story. Aylmer is in a superior position, and Aminadab’s physical features contrast with Aylmer, who has a pale, intellectual appearance that enacts a hierarchy involving whiteness and darkness. Finally, the narrator uses the term “type” in an attempt to recall nineteenth-century scientists trying to make racial classifications, or guidelines that can be used for distinguishing whites among other races.

Scholars have failed to find a way to analyse Aminadab, particularly his name. Hugo McPherson and W.R. Thompson contend that Hawthorne drew “Aminadab”, his name, from a Biblical source (Rees 171). Edward Van Winkle and Alfred Reid also claim that Hawthorne drew “Aminadab,” from a Biblical source (Rees171). While Hugo McPherson and Hugo Reid argue that Hawthorne drew “Aminadab,” from a Biblical source (Reest). Karl Wentersdorf suggested the similarities between these characters, which was then summarized by John Rees. Rees comments:

These clods are both ugly, but strong, slow-growing, and well-suited to menial labors.

He continued, saying, “even Caliban’s lewd laughter, when it comes to his attempt to rape Miranda” (I.ii.349-51). This seems like a foreshadowing Aminadab’s “gross hoarse laugh” as he looks at Georgiana asleep and imagines, “If I were her wife (179). Rees points out that Aminadab also repeats “Caliban’s vowel sequence, as well as two of its four consonants.” (179).

The comparison between Aminadab and Caliban is especially useful, as post-colonial literary critics often see Caliban in a representation of colonized, racialized “other.” William Stratchey wrote a letter to England detailing the voyage of Sea Venture. The crew set sail from England in 1609 to colonize New England. But they encountered a storm on their way and became stranded off Bermuda. (Langbaum 92). Caliban from Shakespeare’s plays is a native to Bermuda. Prospero uses him to usurps his island. Hawthorne uses Caliban’s association as the colonized, racialized “other” to draw the reader’s eye to Aminadab’s resemblance to Aylmer to cast Aylmer, a white colonizing man, and to reinforce its racial undercurrent.

Caliban is most closely linked to Aminadab in his physical appearance. Shakespeare describes Caliban as a “savage-deformed slave” in the dramatis personale (Signet). First, “savage,” evokes colonists’ imperial vocabulary for describing natives. His body is considered inferior by the term “deformed”. Stephano refers to him as a “monster” (III.ii. 3), while Trinculo says that he smells and looks like a fish (II.iii. 25-27). Shakespeare refers to Caliban using a type. A colonized native is turned into a slave. He describes Caliban’s physical deformities as dark and dark. This notion of physical and mental deformity as part a type is strikingly analogous to nineteenth-century America’s racial groups. Shakespeare uses physical deformity for Caliban to portray him as a race type. The nineteenth-century study in physiognomy (phrenology craniology) and craniology (1919) depicts non-whites physically inferior than the Caucasian model. Shakespeare addresses miscegenation in Shakespeare’s play Caliban, who laments not being able to rape Prospero’s white daughter Miranda. It wouldn’t have been possible! Thou didst stop me; I had other peopled / This island with Calibans”(I, iii), 349-351-351). Hawthorne continues to focus on miscegenation when Aminadab says, “If she was my wife, I wouldn’t part with that birthmark” (2299)

We cannot know the exact reasons Hawthorne used for the name Aminadab, but it is interesting to look at the similarities between Caliban and Aminadab. Both represent the racialized, and are subordinated to a dominant, white male who wants to preserve his legacy.

The story has a racial undercurrent. It may be a question of what Hawthorne is thinking about race. The story could be seen as rejecting white supremacist logic at its most basic. Georgiana’s suicide is proof of Aylmer’s failed project to preserve the white middle-class legacy. Aylmer screamed “But she’s so pale!” right before Georgiana’s passing. Hawthorne may have been disapproving Aylmer’s intentions as well as white supremacy all around by the fact that Georgiana died (2235). Aminadab is also heard chuckling and hoarse at Georgiana’s funeral. This indicates that he is the real victor.

Edgar Allan Poe says that Georgiana’s untimely death leaves Aylmer without the means to reproduce. Lauter, 1533. Poe says that the loss of a woman of beauty creates a “deficit” or temporary void. He notes that this is his sole legitimate province. The “deficit,” or narrator must fill it, or, indirectly, the author. In this case, the author’s “beauty,” which is often a confessional, takes the place of the beautiful woman’s death.

The same principle is used by “The Birth-Mark”. The speaker’s story is inspired by Georgiana’s passing. Without her, there wouldn’t be a story. Although she is unable to physically bear children, her death can give birth (in death) to a story. Georgiana’s untimely death leads to the triumph of a White Author, who creates his own legacy by telling stories. Aylmer starts to extend life with Elixir Vitae. In vain, Aylmer attempts to extend his life with the Elixir Vitae. When all else fails, the author steps in, prolonging his legacy on white pages. Another speaker from Shakespeare’s Sonnets is in mind. He said, “So long as men are able to breathe and eyes can see/ So long this lives, and this gives life thee” (Sonnet 18.). The self-referential word “this” refers to the addressee, who refuses procreation and preserves his image. However, the speaker replies that his poetry will preserve the image of his youth.

Even logic can be complicated. Hawthorne invites us all to ask ourselves if words can ever replace a person’s life. If this is the case, then maybe the white author prevails over all others. We must continue to look if not. What readers have today is “The Birth Mark,” which is also a title that signifies the mark racial coloring. It is difficult to interpret Hawthorne’s attitudes because of the confluence between signifier/signed. On the one hand, our books still have the title of the tale and therefore the legacy of whiteness. The title, however, preserves the signifiable birthmark, a symbol that identifies racial origin. The question is: Does the birthmark (the signified) outweigh the title (“The Birth Mark”)? Do we read this story to reject white racism?

I believe the story is actually a condemnation for white racism, considering all these factors. Smith makes the point that photography was essential to the preservation the white middle class in nineteenth-century America. But photographs fade with the passage of time, just like any memories. Smith illustrates the concept with a quote from R.H.E.’s Lady’s Book dated April 1867.

It’s a sad feeling to think about my faded photograph being stored in a corner for a hundred years as useless lumber. Perhaps some day, some unruly children will poke holes in my eyes and rub my cheeks. It will make me feel either angry or sad. (qtd. Smith 51

R.H.E. worries about the disappearance of her portrait. This is the anxiety of white middle-classes about the disappearance of their legacy, particularly through miscegenation.

Pages, like photographs, also turn yellow with age. The pages of books are, like Georgiana and photographs, susceptible to fading. The original copy of “The Birth-Mark”, a classic book about Georgiana, is a good example of this. The characters have not survived but only the words. This is why Poe’s statement concerning the death and burial of a beautiful women was flawed. Poe makes a strong case for the hollowness of the pages, highlighting the incapability of words to replace human lives. The Birth-Mark claims that whiteness’ legacy is preserved in its pages. This is because of a small piece of evidence. The Birth Mark says that we shouldn’t attempt to eradicate our loved one’s birthmarks. Aylmer also states that it is not appropriate to try to eliminate racial “otherness” in our society. Hawthorne believes that the birthmark can be considered a non-white identity. Hawthorne urged the white middle-class whites and ethnologists of his time to forget about white supremacy and accept miscegenation as an essential part of human survival. Aminadab is the most rational character in this story, despite being a typecast. His “hoarse and chuckling laugh” at the end is evidence that he has indeed had the last laugh. Hawthorne’s final words to Aminadab are his legacy as a non-white character and not the middle-class white man.

Hawthorne’s motivation is to cross racial lines and not reverse white supremacy. A birthmark isn’t just a sign of racial origin, Aylmer says, but it also symbolizes human mortality. According to the narrator, it is “the fatal defect of humanity”, and Nature stamps this mark “on all her products” (2226) regardless if they are of any race. Aylmer’s fascination with Georgiana’s Birthmark is nineteenth-century America’s obsession in using physical characteristics for interior character. Smith frequently speaks about the idea of the white masculine “gaze”, which is how white middle-class patriarchy confirmed its authority over racial inferiority. Bell Hook created the term “white-supremacist gaze” (which Smith uses to express the ways that American culture has racially encoded her cultural privilege of seeing (258). Hawthorne uses the term “gaze” many times in her text. For example, “Aylmer sat looking at his wife” (2225), and “Georgiana soon began to shudder at him gaze” (22227). “[Georgiana] gradually opened her eyes and looked into the mirror …” (2235). Hawthorne attempts to dispel this fixation, especially on its racial effects. A blurred daguerreotype depicting Georgiana represents Aylmer’s concern about his whiteness being faithfully reproduced. It also signifies Hawthorne’s disapproval for racial prejudices that are based on appearance. Georgiana is also killed by Aylmer’s scathing gaze. Hawthorne demonstrates how important vision and physical appearance can be in judging interiority.

Aylmer made a mistake by confusing the birthmark and how he sees it. His attempts to remove the mark represent his desire for a narrower meaning and his own to be the only one. Aylmer is trying to remove Georgiana from her “marks of inter-subjectivity” This interpretation is not just a religious one. I believe that Aylmer’s interpretation of Georgiana’s birthmark, which Hawthorne also denounces, is a racial interpretation. Aylmer’s mistake is more than his attempt at replacing inter-subjectivity by his own interpretation. It is also his attempt to impose an racialized view on the birthmark. Lukasik suggests Aylmer is mistaken for the object being viewed (the birthmark) according to his own perception. I believe that Hawthorne uses this confusion between ways of looking and objects of sight to address nineteenth-century racism. Aylmer assumes that Georgiana is born with a defect. This is in line with white assumptions that inferiority means blackness. Aylmer applies his negative “reading” to a neutral object in the same manner that nineteenth-century whites applied racialized readings to blackness. Unencumbered by individual interpretations, both the birthmark and blackness possess “inter-subjectivity.” However, problems arise when individuals attempt to remove that quality of inter-subjectivity, as in the rhetoric of white racism.

Hawthorne’s story is not only about man trying overpower God but also about racial prejudices in nineteenth century America. Aylmer’s disgust with Georgiana’s “otherness”, and his desire that it be removed before procreating, is evidence of white prejudice towards racial “otherness.” Hawthorne’s story ends with Georgiana’s passing. This is when he denounces white supremacy, and scientific research in racial biological sciences in the nineteenth-century. He urges his readers to move beyond racial lines.

Works cited

1. Hales, Peter B. Silver Cities: American Urbanization Photographed, 1839-1915. Temple University Press Philadelphia: 1984

2. Langbaum, Robert, ed. The Tempest, William Shakespeare. Signet edition. The Big Apple in 1998

3. Lauter, Paul, ed. The Heath Anthology of American Literature. Volume 1. The Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston: 1998

4. Lukasik, Christopher. Lecture on “The Birth Mark.” EN 533, a course, is being offered. Boston U. November 6, 2003

5. McPherson, Hugo. Hawthorne, the myth-maker: A study in imagination (p. 222). The University of Toronto Press. Toronto: 1969

6. Otter, Samuel. Melville’s Anatomies. The University of California Press. Berkeley: 1999

7. John O. Rees Journal of Onomastics. Sept. 1980; 28(3): 171-182

8. Reid, Alfred S., “Hawthorne’s Humanism – ‘The birth-Mark’ and Sir Kenelm Digby.” American Literature. November 1966. 38. 337-51

9. Shawn Michelle Smith. American Archives: Genders, Races, and Classes in Visual Culture. Princeton U Press. Princeton: 1999

10. Thompson, W.R. Aminadab In Hawthornes The Birth-Mark. Modern Language Notes. June 1955; 70: 413-15

11. Van Vinkle Edward S. American Notes & Queries. 1970; 8: 131-33