TheEvolutionsof ModernistEpic
VÁCLAVPARIS AssistantProfessor
CityCollegeofNewYork,CUNY
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©VáclavParis2021
Themoralrightsoftheauthorhavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2021
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2020946502
ISBN978–0–19–886821–7
DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198868217.001.0001
PrintedandboundinGreatBritainby ClaysLtd,ElcografS.p.A.
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
Acknowledgments
Thisbookisamongrel.Itsevolutionshavebeenlongandstrangeandmany parentshaveputsomethingintothemix.Thankyou:
Firsttotheacademicgrandfathersofthisproject:mydissertationadvisors attheUniversityofPennsylvania.ToJean-MichelRabaté,PaulSaintAmour,andCharlesBernsteinIowemorethanIrealizedasastudent. Everywordhaschangedsincethen,butitisnolessindebtedtoyour generousguidance.
ThentomycolleaguesandstudentsatCityCollegeNewYork.Thankyou especiallytoLizMazzola,toYanaJoseph,andtothemuchmissedRosaymi Santosformakingitpossibleformetotaketimeawayto finishthisbook.
Thankyoutoallthosewhoreadorlistenedtoearlyversionsofvarious partsofthisbookandofferedtheirvaluablefeedback:MikhalDekel,Hap Veeser,RobertHigney,DanGustafson,AndrásKiséry,FusonWang, LindseyGoss,AndreasKillen,MattHart,andtheColumbia20/21 Colloquium,SarahCole,RebeccaWalkowitz,CarolinaDosSantos, LucianoNuzzo,CeciliaVelázquez,PeterSteiner,FrantaPodhajskýandthe BrnoNarratologicalCircle,JonathanGoldmanandtheNewYork ModernismsGroup,ChristopherHarwoodandtheColumbiaCzech StudiesColloquium,BarryMcCrea,FritzSenn,SabrinaAlonso,Ruth Frenner,UrsulaZellerandthefolkattheZürichJamesJoyceFoundation, JohnMcCourt,LauraPelaschiar,SebastianKnowles,andtheTriesteJames JoyceSchool,attendeesatvariousMSAconferences,andmanyothers.
Forseminalconversationsaboutepicandevolution,goingwayback,my thanksto:BobPerelman,RachelBlau-Duplessis,EdwardBurns,Michael Golston,HeatherLove,JedEsty,CarolineHenze-Gongola,JohnPaetsch, JessCross,AstridLorange,GabrielSessions,RobertTurner,RobertTucker, AmanAnand,ScarlettBaron,RenéWeis,andPeterSwaab.Thankyoualso tothelateLeonKatz,who,apartfromofferingmehisadvice,alsovery generouslymadeavailabletomehisworkonGertrudeStein’sunpublished manuscriptsandnotebooks.
Overtheyears,myresearchwassupportedbyfellowshipsfromthe NationalEndowmentfortheHumanities,theZürichJamesJoyce Foundation,theCUNYFacultyFellowshipPublicationProgram,several
RifkindFoundationgrants,andseveralPSC-CUNYAwards,jointlyfunded byProfessionalStaffCongressandTheCityUniversityofNewYork.Iam verygratefulforthissupport.
Aversionofthefourthchapterofthisbook,titled “TheNatureof Comparison: Macunaíma and Orlando, ” appearsin Comparative LiteratureStudies 57.1,Copyright©2020,PennStateUniversityPress. ThisarticleisusedbypermissionofThePennsylvaniaStateUniversity Press.Anearlyandmuchshorterversionofthe firstchaptertitled “BeginningAgainwithModernistEpic” was firstpublishedin Modernism/ modernity’sPrintPlus1.3(2016).Copyright©2016JohnsHopkins UniversityPress.ReprintedwithpermissionbyJohnsHopkinsUniversity Press.Iamgratefulforpermissiontoreusethismaterialhere.
Myappreciationgoestotheanonymousreviewersofthisbookwho providedmewithencouragementandtrenchantsuggestions.Iamfortunate tohavefoundsuchexcellentreaders.ThanksalsotoJacquelineNorton, MartinNoble,andthesuperbeditorialstaffatOxfordUniversityPress. ThankyoutoSophieZinerforreadingthroughand fixingmycommasata crucialmoment.AndthankyouBlakeHenshawforalastroundofdazzling commentariesthatreopenedeverything.
Finally,thankyoutomyfamily.Thankyoutomyownprogenitors,Alena VencovskáandJeffParis:itwasyourcareandlove,yourintellectual brilliance,yourzestforlifethatmadeanythingpossible.Thankyoutomy wonderfulin-laws,MarcoandGiulietta,whohavehelpedinathousand ways.ThankyoutolittleMirandaforkeepingmecompanywhileproofing andindexing.AndthankyoutoAgnese,foryournever-falteringsupport, yourimagination,andyourpassions.Thankyouforbringingjoytoourlives everydaywhilethisbookwasbeingwritten.
BY firmimmutableimmortallaws
Impress’donNaturebytheGREATFIRSTCAUSE, Say,MUSE!howrosefromelementalstrife Organicforms,andkindledintolife...
ErasmusDarwin,TheTempleofNature
Introduction
BytheLightoftheEclipse
“Ifearthosebigwords,” saysStephenDedalusin Ulysses , “whichmakeusso unhappy.”¹Althoughitisnotclearexactlywhichwordsheisreferringto, Stephenmightwellhavesaidthesameaboutthetwinsubjectsofthisbook: epicandevolution.Epicandevolutionaretwoofthebiggestwordsinthe Englishlanguage.Bothcarryamonumentalsignificance,openingonto realmsofthedeeppast,primalnature,andhumandestiny.Butbothalso carrythetaintofassociationwithreactionaryandracistpoliticalprograms. Throughoutmodernhistorythestakesoftheirinterpretationandcoordinationhavebeenhigh atnomomentmoresothanduringthedecadeswhen Joycewaswriting.
Thisbooktellsthestoryoftheearlytwentieth-centuryencounterbetween epicandevolution.Eachofitsfourchaptersfocusesononeortwoinnovativeliteraryworksfromdifferentnationalsettings:theUnitedStates, Ireland,Czechoslovakia,England,andBrazil.Intracingtheinteraction betweenepicandevolutionacrossthisgeographicallyextendedrangeof texts,itsprincipalaimistoscopeoutanewapproachtocomparative modernism.Foralongtime,thedominantmethodfornarratingmodernism acrossborderswasthroughbroadlyMarxistvocabularies.Itwaspresented asasubclassof Weltliteratur aresultofcapitalistdevelopment,cosmopolitanism,andthedeclineofthenation-state.²Often,likeabigcorporation,it
¹JamesJoyce, Ulysses (NewYork:Vintage,1993),26.StephenisrespondingtoMrDeasy’ s admonishmentthat “Weareagenerouspeople,butwemustalsobejust,” andsointhe immediatecontext,the “bigwords” areapparently “just” and “ generous. ” Butaswewillsee inChapter2,epicandevolutionarealsoatstakeinStephen’sdiscussionwithDeasy.
²KarlMarxandFriedrichEngelspredictedtheriseof Weltliteratur inthe Communist Manifesto (NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,2012),77.Studiesofmodernisminfluencedby theirvisioninclude:MarshallBerman, AllThatIsSolidMeltsintoAir:TheExperienceof Modernity (NewYork:SimonandSchuster,1982);JessicaBerman, ModernistFiction, Cosmopolitanism,andthePoliticsofCommunity (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress, 2006);PascaleCasanova, TheWorldRepublicofLetters,trans.M.B.DeBevoise(Cambridge, MA:HarvardUniversityPress,2004);FrancoMoretti, ModernEpic:TheWorld-Systemfrom GoethetoGarcíaMárquez (London:Verso,1996);JahanRamazani, ATransnationalPoetics
TheEvolutionsofModernistEpic. VáclavParis,OxfordUniversityPress(2021).©VáclavParis. DOI:10.1093/oso/9780198868217.003.0001
2
wasreferredtoastransnational.Morerecently,thispolitical-economic paradigmhasbeentemperedwithecocritical,biopolitical,andneomaterialistapproaches.Modernismisseenasentailedonaplanetary modernity amodernitycharacterizedasmuchbychangesinthephysical andnaturalworldasbyunevendevelopment.Andmodernistwriting,we aretold,containsresourcesforthinkingaboutclimatechangeandecology, aboutposthumanismandtheanthropocene.³
Fortheseapproaches,DarwinisasfundamentalasMarx.Inthisregard, theyareconsonantwiththepresentstudy.Atthesametime,thereare aspectsoftheperiod’swritingthatremainlargelyneglected.Inparticular, intheiranti-anthropocentricbent,environmentallyorientedreadingsof modernismhaveleftalmostunnoticedwhatwemightcallhumanbiological history. Homosapiens may,inthewakeofDarwin’stheories,havelostits exceptionality,becomingoneanimalamongothers.Andculturemayhave takenalongtimetocometotermswiththis,asFreudwarned.Butthe humanbeing,anditsnarratives,alsochangedasaresult,andchangedin waysthatweremorecreative,morediverse,andqueererthanweappreciate. Inthissense,turn-of-the-centurymodernitystandstobeunderstoodasan eventinthesharedlifeofhumans,andmodernismasshapedby,and shaping,thisevent.
(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,2009);andRebeccaL.Walkowitz, CosmopolitanStyle: ModernismBeyondtheNation (NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2006).Fordiscussionsof theintersectionbetweenworldliteratureandglobalmodernism,seePeterJ.Kalliney, ModernisminaGlobalContext (NewYork:BloomsburyAcademic,2016),AarthiVadde, ChimerasofForm:ModernistInternationalismBeyondEurope,1914–2016 (NewYork: ColumbiaUniversityPress,2016);andSusanStanfordFriedman, “WorldModernisms, WorldLiterature,andComparativity,” in TheOxfordHandbookofGlobalModernisms,ed. MarkA.WollaegerandMattEatough(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2012),499–528.
³In PlanetaryModernisms:ProvocationsonModernityAcrossTime (NewYork:Columbia UniversityPress,2015),495,SusanStanfordFriedmancallsforaperspectivethatincludes “ a consciousnessoftheearthasplanet,notrestrictedtogeopoliticalformationsandpotentially encompassingthenonhumanaswellasthehuman.” Aseminalessayexploringthepossibilityof mappingmodernityontotheanthropoceneisDipeshChakrabarty, “TheClimateofHistory: FourTheses,” CriticalInquiry 35,no.2(2009):197–222.Foranoverviewofrecenttreatmentsof modernismandecocriticism,seeAnneRaine, “EcocriticismandModernism,” in TheOxford HandbookofEcocriticism,ed.GregGarrard(OxfordandNewYork:OxfordUniversityPress, 2014).Forspecificstudies,seeinteralia,MatthewGriffiths, TheNewPoeticsofClimateChange: ModernistAestheticsforaWarmingWorld (NewYork:BloomsburyAcademic,2017);Alison Lacivita, TheEcologyofFinnegansWake (Gainesville:UniversityPressofFlorida,2015);Joshua Schuster, TheEcologyofModernism:AmericanEnvironmentsandAvant-GardePoetics (Tuscaloosa:UniversityofAlabamaPress,2015);andJesseO.Taylor, TheSkyofOur Manufacture:TheLondonFogandBritishFictionfromDickenstoWoolf (Charlottesville: UniversityofVirginiaPress,2016).
Howcanweapproachmodernismasaconsequencenotjustofglobalization, butalso,atthesametime,ofchangingconceptionsofthespecies,of biologicalandgroupidentity,andeverydaylifeandsurvival?Towhatextent weremodernism’seconomic,political,andecologicaldimensionssubtended bybroadlyDarwiniannarratives?Andtowhatdegreewasthephenomenon motivatedbydebatesover,forinstance,vitalism,nativism,andsexual reproduction?Thinkingthroughoneoftheperiod’sdefininggenres,the proseepic,thefollowingpageswilltacklethesequestions.
Apartfrompromotingafreshconversationaboutmodernism’sinvolvementwithDarwin’slegacy,thisbookhasamorespeci ficconsequencefor comparativeapproachestotheperiod’sliterature.Addressingmodernism’ s biocentricsideasksustothinkmorecarefullyaboutitsentanglementin supposedlyorganicnetworks,itsownentangledbanks.Theepic fictions consideredhereconceivehumancollectivities(ofwhichthenationisthe largestandmostimportant)asthemselvespotentiallynaturalmodesof organizationandhencealsoevolvingsubjectsinneedofmorecareful consideration.Thesenationsmaynotbepredeterminedorself-sufficient tribalwholes,butsincetheyare,incomplexandvitalways,presentinthe verylanguagethatthetextsarewrittenin,wecannotdismissthemoreven easilystepoutsideoftheminourreading.Resistingthetendencytointerpret differentmodernisttextsasparallelexpressionsofapostnationalrepublicof lettersorposthumangeography,thecurrentprojecttestsoutamethodthat allowsustoaccountfortheseoddvariableframesandmodernistliterature’ s workonthem.Attendingtoepic’sinvolvementwithevolution,ithelpsideas oforganicorromanticnationhoodcomeintofocusasanimportantand overlookedcreativefactorfortheperiod’sliterature.
BetweentheScyllaofTwoCulturesandthe CharybdisofConsilience
Butinordertoarriveatthisbook’stakeoncomparativemodernismand planetarymodernity,weneed firsttotraceout,moregenerally,howthe discussionwillcoordinateliteratureandscience,genreandspecies.Thiswill alsointroduceabroadsecondarygoalofthestudy:tofosterwhatAngus Fletchercalls “another” andbetterliteraryDarwinism.⁴
⁴ SeeAngusFletcher, “AnotherLiteraryDarwinism,” CriticalInquiry 40,no.2(January1, 2014):450–69.
4
Ourcourseissetbetweentwoopposingstandpointsonthequestionof therelationofepictoevolution.Ononesideistheoverlookroutinely assumedbystudentsofliteraryhistoryaswellasbymoststudentsof evolutionarythought.Withinstandardintroductionstoeitherdiscipline, epicandevolutionhavealmost nothing incommon.Wherethe first,strictly speaking,designatesanarrativegenreofclassicalantiquity,thesecond nominatesasetofprocesses,discoveredinthenineteenthcentury,by which,overthecourseofmultiplegenerations,aspecieschanges. ⁵ Where epicisahumanproduct,evolutionisnatural:itstandstobeexaminednotin theworksofimaginativeliterature,butinthelaboratoriesand fieldworkof embryologists,paleontologists,entomologists,statisticians,geneticistsand soforth.Andwhereepicismythological,evolutionisempirical.Thetwo belong,inshort,towhatStephenJayGouldcalled “nonoverlappingmagisteria” ofexperience.⁶
Ontheothersideisagroupofthinkerswhobelievethatevolutionand epichavealmost everything todowitheachother,thatthetwotermsfold intoeachother.Forevolution,presentedasasetofdiscretedatafrommany different fields,isnotparticularlymeaningful.Somekindofnarrative transmissionisalwaysrequired.Alongtheselines,theAmericanbiologist E.O.Wilsonconjecturedthatevolution,asweknowit,isbestconceivedas itselfanepic.Ashewritesinhis1978study OnHumanNature: “[T]he evolutionaryepicisprobablythebestmythwewilleverhave.”⁷ Wilson’ s ideaisthathumanbeingshaveaprimalneedforexplanationsoftheir existence,aneedbetterservedbyscientificmaterialismthanreligion.Epic providesanappropriate,secular,containerfortheseexplanations.Itcan accommodatethiscosmicallycomprehensivesubject,includingitsventures intotheunknown.Anditcanpresentitinwaysthatscientistsaloneare unable.For,asWilsonclaims,quotingJ.B.S.Haldane, “scientificmenasa classaredevoidofanyperceptionofliteraryform,” justasthe “highculture” and “greatwriters” of “WesternCivilization” exist “largelyapartfromthe naturalsciences.”⁸ Intheevolutionaryepic,thesetwocanmeet,forminga
⁵“Evolution” willbeusedhereintheextensivesense,originallypromotedbyHerbert Spencer,andonlylateradoptedbyCharlesDarwin.SeeStephenJayGould, FullHouse: TheSpreadofExcellencefromPlatotoDarwin (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress, 2011),137.
⁶ StephenJayGould, “NonoverlappingMagisteria” in Leonardo’sMountainofClamsandthe DietofWorms (NewYork:HarmonyBooks,1998),269–83.
⁷ EdwardO.Wilson, OnHumanNature (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress, 2004),201.
⁸ Wilson, OnHumanNature,202.
baseforwhathecallsa “newsynthesis” betweenthesciencesandthe humanities.⁹ ItiswiththishopethatWilson’sideahasbeenextensively takenup,spawninga fieldofsociobiologyknownas “EpicofEvolution.”¹⁰
Formanysociobiologists,epicandevolutionare consilient.Althoughone pertainstothehumanities,theothertothesciences,their findingsand structureagree,revealingalarger “unityofknowledge.”¹¹Inorderto demonstratethisconsilience,sociobiologistsreducebothterms,andthen fitthemintoeachother.So,in OnHumanNature,evolutioniscondensedto asinglechainofcausesandeffects.Epiciscastasaunidirectionalmonomyth.Thetwoaredescribedinwaysthataresimilar,andthenpresentedas effectivelythesamething.IntheworkofseveralofWilson’sfollowers,an analogousreductionappliestheotherwayaround.Thestorytoldbyany particularepic,andofepicsingeneral,isabstractedtoanadaptationist viewofhumanlife,andthereby fittedintoalargeraccountofhuman evolution. “Epic, ” accordingtoFrederickTurner, “isthebasicstorythat thehumanspeciestellstoitselfaboutitself ...an accuratedescriptionofthe evolutionofthehumanspeciesseenfromtheinsideandhalf-remembered inthemostgraphicandintuitivelanguage.”¹²Thankstoitsprimaland ostensiblyuniversalqualities,epiccanbeunderstoodtomediatehuman evolution.AsJonathanGottschalexplains,whenreadthroughsociobiological
⁹“NewSynthesis”—atermreprisedfromJulianHuxley’s1942 Evolution:TheDarwinian Synthesis (towhichIwillturnbelow) appearsinthetitleofWilson’searlierseminal work, Sociobiology:TheNewSynthesis (Cambridge,MA:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversity Press,2002).
¹
⁰ LikeWilson,RichardDawkinsseestheevolutionarynarrativeof “MitochondrialEve” as “agranderandincomparablymoreancientepic” thanGenesis(RiverOutofEden:ADarwinian ViewofLife [London:Phoenix,1996],66).ForWilson’sinfluenceonLiteraryDarwinismand EvolutionaryPsychology,seeJonathanKramnick, “AgainstLiteraryDarwinism,” Critical Inquiry 37,no.2(2011):315–47.Forworksassociatedwiththe fieldof “EpicofEvolution” seeforinstance,BrianSwimmeandThomasBerry, TheUniverseStory (London:Arkana,1994); UrsulaGoodenough, TheSacredDepthsofNature (Cambridge:InternationalSocietyforScience andReligion,2007);LoyalD.Rue, Everybody’sStory:WisinguptotheEpicofEvolution (Albany: StateUniversityofNewYorkPress,2000);EricChaisson, EpicofEvolution:SevenAgesofthe Cosmos (NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress,2006).
¹¹Forrelateddiscussionsofconsilience,seeEdwardO.Wilson, Consilience:TheUnityof Knowledge (London:Abacus,2010);EdwardG.SlingerlandandMarkCollard,eds., Creating Consilience:IntegratingtheSciencesandtheHumanities (Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress, 2012);JosephCarroll,DanP.McAdams,andEdwardO.Wilson,eds., Darwin’sBridge:Uniting theHumanitiesandSciences,2016.
¹²FrederickTurner, Epic:Form,Content,andHistory (NewBrunswick:Transaction Publishers,2012),13.
hermeneutics,the Iliad comesintofocusas “adramaofnakedapes” competingwitheachotherforsurvivalandforfemalemates.¹³Homer’ s poemisevolutioninaction.
Therearehazardsonbothsides bothwithassumingthatevolutionand epichavenothingtodowitheachother,andwithassumingthattheyare straightforwardlyconsilient.Theproblemwithassumingthattheybelongto separatespheresisthat historicallyatleast thisisnotquitetrue.Early articulationsofevolutionwereoftenframedbyepic.Epicpoets Hesiod, Ovid,orLucretius addressedevolutionarythemesindetail.Andformany centuries,itwascommonfornaturalphilosopherstouseepicasbasisfor understanding,allegorically,theoriginsandorganizationoflife.¹⁴ This affinitybetweenepicandevolutionwasstillcurrentinthenineteenth centurywhenErasmusDarwinopenedhis TempleofNature bycombining aninvocationofthemusewithnaturallaw: “Say,MUSE!howrosefrom elementalstrife/Organicforms,andkindledintolife... ”¹⁵ ToErasmus Darwin,epicprovidedacharterforhisconsiderationsaboutthenatural world.AsimilarobservationcanbemadeofmanyofErasmusDarwin’ s contemporariesandfollowers,notjustepicpoetsperse(Goethe,Tennyson, MathildeBlind,Whitman,forexample),butalsoauthorsofessayistic works,suchasWinwoodReade,RobertChambers,HughMiller,Richard Owen,HerbertSpencer,ErnstHaeckel,EdwinRayLankester,andBenjamin Kidd.¹⁶“Theepic,” asDavidAmigoniandJamesElwickputit, “ came first,
¹³JonathanGottschallandDavidSloanWilson, “Introduction:Literature ALastFrontier inHumanEvolutionaryStudies,” in TheLiteraryAnimal:EvolutionandtheNatureofNarrative (Evanston,IL:NorthwesternUniversityPress,2005),xviii. “Nakedapes” isareferenceto DesmondMorris’spopularbehavioristwork, TheNakedApe:AZoologist’sStudyofthe HumanAnimal (NewYork:DeltaTradePaperbacks,1999).Forafullerversionofthiskind ofreadingofclassicalepic,seeJonathanGottschall, TheRapeofTroy:Evolution,Violence,and theWorldofHomer (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2008).Foranotherapproachto epicwithin TheLiteraryAnimal,seeRobinFox, “MaleBondingintheEpicsandRomances” 126–46.SeealsoClintonMachann, MasculinityinFourVictorianEpics:ADarwinistReading (Farnham:Ashgate,2010).
¹
⁴ See,amongothers,PierreHadot, TheVeilofIsis:AnEssayontheHistoryofIdeaofNature, trans.MichaelChase(Cambridge,MA:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,2006); ZdeněkKratochvíl, ThePhilosophyofLivingNature,trans.VáclavParis(Prague:Karolínum Press,2016),andArthurO.Lovejoy, TheGreatChainofBeing:AStudyoftheHistoryofanIdea (Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress,1948).
¹
⁵ ErasmusDarwin, TheTempleofNature;or,theOriginofSociety.APoemwith PhilosophicalNotes (Baltimore:JohnW.Butler,1804),9.
¹
⁶ JamesSecordmakesthispointinrelationtoRobertChambersin VictorianSensation:The ExtraordinaryPublication,Reception,andSecretAuthorshipofVestigesoftheNaturalHistoryof Creation (Chicago,IL;London:UniversityofChicagoPress,2003),461.SeealsoDevin C.Griffiths, TheAgeofAnalogy:ScienceandLiteratureBetweentheDarwins (Baltimore: JohnsHopkinsUniversityPress,2016);LionelStevenson, DarwinAmongthePoets
andinformationaboutevolutionwasinsertedintoit:thatis,theveryformof theepicitselforganizedandpresentedknowledgeaboutevolutioninastoryshapedmanner. ”¹⁷
EvenErasmus’sprodigiousgrandson Charles cametohisnotionsof evolution,atleastinpart,bywayofanepicviewoftheworld.When voyagingontheBeagle,his “chieffavorite” readingmaterialwasMilton’ s ParadiseLost;whenhereturneditwasWordsworth’ s Excursion.¹⁸ Asa preexistingmediumfortellinghistoryinthe longuedurée,originstories, collectiveidentity,andaetiology,epicprovidedhimwithaconceptual architecture,register,andencyclopedicscopeforanewfoundationnarrative.So,inthe OriginofSpecies,wemeetthe(oftencapitalized)Natural Selectionplayingtheroleofdeityordivinemachinery,andManasakindof epichero.¹⁹ Andinthe finalperoration,itistheMiltonicmoodthat triumphs: “Thereis,” writesDarwin, “grandeurinthisviewoflife,with itsseveralpowers,havingbeenoriginallybreathedintoafewformsorinto one... ”²⁰
Atthesametime,itisamistaketoassumethatsinceevolutionandepic hadacloserelationshipinthenineteenthcenturythereforeepicreducesto anexpressionofevolutionorthatevolutionisbestunderstoodasablank slateepic.Criticsofsociobiologyhavebeenquicktoshowthatthiskindof reductionskewsourunderstandingofbothepicandevolutionandthe worldsthattheydescribe.Inpoliticalterms,suchanapproachtothe
(NewYork:Russell&Russell,1963);FrederickWilliamConner, CosmicOptimism:AStudyof theInterpretationofEvolutionbyAmericanPoetsfromEmersontoRobinson (Gainesville: UniversityofFloridaPress,1949);JohnHolmes, Darwin’sBards:BritishandAmericanPoetry intheAgeofEvolution (Edinburgh:EdinburghUniversityPress,2009).
¹⁷ DavidAmigoniandJamesElwick, TheEvolutionaryEpic (London:Pickering&Chatto, 2011),xiii.
¹
⁸ CharlesDarwin, TheAutobiographyofCharlesDarwin,1809–1882,ed.NoraBarlow(New York:Harcourt,Brace,1958),85.ForDarwin’ s “Miltonicambitions” seeGeorgeLevine, Darwin theWriter (NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,2011),26.
¹
⁹ WilliamJ.Scheick, “EpicTracesinDarwin’ s OriginofSpecies, ” SouthAtlanticQuarterly 72 (1973):274.
²
⁰ CharlesDarwin, OntheOriginofSpeciesbyMeansofNaturalSelection,orthePreservation ofFavouredRacesintheStruggleforLife (London:JohnMurray,1859),491.Itissignificantthat alreadyby1860Darwinhadadaptedthisendingtoincludethewords “bytheCreator” after “originallybreathed.” CharlesDarwin, OntheOriginofSpecies (NewYork:OxfordUniversity Press,2008),360.Forthesuggestionthat “grandeur” is,transculturally,epic’sdefiningfeature, seeMasakiMori, EpicGrandeur:TowardaComparativePoeticsoftheEpic (Albany:State UniversityofNewYorkPress,1997).OntheepicqualityofDarwin’slastparagraph,seeDavid Amigoni, “Evolution,” in RoutledgeCompaniontoLiteratureandScience,ed.BruceB.Clarke andManuelaRossini(London;NewYork:Routledge,2012),119,andVenlaOikkonen, Gender, SexualityandReproductioninEvolutionaryNarratives (NewYork:Routledge,2013),25.
evolutionaryepictendstorendernaturalhistoryaswinner’shistory, affirmingthe “gladiatorialtheoryofexistence” alwaysonlyinserviceofa dominantclass.(Sociobiology,writesMichaelBerubé,implies “thatNature herselfspeaksthelanguageofAynRand.”)²¹Itnaturalizesbinarygender roles,excusesrape,andleaveslittlespaceforqueerornon-reproductive individuals.Itcastsallcultureascavemannature,andallliteratureas storytelling.Anditproducesanimpoverishedrepresentationofthediversity ofevolutionaryprocesses.²²Imeannotonlythatitsthindescriptionpays toolittleattentiontospecificcontexts,orthatitsemphasisonadaptation tendstoneglectexaptation,altruism,andsymbiosis,butalsothat insearchingforatooeasysettlementbetweenthescientificdataofevolutionandits culturalmediation itignoresthegenerativefrictionbetweenthetwo.
Accordingly,thecurrentprojectsetsitscoursebetweentheScyllaof assumingthatevolutionandepichavenothingtodowitheachother,and theCharybdisofconflatingthemunderthebannerofconsilience.Asthis bookwillshow,epicandevolutionhavehadamuchmoreinteresting relationshipthaneitherstandpointadmits.Overthelasttwocenturies, theyhaveinformedeachother,buttheyhavealso,atvariousmoments, challengedandchangedeachother.
Inordertopickattheknottedkeywordsinthisbook’stitle,wewill approachthemneitherasmutuallyexclusivenorasconsilient,butmorein thewayscholarsofsciencestudiesteachustoconstruetheinteraction betweenscientificadvancesandtheirmediation.BrunoLatouroffersone exampleofthiskindofinteractionwhiledescribinganexhibitiononthe evolutionofhorsestitled “ATextbookCaseRevisited.” Theexhibition,held attheNaturalHistoryMuseuminNewYork,soughttoshowhowinterpretationsofequineevolutionhadchangedoverthepreceding150years. Latour’sappreciationofthisexhibitionisbasedonhisunderstandingthat narrativesofevolutionoftensubstantializetheveryhistorytheyare
²¹Qtd.inJonathanGreenberg, “Introduction:DarwinandLiteraryStudies,” Twentieth CenturyLiterature 55,no.4(December1,2009):426. “Gladiatorialtheoryofexistence” is T.H.Huxley’sexpression.Heuseditwhileurginghiscontemporariestorepudiatesurvivalof the fittestasamodelforhumansocietyandcivilization. EvolutionandEthics:AndOtherEssays (London:Macmillan,1894),82.
²²Forfeministandqueercritiquesofsociobiology,includingitsrhetoricaluseofepic,see Oikkonen, Gender,SexualityandReproductioninEvolutionaryNarratives andMartha McCaughey, TheCavemanMystique:Pop-DarwinismandtheDebatesoverSex,Violence,and Science (NewYork:Routledge,2008).Foraninfluentialobjectiontoitsadaptationism,see StephenJayGouldandR.C.Lewontin “TheSpandrelsofSanMarcoandthePanglossian Paradigm:ACritiqueoftheAdaptationistProgramme,” ProceedingsoftheRoyalSocietyof London.SeriesB,BiologicalSciences 205,no.1161(1979):581–98.
describing.Inthisexhibitiontherewas,Latourwrites, “aparallel,acommon thrustorpattern,betweentheslow,hesitant,andbushymovementofthe varioussortsofhorsesstrugglingforlifeinthecourseoftheirevolution,and theslow,hesitant,andbushyprocessbywhich scientists havereconstructed theevolutionofthehorsesinthecourseofthe history ofpaleontology.”²³ Thisparallelisimportantbecause,forLatour,evolutionisalwaysalready social,thatis,sociallyembedded(not,Ihastentoadd,sociallyconstructed). Theformofitspresentationinterpretsandgivesmeaningtothecontent, addingsomethingtothecontentthatwasnottherebefore,butwhichisno longerseparableafterwards.Forthisreason,thestoryofevolutionisalso,as theexhibitionmadeclear,alwaysincreativerelationtothestoryofthe evolutionofitsownnarrations.Andconsequently,asLatourwriteselsewhere,thenecessityisalwaysfororiginality: “The ‘newalliance’ between scienceandculturecannotbesoquickandcheap.” The “subjectevolution hasmanymoredegreesoffreedomthanourrepresentationsofit” and “everyspeciesforcesthenaturalhistoriantotakeasmuchrisktoaccount foritsevolutionthroughaninnovativeformofnarrationasittookthe speciestosurvive.”²⁴ Beyondthelowest-resolutionaccounts,wemightsay, evolutionisalwaysavant-garde.
FollowingLatour’sthread,thisbookproposesnotonlytorereadliterary modernismthroughacomparativeperspectivethatincludesthehistoryof science,butalso onthe flipside touseliterarymodernismasaprivileged mediumforestablishingthatperspective.Thatis,byreconsideringthe intersectionofepicandevolutionasapotentialmeetingplaceforthetwo cultures,itpromisesbothanewapproachtotheepicinlatemodernity,and afreshapproachtotheplaceofevolutioninmodernliterature.Modernism is,inthissense,ausefullocusforthickeningthekindoftoo “quickand cheap” fusionseeninsociobiology.Aswewillsee,newliteratureinthis periodexperimentedwithnationalepicpreciselyasaspaceforproblematizingandreimaginingsocialDarwinism.
²³BrunoLatour, “ATextbookCaseRevisited:KnowledgeasModeofExistence,” in The HandbookofScienceandTechnologyStudies,ed.EdwardJ.Hackettetal.(Cambridge,MA; London:MITPress,2008),86.
²⁴ BrunoLatour, “Foreword:Stengers’sShibboleth,” in PowerandInvention:Situating Science,byIsabelleStengers(Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1997),x,xvi.
OverviewoftheChapters
Thebaseforthisbook ’sanalysisofepicandevolutionisaconstellationof fi vetexts,chosenbecausetheyilluminatethemodernistencounter betweenepicandevolutionparticularlywell.GertrudeStein ’ s The MakingofAmericans (begunin1902,publishedin1925)startsoffasa familysagabutthendepartsstrikinglyfromanyestablishedstyle.James Joyce ’ s Ulysses (begunin1914,publishedin1922)bringsIrelandtolifenot byreducingittoasinglede fi nitiveidentity,butaccretively,experimentally fi ndingwaystoaddtothegeneticmix.LikeStein ’sandJoyce ’sworks, JaroslavHa š ek ’ s TheGoodSoldier Švejk (1921 –23)hasbecomeafoundationaltextnotbyinhabitingatraditionorconvention,butbyakindof usurpationandrede fi nition.UnlikeitsEnglishlanguagecounterparts, however,ithasrarelybeenlinkedtothelargerrevolutioninthearts knownasmodernism.VirginiaWoolf ’ s Orlando andMáriode Andrade ’ s Macunaíma ,bothpicaresquenarrativespublishedin1928, luxuriateinextravagantlinguisticplayandqueereroticism,andendwith areferencetothemomentofnarration,whichframesthemasodd rhapsodicperformances.Eachofthesepeculiarprosenarrativesisa reinterpretationofthenationalepicinrelationtocontemporary Darwinianandpost-Darwinianunderstandingsofevolution.Asthereferencestomanyotherepicworksfromtheperiodaremeanttosuggest,they areentrypointsintoalargerpotentialcomparativemodernismratherthan arepresentativesample.
Byreadingthisparticularselectionofworksintheordertheywere writtenin,thisbooktellsaversionofthestoryofepicandevolutionfrom beforetheFirstWorldWartotheriseofEuropeanfascism.Withthis chronologicalmovement,thebookwillalsospreadoutintermsofgeographicalrange,toincludeCzechoslovakiaand inthelastchapter a BrazilianworkalongsideacanonicalEnglishtext.Thepurposeistodemonstratehowepic fictionparticipatedinthesocialinterpretationof Darwinisminanalogouswaysindifferentpartsoftheworld,revealing thisinterpretationtobeakeyfactorinthedevelopmentofthegenre globally,onethatbridgedhighmodernistnationalnarrativeanditscontemporarypostcolonialequivalents.Inthisregard,thechoiceoftextsis designedtohelp fillinpartoftheaforementionedcriticalblindspotaround globalmodernism’sorganicnationalisms.Foralthough TheMakingof Americans, Ulysses , Švejk , Orlando, and Macunaíma havemanycommon featuresandemphases,thehistoricalconnectionsbetweenthemremain
obscure.Noonehasyetexplainedwhytheyemerged,indifferentplaces,and apparentlyindependently,inthesamedecade.
The firstchapter,concernedwithGertrudeStein’ s TheMakingof Americans,offersarevisionaryaccountoftheemergenceofmodernist epic.Stein’sbookisaclearexampleofhowmodernistwritersweremotivatedtoexperimentalnarrativeformsbyoverwritingandcomplicatingwhat had,formany,becomeahegemonicviewofevolutionarydescent.Inthelate nineteenth-centuryUnitedStates,theprevailingparadigmforsecularnarrationsofnationaldestiny,asinsay,FrederickJacksonTurner’ s “Frontier Thesis” orTheodoreRoosevelt’ s “StrenuousLife” wastheideaofsurvivalof the fittest.WhileDarwinwouldnothavepromotedthisapplicationofhis theory,itwasassociatedwithhim,andhispublishedwritingsdoofferabasis forit.Itisimplicitalreadyinthefulltitleof OntheOriginofSpecies,orthe PreservationofFavoredRacesintheStruggleofLife.Itisalsotouchedon moreexplicitlyin TheDescentofMan,where,citinghiseugenicistcousin MrGalton,thenaturalistwritesthat: “Thereisapparentlymuchtruthinthe beliefthatthewonderfulprogressoftheUnitedStates,aswellasthe characterofthepeople,aretheresultsofnaturalselection;themore energetic,restless,andcourageousmenfromallpartsofEuropehaving emigratedduringthelasttenortwelvegenerationstothatgreatcountry,and havingtheresucceededbest.”²⁵
Mostlywrittenbetween1902and1911,GertrudeStein’ s TheMakingof Americans opensasifitwereinagreementwithsuchDarwinistnarrations oftheAmericanhistory.Sheannouncesitasadevelopmentalnarrativeof theUnitedStates,tracingtwofamilies’ progressionsandwestwardmovement,froma firstgenerationofimmigrantstotheirchildrenandthen grandchildren. Americans,however,doesnotfulfilitsdevelopmentalist prospects.Rather,thebookstalls,digresses,and inStein’swords—“begins againandagain.” OftenSteinrepeatsherself,circlingaroundthesame events.Andevenmoreoften,shesimplydetailsthetypesofdifferent figures inherbook,indexingtheirqualitiesandhabits.Inits finalthreehundred pages,enumeratingtheeverydayactivitiesofDavidHersland,thechronotopeofStein’snarrative,asTimArmstrongsuggests,comestoresemble lesstheworkofnineteenth-centuryhistoriansortheconventionalhistorical novel,thantheenormouslyextensivelaterportionsofmodernistepicworks suchasMusil’ s TheManWithoutQualities,Proust’ s Recherche,orJoyce’ s
²⁵ CharlesDarwin, TheDescentofMan,andSelectioninRelationtoSex,vol.1(London:John Murray,1871),179.
Ulysses – andalso,onemightadd,ThomasMann’sorVirginiaWoolf ’ s effortstonarratenothingbutthepassingoftimein TheMagicMountain and TotheLighthouse respectively.²⁶ Inordertoexplaintheshiftthatoccurs overthecourseof TheMakingofAmericans,the firstchaptershowshow Stein’sturntoadigressiveopen-formnarrativecorrespondstoherchanging interestsinbiologicalscience.Theinterruptionofthegenerationalnarrative modelmarksStein’sattempt,expressedbothwithinandwithoutthework, to findanewwaytorepresentAmericanlifeandtowriteepicbeyonda “closedcircle” ofDarwinismanditshetero-patriarchalprotocols.
Stein’ s Americans suggeststhatthenewformofnationalepicinmodernismemergedthroughanengagementwithevolutionarythought.This understandingisconfirmedanddeepenedthroughareadingofmodernism’smostcelebratedproseepic,JamesJoyce ’ s Ulysses.Asthesecond chapterdescribes, Ulysses alsobeginsasanationalallegory.Itisthestory ofStephenDedalusescapingsuitorstoIreland(suchastheEnglishman Haines),to findafosterfatherinLeopoldBloom.Initsanatomizationof Dublin, Ulysses offersamicrocosmicviewofthenationalsituation notjust thepoliticalsituation,butalsothatofeverydaylifeinIreland,theembodied processesthroughwhichhistorytakesplace.
Incomposing Ulysses ,andinturningtotheideaofepic,Joyce,likeStein, wasexplicitabouthisgeneraloppositiontoappliedDarwinism.Thisresistancehasoftenbeennotedbyhiscritics.Joyce,theypointout,recognized thatsocialDarwinisthierarchiestendedtocastIrelandaslowerthan England,andthatIrelandwasbynomeansraciallypure(notablyinhis 1907essay, “Ireland:IsleofSaintsandSages”).Instead,therefore,hesought otherbasesonwhichtodefineitslifeworldandtotellitsstory.Thesecond chapterestablishestheseotherbases,pointingtotheirinvolvementwith vitalistandmythicmodesofthinkingaboutevolutionintheearlytwentieth century.Inparticular,thischaptertakesupJoyce’srejoindertotheideaof epicasastageforprimitivemasculineactionandprogressiveevolutionary history.Joyce’sreincarnationofOdysseusasthepacifistcuckoldand “ new womanlyman,” MrBloom,willbereadinrelationtoalargerrevaluingof Darwinismand,speci fically,ideasofatavism bothgenericandnational.By writinganepicthatbringsbacktheancient(Homeric)pastaspresentina radicallycontemporarywayinIrishmodernity,Joycerestagesandquestions
²⁶ TimArmstrong, “ModernistTemporality:TheScienceandPhilosophyandAestheticsof Temporalityfrom1880,” in TheCambridgeHistoryofModernism,ed.VincentB.Sherry (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2016),32.
thescientificunderstandingofatavismanditsapplications.LikeStein,Joyce thusalsoforgeshisownformofmodernistepicasawayofescapinganetof reductivesocialDarwinism.Throughtheidiosyncraticvitalismof Ulysses, henarratesIrelandasalivingentitywhiledeconstructingtheracistand abjectingcategoriesappliedtotheIrishinhistime.
Expandingtheunderstandingsofmodernistepicdevelopedinthe first twochapters,thethirdchaptermovesbeyondtheworldofanglophone literatureandthetraditionallimitsofmoderniststudies.Focusingon JaroslavHašek’ s TheGoodSoldier Švejk,thechapterasksabouthowto readmodernistepicasrespondingtolivinghistoryandfulfillingcommon functions,againstthelimitationsandexclusionsofelitism.Soonafterits serialpublicationbetween1921and1923, TheGoodSoldier Švejk achieved iconicstatusinCzechoslovakia.Yetthisnew figurehead thecharacterJosef Švejk possessesnoneofthequalitiesweusuallyexpectofanepichero.He isimbecilic,alcoholic,lazy,rheumatic,degenerate,andassociatedwiththe mongreldogshesells.Hespeaksanimpurecolloquialversionofthe nationallanguage.Indeed,hisonlyclearlypositivefeatureishow,ironically becauseofhisstupidity,healwaysmanagestoescapeaterribledestiny, delayinghisarrivalattheEasternFront.Howcould Švejkbeseenasabearer ofthenationalepic?
BuildingonthereadingsinChapters1and2,thethirdchapterargues that Švejk’sprogressisbestunderstoodasaninversionofthewinnowing processofnaturalselectionthatthinkerssuchasErnstHaeckel,andmovementssuchasFuturism,associatedwiththeGreatWar.Thestoryisamoral ofsurvivalofthe unfittest,akindofreverseDarwinAwarddramatizinghow theunderdogcansucceedinaviolentworld.Allegorically,itisalsothestory ofhowtheCzechssurfacedfromundertheAustrianempire.Thisreading willshowthatalthoughHašekwasnotinvestedinanymodernistmovement,anddidnotreadJoyceorStein,ProustorMusil,histextwas neverthelessshapedinrelationtothesameunderlyinghistoricalforces.It reveals,consequently,anencompassingcontextofevolutionarythoughtthat differentnationalmodernismscanbecoordinatedagainst,whichalso crossestheculturaldividebetweenhighandlow.
Completingthebook’schronologicalarcandgeographicalspread,the fourthand finalchaptercomparestwotextswrittenin1928,butinvery differentsettings:MáriodeAndrade’ s Macunaíma andVirginiaWoolf ’ s Orlando .Bothworksnarratethehistoryoftheirnationsasembodiedinone unusualhero. Macunaíma tellsthestoryofBrazil’smodernization; Orlando beginsinElizabethanEnglandandworksitswayuptothemomentof
composition.Althougheachisdeeplyidiosyncratic,theyarriveatasimilar setofconceitsfornational figuration.OrlandofamouslychangessexhalfwaythroughWoolf ’snarrative,whileMacunaímachangesrace,fromblack towhite.Tomakesenseofthecontiguitiesbetween Macunaíma and Orlando ,thischapterreadsbothasepicsrespondingtothechanging discourseoflarge-scalesocialevolutioninthe1920s.Inparticular,itpoints outthatbothauthorswereawareoffascism’sincreasinglyrigidinterpretationsofevolution’ssignificance.Bothauthorsinverttheseinterpretations insimilarways. Macunaíma takesupthespecific,andcontemporary, politicalproblemoftheracialconstitutionofBrazil.Inordertorepresent thediversityofBrazil’slifeworld,anditscapacitytochangewhilemaintainingasingularidentity,Andradeinventsacharacter “withoutacharacter”— i.e.,withoutageneticscript.Woolf ’sconcern,comparably,iswithVictorian representationsofthenationasmadeupbyitspopulationanditsgenerations,arepresentationshesatirizesinthepenultimatechapterof Orlando . DrawingoutthesimilaritiesbetweenAndradeandWoolf ’snarratives,the chapterexplainshow Macunaíma and Orlando exemplifyandexpandthis book’smethodologyforreadingmodernistepic fictioncomparatively againstchangingperceptionsofevolution.Thechaptershowshowsucha bifocalreadingallowsustoseeconnectionsacrosstraditionaldisciplinary boundariesofcenterandperiphery,Europeanandpost-colonial.
ModernismandtheEclipseofDarwinism
EarlierIcitedE.O.Wilson’s1978work OnHumanNature.Ithenpromised that,inordertotroublesociobiology’ s “tooquickandcheap” settlement betweenthetwocultures,thisbookwould,overthecourseofthecoming chapters,readaconstellationofepic fictionspublishedinthe1920s.But howcansuchaconstellationrespondtoaunificationoftheliteraryand scientifichalfacenturybeforethatunificationwasproposed?
“Oneisamazed,” writesLionelStevensonin DarwinamongthePoets, “to discoverhowmanyoftoday’snewcreedsandrevisedphilosophiesoflife were firstproposedbyVictorianpoets.”²⁷ Wilson’sideasarenoexception. Suggestionssimilartotheevolutionaryepicasaresponsetothetwoculture
²⁷ Stevenson, DarwinamongthePoets,1.
debatecirculatedthroughoutthelaternineteenthcentury.²⁸ Inparticular,as earlycriticsofWilsonpointedout,his “newsynthesis” sharesmuchwith HerbertSpencer’ s “oldsynthesis.”²⁹ LikeWilson,Spencerwasin “nodoubt” thatevolutionconstitutedakindofsuperepic.³⁰ LikeWilson,Spencer occupiedhimselfwithestablishingconsiliencebetweenthebiologicalsciencesandthesocialsciences.AndlikeWilson,hesawthebasicdynamicfor achievingthissynthesisinastaticformulabasedonnaturalselection.³¹In Spencer’sphilosophy,survivalofthe fittestprovidesthecoremotortowards theproductionofevermorecomplexforms(andthereforeofakindof “universalprogress”)inallbiologicalandsocial fields.AlthoughSpencer’ s workisoftenhardtoabstract,inthisvitiatedform,itwasextremelypopular. Inthenineteenthcentury,thisidearamifiedoutwards,notonlyinthe voluminousworksofSpencerhimself,butalsoamongmanyotherthinkers, includingErnstHaeckel,toprovideamonisticunderstandingofthehumanities,sciences,andthe “riddleoftheuniverse.”³²
Modernism asunderstoodinthisbook beginsmore-or-lesswhere Spencerends.(HerbertSpencerdiedin1903.)Intheclosingdecadesof thenineteenthcentury,naturalist fictionwasinspiredby,andsoughtto model,evolutionaryprocesses.Likemanyoftheircontemporariesworldwide,GeorgeEliotandThomasHardytookastheirguidingprinciplethe naturallawgivenbypositivistevolutionarytheory.³³ÉmileZolafamously
²⁸ The “twocultures” isC.P.Snow’sterm: TheTwoCultures,ed.StefanCollini(NewYork: CambridgeUniversityPress,2014).ButasAldousHuxleyshows,thedebatewasverymuch alivealreadyintheworkofMatthewArnold. LiteratureandScience:Science,LibertyandPeace. (London:Chatto&Windus,1970).SeealsoJosephCarroll’schapter “TheUseofArnoldina DarwinianWorld” inJosephCarroll, LiteraryDarwinism:Evolution,HumanNature,and Literature (NewYork:Routledge,2004),3–14.
²
⁹ JimCramer, “‘Sociobiology’—AnOldSynthesis,” TheHarvardCrimson,January30,1976, http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1976/1/30/so ciobiology-an-old-synthesis-pbebo-wilsonhas/.SeealsoMikeHawkins, SocialDarwinisminEuropeanandAmericanThought,1860–1945: NatureasModelandNatureasThreat (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,1998), 292–313.
³
⁰ PeterMorton, TheVitalScience:BiologyandtheLiteraryImagination,1860–1900 (London;Boston:Allen&Unwin,1984),40.
³¹GordonHaightnicelyquippedthatSpencer “believedintheevolutionofeverythingexcept hisowntheories” qtd.inKathrynHughes, GeorgeEliot:TheLastVictorian (NewYork:Farrar StrausGiroux,2001),124.
³²AllusionsinthisparagrapharetoHerbertSpencer, IllustrationsofUniversalProgress;a SeriesofDiscussions (NewYork:D.AppletonandCo.,1888)andErnstHaeckel, TheRiddleof theUniverseattheCloseoftheNineteenthCentury,trans.JosephMcCabe(NewYork;London: Harper&Brothers,1900).
³³TheclassicaccountisGillianBeer, Darwin’sPlots:EvolutionaryNarrativeinDarwin, GeorgeEliotandNineteenth-CenturyFiction (Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,2009). ForthistendencyinSpanish fiction,seeTravisLandry, SubversiveSeduction:Darwin,Sexual Selection,andtheSpanishNovel (Seattle:UniversityofWashingtonPress,2012).SeealsoCarol
